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

[Greg Smith]

I have to agree and give the play testers serious kudos for their work with the time given.

Thank you.

Strip out the clunkiness ...

Which parts feel clunky to you?

 

[CratZ]

I have to agree with OP. I wont touch the game unless 3rd edition has some major fixes. Swarms are too powerful. INI + beam mechanic are a nightmare. I fail to see balance in many fleets

But I dont think we will ever see a 3rd edition.

 

[Omnipotent]

I have to agree with OP. I wont touch the game unless 3rd edition has some major fixes. Swarms are too powerful. INI + beam mechanic are a nightmare. I fail to see balance in many fleets

But I dont think we will ever see a 3rd edition.

And u are always accusing me of being a pessimist when we play :lol:

 

[CratZ]

And u are always accusing me of being a pessimist when we play :lol:

Umm yea but not when we play acta. Anyhow the game is not fun anymore, so you wont be playing against my fleet anytime soon.

 

[k3ndawg]

I have to agree with OP. I wont touch the game unless 3rd edition has some major fixes. Swarms are too powerful. INI + beam mechanic are a nightmare. I fail to see balance in many fleets

But I dont think we will ever see a 3rd edition.
--------------------------------------------------------
Umm yea but not when we play acta. Anyhow the game is not fun anymore, so you wont be playing against my fleet anytime soon.

Not to be rude, but why are you even hanging out on the boards? I mean if it's a game you hate this badly, why even participate?

Just curious.

 

[l33tpenguin]

And u are always accusing me of being a pessimist when we play :lol:

Umm yea but not when we play acta. Anyhow the game is not fun anymore, so you wont be playing against my fleet anytime soon.

It’s a difficult concept to grasp, but why don't you just house rule stuff? I make the assumption that the majority out there play against friends or close acquaintances and have similar mindsets when it comes to certain things. Hammer out some house rules that address issues you have with the game (obviously fleet balance would be a difficult one to do, but fixing other rules can mitigate fleet balance issues). Write all the rules down so they are in INK somewhere to refer to, and go on and enjoy playing.

That’s what house rules are for! How many of you collect the cash in the middle when you land on free parking? You know that’s not an official rule, right?

 

[dag'karlove]

Ok ive watched this thread for a while now and ive seen many people post about a great many things. What I havent seen is this point, and ive tried to make it before, but I think now i have a better way to put it. As i see it most people who dont want to play ACTA who have posted on this thread have issues with balance. Well in my eyes ACTA shouldnt be balanced. In the series all fleets werent created equal. As I see it there are 5 tiers of fleets.

Tier 1- Ancients, Vorlons, Shadows
Tier 2- ISA, Minbarri
Tier 3- EA, Narn, Centuari, Psi Corps
Tier 4- League Fleets
Tier 5- Special Occurences (Technomages, Raiders etc etc)

That being said Tier one's should win agianst Tier 2's 75% of the time and win 95-95 Percent against Tier 3's and should never loose to 4's and 5's. They Were designed that way. As for the other tiers and the percentages I could get into but it would take too long. The pont being even in the series it took someon incredibly crafty with a super plan and some outside help to be those guys better than them. ACTA shouldnt be balanced the series wasnt balanced why should the game be. As for well if it's not balanced why make the minis, Well I like the challenge of playinga fleet that shouldnt win. And I liek the other races for thier attributes even if they arent supposed to win. I like the way the min looks etc etc. Just some food for thought.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

That should be true if you're taking a number ships from each side equivilent to what the various factions would have available. Say, 5 Omega vs 5 Sharlin. The whole point of a points system, even one as whacked out as FAP, is to show how many ships of each side would give a fair fight. This means that an equal number of points should be balanced.

 

[l33tpenguin]

Ok ive watched this thread for a while now and ive seen many people post about a great many things. What I havent seen is this point, and ive tried to make it before, but I think now i have a better way to put it. As i see it most people who dont want to play ACTA who have posted on this thread have issues with balance. Well in my eyes ACTA shouldnt be balanced. In the series all fleets werent created equal. As I see it there are 5 tiers of fleets.

Tier 1- Ancients, Vorlons, Shadows
Tier 2- ISA, Minbarri
Tier 3- EA, Narn, Centuari, Psi Corps
Tier 4- League Fleets
Tier 5- Special Occurences (Technomages, Raiders etc etc)

That being said Tier one's should win agianst Tier 2's 75% of the time and win 95-95 Percent against Tier 3's and should never loose to 4's and 5's. They Were designed that way. As for the other tiers and the percentages I could get into but it would take too long. The pont being even in the series it took someon incredibly crafty with a super plan and some outside help to be those guys better than them. ACTA shouldnt be balanced the series wasnt balanced why should the game be. As for well if it's not balanced why make the minis, Well I like the challenge of playinga fleet that shouldnt win. And I liek the other races for thier attributes even if they arent supposed to win. I like the way the min looks etc etc. Just some food for thought.

Like Neko said, its not the ships that should be balanced.

If things were true to the show, a single shadow vessel would destroy entire FLEETS of anything younger than the Vorlons. Even the minbar wouldn't stand a chance unless they had them bested 3-4 to 1.

Omegas wouldn't stand a chance against White stars or Sharlins. What fun would it be if you played one off fights like that? None. which is why there is a 'point system' The point system is what is supposed to balance the game play. Ships worth a certain value are supposed to be somewhat equal matches for one another. The system is broken if one ship is more powerful than the others within its cost level.

Its like going out to eat. Do you pay the same for a prime, grade A sirloin steak as you do for a hamburger at McDs?

 

[skavendan]

I have to agree with OP. I wont touch the game unless 3rd edition has some major fixes. Swarms are too powerful. INI + beam mechanic are a nightmare. I fail to see balance in many fleets

But I dont think we will ever see a 3rd edition.
--------------------------------------------------------
Umm yea but not when we play acta. Anyhow the game is not fun anymore, so you wont be playing against my fleet anytime soon.

Not to be rude, but why are you even hanging out on the boards? I mean if it's a game you hate this badly, why even participate?

Just curious.

Ditto, Am the only one allowed to be annoying round here, and for all my moannin I still think CTA has great potential + look forward to playing it.

 

[ATN082268]

I've really discovered that I just don't care for a great many things about ACTA2E. Each of these individually detracts from my enjoyment of the game, but together they make every game an exercise in frustration. These are, in no particular order:

1) The FAP system is terrible. There are numerous choices that are 'weak' or 'strong' for their PL and no balancing factors to mitigate this.

2) The FAP system of buying down is even worse. The small ship hordes tend to dramatically outperform smaller numbers of higher PL ships almost every time despite the fact that they rate the same in fleet selection. This occurs even with squadrons mitigating the initiative sink problem.

3) Critical hits favor the smaller vessels too much. Larger (higher PL) ships need to have more redundancy (perhaps the ability to ignore the first few critical results depending on PL, or a die roll based upon PL - say on a 6 for Raid/Battle ships and 5+ for War/Armageddon ships - to ignore any critical) to balance out the benefits of 'critical resistance' gained by taking multiple smaller ships. As it stands, it's about as easy to knock out the critical systems of an Adira as it is a Centurion, and that's not good IMO.

4) The initiative sink nightmare. I'll leave this one alone - many people recognize this problem well enough.

5) The variability of Beams. I understand that luck is always going to be a factor, but IMO, Beams just push this too far. A single added roll per successful hit should be plenty rather than the current rules that allow a 2 AD Beam to score 7 hits and wildly skew the outcome of the battle.

6) Interceptors need to be fixed IMO, to reflect the power of the weapon being deflected. I'd like to see Interceptors become a trait that is either present or not - like Dodge - and usable against every non-Beam, non-Energy Mine, non-explosion attack targeted on the vessel. Weapons without a damage multiple are blocked on a 5+ while weapons with Double Damage or Triple Damage are only blocked on a 6. Weapons with Quadruple Damage can not be blocked with Interceptors. The current rules make Interceptors too useful in situations where the AD numbers are low regardless of how powerful the weapon is supposed to be.

7) Deployment should not be done entirely by one side and then the other. This can give up way too much for some forces. I'd like to see something that was more back-and-forth, but we'df have to find a way to keep it balanced to prevent 'deployment sinks'.

That's most of my problems with the game. I really hope that someday some of theis can be fixed. Maybe then I'll dig my ACTA stuff back out of the back of the storage closet I just threw it into. Maybe.

I agree with the poster of this thread. The A Call to Arms game has potential but, in my opinion, is still in need of significant revision. I will touch on what I believe to be two of the bigger problem areas and try to offer a constructive solution.

1. Initiative. Person A has 10 ships and person B has 20 ships. Person A wins initiative but in the end Person B still has 10 ships left to move after Person A has moved all of their ships. I suggest a proportional type of movement where, in the above example, Person B would move 2 ships for every one of Person A's; I would also add that each side alternate by moving half their fighters at a time so the person who loses initiative isn't completely screwed with their fighters.

2. Number of ships on each side. Under the current system with equal point values, I think large numbers of small units will win the vast majority of the time against a small number of large ships. The larger number of smaller ships will typically field a greater overall damage capacity, greater firepower and a reduced importance for being critically hit, than the smaller number of large ships.

I suggest having a guideline for the maximum number of ships for each side in a scenario. Up to the first War point equivalent (whether 1 War, 4 Raid, etc.), each side can field up to a maximum of 8 ships. For each War point equivalent after the first (or fraction thereof), each side can field up to a maximum of 3 ships. So a 3 point Raid force can field up to 8 ships while a 5 point War force can field up to 20. This solution in itself won't completely alleviate unbalanced fleets but it is one way to help balance things out.

And as a side note, I think the game bogs down with large number of units on each side and the game loses whatever benefit it had with its simplicity.

Sincerely,

Andrew Norris

 

[ATN082268]

And u are always accusing me of being a pessimist when we play :lol:

Umm yea but not when we play acta. Anyhow the game is not fun anymore, so you wont be playing against my fleet anytime soon.

It’s a difficult concept to grasp, but why don't you just house rule stuff? I make the assumption that the majority out there play against friends or close acquaintances and have similar mindsets when it comes to certain things. Hammer out some house rules that address issues you have with the game (obviously fleet balance would be a difficult one to do, but fixing other rules can mitigate fleet balance issues). Write all the rules down so they are in INK somewhere to refer to, and go on and enjoy playing.

That’s what house rules are for! How many of you collect the cash in the middle when you land on free parking? You know that’s not an official rule, right?

I like house rules but they really shouldn't be a substitute for adequate playtesting. As a player, especially starting a new game, I really don't want to spend time learning the game and, at the same time, learning how to fix the game. If a game mechanic, design, etc is questionable, then it should be caught at the playtesting stage, not the player stage. Being a playtester in Battletech, I know things about time constraints and other factors that are out of playtester control. If the game line developer ignores certain playtester concerns, puts in a rule bypassing the playtesters, etc, then there isn't much a playtester can do to help the situation.

Sincerely,

Andrew Norris

 

[l33tpenguin]

This is why I push home-ruling stuff so much. My friends and I are always setting our own rules to games to make them more fun or even things out. If you are starting a game, just say 'no more than 6 ships, not counting fighters' Problem solved!

 

[Ripple]

The issue with house rules is that you have just shut yourself out of tourneys and new players. New players tend to get immeadeately turned off of a game where you hand them the rules then start a list of house rules.

Ripple

 

[CratZ]

Im lurking here because the game does have potential even if Im not that happy with it currently 8)

Hoping 3rd edition will fix things.

Yes we can do houserules and we also use some already. But I'd like to play the official rules (dunno why). So instead Im here ranting and hoping something is done :x

BTW how many do believe that we actually get a decent 3rd edition now that they already stopped the minis?

 

[Clanger]

idea for iniatitive and moving. Battle tech had a good system (if memoery serves me right). The turn is split into 4 phases. Each phase would tell you how many ships to move that phase. Makes big battles easier and quicker.

 

[Burger]

BTW how many do believe that we actually get a decent 3rd edition now that they already stopped the minis?

Not me, I can't see ACTA lasting much longer. The lack of minis means there won't be many new players picking it up. As old players dwindle, move on and stop playing, the player base will shrink and shrink. The latest generation of gamers don't even know what Babylon 5 is, and even if they do they just think of it as a cheesy 80's series.

Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong!

 

[Clanger]

It is a shame that B5 has been overshadowed by Star Trek, Star Gate etc. B5 is a quality show and showed you could do story arcs in TV shows without a problem. Shame it is a forgotten gem with the masses. It won awards for Koshs sake.


That is a problem doing a game based on an old show. It is not in the mind of new players. With the success of Lost Tales hopefully they can get another B5 show on the air.

 

[katadder]

idea for iniatitive and moving. Battle tech had a good system (if memoery serves me right). The turn is split into 4 phases. Each phase would tell you how many ships to move that phase. Makes big battles easier and quicker.

problem with battletech init is that it wont work for ACTA. take one shadow ship against a drazi fleet and you have pretty much won. if the shadows win init the drazi cannot line up a single boresight.

hopefully mini production will be back and running next year. whilst a return of B5 acta would be nice it doesnt have to be, with good minis a generic space combat game could also work. also if mongoose started a 3e now they would be accused of being worse than GW who just keep doing slight changes and releasing a whole new edition

 

[animus]

BTW how many do believe that we actually get a decent 3rd edition now that they already stopped the minis?

Not me, I can't see ACTA lasting much longer. The lack of minis means there won't be many new players picking it up. As old players dwindle, move on and stop playing, the player base will shrink and shrink. The latest generation of gamers don't even know what Babylon 5 is, and even if they do they just think of it as a cheesy 80's series.

Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong!

I hope you're wrong too, but, sadly, I agree. Mongoose effectively killed A Call to Arms with the end of the mini line.