So what's going on with the third edition of A Call to Arms?

[Triggy]

You could still whore out on patrol PL choices though. If you're going to do that then you may as well make the scores even more granular and from the other side of things, if you've taken out all of the limitations regarding what PL a battle is then frankly you may as well allow ships to have "costs" inbetween PLs as you're not structuring the buying system anymore.

 

[Torg Smith]

We don't need a whole new system. We just need the rules with Babylon 5 stripped out. This way if you want to recruit a new player they can buy the rules and play. As it is now the new player needs to get their hands on an out of print book. The rules do not need to be pretty, just available for legal distribution.

 

[McKickaha]

We don't need a whole new system. We just need the rules with Babylon 5 stripped out. This way if you want to recruit a new player they can buy the rules and play. As it is now the new player needs to get their hands on an out of print book. The rules do not need to be pretty, just available for legal distribution.

Ah........... remember that Mongoose are running a business as well as providing games.

Besides although CTA is good doesn't mean to say that it has no flaws nor cannot be made even better.

e.g I would prefer points based ships, for a whole host of reasons and I belive Matt has said at one time, may have changed now tho, that non bab CTA will move to a points based ship system.

I suspect we may learn the plan at end Nov.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Ah yes points. Use numbers like 1500pts with ships costing 100pts or more. I don't like the straight points system (you always need a calculator).

Perhaps a compromise could be used.

Keep the current Priority system with the following "tweek".

The better a ship is in the Priority level (like Raid) then the closer to one full FAP it costs.

As follows

Earth Alliance 3rd Age.

Avenger Carrier 1pt
Nova Dreadnought .75pt
Hyperion Heavy Cruiser .5pt
Explorer Survey ship .5pt

You can use the standard FAP breakdown, however you may not break down partial points.

This is a total arbitrary example with no further thought then to be an example. Balance is not intended.

 

[McKickaha]

Joe - Agree resolution is important. Enough to balance the ships, or allow balance adjustment/refinement, but still maintain ease & speed of set up.

Guess thats one reason why I am not a game designer.

At least in the next verison of CTA I am assuming that there will be a lot less ships to balance. Can't see Mongoose going down the shaky / disastrous business route of producing over 200 new moulds and ship designs. And although I love B5, CTA and its minis, a viable space table top game doesn't need that much choice, sacrilige I know. :lol:

 

[locarno24]

most weapons crits could be toned down (e.g. only fire on a 2+/3+, -1AD, half AD on your longest ranged weapon, etc.)

To be honest, the simplest solution for weapons crits is to put more granularity into the ship's weapons, as well as the table.


For example; imagine if the omega's forward armament consisted of two seperate heavy lasers of 3AD each, whilst the Olympus gunship only had one such weapon with about the same AD as one of the Omega's guns.

so the Omega would have a statline:

Heavy Laser B 30 3AD Beam, Double Damage
Heavy Laser B 30 3AD Beam, Double Damage


Then you have the ability to put in criticals like 'destroy one weapons system on the nearest facing' or 'destroy D6 weapons systems on the nearest facing' - at which point a big ship does retain the durability of its weapons as well as its hull - since the port broadside of a pulse omega consists of 1,452,673 heavy pulse cannons you shouldn't be able to take them all out with one shot from a delta-v's gun.
From starboard.


It's a bit reminiscent of B5Wars but (provided you don't go mad with the granularity) it adds a bit more realism without much more bookkeeping.

It also adds a way to make certain ship's weapons tougher - an omega, as noted, has two heavy lasers on the prow but a marathon might (for a random example) only have one heavy neutron cannon despite it representing roughly the same quantity of firepower - it just hits like the proverbial tonne of bricks. Loose it, though, and you got nothing, whilst the omega can at least keep shooting on half firepower if one of the lasers is blown off.

It also allows for ships that would otherwise be at the same PL to beseperated by points if one is slightly (in some cases clearly) the better of the two.

Priority levels I like. As noted a points system would let you tweak costs to acknowledge that an early years nova is worth 112% of a third age (or whatever) but the thing is that getting thirty-odd points spare in a thousand-point game doesn't really help unless you have the ability to spend them in a helpful manner - so unless (as noted) you get access to a load of cheap 'ship refits' or 'veteran captain' abilities you're still left with a not-quite-balanced fleet.

Other games with points systems still consistantly fail to produce balanced army/fleet lists. Personally, I think the system is simple, quick to use, and user-friendly. It's good, it's unique, and whilst units aren't always balanced point-for-point, as long as they're not grossly unbalanced it doesn't matter.

Tweaking the grossly unbalanced ships is important but it's done via statline rather than points cost.

I can see an argument for some composition restrictions (to prevent, for example, an all sagitarius fleet when it's theoretically a support ship to start with), but ultimately anything more than 'rare' and 'common' like war of the ring (cannot have as many rare as common) threatens to 'complicate up' fleet selection to the point that you loose the simplicity.

Also, with a lot of fleets, there are only one or two choices at a given priority level anyway, and the nature of splitting down points means you must have a 'core' fighting ship at each priority level or end up sooner or later with a fleet list that forces you to take a million scouts, or troop transports, or whatever (note - I know shadows will do this anyway but the shadow scout is a nasty warship in its own right with the scout trait being pretty much a bonus).

I do agree, however, that it causes problems that being 'better' is only recognised in multiples of two - whilst I like priority levels, having a ship's cost only increase in a doubling series, not a linear fashion, does mean that, as noted, you regularly feel a ship should be "...and a half". A refitted and improved variant, for example, won't be twice as good - so shouldn't go up a priority level - so shouldn't be better at all. Which feels daft.

A system based on priority but with a few more levels, and where the priority levels were of 'value' 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 seems better for that sort of thing than one where they are of 'value' 1,2,4,8,16,32.

However the problem is that you rapidly run into the 'top end' of the scale; prior to Armageddon there was a common complaint that the Shadow Warship (for example) didn't feel scary enough; being able to have the odd ship that is genuinely worth 32 sunhawks helps make different fleets feel VERY different.

However again, a doubling series comes with its own problems - if power doubles at every level, then the 'allowable variance' in power at that level will almost inevitably double - if we dredge up that comment about one variant being worth 112% of the original, then on an armageddon-priority ship that's the equivalent of nearly four 'free' sunhawks of combat power.

 

[l33tpenguin]

I don't ever want to see acta loss the fap. Its different. Its part of acta. It just needs fixed. I'm fine with odd point breakdowns. I'm not fine with ships not being worth their fap. Crit protection goes a long way towards this. Ships should not regularly become floating hulks 1/2 or 3/4s of the way through their damage track. I love seeing large ships on the board, players should be encouraged to bring them out. A player should be worried when that war or arm. ship is placed on the table, rather than a dozen patrol ships.

Something I would like to see, but don't see happening, is the use of d10 over d6. This is a small thing for me, but would give mongoose more flexability with things that I believe would help as well. The additional 4 points allow their to be a greater range of definition in armor and weapons than a d6 allows and gives more room for a smoother crit table.

A broader fap table. Sorry, but with the number of PLs currently, there are some big jumps in capability as well as some ships at higher levels that aren't as awesome as they should be.

Are we seeing a trend... more granularity anyone?

Some changes I think would be major improvements for a new addition would also be very easy to implement (comparativly). Crit protection, for one. Somewhere deep down in these threads is my draft for crit protection. I like the redundacy model. Tthe addition of 1 new trait (a trait that is close to a standard across each PL) that would add a single roll (and only when determaning a crit).

Aside - I'm a big fan of the fast gameplay style of acta. I don't like lots of rules and lots of figuring things out. Acta is great for that. The PL system is FAR faster than standard points systems where you are balancing 1500 odd points with very different unit costs in order to spend as many points as possible and still have a good selection of units.

Back on point - using the system I designed, when a crit was rolled, the attacker would again roll, this time against the defending ships redundancy score. If the roll was the same or higher, the crit was successful, continue as normal. I also had successful crits decreasing the targets redundancy by 1, so successful crits made future crits easier to attain. Unsuccessful rolls would only cause damage. Actually, this system almost evens out on dice rolls, as unsuccessful crits would ignore rolling crit checks. This mechanic also gives mongoose another tool for ship balancing. If you want to take a look at the full write up I have, feel free to message me. I have a draft of ship redundancy scores as well . I also have my reworked cbd sa that uses this rule, basically, cbd give (or boosts) a ships redundacy score and absorbs damage while reducing the total ad of its weapons.

I have some other little gripes, but they are minor. Its the frustrating things that id really like to see fixed. At the same time, I would like to see them fixed in a way consistant with the style of acta - fast, easy to learn and fun gameplay that doesn't require massive bookkeeping and rules lawyering.

 

[l33tpenguin]

Note - please ignore some of the typos and mistakes in that previous post. I'm posting from my g-1 and editing mistakes is too painstaking from a cellphone. So, I ask for a little understanding

 

[lastbesthope]

Ah yes points. Use numbers like 1500pts with ships costing 100pts or more. I don't like the straight points system (you always need a calculator).

I don't, but then my ability to mentally calculate scores at Alpha Strike for the Mongoose SST tourney was one of the reasons Matt Sprange started calling me "Freak-Boy!"

LBH

 

[Torg Smith]

We don't need a whole new system. We just need the rules with Babylon 5 stripped out. This way if you want to recruit a new player they can buy the rules and play. As it is now the new player needs to get their hands on an out of print book. The rules do not need to be pretty, just available for legal distribution.

Ah........... remember that Mongoose are running a business as well as providing games.

<snip>

I suspect we may learn the plan at end Nov.

You missed the point of my post.

You cannot buy this game easily now. I suppose if you did a real thorough search and took chances with anybody claiming to sell it you could get it.

Yes they are in business to sell games. Because of the fact that they do not have a license to sell the game at this time in its current form, they are not in the business to sell this product. Obviously we have bought the game already so it is not an issue to us.

Let's say you meet a new player online and talk about the game to them and they want to play. Let's say that this is the first time they have heard about the game. This would mean that they have not bought the game already. How would you play the game with them over the web with a VTT software package?

If it is not available at any store near them they are SOL. This is a problem with licensed products.

 

[Greg Smith]

If it is not available at any store near them they are SOL. This is a problem with licensed products.

It isn't a specifically a problem with licenced products. It is a problem with games (and books and other products) going out of print.

If you wanted to buy and play Man o'War, you can't. And so on for Chainsaw Warrior, Apocalypse, Boot Hill, Lords of Creation, Lands of Adventure....

Sometimes the good ones return - Space Hulk, Warhammer FRPG, Fury of Dracula, Lone Wolf, Dragon Warriors. Sometimes they don't, and ebay and second hand store are the only option.

 

[McKickaha]

We don't need a whole new system. We just need the rules with Babylon 5 stripped out. This way if you want to recruit a new player they can buy the rules and play. As it is now the new player needs to get their hands on an out of print book. The rules do not need to be pretty, just available for legal distribution.

Ah........... remember that Mongoose are running a business as well as providing games.

<snip>

I suspect we may learn the plan at end Nov.

You missed the point of my post.

You cannot buy this game easily now. I suppose if you did a real thorough search and took chances with anybody claiming to sell it you could get it.

Yes they are in business to sell games. Because of the fact that they do not have a license to sell the game at this time in its current form, they are not in the business to sell this product. Obviously we have bought the game already so it is not an issue to us.
.

No you miss my point and then strangely justify it.

Say I spend, limited, time, resources and money only removing B5 content from CTA, making no other changes to the game. Anyone who already has the second edition ruleset is not going to buy the new one.

And lets face it after 5-6 years, global B5 CTA is probably a more or less saturated market or at least has insufficient new player growth. If it wasn't, Mongoose would have retained the licence, (there may be other factors of course)

And while I put resources into this plan I divert those away from producing other game system products that have a wider sales audience.

Bad buisness decision and also a waste of the CTA "brand", (as opposed to B5CTA).

So what you do instead is further improve the game engine, add in new fluff, maybe under a new licence, maybe not, (Mongoose are however known for their love for licenced universes)

and then sell this new CTA edition to the globe.

We all buy, our friends buy, our neighbours buy.........................etc.

 

[H]

I started reading this post, but then started thinking about sugar because of people saying granular.. almost.

at the end of the day B5 has been off the screens for a blinkin long time. Any licenced game will reach a point where the new uptake is not enough to justify the cost of making and supporting it. Without new episodes of B5, or movies etc, it was never going to last forever. I think it got a bleedin good run anyway and will no doubt continue in fan written supplements, updates, tweaks etc. and you can always continue to play old games thorugh the beauty of the above (usually PDF resources) and the joys of E-Bay.

any new CTA version will "porbably" be useable with B5 anyway, ok again it may well take the fans to do the work, but we have done a good job so far i'd like to think. failing that, there are other space combat rules that might lend themselves to B5 if new CTA doesn't appear

 

[l33tpenguin]

Does anyone know the legality as far as creating player made suppliments, publically available for a no longer published, licenced material?

I.e. let's say call to arms 3rd edition from mongoose publishing never sees the light of day, would I be able to write my own '3rd' edition ruleset? Would I have to avoid taking directly from already printed material due to copywrite? Could I reference 2nd edition material if I was still using it? Reference, not reprint.

I ask, because if 3rd edition never sees the light of day, I would be more than willing to head up a fan made 3rd edition ruleset. I've seen several player made continuations of discontinued games and would be proud to keep b5 alive for future gamers.

I'll probably end up doing it anyhow... I already have pages of homerules writen that address some problems I have with the game. But a colaborative work would be fun

I also trust that something done with multiple input will be more balanced and fair (not that I wouldn't try to be, but you know how things are from different points of view) and i'd rather see input from others in regards to races I'm unfimiliar with.

 

[sidewinder]

Just dont over do it. Balance is relative. If you want a truely balanced game play checkers. If you try do make the different races perfectly balanced then they just end up all looking and playing the same.

 

[H]

Does anyone know the legality as far as creating player made suppliments, publically available for a no longer published, licenced material?

I.e. let's say call to arms 3rd edition from mongoose publishing never sees the light of day, would I be able to write my own '3rd' edition ruleset? Would I have to avoid taking directly from already printed material due to copywrite? Could I reference 2nd edition material if I was still using it? Reference, not reprint.

I ask, because if 3rd edition never sees the light of day, I would be more than willing to head up a fan made 3rd edition ruleset. I've seen several player made continuations of discontinued games and would be proud to keep b5 alive for future gamers.

I'll probably end up doing it anyhow... I already have pages of homerules writen that address some problems I have with the game. But a colaborative work would be fun

I also trust that something done with multiple input will be more balanced and fair (not that I wouldn't try to be, but you know how things are from different points of view) and i'd rather see input from others in regards to races I'm unfimiliar with.

Well, Assuming you do a development of the 2nd ed rules, and don't do it for profit, I think Mongoose would probably be cool with it, as it's just another "fan supplement" much like DaBoss's works. I don't think warner bro's would be too bothered unless you started making a whole raft of brand new ships and attributing them to the B5 universe and implying JMS and WB backed it etc etc.

with respect to referencing 2nd ed stuff and suchlike, you can reference easily enough, you "might" even be able to re-print it if you ask permission. Matt once said I would be ok to replicate 2nd ed fleetlist pics in a fan supplement, conditional on not for profit etc. which was very good of him.. as it was I never did said supplement, but I think charles is doing the same subject soon... i could be wrong lol

 

[Burger]

I think if you published a fan-made "3rd edition" that was a complete ruleset, based on or modified from 2nd ed, Mongoose would jump on you harder than a hippo on amphetamines. Whether you did it for profit or charge to cover costs or give it away for free is irrelevant; you would be infringing Mongoose's copyright and they would put a stop to it immediately.

Fan-made supplements such as Da Boss's are not complete rule sets, they are additional house rules and stats for new ships. To use it you would still need to purchase the 2nd ed rules.

 

[H]

hence me saying a development of the 2nd ed rules

 

[McKickaha]

I think if you published a fan-made "3rd edition" that was a complete ruleset, based on or modified from 2nd ed, Mongoose would jump on you harder than a hippo on amphetamines.

Agree with Burger on this one.

(And by the way, Burger, how much dosage does it to take to make a Hippo jump, and how high can they go).

Edit - to add - In my view, Hiff, any game engine development of 2 by definition has to infringe on a "actual/hypthetical/theoretical" whatever Mongoose edition 3, so don't think Mongoose would be very happy about that.

 

[Stonehorse]

Am I right in thinking that Mongoose plan to base the 3rd edition on a pre-existing Sci-Fi franchise?

What I would like to see is a point system, the Priority system currently used is too erratic I find. I'd also like to see a more refined critical system, as it is now it is a lot of book keeping. One critical chart would surface.