blackphoenix
Mongoose
cool, I'll work on a pdf this week.
My take on ACTA...
- Thread starter blackphoenix
- Start date
Tolwyn said:
Most of the Babylon 5 Wars games I have played in, very few have been decided in the first turn. Most games I have played in were around 3500 points, so even if a player somehow manages to lose a decent sized ship (700 points or so) in the first turn, it won't necessarily spell defeat.
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
I really really hate folks who take the cop out that 'balance' means everything is the same.
The two words aren't the same...
I agree that no game is ever going to be perfect for everyone, in every situation, but it is a complete cop out to say not strive to get as close as you can to equivalent cost without losing flavor.
Sorry but really tired of hearing the same old saw when about chess (one side still goes first... so not balanced) and balance only being achievable by have the same units on both sides. That's total crap. Put a point cost on chess pieces and try some mixing and matching and you might find a number of structures that work.
Ripple
The two words aren't the same...
I agree that no game is ever going to be perfect for everyone, in every situation, but it is a complete cop out to say not strive to get as close as you can to equivalent cost without losing flavor.
Sorry but really tired of hearing the same old saw when about chess (one side still goes first... so not balanced) and balance only being achievable by have the same units on both sides. That's total crap. Put a point cost on chess pieces and try some mixing and matching and you might find a number of structures that work.
Ripple
Tolwyn said:
It usually took an entire afternoon to play around 3500 points for Babylon 5 Wars. We both knew the system pretty well and we typically took about 5-7 ships for each side plus fighters. The B5 Wars system didn't reward swarm fleets as much as ACTA system although fighters were far too nasty in the B5 Wars system. On the plus side, not all ships carried fighters and they cost extra to bring along.
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Ripple said:
Perfect Balance IS impossible unless everything is the same. There are simply too many variables to consider. If you have a unit with 2 attack and 1 defense, is it stronger than a unit that is 1 attack and 2 defense? They have the same number of stat points, but are they balanced?
I'm not saying, either, that balance shouldn't be strived for. It really should. I never said, or implied, it shouldn't. But there is always going to be a difference of power, especially in a game like ACtA when there are so many variables on the table. Changing any one of those variables can have MASSIVE effects across the game in different ways and in different directions for each race and ship.
It must be accepted, however, that perfect balance will never be achieved. Its simply impossible. And you HAVE to accept that in order to get the most enjoyment out of it. While greater balance should be sought after, accepting that this is not the case allows you to go into a game understanding that someone is at an advantage from the start, regardless of their ability to play.
blackphoenix
Mongoose
That is largely my goal, make it fun. Yes I'm changing things, but largely just a different take on the game and want to share.
all power to you 
big job you have set yourself but if a few people adopt it and play - consider it a job well done
for myself I am not looking for as radical a change - I like 2nd ed and consider it a great step forward. However I'll be interested to see what and how you change it..................
big job you have set yourself but if a few people adopt it and play - consider it a job well done
for myself I am not looking for as radical a change - I like 2nd ed and consider it a great step forward. However I'll be interested to see what and how you change it..................
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
l33tpenguin said:
Maybe there's no such thing as perfect balance, but workable balance is possible. Yes, the 2 attack 1, defence and vice versa is balanced. Both have the same amount of "points," they're just allocated according to different ideals. That's where realistic military philosophy, tactics and planning come in, creating balance.
I think the PL system harms balance because ships have to fit into "slots," whereas a more traditional points system has greater flexibility, even if units do "clump" at certain values. Points costs can be adjusted more easily than unit stats.
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Lord David the Denied said:
That depends on how attack and defense works. It could very well be that the two are completely unbalanced, even though they have the same 'total' The way the rules work determines how well the balance of things works. Take for instance making alterations to Crits and the Crit table in ACtA. For the most part changes have little effect. But those changes greatly affect the Dilgar and Abbai. What might have been a good working solution for the other races is thrown out of balance by those two.
I agree with finding a workable balance, ACtA has some workable balance, but its far from excellent. There is a lot that could be done to make it better. I also agree that 2nd Ed was a step in the right direction, on most things.
And don't even get me started on why I don't like FAP :/ Its like telling a composer he can only write a symphony using 5 instruments.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
L33tpenguin, my good and dear friend, talk about FAPs all you want. I need the entertainment... :wink:
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Lord David the Denied said:
Sadly, all my concerns and dislikes about FAP has been said time and time again on these boards.
Its a BEAUTIFUL concept, but like communism, works better on paper than in reality. I really do love the idea of PLs and FAP, but it is, as swarm other specific designed (Sag, for instance) fleets, have shown us, easy to exploit, it forces a departure from levels of power demonstrated on the show and causes players to almost never field some ships.
blackphoenix
Mongoose
l33tpenguin said:
Then there's something wrong with the ships that are not being used.
I'll be the first to say I prefer point systems over FAP but FAP has a very fluid and easy to use nature to it. Yes points are easy too with simple math, but I think you know what I mean.
Every ship should have a use, maybe not exactly balanced as many have said you cannot have perfect balance, but if there is a ship or two that see no use they should either be fixed or removed completely.
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
blackphoenix said:
The difficulty with FAP is that each ship is expected to be equal to the other ships within its PL, twice as valuable as those 1 PL below it and half as valuable as ships 1 PL above it. I use the term 'valuable' to distinguish a ships worth. A fleet carrier will be completely different from a long range bombardment ship but still be of the same value to the overall fleet.
FAP breaks down because some ships, while they might be VERY good designs that WOULD be valuable to a fleet, the rigidity of FAP means that they wont be selected because another ship at the same FAP might be just a bit more valuable.
FAP is a point system like any other, only it isn't very granular. For most intents, a patrol ship could be worth 1 point while an Armageddon ship is worth 18 points. Now, increase the granularity of the system. As they stand, a patrol ship becomes worth 10 points. An Armageddon ship worth 180. A specific patrol ship might have a value to a fleet equal to 9 points (90% of its previous value). This granularity gives balance by allowing ships of lesser value to cost less.
Now, I'm not saying FAP should be changed. I'm not saying a point system should be implemented. I don't want to see ships removed because they aren't as valuable as others. I like seeing very diverse fleets with several different hulls. I don't like seeing a dozen Demos flying around blowing everything to kingdom come. FAP is a flavor of ACtA, it just needs ironing out and some ships need more properly balanced
blackphoenix
Mongoose
Narn Fleet 1st Draft:
I still need to work on fighters and give explanation for some of the traits, but here's a start.
http://www.4shared.com/file/54151832/9d65f0e5/Narn-fleet.html
I still need to work on fighters and give explanation for some of the traits, but here's a start.
http://www.4shared.com/file/54151832/9d65f0e5/Narn-fleet.html
blackphoenix
Mongoose
I was going to post my ship/weapon traits list, but needs some additional tweaking, which will in turn cause another draft of the Narn fleet. 
Soon to come.
Soon to come.
blackphoenix
Mongoose
Here is my trait list, missing a couple, but good start.
http://www.4shared.com/file/54294609/5fbe3839/traits.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/54294609/5fbe3839/traits.html
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Court Jester said:
About the average time it takes to play a game of B5 Wars with a small force on both sides..... (OK obviously I'm exaggerating SLIGHTLY but my overal point should be pretty clear
)Anyway to answer Burger: THAT in a nutshell is what's wrong with B5Wars. I love the game and to be frank I far far prefer it to ACTA, as the original poster says it just has that level of detail and character to the ships that just make it feel so much more 'B5ey' to me and the speed, maneuvering and weapon ranges feel more 'right' too.
Now ACTA on the other hand is a great fun and quick to play game but I for one would LOVE to play something thats more detailed and complex but not TOO much more so that it still plays nice and quickly so well done to you Blackphoenix, I suspect my feelings on the games very much mirror your own and will be following this modified version you're working on with great interest.
Oh and because it's me and it would just not seem right for me not to take another oppurtunity to do so, I should also take a moment to plug Full Thrust as usual. Not B5 but still the greatest starship combat game ever written! (google it, the rules are free to download
)Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well ACTUALLY there was a B5 ruleset for full thrust yonks ago but sadly its out of print and nigh impossible to find these days (and was far from complete anway). That said I HAVE dabbled on and off with creating B5ships in full thrust 2.5 (Full thrust updataded as far as fleet book 2 ruleswise that is) and on paper it all works well (not tested it though but if I ever get round to finishing it I'll post it up (those who know me know only too well how many random projects I tend to start and never finish 
)
Overall though ACTA is, despite it's flaws, a very fun game.
I actually rate for space combat miniature games:
1. Full Thrust
2. BFG
3. ACTA
I've not played Starmada and dont count hex based space games in that category (otherwise Starfleet Battles, B5 Wars and Federation Commander would all be in there above BFG and ACTA (though not sure where I'd stack them with Full Thrust)
ACTA is and always has been, mainly held aloft by the B5 Licence to be frank, the actual GAME whilst alot of fun isnt as simple to play as BFG or as fun and realistic feeling as Full thrust (and Full thrust I personally think is actually a little simpler than ACTA).
Now I'm not going to get drawn into another PL argument but to chuck my 2 cents in:
PLs as it is supposed to work and indeed DID work back in armageddon etc is NOT just a simple point system since its supposed to give differening values depending on a ships level compared to the scenario level to encourage people to take certain levels of ship at certain levels of battle. But in 2nd ed they went insane seemingly and set it to just double/halve at each pl (unless you go WAY outside the scenario level) so currently it IS pretty much just 1 point for patrol, 16 points for War basically (it's thrown out SLIGHTLY if you actually play at the lower or higher PLS but if you play a raid game as most people usually do its just a very limited point system. However it's supposd to be going back to the Armageddon point splits in P&P so that should sort things out a bit.
)Overall though ACTA is, despite it's flaws, a very fun game.
I actually rate for space combat miniature games:
1. Full Thrust
2. BFG
3. ACTA
I've not played Starmada and dont count hex based space games in that category (otherwise Starfleet Battles, B5 Wars and Federation Commander would all be in there above BFG and ACTA (though not sure where I'd stack them with Full Thrust)
ACTA is and always has been, mainly held aloft by the B5 Licence to be frank, the actual GAME whilst alot of fun isnt as simple to play as BFG or as fun and realistic feeling as Full thrust (and Full thrust I personally think is actually a little simpler than ACTA).
Now I'm not going to get drawn into another PL argument but to chuck my 2 cents in:
PLs as it is supposed to work and indeed DID work back in armageddon etc is NOT just a simple point system since its supposed to give differening values depending on a ships level compared to the scenario level to encourage people to take certain levels of ship at certain levels of battle. But in 2nd ed they went insane seemingly and set it to just double/halve at each pl (unless you go WAY outside the scenario level) so currently it IS pretty much just 1 point for patrol, 16 points for War basically (it's thrown out SLIGHTLY if you actually play at the lower or higher PLS but if you play a raid game as most people usually do its just a very limited point system. However it's supposd to be going back to the Armageddon point splits in P&P so that should sort things out a bit.
