Phaser-G Kill Zone discussion

[storeylf]

Sure it is different mechanics, but it is also a port of the SFU fluff, and it is ADBs backround that Mongoose are licencing. Even FedCom, which ditches a lot of fleet compostition stuff, does keep things like escort limits etc. Trying to dictate the minutae of how a weapon must be ported would be going to far, but saying that a fleet can't overload on certain ships seems reasonable in order to retain the SFU feel - its not as if you can't ignore it for friendly games if you so desire.

A limit if X escorts per Y ships doesn't seem to unreasonable to me. It may go a long way to stopping abuse of gatling escorts, or stopping plasma just getting stymied by mass escorts of any type.

 

[Nerroth]

Speaking of unrepresentative fleet options, I can't help but feel wary when I read of Orion players maxing out on Salvage Cruisers. Those ships are supposed to be support vessels, not main line raiders. There aren't supposed to be more than a handful of them in any given Cartel's operating territory, and they are usually too valuable as logistical linchpins to be thrown so readily into combat.

Yes, they are unrestricted in Federation Commander also, but I would be surprised if there were many Orion players in FC that would have made a point of flying them in large numbers, even in the days before the Orion Attack module was published.


At the very least, putting some sort of cap on escort units wouldn't necessarily affect the actual miniatures being used, since there are no dedicated escort hulls. (Unless the player involved didn't want to use the base hull, or an alternative mission variant, in place of a restricted escort version.)

 

[firekite]

sneaky pete:

since ACTA:SF is based off of FC then the ships are limited to what is on the shipcard. Because the Orions are such fun (pun Intended) it was decided that the option mounts had to be specified or else they would cause to much chaos.

so rule 5L1a (pg 70 RRB6) "Any mount that can hold a phaser-1 can have a phaser-G, but no ship can have more than one phaser-G."

So the only way you will get an Orion ship with mutiple phG's on it is if you create a "unoffical" ship that you and your friends can use.

Phaser-G's are in limited supply outside of Hydran Space. the Feds have them due to the Hydrans and everyone else thru salvage, theft or possibly the Orions.

So if you wish to take a ship with a Damage: 12/4 Shield: 20 and make a run on a BC/BCH/DN i wish you luck because you will have to focus several of them against that one target and your opponents fleet will shoot you out of the sky for your troubles.

(and that's my 2 credits, thank you for playing)

 

[MarkDawg]

I really wish people that play FC and SFB would stop posting stuff about how it is in those games. This is a different game and it gets really confusing to read a rules discussion thread about three different games. I think you guys derail threads with constantly saying well in FC its this way or that and then some one posts about that topic. Please Respect the OP and discuss this topic.

 

[Rambler]

I really wish people that play FC and SFB would stop posting stuff about how it is in those games. This is a different game and it gets really confusing to read a rules discussion thread about three different games. I think you guys derail threads with constantly saying well in FC its this way or that and then some one posts about that topic. Please Respect the OP and discuss this topic.

Unfortunately Markdawg how does "X" system work in FC or SFB is extremly relevent to these disscussions when determinning if a rule in ACTASF is working right. Yes ACTA is its own game but it is trying to replicate the results of other SFU game systems.

Is "X" to powerful or what is the effect in FC is exactly the point that usually needs addressing first. And if in the end "X" needs to change then that should be explained and justified. Saying stop discussing how something works in the base system just because this a different game system really isn't a good option.

Escorts are a prime example of this. There are a couple of issues being raised here that are handled differently by FC. One is Fleet Limits which FC uses to control the deployment of powerful units. The other is how do the various weapon systems (Phaser-Gs, multiple Phaser-3s, Anti-Drones and Plasma-Ds) work or interact in FC.

These disscusions lead to a consensus of is the rule modeled correctly or if it has to be tweaked or can it be tweaked to form a better feel to the source product or in the end it is going to have to be different because of the differences in the rule system involved.

 

[SneakyPete]

firekite
since ACTA:SF is based off of FC then the ships are limited to what is on the shipcard. Because the Orions are such fun (pun Intended) it was decided that the option mounts had to be specified or else they would cause to much chaos.
so rule 5L1a (pg 70 RRB6) "Any mount that can hold a phaser-1 can have a phaser-G, but no ship can have more than one phaser-G."
So the only way you will get an Orion ship with mutiple phG's on it is if you create a "unoffical" ship that you and your friends can use.

At no time have I ever said an Orion Light Raider could load more than one Phaser-G.

firekite
So if you wish to take a ship with a Damage: 12/4 Shield: 20 and make a run on a BC/BCH/DN i wish you luck because you will have to focus several of them against that one target and your opponents fleet will shoot you out of the sky for your troubles.

(and that's my 2 credits, thank you for playing)

Due to the point cost difference I would have several for each Fed ship, and with Stealth, and Agile Turn 3, and free SA every turn, the big slow turning Feds will have a hard time bringing much of any of their weapons to bear. Been there done that many times already, never lost with Orions and I am pretty darn good with Feds as well if I may say so.

 

[Talonz]

With all due respect to those guys the problem is NOT escorts. It is Phaser Gs.

With all due respect, the only current ships with gatlings are escorts. So the problem really is (allegedly) fed escorts with gatlings, especially the ones with 4.

More importantly, escorts with gatlings dont have any distracting heavy weapons to power up or pay for in ship cst. Hydrans do. So the fed escort really only has 2 modes; defensive, or high speed offensive missile, and nothing inbetween. This wont change as much as you think by replacing them with phaser 1s as you mention.

Limiting escorts wont hurt other escorts as much as you think...it will match their historical deployments, ensure other ships are in use, and ensure that they actually fulfill their role of escorting other ships.

You can still have escorts. What is so wrong with limiting them?

Edit: just saw the SVC quote. Awesome.

 

[Tinfish]

How many of you have actually played a game with escorts. Not just a couple of ships a side, but at least a 1000pt game and using a scenario.

Theory doesn't work - saying X hits Y Z times and does whatever doesn't survive first contact with the dice.

And repeat after me This isn't Star Fleet Battles. I can carry my models & rules in one hand and play a fleet game in an evening - at the point I need a forklift truck to carry the rules I'll find something else to play.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I had a look at the ADB board and Steve Cole has posted this.

Matt always says everything is fine (big grin), when it is and even when it isn't. [I already told him that limits on the escorts in a fleet are REQUIRED for SFU compliance.] He just won't ever change something he did (even done as a quick "go playtest this" thing) without being dragged to it.

I wish he would just say "We're testing it" and not insist on "never admit anything might change until the change is officially announced". I mean, Jeez, everything in Fleet Update 1 is PLAYTEST and MIGHT CHANGE so get over it.

Okay, just seen this. Needless to say, I have a somewhat different interpretation of the conversation (it went along the lines of 'prove to me that something is wrong via actual playtesting rather than just armchair theorising, _then_ we'll change it'). Still, already told Steve that having having no limits on fleets is REQUIRED for A Call to Arms compliance.

I predict the next conversation we have on this will be a fun one

 

[Captain Jonah]

How many of you have actually played a game with escorts. Not just a couple of ships a side, but at least a 1000pt game and using a scenario. .

Phaser G escorts no. I used HDEs in a 1000 point Gorn fleet for battles against the Kzinti back during the Drone debate.
I will try and get a game over the weekend with Phaser Gs if I can find a victim, erm, someone to play against

And repeat after me This isn't Star Fleet Battles. I can carry my models & rules in one hand and play a fleet game in an evening - at the point I need a forklift truck to carry the rules I'll find something else to play.

I keep saying that and people are still saying that everything must work in exactly the same way despite the very different game mechanics.

With all due respect to those guys the problem is NOT escorts. It is Phaser Gs.

With all due respect, the only current ships with Gatling’s are escorts. So the problem really is (allegedly) fed escorts with Gatling’s, especially the ones with 4.

More importantly, escorts with Gatling’s don’t have any distracting heavy weapons to power up or pay for in ship cst. Hydran’s do. So the fed escort really only has 2 modes; defensive, or high speed offensive missile, and nothing in-between. This won’t change as much as you think by replacing them with Phaser 1s as you mention.

Limiting escorts won’t hurt other escorts as much as you think...it will match their historical deployments, ensure other ships are in use, and ensure that they actually fulfil their role of escorting other ships.

You can still have escorts. What is so wrong with limiting them?

Edit: just saw the SVC quote. Awesome.

Don’t even start with the four+ Phaser G ships. They are a nightmare that is waiting to happen. Along with the entire Hydran fleet and the LDR. A dirt cheap Lancer destroyer brings three fusions, two Phaser 2s, a turret Phaser 1 and six Phaser Gs (four fighter mounted). A Hydran fleet is going to bring 10-15 or more Phaser Gs to a fight mounted on fighters in addition to the ship mounted ones. Either we have entirely separate rules for every type of fighter or we keep the rules simple and say that fighter weapons are the same as ship weapons so a Phaser 3 on a fighter is the same as a Phaser 3 on a ship.
I would much rather Phaser Gs (and Phaser 3s) were looked at and balanced now with regard to both current and future uses than have the rules change every time a new ship or fleet is released.

Again I am going to ask this, have you read the rules. Heavy weapons are not powered up. There is no energy allocation. The reload special action allows a ship to reload all heavy weapons with a single limit, this is almost always the fire only Phasers. Any ship reloading can restrict itself to only firing its Phasers, there is no penalty to speed or shields, there is no energy allocation. Reloading heavy weapons does not use up limited energy that would otherwise go to drives or shields. A Hydran Fusion ship can move at full speed, fire all of its Phasers and do anything it wants while reloading.
Please find someone with a copy of the rules and have a read.

What do I want:
A situation where it is MY choice to use a type of ship or not.
The ability to take a pair of BDEs so that I can deploy my 1000 point fleet as two battle groups rather than having to keep my entire fleet within 8” of the escort or get picked off if fighting a Drone heavy enemy.
The ability to pick my own fleet using my own ships so that I can use the tactics that I want in my game. I am the customer, my money paid for the game.
A general balance between the fleets so that I can play games that are fun. If someone wants to take 6 escorts then they are trading long range firepower for close range force. As long as that is balanced so that long range fleets can fight back I am happy.

What do I not want:
Unbalanced weapons that make some fleets unbeatable. The Drone problem
Unbalanced fleets that are unbeatable by some enemies. We had this with the Kzinti till Drones were looked at.
Rules that set limits on which of MY ships I am allowed to use in MY games.

Personally I don’t think my wants are excessive.

SFB and FC are the end result of a sci fi version of naval warfare from the cold war based around a sci fi series. They have fleet lists and limits on ships based on the Star Fleet history. Escorts are limited because they were reserved for use with carrier battle groups in the US navy and in the SF recreation of make believe history.
I have no problem with this. It’s a bit like Traveller, the fact that it is based on 30-40 year out of date ideas is part of the charm.

However I am not playing SFB or FC.

I am playing ACTA.

 

[MarkDawg]

I really wish people that play FC and SFB would stop posting stuff about how it is in those games. This is a different game and it gets really confusing to read a rules discussion thread about three different games. I think you guys derail threads with constantly saying well in FC its this way or that and then some one posts about that topic. Please Respect the OP and discuss this topic.

Unfortunately Markdawg how does "X" system work in FC or SFB is extremly relevent to these disscussions when determinning if a rule in ACTASF is working right. Yes ACTA is its own game but it is trying to replicate the results of other SFU game systems.

Is "X" to powerful or what is the effect in FC is exactly the point that usually needs addressing first. And if in the end "X" needs to change then that should be explained and justified. Saying stop discussing how something works in the base system just because this a different game system really isn't a good option.

Escorts are a prime example of this. There are a couple of issues being raised here that are handled differently by FC. One is Fleet Limits which FC uses to control the deployment of powerful units. The other is how do the various weapon systems (Phaser-Gs, multiple Phaser-3s, Anti-Drones and Plasma-Ds) work or interact in FC.

These disscusions lead to a consensus of is the rule modeled correctly or if it has to be tweaked or can it be tweaked to form a better feel to the source product or in the end it is going to have to be different because of the differences in the rule system involved.

So ACTA: Star Fleet is not its own game its a replica of FC?!? Sorry I don't buy that argument if you want to play FC or SFB then play it but I play this game so when we talk about rules for this game lets talk about this game please.

Just because ACTA:SF is based in the same universe as SFB & FC its dose not mean that we have replicate what happens in those games or we would just play those games.

Back on topic in the game Pete and I played and just so you guys know I consider Pete to be a really good player. I took 2 2 FF one of each Escort and a CA. Pete had 3 gorn medium Cruisers I think. Painted really nice BTW.

My thoughts as we played the game were that the 2 escorts provided me a very safe haven from plasma I used them to guard my CA. As the game wore on it was easy for me to see that I could thwart or minimize his plasma damage and also hammer him with drones. Then I could zoom in and blow the crap out of him. Phaser G's did seem to work really well Vs the Gorn.

I would like to see how they do Vs Romulans and Klingons before I would go so far as to say they are broken I would like to see the fleets I face to take some of the new ships and see how it plays out. I do think Killzone may be OP at this time.

 

[McKinstry]

Yes ACTA is its own game but it is trying to replicate the results of other SFU game systems.

These disscusions lead to a consensus of is the rule modeled correctly or if it has to be tweaked or can it be tweaked to form a better feel to the source product or in the end it is going to have to be different because of the differences in the rule system involved.

I agree that we can't simply ignore the source material while at the same time, we have to be willing to live with differences in the name of simplicity, speed and balance.

I'm not sure replicating results is terribly important in other than the broadest of contexts if for no other reason, in ACTA five ships per side is probably the minimum where the rules begin to shine whereas that isn't possible in SFB and is highly improbable in FC. The results of a fleet contest have to be considered in the aggreagte and we cannot measure ACTA as what happens if ship A shoots at ship B as compared to FC (SFB is really so different and granular as to be extremely hard to compare).

The game should look to the source material for guideance and in many cases, is required to follow certain source material rules however, the flavor of the SFU is more cool ships that look generally consistent to the faction along with broader factional traits (Roms cloak, Klingons nimble) instead of a Phaser 1 is x times more powerful than a Phaser 2 at Y hexes or a Plasma S can only be 33% reduced by a DDW in FC but in ACTA it is 66%.

 

[storeylf]

I'm not sure replicating results is terribly important in other than the broadest of contexts if for no other reason,in ACTA five ships per side is probably the minimum where the rules begin to shine whereas that isn't possible in SFB and is highly improbable in FC.

I quite regularly play 5+ ships per side in FedCom. Depending on the matchup they can often be played in 1 evening as there tends to be very brutal exchange fairly early. Some matchups are a bit more of a slow finesse game.

Played quite a few 7-9 ships a game, and have a campaign game coming up soon (unless something really unexpected happens) where I'll have 13 ships vs ~10, a starbase and defsats.

I won't pretend 'fleet' battles are as quick as ACTA but they are certainly playable.

 

[MarkDawg]

Please post on topic

 

[TheBeerPope]

Mark my friend, i fear you have a lost cause in trying to keep people from posting about SFB and FC on here. I do agree with people that referencing the source material in this case can be very important do to Amarillo's of the game, the source material for the ships is directly proportional to this game in as much as ship design, weapon load out ect. But at the same time, the people who want to complain about something take plasma or drones for example because they don't work like they do in SFB or FC, well that's really getting off topic as it is a different game. But in either case its gonna happen, so we just gotta weather through it, and hope at least a few people keep on topic.

 

[MarkDawg]

Has anyone else played a game with the Fed escorts if so please tell us about them.

 

[bcantwell]

Has anyone else played a game with the Fed escorts if so please tell us about them.

I played one, but I used it as intended, sticking it close to my Fed DN so that I could knock down the drone waves (and plasma - opponent was a mixed Klingon/Romulan squadron) that was sent at the DN, allowing the big guy to keep banging away offensively and to use his 4 drones offensively as well. Depending on expected incoming, I added the CLE's drones to outgoing fire on occasion.

I did not try to bend the system though and send the escort in as an assault ship. THis game was part of a solo campaign I'm doing, so I favored using the escort to keep the DN clean. IN that role the ship performed well and nothing seemed out of bounds.

 

[storeylf]

How is the above not on topic. As others have noted ACTA is based on the SFU, as Matthew has said it is results he is looking to capture from the SFU (as opposed to 'how'). Discussion of whether something should or should not be changed must almost inevitably include references to SFB/FC.

I'm not after direct representation of each weapon as it appears in FC, I realise this is a very different game system, but I am interested in some represntation of the 'feel' of SFU (as well as balance), which must involve some discussion of FC/SFB. I'm happy to accept that balance must require that some detail be lost, so if balance is put out by a more direct port then it has to change. I.E. does doing X in ACTA provide the feel of SFU even if not the minutae. Is killzone realy needed to give it the same sort of 'feel', is killzone going to be unbalancing etc. They are obviously subjective, but trying to consider them without reference to FC/SB isn't really going to work.

Why do I think feel is important, because if we are concentrarting on results as Mat says and not the how the result came about then we could just roll a dice to see who wins, super fast game. Clearly we are looking at more than just results, there must be some degree of 'How', and some degree of SFU 'feel', otherwise you are not really playing the SFU at all, nor even a game of tactics.

The above post I responded to was (as far as I could tell) trying to say that the other SFU games do not do fleet level fights, and therefore the 'results' based aim was not very useful given this is a fleet level game, all I was saying is that actually FC handles fleet level fights pretty well, and they most certainly do get played, by our group at least.

Same with the plasma thread I started, I accept that ACTA is very different, and there is no way plasma is going to be a close port, but I'd still like to see a bit more SFU 'feel' to plasma within the confines of this game, I'm not after things like Pl R has to be 10 times more potent than a Ph1 etc, or other rather meanigless details, but reference to the way those games play is still needed to discuss the point and what 'feel' means.

 

[Nerroth]

For what it's worth, A Call to Arms is not the only "new" game engine that has had to deal with the legacies of Federation Commander and Star Fleet Battles; Majestic 12 have had to try and work the Star Fleet Universe into its Admiralty Edition of Starmada (and to do it again, once MJ12 made the recent jump to Starmada Nova Edition).

When the first Star Fleet Starmada book was released (Klingon Armada for Starmada Admiralty Edition; which has recently been given a Nova release to support the new edition) Daniel Kast made the point that his goal was not to try and exactly duplicate the game mechanics from FC or SFB into his game engine(s). Rather, the intent was to try and re-envision the Star Fleet Universe through the Starmada lens.

This has not been a straightforward process; as with A Call to Arms, Starmada as a game engine (be it Admiralty or Nova Starmada) has a very different set of base mechanics and on-table dynamics to their core references. Drones and plasma work quite differently in either version of Starmada to how they do in SFB, FC, or ACtA:SF; indeed, while Admiralty Edition was more like A Call to Arms in terms of porting weapon mounts (and firing arcs) on a one-for-one basis, Nova Edition abstracts things even further, by having a set of more generic batteries per weapon system, to more or less approximate the weight of fire (from all of that weapon's mounts) the ship can dish out.

Does this raise questions about how representative the units involved are when they come out the other side? Most likely.

Would there be a different set of viewpoints from those coming to the SFU from other forms of Starmada, relative to those new to Starmada from other SFU games? I'd be surprised if it didn't crop up now and then.

But even if the terms of each licencing agreement (between ADB and Majestic 12, and between ADB and Mongoose) didn't come with the set of built-in equivalency expectations, I don't think either ongoing effort to develop the SFU in a "non-native" game system would work if either the new-to-Starmada (or new-to-ACtA) crowd, or their counterparts from either game's player base who are new to the SFU, try to evict the other rather than try and work together.


As an aside, the Admiralty and Nova editions of Battleships Armada have just been released this week; that file covers many of the units we may be likely to see in the next book for ACtA:SF, such as battleships. It may be interesting to see how these giants of space make the transition to either slice of Starmada, and see how it may compare or contrast with the effort to get ships like the Mars into this game.

 

[MarkDawg]

@storeylf,@Nerroth I don't care about FC, Armada or if you feel its a fleet game or not. All you do is derail topics do you have anything to say about the phaser G or escorts please comment but if you want to discuss the other stuff start your own thread please.