Star Trek Ship Combat System

davyj0427

Mongoose
After reading the Star Trek RPG Thread below, I was thinking of a Star Trek version of A Call To Arms. I think the system there works very well. I know there is a mod out but I like the idea of something official. Although I can't even guess what is all involved in making this come to fruition I think will the ACTA base laid out it would be a matter of tweaking it to make I work for Star Trek. Please consider it I think it would be a good addition to Mongoose.
G
 
There is a game called Star Fleet Battles that is kind of a cross between the old game Babylon 5 Wars, and ACTA. But reads like old Military Manuels and literally takes days to play with a decent size fleet.
 
There is also SFB's lighter brother, Federation Commander. Much faster,much simpler, and yet, uses the same ships as SFB...
 
SFB isn't Star Trek, though. It just looks like it. The game is horrendous to learn to play, though - especially as most of the rules are in fact exceptions or clarifications designed to cover specific situations, like what the effect is when a Kzinti MW drone intercepts a Lyran ESG when ascending an Andromedan TE. And if you understand that, then you know what I mean.

An alternative to consider might be the old FASA Tactical Combat Simulator. It is definitely Star Trek and a lot easier as it only covers what has been seen in the movies and the original series.
 
I've played SFB and ST3TCS... ST3 isn't a terribly good game; the 1st edition of the RPG had a better implementation.

SFB is overcomplex. FC is a streamlined version.

When I taught people B5W (Yes, I'm in the playtester list for 1st ed), I described it as "SFB done right, but with Bab5 ships."

SFB is very much true to the combats of Classic Trek, and also the classic trek novels.

While I would LOVE to see a decent, well supported Trek line (and preferably, one that is Traveller based, and both ship and RPG), fighting the monster that is ADB's line may not be worth it, since it is the perpetual standard against which all other Trek combat games will be judged, and the rights are hard to obtain and to keep, based upon the last 20 years of trek gaming.
 
AKAramis said:
I've played SFB and ST3TCS... ST3 isn't a terribly good game; the 1st edition of the RPG had a better implementation.

I though that the full version of the TCS was the same as the 1st edition? the rules for allowing players to take charge of different systems certainly part of 1st ed. Or am I thinking of aomething totally different?

While I would LOVE to see a decent, well supported Trek line (and preferably, one that is Traveller based, and both ship and RPG), fighting the monster that is ADB's line may not be worth it, since it is the perpetual standard against which all other Trek combat games will be judged, and the rights are hard to obtain and to keep, based upon the last 20 years of trek gaming.

Would Traveller really be capable of supporting a ST game? IMO, any Traveller ship combat game would probably have to continue the line from Mayday through to Battleriders, and trying to shoe-horn Trek into it would just not work. The two combat models are totally different - so different you would almost need to create a new set of rules to cope.
 
Depends deeply upon your assumptions.

SFB assumes all combat occurs at low warp speeds.

ST3 allowed combat at any match warp course, or at sublight

The actual trek canon shows most combat at sublight. And only about 20-30 G's of acceleration.

And traveller could easily handle the latter with just a scale change.
 
My assumptions are based more on TOS and TAS than TNG or anything that follows it. Combat on those occasions tends to follow the ST3 model.

However, even if you go by the TNG examples, I doubt a Traveller-style game could cope with it. For a start, Traveller has always used vectored movement. Trek relies on (inertialess?) impulse drives where no power = no go. Secondly, the combat ranges in Traveller significantly exceed the movement allowances (unless you allow pre-game manoeuvring). From what I remember of TNG etc, combat took place at visual ranges in most cases - certainly not the 1000s of k that Traveller combat seems to take place at. While SFB and ST3 reflect this, they do not depict ST combat in the way that is familiar to most fans.

While you could use the same basic mechanics, the flavour of combat in the two universes is so different, the mechanics of movement and the range/movement ratios would make the games totally different - or so I would think.

Plus, there are the differences in technology ...
 
I have played SFB quite a bit and the length games take is what turns me off of it. My gaming time is precious to me and ACTA seems like a perfect game system for me. I just enjoy Star Trek better the Babylon 5. If you were to do a game almost exactly like ACTA and us Star Trek : The Next Generation I believe you wouldn't even clash with SFB players. they are truly 2 different games. I do have a copy of Federation Commander I have yet to play a game of it much less read the rules. Maybe I would like it. I just enjoy ACTA so much, if was based on Star Trek I would be the best game on Earth. Seriously on Earth, and maybe the Universe!!!
G
(aka Davyj0427)
 
I agree totally. ACTA Star Trek would be amazing and a great opportunity for Mongoose to expand the ACTA player base. Much as I like B5, it just doesn't have the potential wide appeal that a well supported Star Trek miniature game could achieve, IMHO. Especially as there are a lot of ships for the Star Trek universe which have never been made available as miniatures.

Renny
 
before you discount SFB you ought to give Federation Commander a chance it is much more streamlined than old school SFB (energy deduction on the fly, base line speeds no EW etc.) It's smoother than B5W IMHO, and it still feels enough like SFB to maintain that feel of space combat. and yes fleet combat is faster (heck even possible) under these rules. yeah it may not have movie or TNG ships but that would be the only real selling point for me to buy ACTA with Star Trek ships. I love ACTA, but I like that the games are different for different feels and seriously FC is truly SFB done right!
 
I for one have my fingeres crossed that this new Licensed ACTA product line they are talking about will be Trek. I see my wallet being on a Trek meal plan.

I would also suggest starting the game where the other crappy and yes I said crappy, oh and slow, Trek games lose out. The Next Generation era and beyond for the win. Someone said that the selling point for this era would be the long awaited and never released models of the elusive TNG era and worded it as if that is not enough.

Unfortunatly I have to say that SFB & FC are both not my game groups cup of tea. I guess we are not old enough to appreciate the horrid long games these systems are notorious for. We played both for some time and we all felt like we aged 40 years every time we started a game. ACTA is fast paced and very exciting to play, and the way the TNG era is depicted in the show, ship combat in Star Trek is fast paced and exciting. Seems to fit the bill.

Now how to make shield work...
 
Hi there

I believe that the next game to use will be Star Trek. The reasons for this are as follows.

In 2005 (i think), rumours were starting to come out that Star Trek was going to come out using the ACTA system as there was a new game on the horizon. (This game however turned out to be the Wars rpg.) Matt however pointed out that they would love to do Star Trek, but they couldn't (due to licensing issues i believe). However now we have the situation where Decipher has lost the license or not renewed it (i'm not sure) and Matt has not said anything other than vague hints.

If it is Star Trek the only problem I see is that demand is going to outstipe supply as every man and his dog will be buying figures. It won't even matter if the rules are crap as people will mainly be buying figures.

For me personally i'm going to start saving some money, as i intend to buy a federation fleet (according to the Dominion War sourcebook from Last Unicorn Games this is approximately 150-200 ships) as well as many other ships from the different factions as i can afford.

But until that time i'll be using the old b5 wars set and the stuff from planetside.
 
Actually, Decipher hasn't posted either way that I could find, merely that they are done doing it with this final card-set. It could be they are just going to sell of their existing inventory and move on to something new, and might have some steam left in their license.

IIRC, unless they screwed up, they've a year or more left. If they screwed up, they wouldn't get their new set out the door; Viacom would be likely to pull the license immediately.

So either it is still licensed to Decipher, and thus they are simply winding down due to lack of ability/interest/staffing/funding, or they have decided it's not worth renewing and are making a last few bucks before termination... in which case they still have the license anyway, at least as long as they are selling the new set to distributors.

So, given the 1-year+ shelf life of a CCG expansion, I expect they have at least a year, probably two, left on the license.
 
In defence of SFB it is very detailed and tactical. I remember an epic five hour duel with police frigates, and the look on an opponents face the first time we used Andromedans.

But given that people nowadays find even B5Wars complicated :roll: it doesn't surprise me that people find things like SFB and SITS too hard to use. You just need to find people willing to learn the rules.

If Mongoose do a conversion of Star Trek for ActA they should probably check out Planetside for ideas (I think they have pretty much every ship to ever appear in Star Trek any series now). I'm not just saying this because I did some of the sheets, but because it gives a very good starting point for doing a fleet game.

I really should try teaching my gaming group B5W so we can dig out the Star Trek conversion again.

On the other hand I'm in no way sure that this is the conversion. The licence may have been split given Deciphers continued lack of getting anywhere on the TT game side (though there was talk of a collectable spaceship mini game a long time ago when CMG were still in their infancy) and decipher would not mourn something they've paid for but will never use if it gave them a discount on the CCG licence. And Trek has been off the screens for a little while, which may impact on what it is worth as well.
 
Gentleman John said:
However, even if you go by the TNG examples, I doubt a Traveller-style game could cope with it. For a start, Traveller has always used vectored movement. Trek relies on (inertialess?) impulse drives where no power = no go. Secondly, the combat ranges in Traveller significantly exceed the movement allowances (unless you allow pre-game manoeuvring). From what I remember of TNG etc, combat took place at visual ranges in most cases - certainly not the 1000s of k that Traveller combat seems to take place at. While SFB and ST3 reflect this, they do not depict ST combat in the way that is familiar to most fans.

While you could use the same basic mechanics, the flavour of combat in the two universes is so different, the mechanics of movement and the range/movement ratios would make the games totally different - or so I would think.

Plus, there are the differences in technology ...

Good points, but maybe not so difficult to overcome.

Ship design is modular, regardless of rules system. Add rules for inertialess drives; ST enabled, Traveller enriched. Similarly with weapons. After all, Traveller: The New Era rules made weapon ranges puny.

Maybe technology is the most significant difference, but a compatible ST-Universe add-on for Traveller (or any rule system) could fix that. I think flavour is related to the movement and range considerations.
 
pasuuli said:
Good points, but maybe not so difficult to overcome.

Ship design is modular, regardless of rules system. Add rules for inertialess drives; ST enabled, Traveller enriched. Similarly with weapons. After all, Traveller: The New Era rules made weapon ranges puny.

There is no problem with design sequences and technologies. After all, TNE and GURPS both allow for different technologies in their main technology books (Fire, Fusion & Steel and Vehicles, respectively).

Maybe technology is the most significant difference, but a compatible ST-Universe add-on for Traveller (or any rule system) could fix that. I think flavour is related to the movement and range considerations.

Definitely - and that is the problem. Once you change the movement and range considerations, you get different games.

For example: ACTA relies on non-vector movement. Thus it is relatively simple to close with your opponent and engage them. Even if you manage to overshoot your opponent, it is relatively easy to come about and engage him again. Fire arcs are quite important and dominate your tactics.

The Traveller-variant of Full Thrust (on the other hand) uses a vector and inertia-based movement system. It is perfectly possible to move in one direction and fire in another. Weapon arcs do not dominate your tactics. However, if you miscalculate, then you end up struggling to match your vector to your opponent's.

Then, there are problems matching different velocities as a result of different drive systems. This problem was highlighted best in the game Star Cruisers for 2300AD. The stutterwarp drive was capable of moving vessels at high velocities with incredible manoeuvrability. When they went up against normal rocket drives, they were at such an advantage that the rules treated them as stationary.

Even mixing similar backgrounds can have its problems. In SFB, the standard turn is 1 second, which is divided into 32 impulses. In the STIII:TCS, turns were of the order of 10 seconds (iirc). In theory a SFB Enterpirse could run rings around a STIII Enterprise - until it got to Warp 3.2 when it could not engage it in combat at all. however, past Warp 3.2, the STIII Enterprise could just merge warp bubbles and blow the SFB Enterprise to smithereens.

It is not impossible to write a starship combat game that covers all bases - especially if you use modular rules to cover different genres. However, by the time you have done that, I believe you may as well have written an entirely different game.
 
It is entirely possible to do Trek with Traveller. I have done so...

I used a few houserules to do so... but it was rather simple.

WD required 10EP/ton, and took (WF^2 )/2 % of ship tonnage. Cost MCr20/ton. 1 hit per 5 tons, same as JDrive. Max WF by TL was 13: WF1, 14, WF2, 15 WF4, 16 WF6, 17 WF8, +1 WF+1.

the AM plant produced 10EP/ton, cost MCr20/ton, TL16. 1 Hit per 6 tons (half as tough as the 1 per 3 of letter based PP's) (I used a TL15 at 5EP, and TL14 at 1EP) Emergency speeds were +2 WF over cruise, but did one hit per day.

Phasers were simply Warp Enhanced Particle Beams. Kept range to 1LS (similar to FF&S), and took a DM-WF. x5 cost. Std Ship's Phasers are barbettes... Since I was using the Bk2/Mayday methods for damage, Barbette PBeams do 4 hits, and thus, so do phasers. Phasers are TL17.

Shields were trickier. I treated shields as having a rating equal to their armor rating, and taking 1 EP per ton, but stopping that many hits per turn until total hits taken = tons/2, at which point shields halved, rounding down, and start the count again.

It worked well enough. That was 19 years ago.

By stating that warp speed combat was by matched warp speeds (ala ST III), the relatively small motions (and requirement to not change facing), made combat quite workable. Didn't need to change the scale, even.
 
I have not read acta 2.0, but i like the rules for victory at sea, thats seems like a 2d trek game system...

But its time a mass tabletop game of startrek came out, before wizkids grab it..!!!!
 
Back
Top