I'm getting sick of "Lumbering"

[Captain Jonah]

As an old SFB player I have no problems with this but consider the work that was put into playtesting and developement to remove counters, markers etc. Seeking weapons are instant hits, no markers for them. Nothing else has markers.

The game is very much a clean battlemat theme.

With Lumbering, make it no HETS EVER but leave it as the turn mode. A Gorn cruiser turn mode 6 and Lumbering can make 2 45 degree turns on a 12" move but simply cannot handle the power required to HET. A fed CA with a turn mode 6 can also make 2 45 degree turns on a 12" move but has enough power to attempt a HET.

Gorn cruisers in FC and SFB are no where near as restricted in turning when compared to Feds, in ACTA the Klingons are insanely mobile. However I would rather change Lumbering to make it no HETS than change the flavour of the entire Klingon fleet by changing Agile or making D5/D6/D7 non agile.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The game is very much a clean battlemat theme.

Always a stated aim during our playtests - minis look much cooler on the table when there are no counters near them (you don't get big counters in real space battles...).

 

[storeylf]

(you don't get big counters in real space battles...).

Gorns are the biggest bean counters in the known universe!

 

[Sgt_G]

As I understand it, the all ships move the same speed was a SFU imposition - at least its new to ACTA...

But the thing is, ships in SFB and to a large degree FedCmdr do NOT all move at the same speed. All ships are limited to speed 31 (with 32 movement impulses per game-turn). But once you start arming weapons and recharging phasers, ships slow down to different speeds. Even in ships in the same fleet run at different best-speeds.

The Fed DD is a prime example of a ship that doesn't have power to move as fast as either the FF or CA. But it can turn just as well as the CA. If "lumbering" is only for massive or under-powered ships, then one would think the Fed DD would be lumbering for being under-powered. But it's turn mode is still the same as the CA.

Often times, ships will fly slower than best-speed to be able to turn tighter for tactical reasons.

My first thoughts:
It does seem very complicated at first read.
Also do we really have to have partial measurements........I think its best to avoid if we can?

I posted that in the wrong topic anyways, but I don't see how it's "complicated" at all.

Okay, so drop the half +1/4 inch requirement and make it "half or more of turn-mode distance, counts as moving full distance towards maximum movement for game-turn."

You're allowed to move 12" total with 4" between turning, for example, so you move 2" and make a 45-deg turn, but that counted as moving 4", so you have only 8" and not 10" left to move, and can make two more 45-deg turn. If you again chose to move 2" or 3" instead of the allowed 4" before the second turn, it still counts as moving 4" and now you are down to 4" and not 6" or 5" of movement left.

Lumbering: Either under-powered or simply too massive for the most advanced engines, this ship is ungainly and turns slowly. It may only make a single turn during a Movement Phase. In addition, the ship may not move forward any further after making this turn.

In SFB/FedCmdr, the Gorn ships are not any more massive than ships of the same class in other empires. And they are but no means under-powered. Turn modes in SFB/FedCmdr is based partly on the ship size but also on a subjective reading of how far apart the engines are. The Gorn ships have top/bottom engines rahter than left-right, so their turn mode is usually one worse than most other empires' ships (or tied with other worst). Still, they're not THAT bad to fly.

 

[Captain Jonah]

(you don't get big counters in real space battles...).

Gorns are the biggest bean counters in the known universe!

Oi :evil:

There are no beans around us Gorn. :lol:

 

[Da Boss]

As I understand it, the all ships move the same speed was a SFU imposition - at least its new to ACTA...

But the thing is, ships in SFB and to a large degree FedCmdr do NOT all move at the same speed. All ships are limited to speed 31 (with 32 movement impulses per game-turn). But once you start arming weapons and recharging phasers, ships slow down to different speeds. Even in ships in the same fleet run at different best-speeds. The Fed DD is a prime example of a ship that doesn't have power to move as fast as either the FF or CA. But it can turn just as well as the CA. If "lumbering" is only for massive or under-powered ships, then one would think the Fed DD would be lumbering for being under-powered. But it's turn mode is still the same as the CA.Often times, ships will fly slower than best-speed to be able to turn tighter for tactical reasons.

It was more of an assumption - the movement system was changed massively and since it worked perfectly well for the two previous games I assumed it must be a SFU requirement - if not no idea why it was changed :? I think Scoutdad did say on the other forum I think that it was to help differentiate ships as the SFU ships all had to go the same speed (except for the ones that don't of course)?

My first thoughts: It does seem very complicated at first read. Also do we really have to have partial measurements........I think its best to avoid if we can?

I posted that in the wrong topic anyways, but I don't see how it's "complicated" at all.
Okay, so drop the half +1/4 inch requirement and make it "half or more of turn-mode distance, counts as moving full distance towards maximum movement for game-turn."

You're allowed to move 12" total with 4" between turning, for example, so you move 2" and make a 45-deg turn, but that counted as moving 4", so you have only 8" and not 10" left to move, and can make two more 45-deg turn. If you again chose to move 2" or 3" instead of the allowed 4" before the second turn, it still counts as moving 4" and now you are down to 4" and not 6" or 5" of movement left..

Sorry its likely just different tastes again but that to me is complicated............

Throwing a question back - woudl the previous system be better or worse at representing the SFU movement system?

Lumbering: Either under-powered or simply too massive for the most advanced engines, this ship is ungainly and turns slowly. It may only make a single turn during a Movement Phase. In addition, the ship may not move forward any further after making this turn.

In SFB/FedCmdr, the Gorn ships are not any more massive than ships of the same class in other empires. And they are but no means under-powered. Turn modes in SFB/FedCmdr is based partly on the ship size but also on a subjective reading of how far apart the engines are. The Gorn ships have top/bottom engines rahter than left-right, so their turn mode is usually one worse than most other empires' ships (or tied with other worst). Still, they're not THAT bad to fly.

.[/quote]

The bit about underpowered/Massive is both just fluff and from previous edition - not worth getting hung up about and could be chnaged to represent the Gorns unique problems.

 

[Myrm]

Don't argue, he's Gorn mad.....


:mrgreen: Hmm didn't we go here a few months ago

 

[scoutdad]

SFB? FC speeds: Yes, ships do not always travel at the same speed - but they have the option to do so.
That's why every ACTA: SF ship has a max move of 12 inches (except those that dont! :wink: fast ships, slow ships]. Iwhen we [Battlegroup Murfreesboro] play SFB or Fed Comm, you can bet we will be traveling fast. It's just the way we play. Our ships zip around the board at speeds in excess of 24 for the majority of the game - even if it sometimes means all weapons do not get loaded. Unti lthe tactical situation requires a slower speed, that is.
In aCTA, we can do the same thing. Just because you have a movement allowance of 12 doesn't mean you have to move at 12 inches all the time.

In the other ACTA games (B5 nd NA) not all ships had the same max movement rate. The movement system developed for them was along the lines previously stated... 2 turns/90 degrees, 2 turns/45 degrees... 1 turn/45 degrees... etc.

The first rounds of the play test rules duplicated these rules. While it worked, it did not work nearly as well as the current version. Mainly due to hte 12 inch speeds. It was too difficult to recreate the numerous turn modes avaialble in the SFU. Klingon ships did not appear to be as agile as they should, Gorn ships were nearly equivalent to Fed / Kzinti ships. All three generations of Romulans flew nearly the same...

Having actually played both versions of the ACTA:SF movement rules in multiple games against multiple opponents using multiple ships from multiple empires (except Gorn, sorry...), I can honestly say that in the opinions of the 12 members of our playtest group - the current version recreates the SFU feel better and faster than the previous, play test version.

 

[crosswiredmind]

Not sure why esthetics should trump gameplay. If my Constitution spends a turn moving 12" forward, it seems odd that I need to move 6" more before I can turn. Heck a six-sided die placed next to the ship is all you really need. Guess I just added house rule number one to my book.

 

[billclo]

Not sure why esthetics should trump gameplay. If my Constitution spends a turn moving 12" forward, it seems odd that I need to move 6" more before I can turn. Heck a six-sided die placed next to the ship is all you really need. Guess I just added house rule number one to my book.

This is what we do in Battletech; we put a die next to the mini showing the movement modifier. It saves time - people aren't shouting across the table asking how far did X mini move so they can figure up the hit numbers.

I'm talking battles with 20+ minis on the board. It just isn't a significant factor for us.

 

[Da Boss]

Its not really aesthetics its more table cluttter - which with 20 ships, terrain peices, critical damage counters, dice rolled etc etc can quickly mount up - dice placed to show things can get easily picked up and moved etc in big games.

but on the other hand you should indeed play the game you have most fun

re the Constitution turning as you can see from Scotdads posting - it works that way to reflect the SFU better...........

@ Scoutdad - fair enough thanks

@ Billco - Different strokes and all that - whatever works for you is cool

 

[Captain Jonah]

Don't argue, he's Gorn mad..... :mrgreen:

Any more Gorn jokes and someone Gorner get thier arms and legs pulled off :twisted:

Gorn ships were nearly equivalent to Fed / Kzinti ships.

And the problem with this is?

Shesh the Gorn Hatred we get from Scoutdad and his team :wink: :lol:

 

[storeylf]

It was too difficult to recreate the numerous turn modes avaialble in the SFU. Klingon ships did not appear to be as agile as they should, Gorn ships were nearly equivalent to Fed / Kzinti ships. All three generations of Romulans flew nearly the same...

Having actually played both versions of the ACTA:SF movement rules in multiple games against multiple opponents using multiple ships from multiple empires (except Gorn, sorry...), I can honestly say that in the opinions of the 12 members of our playtest group - the current version recreates the SFU feel better and faster than the previous, play test version.

I admit I haven't had a chance to get any great play in, and I'm not commenting on game play balance as such. But, I am really struggling to see your comparison to SFU. Broadly speaking in those games Feds turn about 25-35% slower than a Klink, that would be near enough giving klingon cruisers turn 4 but removing agile vs a turn 6 Fed cruiser. As it currently stands in this game a Fed cruiser turns a about 200% slower than an agile klink cruiser. I can't see how anyone could see giving klink cruisers agile as making them closer to the SFU games, when turn 4 (without agile) is in fact so close to what SFU games had.

Gorns. In SFU they are very similar, almost identical, to Feds so why did giving them so much lumbering make them more like SFU? A Fed cruiser and a Gorn cruiser are both Turn mode D and they both have not too different power demands to weapons over the long run. Again, lumbering Gorns is not really recreating the SFU feel at all.

I can't comment on balance or whether the system works is enjoyable etc, but at the moment there is no way in my mind that ACTA recreates each empires feel from SFU. That may or may not be bad, if the game is good and enjoyable then who cares I suppose. I can see that maybe this game recreates how they were 'meant' to be at a concept level, as in Gorns are often described as the flying lumbering solid bricks, even though in practise they are no more lumbering nor solid as most other other empires (at least in FedCom).

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Ok, just had a chat with a friend who's a ActA newbie (i;ve been playing ActA since it first came out for B5), and he's pointed out something i could do with getting cleared up - in regard to Lumbering

Possibly foolishly, i've had it in my head that the Lumbering trait is as it was - in that once a ship made it's turn (for that turn), it's movement for that turn was over. So you moved, turned, and that was it. After reading the Trait in the rule book, it only states that you get to turn ONCE during your movement, but DOES NOT mention having to stop after a turn.

If the move after turn option is correct (and i hope it is), then it's not as damaging as i had thought. Whilst still not overly maneuverable the movement itself it not as restricted as i thought.

Can someone clear this up for me :?:

 

[Da Boss]

Correct Lumbering is different to previous versions - its harsher in some ways but you do get to move after you have made your turn - so a dreadnought using All Power could move 9" turn then move another 7".

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

Lumbering dreadnoughts right now do seem to be at a disadvantage against their equivalent in points of smaller more maneuverable ships. However I suspect if you had to go head to head against a battle station the lumbering wouldn't a problem at all!

 

[Captain Jonah]

Lumbering limits you to a single 45 degree turn in a turn. The point you make that turn in your move is up to you as long as you meet the turn mode.

A Gorn cruiser (any one as they are all lumbering) with a turn mode of 6 must move a minimum of 6" before it can turn, one turned it can continue on until it has moved its full 12".

A Gorn doing full speed warp engines more dilithium in the engines can move 16". They could move 6", turn 45 degrees and move the remaining 10".

A Gorn DN with a turn mode of 9" must more a minimum of 9" before it can turn and again can move up to 12" on a normal move or 16" on a full speed move.

 

[Captain Jonah]

As a fun scenario for the ultimate in lumbering I have been thinking of the following. A pair of dreadnaughts trying to find each other in dense regions of asteroids.

A show of Size

Casara 4. Independent world in the neutral zone bordering several powers. Rich asteroid belts. Several powers have sent diplomats seeking mining rights. The local sentient species have recently formed a world government after years of balkanised warfare and as a culture respect power and might. Bigger equates to more powerful to them and their leaders are mostly picked based on size. They are able to build cruiser sized ships and openly mocked the diplomats who arrived in smaller ships claiming to be from powerful peoples.
In order to impress the locals with a demonstration of how powerful they are several diplomats came up with an idea. The biggest local ships are cruisers; a DN should impress the heck out of them.
Requests were sent and a fleet dreadnaught was detached for a quick visit along with an ad hock escort.

Unfortunately two empires had the same idea and their DNs arrived at the same time.

Two fleets 1000+ points. Each must contain a Dreadnaught and one DD/FF sized ship for every cruiser.
The DN has crew quality 5, the other ships are split between CQ4 and 3 to represent a number of new build ships or old and worn out ships pulled in to make up the numbers. Half round up of each class (cruisers or dd/ffs) will be CQ4

Map has a world in the centre. 5+ per area for terrain and 1-4 Asteroids, 5-6 Dust.

Victory conditions as normal with the following addition. If one sides DN is crippled or destroyed they automatically lose so long as the other DN is un-crippled. The Casarans will not be impressed by anyone who’s DreadNaught is so flimsy. :lol:

 

[MongooseMatt]

I can't see how anyone could see giving klink cruisers agile as making them closer to the SFU games, when turn 4 (without agile) is in fact so close to what SFU games had.

Aside from a list from ADB of things that _had_ to be in the game, we weren't trying to replicate SFB or FC - those games already exist, it would have been redundant.

if the game is good and enjoyable then who cares I suppose.

_That_ is the key.

 

[Myrm]

Aside from a list from ADB of things that _had_ to be in the game, we weren't trying to replicate SFB or FC - those games already exist, it would have been redundant.

True, but in making an ACtA game, I do want to be able to still be in the SFU. SFB and FC are remarkably different games in many many ways - but yet they are instantly recognisable as the same property - so much so in fact that playing FC like its SFB gets you shot out of the sky.

I guess I am after common forms achieved by different methods - this will however ensure a lot of comments of the type 'in SFB X does Y'. Not to establish how to do something in ACtA but to describe an existing framework that may be desirable to simulate if possible. Of course the systems are different so they'll do many things differently, and some things may not be possible.

For example, I see in FC there is a lack of fighters and PFs and SFB there is a glut, a gamut or a plethora of such toys. I love my fighter battles so FC marginalising them puts me off that game, yet SFB which provides them has so many memories of a single fighter battle taking a weekend due to the number of units in game. Similarly most games I have played of SFB were in the 1-3 ships per player size and for me suddenly I have a definition of what precisely the sort of thing I think ACtA will do better than either of the previous expressions is - so Im looking for an SFU-based ruleset that gives me slick big numbers fleet actions with fighters akimbo - those epic games I could never do in FC or in an achievable time in SFB.

So far I must say that things are looking incredibly up on that front.

However, the worlds should be united to a degree and so I a) I will always start with SFB or FC as my initial point of reference and b) I do expect and require of any such game that any Fed vessel I run in ACtA should have a lifespan of 3 turns or less, to replicate their performance in my hands in both SFB and FC. :mrgreen: