Manouvering stat

[Target]

All sounds good.
Not sure why it add book keeping Chern as you probably know that your ships needs to move a certain distance by looking at it's speed and turns anyway. You know this when you go to move it or looking at the stats and checking for crits the effect in this phase on your paper if you aren't familar with the ship.
Having it written in brackets is no different spliting your max speed and dividing it in half which you have do in your head.

 

[Chernobyl]

my point for book-keeping was (for example) if your speed is 3 and your minimum move to turn is 6, you'd have to move in a straight line for 2 turns to go that 6 inches. instead of allowing one at the end of every game turn, you could allow book keeping to spreadthe move over different turns.

Chern

 

[Target]

I see, hadn't actually thought of that. Suppose the easiest way is have some engine crits have no turns as a effect as well. That way we wouldn't get Octurions spinning on a dime blasting away.That was major thing i was trying to prevent by saying no turns unless you made the minium speed.

 

[Greg Smith]

I think that this is trading one unrealistic system for another, while adding a level of complexity that is unnecesary.

The beauty of ACTA is its simplicity.

 

[katadder]

well if people dont like this cos its "too complicated" how about make it a minimum move of 5" before turning? or as fast as you can go if your top speed isnt 5? would penalise fast ships less and some of the slwoer ships more.

 

[Target]

I think that this is trading one unrealistic system for another, while adding a level of complexity that is unnecesary.

The beauty of ACTA is its simplicity.

Why is it more complicated?
It would be written on the stats instead of calculating half the move in your head. It exactly the same but shows some are more manueverable an others are not.

 

[Chernobyl]

Well, either way, I would definately be in favor of a crit result that is simply "no turns"...maybe the speed 4 crit can have a no turns result as well, or something.

I'm not saying the switch from "1/2 move" to "x inches" before your first turn, isn't a worthwhile idea, but I'm not sure it a whole lot better that what we have now. "one unrealistic system for another" seems kind of true.

Chern

 

[Ripple]

A no turns crit just adds another boresight removing hit. Not happy with the ones we already have? The 1-6 2-6 3-6 and the 4-6 (and possibly the 4-5 and 6-3 I think) all take a bore down.

Ripple

 

[H]

I think that this is trading one unrealistic system for another, while adding a level of complexity that is unnecesary.

The beauty of ACTA is its simplicity.

Greg, if you can't read a number on a card, how the hell do you playtest ;-)

 

[Greg Smith]

I did not say it was too complex for me.

The beauty of A Call to Arms is the simplicity of the rules. The maneuvering stat is one that I think is an unnecessary addition to the rules. In addition, if it was to be instituted, it would require restating every single ship in the game. The other factor is that we are eliminating inertia from the game.

There are other things that I have argued against, purely to keep the game simple - including a points system.

My reason for keeping the game simple - I believe that the lack of complexity of the rules allows tactics, ship choice and the individual feel of the fleets to shine through.

 

[H]

Amen on the points issue

 

[Greg Smith]

Amen on the points issue

Thank you.

As an alternative to the manoueverablity stat, I think a small change to the Come About! special action that allows an earlier turn, would be a simple and elegant fix to the problem.

 

[H]

possibly. I can see the argument that people are making, it is embarrasing when a bintak manages to come about, it does a 90 turn after a couple of inches, while your marathon has to go 3 tiomes as far, but hey, it's only a game

 

[Greg Smith]

possibly. I can see the argument that people are making, it is embarrasing when a bintak manages to come about, it does a 90 turn after a couple of inches, while your marathon has to go 3 tiomes as far, but hey, it's only a game

I can see that argument too. It is also slightly silly when damaged ships become more manoeverable.

At the moment the mandatory half movement is the only way that momentun and inertia is simulated. Now I don't want to see true vector movement, nor tracking speed, acceleration and deceleration. But I don't want it to become like the Star Wars ship battles either.

 

[H]

It's a fine line. The inertia issue comes into play with a speed zero crit really, the ship should drift off along it's current heading, instead, for some reason, it stops dead in speace.

 

[Greg Smith]

Yes. Another peculiarity.

There is a considerable amount of abstraction in the movement rules. So it becomes a case of chosing between ease of play and realism, which generally comes down to the individual.

 

[katadder]

well one stat in brackets after the speed of a ship isnt very complicated is it. yes theirs inertia but smaller ship with better manouvering thrusters will overcome this easier than bigger ships.
but as some of you dont like complicated what would you think of all ships having to move 5 inches (or as fast as is possible for that ships) before making any turns? this would help the faster ships and penalise some of the slower ships so that your ka'bin'tak cant turn on a dime.

 

[tschuma]

I helped develop a WWI Air war game with a friend that uses hexes for movement. For each turn a plane must move a certain number of hexes in a stright line before it can turn, loop, or perform other manuevers. This system works very well. To help with how many straight hexes a plane has moved, we use a small 6-sided die to indicate this number.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom

 

[Hugbiel]

The Inertia rule is not consistent with the crit rules.
And it seem to me that crit must consider the ship's speed. -2 and -4 is good if the base sped is around 6 - 9 but for WS or speed 4 ship it look absurd. I would vote for normalised quarter and half speed.
So i would say that if a crit can slow a ship it would be easy for the crew to do the same. And that may save them from an explosion too but it's an another story.

 

[Chernobyl]

I'm thinking this might not be such a bad idea after all. Ships could be given a turn number - simply to represent how maneuverable a ship is. no number of turns, or different angle (no 2/45 or 2/90) instead make ALL turns up to 45 degrees, and your turn number represents how far you must move between turns.

"Come about" would reduce the turn number by a certain amount.
"All power to engines" would increase the turn number by a certain amount, or remove turns entirely as it does now.
"All stop" lowers minimum movement, but not your turn number.
so a white star, with speed 15, might have a turn number of 5, or 4...
an omega, with speed 7, might have a turn number of 4 also.

create a new ship trait "Agile" these ships can make a 90 degree turn (once per game turn) instead of a 45 degree turn.

change the speed 0 crit to "drifting" Compulsory movement! in the movement phase, before nominating any ships, move the drifting ship half speed foreward in a straight line, but all shooting suffers a shooting penalty of some type (-1 to hit, or maybe need 6's on all dice) to represent the loss of stability the ship now has...in addition, drifting ships may not take any SA's

so what do you think...added a little to the original idea here...

Chernobyl