I'm done for now. Call me if 3rd edition fixes things.

[skavendan]

Common, uncommon, and rare ships.

Simple, you can have as many common ships as you want in a fleet, only 1/3 your fleet may be uncommon ships, and you can only have 1 rare ship of a type in a fleet.

The problem is that that doesn't stack will with the races with fewer hulls.

Example - Psi-corps only have one raid-priority ship, and one that (by all logical arguments from the background) should be rare. Yet take that away and you can no longer field raid priority ships, leaving a gaping hole in the fleet when trying to do sensible splits of fleet action points.

Yeah Mothership is a nice ship however your average campaign list contains about 8-12 of them more than actually exist..

 

[Ripple]

or perhaps existed at the time that stat was written... we also know the Shadow Omega came in at apparently six in number... but you could easily built more... much like most campaigns don't have historical battles between known enemies...

Ripple

 

[skavendan]

or perhaps existed at the time that stat was written... we also know the Shadow Omega came in at apparently six in number... but you could easily built more... much like most campaigns don't have historical battles between known enemies...

Ripple

lol am struggling to justify taking 1 at the moment never mind 6!

And I will have 4 models when my order lands

 

[Triggy]

I actually agree with Triggy about the playtest efficiency. The issue was that they had too many ships to do at one go. They should have done the fleet book in two phases, a major races package (minbari, EA, Centauri, Narn, ISA) followed a couple months later by a League and other powers book (shadows, vorlons, ancients, drahk, psi-corp, league), maybe even three with league separated given the two new league races.

They just didn't have time to play enough games with a enough ship types to try stuff. And while some things were clear as daylight given the numbers to us, their games might have told them the numbers didn't add up that way. We've gotten a few things wrong over time, too. The Pak seem like they should blow everyone away, but are struggling a bit.

Thanks

And combine all this with the massive debates over how to handle Stealth (Minbari balancing took ages as you really can't just look at the stats to see how they will handle, tactics and fleet combinations make a huge difference to the fleets) and other big topics (the changes to Dilgar and Centauri also come to mind) and even your baselines were hard to know where they were!

It was fun though and we probably got enough right and hopefully can sort out many of the major issues in P&P.

 

[mrambassador1]

I think you guys did a pretty good job. There are a lot less complaints now than for 1st ed/SFOS

 

[Locutus9956]

Well in reply to the original post:

1) I'm not a big fan of the PL system. I like its simplicity and the idea that it makes ships of different values at different levels of battle but I still think it would be much better to use a more traditional point system to allow for more 'slight' variations in ships (if the Vorchan was 100 pts and the Demos was 125 for example I suspect thered be less argument over it and so on)...

2) Again points would help this a little as you could simply make the smaller ships cost slightly more but the main problem with buying down is really the problems mentioned in your other points.

3) Actually I think critical hits are too frequent and often too decisive to begin with, it merely gets exascerbated when it happens to larger ships and thus renders larger ships a bigger risk to take (one that usually isnt worth it when you compare the firepower of a big ship to its PL equivalent of smaller ones, overall surviveabilty and initiative considerations)

4) The initiative system is far from perfect but I dont think its THAT bad. Also I actually LIKE the boresight rule, the problem is more that some ships are far more reliant on their boresights than they should be (the Omega), and some are boresgithed when arguably they shouldnt be (the G'Quan) whilst some are NOT boresighted desite clearly being so on the show (the Whitestar...)

5) I completely agree here. I like them ignornign hull value to hit but the sheer variability in their performance takes things too far into the realms of winning or losing on the roll of a dice. I STILL dislike stealth for much the same reason though its a vast improvement over 1st edition.

6) No. Sorry but if theres one rule in ACTA that I have always really LIKED it's interceptors, it may be a little time consuming but if you know what youre doing with it its not bad and it really, for me at least, captures the FEEL of interceptors on the show, gradually getting overwhelmed. The whole point of interceptors is they stop the shot outright before it hits the target so how powerful the weapon is when it hits is, sorry, irrelevant. And since the change to fighters being able to act as interceptors its an available option for ALL races now (well aside from the Abbai but they get them anyway). I can see WHY some folks dont like them but for me its one of the rules that really helps make the game feel like Babylon 5 rather than just 'space game number 7.67 with babylon 5 models'.

7) Again I'm actually inclined to disagree here, the side that gets the initiative at the start is the one thats coming in and attacking basically so I personally agree with people setting up fully then their opponent. A possible alternative would be to have players both draw their deployement in secret but that would just slow everything down to my way of thinking. Personally I tend to think that if your in the unfortunate situation of deploying first you simply have to deploy a bit further back with the intention of reforming as soon as the game starts.

In the grand scheme of things though I still enjoy ACTA and for the most part I consider 2nd ed to be an improvement, its still got plenty of room for further improvement but it IS getting there.

I still dont consider it the best space game out there (that for me is Full Thrust still) or even the best B5 game (thats still B5Wars for me (time permitting!))

However I think the biggest problem ACTA faces at the moment is not the ruleset but the fact that new players are now basically stuffed in terms of getting ships except via old stock in some shops or ebay etc. I sincerley hope MGP restart minis production next year as they say they aim to otherwise no matter how good P&P is or 3rd edition whenever it appears, ACTA is simpy going to die off gradually and I DO think that would be a crying shame.

 

[Locutus9956]

Actually it just occured to me but:

Earthforce Sourcebook
B5 Wars
Fleet Action
A Call to Arms

thats 4 that have sunk (or as much as I hate to admit it) or are in the process of sinking

So the NEXT Babylon game should be the one that works and goes on to found a massive insterstellar gaming empire surely?

 

[Rawwar]

I must admit I like Interceptors for all the reasons you've mentioneed.

I also dislike dodge for the same reasons or there abouts, ie you can't reduce a ship's dodge ability by filling the sky that full of lead it can't dodge effectively.

Feel free to substitute sky for space & lead for Lasers, whatever your poison.

 

[skavendan]

It comes down to interceptors tracking incoming fire from way away and starting to absorb it to the ability to dodge. Either both should slowly drop down to pittyful 6's or both should have a static figure!

And dont forget beams ignore interceptors so why should you be able to dodge a beam?

I mean surly it should be all or nothing you dodge the beam hit completely or you get sliced in two.

How many times on the show do you see a ship get hit by a beam and just zag off out of it's way!

 

[Rawwar]

You gotta be careful here. I'd rather 'wing' a Whitestar than not hit it at all. Also beams aren't a problem, the amount of saves a Whitestar etc gets are.

 

[Poi]

FAP was and remains my biggest annoyance with ACTA.

It is simply too blunt to provide any kind of balance unless there are many more levels. Either rebalance every ship so levels are tighter, or switch to points.

 

[animus]

With all due respect to the original poster, who probably isn't following this thread anymore anyway, I wonder how many games he's actually played.

I've found that many of my concerns about 2e have been shown to be unfounded during actual play. The game is not perfect, not realistic, but I've yet to find a game that is. It's always a trade off between realism and playability. Most of the deeper concerns I've harbored about the game haven't appeared because I don't get that many games in. If I got more games in, maybe the would; then again, maybe they wouldn't. The odd game I do get, I find to be great and most of my fears academic.

The game is fast, exciting, surprising and fun. If I had to play Death for my soul, I might well choose ACTA over Chess (unlike some Swedes I know) because I enjoy it more.

 

[Da Boss]

Good point - well made

 

[lastbesthope]

Actually it just occured to me but:

Earthforce Sourcebook
B5 Wars
Fleet Action
A Call to Arms

thats 4 that have sunk (or as much as I hate to admit it) or are in the process of sinking

So the NEXT Babylon game should be the one that works and goes on to found a massive insterstellar gaming empire surely?

Well assuming someone digs up a copy of ACTA from sometime in the 10th century, yes.

LBH

 

[Tzarevitch]

Common, uncommon, and rare ships.

Simple, you can have as many common ships as you want in a fleet, only 1/3 your fleet may be uncommon ships, and you can only have 1 rare ship of a type in a fleet.

The problem is that that doesn't stack will with the races with fewer hulls.

Example - Psi-corps only have one raid-priority ship, and one that (by all logical arguments from the background) should be rare. Yet take that away and you can no longer field raid priority ships, leaving a gaping hole in the fleet when trying to do sensible splits of fleet action points.

It isn't just fleets with fewer hulls, it is also fleets with poor distribution of hulls into higher priorities.

The Drakh for example have few hulls but they are distributed well throughout the priority levels, thus one or two being limited availability isn't so bad.

The Shadows on the other hand have nothing under raid level and generally only one at each level thereafter. Any one of those having limited availability is crippling. The Vorlons have a similar problem.

Admittedly, the simple solution is to show some common sense about listing ships as limited availability.

Tzarevitch

 

[Tzarevitch]

I actually agree with Triggy about the playtest efficiency. The issue was that they had too many ships to do at one go. They should have done the fleet book in two phases, a major races package (minbari, EA, Centauri, Narn, ISA) followed a couple months later by a League and other powers book (shadows, vorlons, ancients, drahk, psi-corp, league), maybe even three with league separated given the two new league races.

They just didn't have time to play enough games with a enough ship types to try stuff. And while some things were clear as daylight given the numbers to us, their games might have told them the numbers didn't add up that way. We've gotten a few things wrong over time, too. The Pak seem like they should blow everyone away, but are struggling a bit.

They probably needed more than a couple of months though. The Leage alone is a lot of ships. On the whole though I think they did a very good job with a few well-known exceptions.

Gaim queenships and carrier, the G'Quan, the Shadow fighter, several Abbai ships and fighters, the Fireraptor, the G'Vrahn vis-a-vis the Bin'Tak, the Demos vis-a-vis the Vorchan etc.

Considering how much the playtesters had on their plate, they did an all-around good job. Personally, I don't see some of the stuff people list as being problems. I have no problem with how initiative works or boresight in general. I don't have a problem with the high variability of beams or even the FAP system (although I do think some of those 2-fer patrol ships are too cheap). I just think some tweaking is needed in some ships.

Tzarevitch

 

[l33tpenguin]

Common, uncommon, and rare ships.

Simple, you can have as many common ships as you want in a fleet, only 1/3 your fleet may be uncommon ships, and you can only have 1 rare ship of a type in a fleet.

The problem is that that doesn't stack will with the races with fewer hulls.

Example - Psi-corps only have one raid-priority ship, and one that (by all logical arguments from the background) should be rare. Yet take that away and you can no longer field raid priority ships, leaving a gaping hole in the fleet when trying to do sensible splits of fleet action points.

It isn't just fleets with fewer hulls, it is also fleets with poor distribution of hulls into higher priorities.

The Drakh for example have few hulls but they are distributed well throughout the priority levels, thus one or two being limited availability isn't so bad.

The Shadows on the other hand have nothing under raid level and generally only one at each level thereafter. Any one of those having limited availability is crippling. The Vorlons have a similar problem.

Admittedly, the simple solution is to show some common sense about listing ships as limited availability.

Tzarevitch

You have to consider what is 'rare' though. Shadow and Vorlon ships AREN'T rare. The only thing the either have that would possibly be considered rare is the Cloud and Vorlon Planet Killer.

Although, I honestly think that there should be 3 levels of 'Shadow Ship' which could give them more leeway on what they can field. A 'Young' Battle-level ship, 'Adult' War-level ship and the 'Anchient' Armageddon-level ship.

Anyway, as I was saying, MOST fleets with small lists aren't going to have rare ships... the possible exception to this would be psi-corp and their Mothership

 

[silashand]

Although, I honestly think that there should be 3 levels of 'Shadow Ship' which could give them more leeway on what they can field. A 'Young' Battle-level ship, 'Adult' War-level ship and the 'Anchient' Armageddon-level ship.

In the previous FA background the Shadows also had their own Dreadnought class ship similar to the Vorlons.

Cheers, Gary

 

[blackphoenix]

I have to agree and give the play testers serious kudos for their work with the time given. But I have become a b5wars fan.

I have enjoyed ACtA's more simple/quick natured gaming style, but several things always felt conflicted.

ACtA feels like a quick pick up scifi action game, but has elements of more indepth wargame feel. The two clash in my opinion. If we want to keep it simple then lets keep it simple.

Strip out the clunkiness and refine the game to a quick and fun action game or add more complexity and flesh it out, much like b5wars or Fleet action.

Just don't try to do both.

 

[Ripple]

Have to disagree... you don't have to go to the ridicules levels of complexity that B5Wars went to to have a decent game. Similarly, you don't have to dumb the game down to the point of checkers for it to be fun. I like the middle weight games.

Ripple