Traveller ACTA?
- Thread starter pasuuli
- Start date
No really, I'm serious. They own the rules, which are fast in a way that High Guard combat isn't.
The only sacrifice is that the batteries of High Guard ships would be further conglomerated into a few (a dozen or less) super-batteries. But hey, if it makes combat play faster, I think it's worth that much abstraction.
The only sacrifice is that the batteries of High Guard ships would be further conglomerated into a few (a dozen or less) super-batteries. But hey, if it makes combat play faster, I think it's worth that much abstraction.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
What is ACTA? Do you have a link?
Supplement Four said:
A Call To Arms - Mongoose's miniatures space combat rules for Babylon 5. Certain elements are B5-specific, BUT what I want is a fast game with a wide ship variety that can balance forces, and ACTA 2ed has done this already.
A review of the system: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10837.phtml
I repeat - certain elements are B5 specific. No need to tell me that Traveller doesn't have jump gates, or that range is different, or that Traveller uses screens, yadda yadda. The point is that the ACTA engine is fast, works, and has enough rules to differentiate ships widely. So, adapt it.
It is a nice idea and Traveller has traditionally been accompanied by a starship combat game though I still think the best of these was the first one, Mayday which only used a few ships and could be hooked directly into the RPG.
To do Traveller properly you need vector movement, I know they had this in the B5 series but does ACTA use it? I believe its absence was one of the flaws with an older B5 wargame, Babylon 5 Wars from Agents of Gaming. However the popular wargame Full Thrust had a sibling. In the Earthforce Sourcebook was a wargame based on the Full Thrust system. This is getting way from the subject though.
For a Traveller based wargame you can either have a small scale, relatively detailed set which integrates with the RPG or a larger scale set that uses the setting. High Guard with movement! ACTA would make the latter quite easily but it is the former I would much rather see. Preferably with miniatures!
To do Traveller properly you need vector movement, I know they had this in the B5 series but does ACTA use it? I believe its absence was one of the flaws with an older B5 wargame, Babylon 5 Wars from Agents of Gaming. However the popular wargame Full Thrust had a sibling. In the Earthforce Sourcebook was a wargame based on the Full Thrust system. This is getting way from the subject though.
For a Traveller based wargame you can either have a small scale, relatively detailed set which integrates with the RPG or a larger scale set that uses the setting. High Guard with movement! ACTA would make the latter quite easily but it is the former I would much rather see. Preferably with miniatures!
klingsor said:
B5W did have vector movement... but it was well hidden. (Cost to turn, in thrust, was based upon current speed. For non-gravity drive, it was equal to speed... partial and full gravity drives reduced required thrust considerably)
However, as with EFSB, the older races gravity drives "bend" space (and physics) in both B5W and EFSB. In EFSB, limited Gravity drives simply allow more MD thrust to be used off-axis, and full change to non-newtonian movement.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Power Projection is pretty cool. The vector movement system in PP means that ACTA is a much simpler game and easier for casual gamers to get into.
Greg Smith said:
Only if you really like BIG ships. Multi-kiloton.
PP was absolutely useless for me, since the scale is WAY too large. Heck, I'll gladly sell my copy... everything under 1000 Td is basically below the resolution...
(BTW, a look at the troop rules for FT puts a scale converson of between 1Mass=25Td and 1M=50Td)
Scale is potentially a huge hurdle. You have the small ships that PCs are likely to use and then the big scary ships which are literally several orders of magnitude larger with bay weapons the size of the smaller ships. This does seem to argue for, if not two outright separate systems then at least one that is a bit schizophrenic.
A fight where a PC crewed starship is involved is likely to be on a much smaller scale, with smaller ships and far fewer of them so you can afford to resolve it in greater detail. There each individual missile and shot can be critical whereas on the larger scale you are throwing much, much larger salvoes from multiple ships and simple cannot afford the time to resolve it to the same level of detail. Effectively you are playing an admiral not a captain or individual crewman at that scale. Detail of missile loadouts and ECM while important are not details that should concern you. Effectively it is the difference between a flight simulator game and a wargame like Harpoon.
Somewhat surprisingly I have rather convinced myself that two separate games are required. A fleet scale one possibly but logically based on ACTA and a smaller scale one more like the old but much loved Mayday. In fact Mayday is possibly still the best way to go. I believe SJG were making noises about doing a new edition of it a while back but I have heard nothing since so it might be up for grabs and it's vector movement system has not really been equalled elsewhere except possibly by GZG.
A fight where a PC crewed starship is involved is likely to be on a much smaller scale, with smaller ships and far fewer of them so you can afford to resolve it in greater detail. There each individual missile and shot can be critical whereas on the larger scale you are throwing much, much larger salvoes from multiple ships and simple cannot afford the time to resolve it to the same level of detail. Effectively you are playing an admiral not a captain or individual crewman at that scale. Detail of missile loadouts and ECM while important are not details that should concern you. Effectively it is the difference between a flight simulator game and a wargame like Harpoon.
Somewhat surprisingly I have rather convinced myself that two separate games are required. A fleet scale one possibly but logically based on ACTA and a smaller scale one more like the old but much loved Mayday. In fact Mayday is possibly still the best way to go. I believe SJG were making noises about doing a new edition of it a while back but I have heard nothing since so it might be up for grabs and it's vector movement system has not really been equalled elsewhere except possibly by GZG.
klingsor said:
Okay, ACTA and Mayday. I agree that Mayday was nice. I might suggest an 'unhexed' version of Mayday, which uses that neat mechanic that AKAramis mentioned (cost to turn is related to current velocity) in order to have vectors without requiring vector math.
In fact, seems like they're not all that different systems really, except ACTA only vaguely hints at vectors (with that funny "stop" command, and drift for damaged ships). Perhaps it's just a difference in how ships are moved then.
pasuuli said:
Lots of games put artificial speed limits in.
To be honest, a 10PSL limit is about the point where radiation issues become paramount; the medium's hydrogen particles start causing significant particulate radiation effects, but the effect on acceleration is trivial even then.
Any time you have a non-vector drive system, you totally change the nature of combat.
It's a classic "Traveller Flame War Topic"... vector motion is one of the reasons Traveller ship combat (except HG & MT) doesn't mirror the Age of Sail well.
Mayday, with its three counter system, or SpaceMaster StarStrike or B5W with the figured cost to turn tables, or Full Thrust Fleet Book, with its two counter (well, 1 counter and a based mini) system, preserve the vector movement results.
Mayday becomes Bk2 when you remove the grid; it also becomes much harder to play.
My favorite method for Bk2 was 1/10th listed scale, using no counters, but "vector trails" and a center-0 ruler on paper.
pasuuli said:
a center 0 ruler is labeled so that it has the 0 in the middle, and climbs up from that point in both directions.
I quite literally draw the vetors on the paper; using the center-0 ruler makes it easier; you put the 0 on the end of the vector, measure to the previous end turn point, mark the pre-accel point, apply your acceleration to the pre-accel point to fint the end-turn point, and then draw the new vector in from previous end turn point to new end turn point.
It's much cleaner for small battles.
It's also far easier to demonstrate than to describe.
