Simple rules vs. Complexity

[Hash]

I like ACTA because it's simple and straight forward compared to most wargames...in fact I don't generally play many other "wargames" because I'm not a big fan of complex rules in games although I understand other players get a kick out of it. Simple to learn, tricky to master is what I'm looking for in a game. (usually, I still thing ACTA could do with a much better campaign system that random rolling for scenario).

For others, complexity adds tactical options and makes the game more interesting...caveats and exceptions are waiting there to be used against the opponent when the opportunity presents itself. If you wanted to play a "simple" wargame you would haven't have shelled out on a £20 - £40 set of rules and just stuck with Crossbows & Catapults

What do you prefer? I'll kick this off with things I'd like to see "simplified":

Consistent terminology - If someone shoots me with a medium laser, it would be awesome if the stats for medium laser were identical across the game (or at least fleet). i.e. same traits, same range. By all means change the attack dice and arc depending on how many of them and where they are mounted though.

Bias towards bigger and fewer rather than swarms - ACTA as stands makes it usually better to buy down and get as many ships of lower priority than buy up and get higher priority ships. I don't much like this for several reasons:
a) More ships means more booking i.e. less simple
b) The big ships are MUCH, MUCH cooler looking (possible exception of Armageddon ships)
I mean a G'Quan is a beautiful model but sadly be usually beaten by the chap that takes an equivalent amount of G'Quans.

Less caveats, less exceptions - ACTA as stands has a lot of special situations and exceptions to the standard rules. While some of these are indeed clever and interesting - less is more for me and I certainly wouldn't want the current ruleset to get even more traits and special things you can do to tweak things - more reading for me!

Structured rulebook - ACTA doesn't have the most logical of layouts; because the main rules, SFoS and Armageddon are seperate - you often have to flick between 'em to find an answer to something. Unfortunately even within say SFoS - it can be difficult to find exactly what you want. Does anyone else think this could use a review?

Just my 2 cents worth

 

[Silvereye]

Good post Hash. I kind of agree, simplicity is what makes ACTA such a good game. I disagree with your argument about adding complexity to add tactical options. With the way ACTA works, the crunchy bits do not detract from strategy and tactics. In fact I think that they help improve things. In much the same way that Go is a much simpler and more tactical game then chess.

Consistent terminology - If someone shoots me with a medium laser, it would be awesome if the stats for medium laser were identical across the game (or at least fleet). i.e. same traits, same range. By all means change the attack dice and arc depending on how many of them and where they are mounted though.

To some extent yes, I would like the weapons traits to be broadly the same throughout a race just for simplicity. However I would expect Range, AD and Arc to be entirely variable. Also when designing a ship, it could be expected that the hull design or technology fluff could tweak the traits in some way.

Bias towards bigger and fewer rather than swarms - ACTA as stands makes it usually better to buy down and get as many ships of lower priority than buy up and get higher priority ships. I don't much like this for several reasons:
a) More ships means more booking i.e. less simple
b) The big ships are MUCH, MUCH cooler looking (possible exception of Armageddon ships)
I mean a G'Quan is a beautiful model but sadly be usually beaten by the chap that takes an equivalent amount of G'Quans.

I agree with A and B, however, the races as they stand do not all favour the 'big is best' approach which is indeed a good thing and should be envouraged. In balance though, I think sizing needs to be looked at somewhat, I'd like to really have to think whether I take 1 G'Quan, or 4 Ka'Tocs. Not just grab the Ka'Tocs.

Less caveats, less exceptions - ACTA as stands has a lot of special situations and exceptions to the standard rules. While some of these are indeed clever and interesting - less is more for me and I certainly wouldn't want the current ruleset to get even more traits and special things you can do to tweak things - more reading for me!

Not too sure on this, it is the traits, that really make the difference between a laser and a particle array and between Gothic and ACTA (which is why I don't care about playing Gothic any more). Traits are good thing, and a sentance or two is nothing to read as long as it adds to the game.

Structured rulebook - ACTA doesn't have the most logical of layouts; because the main rules, SFoS and Armageddon are seperate - you often have to flick between 'em to find an answer to something. Unfortunately even within say SFoS - it can be difficult to find exactly what you want. Does anyone else think this could use a review?

Thats what they have said they are planning, and I'm hoping whomever they have chosen as a proffreader holds them to this at the proofreading stage.

 

[Target]

Agree on the weapon stats thing for across the fleet list, range & traits should stay the same, The AD is for how effective the weapon is.

We scrapped the crew score for speed, in bigger games it's pain subtracting different amounts for each score. Still have a version of crew score so you can still be skelton crewed. Get rid of things like afterburners that you have to keep track of, there are to many fighters to make this easy. Simplicity is good.

I disagree on the traits thing as long as they don't cancel each other, don't want a paper, rock, sissors thing. I quite like traits & SA's wouldn't worry me if there was more. Would even go along with racial SA's.

Guess the rulebook thing should improve with 2nd Edition.

 

[Ripple]

Things I'd like

Pretty much everything Hash said.

Consistent Terminology is a big one. On one hand it makes the game flow smoother, on the other it allows for a bit more in character chatter at the table. This is a big selling point for folks in my area who like to get into the feel of what they are playing.

A bias toward bigger...which I would like as small ships already have a built in bias (initiative sinking). The Arm. breakdown, while more logical, just allows too many ships. At battle level I get four to one if I take the full breakdown...for EA that 2 hermes, an olympus, and a hyperion or a single omega (which may never get to shoot its beam or launch it full fighter complement).

Less exceptions...this is always good. Always. I would urge that this also be applied to traits. No trait should do more than one thing. See minibeams (bypass interceptors, anti-fighter sort of within range) and AJP (jump transit resistance, jump point accuracy, basic jump point). If you want multiple effects put multiple traits, easier for everyone to remember the rules for each one. Memory is tricky, the smaller bites it has to work with the better. Rules are trickier, the more you write about each specific case the more likely you are to introduce odd language that creates confusion (is mini-beam anti-dodge or anti-fighter...)

One rulebook to rule them all is better.

Outside of that...

Change boresight. The two situations that are too strange under the current rule are that you cannot 'track' a ship moving almost straight towards you without a bunch of initiative sinks and in an all boresight fleet at least on ship will do nothing every turn you lose initiative. That makes no sense. An SA that allows a ship to 'reserve' one turn to track a pre-designated target would fix both issues. (And don't make it a stupidly hard CQ check as that just means it becomes another Run Silent, never used as there is always something better to do, including doing nothing. Something that happens one time in three is not going to help.)

Adopt a basing standard, or remove the rule about bases overlapping. If the stem is all that matters then stick to that as otherwise FA has big advantage in tight formations.

Ripple

 

[Hash]

Adopt a basing standard, or remove the rule about bases overlapping. If the stem is all that matters then stick to that as otherwise FA has big advantage in tight formations.

That's very true! Some of our local players have an extensive collection of FA models and the number of time their ability to get into those 'hard to get to' places have been what made the difference in many games! This to me is one of the biggest flaws with ACTA as a tournament style game (it's less of an issue with friendlies as we tend to be a bit looser about what we allow) and I dearly hope they have revised this in 2nd edition.

Wow - the complexity lovers (I'm looking at you B5 Wars fans ) people seem to be way in the minority here (or just haven't posted yet). What does everyone else think...a debate needs an opposing view you know

 

[Tank]

FA, reaches the places other models cant :lol:

Mongoose have been quite good tho in not invalidating those people that invested in FA by ruling that only normal scale can be used in tourneys.

I do agree that FA has an advantage in the close in furballs but would be loathe to have to rebase them! especially as they all fit so nicely into a GW case :lol:

If of course tourneys are to be more serious then basing should be taken into account but may be wanting to be represented by size per PL?

As to simplicity vs complexity having played and got sick of B5Wars I really do like ACTA for its simplicity in game play and just enough special orders & traits to keep it interesting without overloading players with too much to remember.

 

[tneva82]

FA, reaches the places other models cant :lol:

Attach ships magnetically into the bases. That way you can remove the ships from bases if need be :lol:

Won't solve the base size issue but helps with models poking each other...

 

[Alexb83]

There's alot to be said for complexity in certain circumstances - Personally I love the vector thrust system in full thrust. I don't find it particularly complex, and it makes a great tactical game of move, counter move and anticipation. Once you get to grips with it, you can use it just as quickly and easily as with the move/turn/move/turn system in ACTA, IMO.

It would be nice to have unified weapons across the board - why for instance is a graviton pulsar precise for Minbari, whereas for Whitestars it's AF but not precise (IIRC)? They're the same weapon, surely.
Why do a Torotha's fusion guns only shoot 12 instead of 18 inches? And so on... at least all the traits are very uniform and easy to remember how to use - it's much easier using ACTA weapons than trying to remember the range/damage bands for a class 4 Graser or a Plasma Torpedo in Full thrust, IMO.

One of the things that bugged me in SST evo was the move towards weapons being described on the cards rather than in a statline - I used to like the nice uniform description for weapons rather than having each described on the cards, personally.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Consistent terminology - If someone shoots me with a medium laser, it would be awesome if the stats for medium laser were identical across the game (or at least fleet). i.e. same traits, same range. By all means change the attack dice and arc depending on how many of them and where they are mounted though..

I agree with this completely. Well almost, range I could see varying but traits should be consistent.

.
I mean a G'Quan is a beautiful model but sadly be usually beaten by the chap that takes an equivalent amount of G'Quans

That's confusing! :lol: I assume you mean number of ships equivalent to a G'Quan

 

[captainsmirk]

It would be nice to have unified weapons across the board - why for instance is a graviton pulsar precise for Minbari, whereas for Whitestars it's AF but not precise (IIRC)? They're the same weapon, surely.

Presumably you mean Molecular Pulsars as Graviton Pulsars are only used by the Brakiri...

Obviously the White Star it fitted with a super sophisticated fire control system which can hit tiny fighters, but not tiny specific areas of big ships... :?


Nick

 

[Xorrandor]

Wow - the complexity lovers (I'm looking at you B5 Wars fans ) people seem to be way in the minority here (or just haven't posted yet). What does everyone else think...a debate needs an opposing view you know

I don't know that I qualify as a B5Wars fan, since I only ever got a chance to play two games IIRC. (It's all still in my basement, if anyone is interested in a game some time...) Still, I'm generally a fan of "complexity", but not for the reasons given here.

I like complexity because I want to have an interesting game out of 1-3 miniatures per side. ACtA, despite the minis scale, just isn't set up for that. If I run a frigate duel in Attack Vector, it will involve lots of twisting and turning to avoid coilgun shots while trying to keep your lasers and armor lined up with your opponent. If I run a cruiser duel in B5W, I can play offensive/defensive games with EW, bring undamaged broadsides into play, that sort of thing. If I run a cruiser duel in ACtA, they sorta move toward each other and we roll lots of dice. You need a fleet to make ACtA really shine, and I'm not as interested in fleet games. Partially that's my aversion to painting, but mostly it's finding the role of ship's captain more interesting than the role of fleet admiral.

I also have mental problems with spaceships that have a maximum speed, that don't maintain momentum, and those sorts of things. As I see it, momentum isn't complexity, it's reality. And anyone who plays pool/billiards has an intuitive comprehension of 2D momentum, even if they don't usually use it in wargames.

 

[Da Boss]

To mix the pot - I like the game as it is - I like the simplicity and the traits make the ships different yet easy to use - just played a 5 point war level battle which it all helps. I agree ACTA works best with a good number of ships - I could never get to grips with SFB style games and similarily Full thrust / Interceptor gives me a headache - too difficult - especially after a day at work.!

 

[Hash]

@Emperor Penguin - yes, I meant equivalent ships, thank you. Silvereye expresses it with the example I intended (i.e. equivalent Ka'Tocs vs. G'Quan)

@Xorrandor - Didn't mean to misrepresent the argument of complexity vs. simplicity. If I were to summarise your point; you are suggesting that an accurate reflection of real world physics makes a more interesting game? I would suggest that's entirely up to the preferences person playing, but I respect that viewpoint.

We all want a more interesting game - for me moving miniatures around on a board is abstract enough that it certainly doesn't offend me not to consider the conservation of momentum. Although I must admit a friend of mine I introduced the game to really didn't like how he had to continually give a SPECIAL ORDER just to sit still in space and shoot. He, and I have some sympathy for this viewpoint, saw no reason why his longer range "artillery" type ships could not simply sit at maximum range and bombard the battlefield normally. Likewise he wasn't too impressed by the large amount of dice rolling involved (primarily a board gamer) but he did still enjoy the game.

 

[Xorrandor]

@Xorrandor - Didn't mean to misrepresent the argument of complexity vs. simplicity. If I were to summarise your point; you are suggesting that an accurate reflection of real world physics makes a more interesting game? I would suggest that's entirely up to the preferences person playing, but I respect that viewpoint.

Oh, I don't think you misrepresented anything. It's just that it isn't a simple one-dimensional problem: complex vs. simple. I actually made two points in my post: one about game size (few ships vs. lots of ships) and one about movement systems (momentum vs. naval). Both of those are basically independent, and "complexity" is more a social construct on those questions than an absolute number. Your example is a good one: one player found the movement in ACtA annoyingly counter-intuitive and complex because he just wanted to sit still in space. Another person might find moving 10 ships using a tape measure and turn guage far more complex than moving 2 ships on a hex grid.

I rather like ACtA as it is. If I were designing a game for my own use, I would probably add complexity by the usual definitions: track momentum, use a hex grid, add more rules for squadrons and formations. But I would also have a more structured rulebook and consistent terminology, just as you describe. Lots of people refer to the latter as complexity, because the language starts to resemble a legal document more than a conversation; I find it to be less complex, because you don't get into comma-parsing arguments during games.

I suppose there is actually a complexity scale, too: obviously if you added separate tracking of officers to the crew casualties, that would increase complexity on its own. I think this is what you are talking about with "less caveats", anyway. I think ACtA has the balance about right for this, actually: the weapon attributes are fairly complete, although adding a few more area weapons might be nice. The detail level is a little low for small battles, IMHO: a one-on-one duel really does boil down to dice rolling. But for the 5-10 ship games that are the norm, it keeps record keeping from becoming too onerous, while still providing interesting challenges.

 

[greenboy]

I like ACTA because it's simple and straight forward compared to most wargames.

For others, complexity adds tactical options and makes the game more interesting...caveats and exceptions are waiting there to be used against the opponent when the opportunity presents itself. If you wanted to play a "simple" wargame you would haven't have shelled out on a £20 - £40 set of rules and just stuck with Crossbows & Catapults

I used to love that game when i wad a kid any one play submarine commander which was like a cross between that and battle ships ?


Consistent terminology - If someone shoots me with a medium laser, it would be awesome if the stats for medium laser were identical across the game (or at least fleet). i.e. same traits, same range. By all means change the attack dice and arc depending on how many of them and where they are mounted though.

The worst wone is where the weapon name does not match the traits eg Drazi partical beams which have anti fighter weak

 

[Celisasu]

What? We don't want any more rear mounted anti-fighter heavy beam weapons on Drakh ships? :lol:

 

[Hash]

I rather like ACtA as it is. If I were designing a game for my own use, I would probably add complexity by the usual definitions: track momentum, use a hex grid, add more rules for squadrons and formations. But I would also have a more structured rulebook and consistent terminology, just as you describe. Lots of people refer to the latter as complexity, because the language starts to resemble a legal document more than a conversation; I find it to be less complex, because you don't get into comma-parsing arguments during games.

I think that's an excellent point, and worth noting. I condensed the main topic to broad categories to start the debate but you're quite right with that distinction between what I would say is complex and what is say, comprehensive. Truth be told I wouldn't necessarily mind a more comprehensive ruleset (i.e. more rules) if the rules were consistent, logical and presented in a clearly structured format.

For example, I would GREATLY love the campaign section of the book to be greatly expanded to allow a strategic campaign akin with a level of "complexity" akin to the old GW Mighty Empires Game. I would pay a very reasonable amount for something like that for ACTA (hint Mongoose!).

Personally, I do think that the core of the game however should be inherently simple, balanced, and anyone can enjoy in about 5 mins from no prior exposure to gaming...maybe ambitious but I think it important to appeal to the beginning market at first to "hook" people in. I seriously doubt I would ever have been involved with ACTA if I had been told at the start I needed X many books just to play the current version of the game. In anycase, simple and basic doesn't cut it for all and so any ruleset that would seek to meet the needs of the larger gaming market should consider taking a modular approach to rules so that "advanced" rules could be seamlessly added to appeal to those who care for a more comprehensive approach....then again there are those who would call that complex

Wow and I thought serious debate was dead on these forums :shock: