Two questions

C

CrookedWookie

Mongoose
I have two questions regarding ACTA rules that I'm not sure I understand--or maybe would just like to see changed. For the record I played a little bit of first edition and am hoping to really get into the game with the release of the second edition, so I'm pretty much a newbie.

The first is regarding inertia, and whether there will ever be any rules to exploit this concept more. In particular with EA ships now that (I'm told) they focus a lot of firepower to the sides, it seems like a viable tactic would be to charge headlong at the enemy and then at the last second cut engines and rotate to face your side to the enemy, presenting him with your broadside and most of your firepower.

As far as I'm aware there's not really a way to do this in the rules; you can try and turn sharply, or stop suddenly, but you can't really cut engines and let inertia carry you at speed in the direction you were travelling. Am I wrong? It's just something I would like to see a little better represented in terms of actual physics.

The second concerns the new Anti-Fighter trait. I haven't gotten my hands on the books yet but as far as I understand some of the weaker weapons designated for fighter defense have been removed in favor of an Anti Fighter stat on ships to represent their short-range defense against fighters.

It seems like this is a bit redundant with the Interceptors trait--unless that has now been changed as well. Wouldn't it have been just as easy to roll them into one stat called Point Defense and make it so the dice can be divided up between non-beam weapons interception and fighter defense?

Am I the only one who thinks they seem a little redundant? It strikes me that ships would really just have one point defense grid that would handle all incoming attacks. Maybe not. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks!
 
CrookedWookie said:
The first is regarding inertia, and whether there will ever be any rules to exploit this concept more. In particular with EA ships now that (I'm told) they focus a lot of firepower to the sides, it seems like a viable tactic would be to charge headlong at the enemy and then at the last second cut engines and rotate to face your side to the enemy, presenting him with your broadside and most of your firepower.

As far as I'm aware there's not really a way to do this in the rules; you can try and turn sharply, or stop suddenly, but you can't really cut engines and let inertia carry you at speed in the direction you were travelling. Am I wrong? It's just something I would like to see a little better represented in terms of actual physics.
Click to expand...

Can't really handle this one. I think what you're looking to do can be created either with "Come About!" or "All-Stop and Pivot!". But I could be wrong.

The second concerns the new Anti-Fighter trait. I haven't gotten my hands on the books yet but as far as I understand some of the weaker weapons designated for fighter defense have been removed in favor of an Anti Fighter stat on ships to represent their short-range defense against fighters.

It seems like this is a bit redundant with the Interceptors trait--unless that has now been changed as well. Wouldn't it have been just as easy to roll them into one stat called Point Defense and make it so the dice can be divided up between non-beam weapons interception and fighter defense?

Am I the only one who thinks they seem a little redundant? It strikes me that ships would really just have one point defense grid that would handle all incoming attacks. Maybe not. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's not really redundant. The Anti-Fighters trait works only against fighters (ignoring their dodge and Stealth, which Interceptors wouldn't do) and occurs automatically outside the Attack Phase when fighters move into close proximity with the ship.

Interceptors negate incoming fire from enemy ships, and work during the Attack Phase.

So, if you want to look at it - the ship has two defense grids, one for dealing with enemy fighters, and one for negating enemy weapons. They probably both use the same weapons and electronics, they're just used at different times.

-Ken
 
ACTA doesn't allow you to use inertia the way you describe, partly for ease of play (It'd need much more recordkeeping to use B5 Wars or Traveller style vectoring\sliding especially with large games) and partly because many of the ships are so large (in "reality") I'd think it would be pretty hard for them to pull off those kind of manoeuvres. All Stop and All Stop And Pivot are about as close as you'll get in ACTA.

I think they've seperated the Interceptors and AF weapons because of the way that the new turn sequence handles fighters (fighters move, AF fires, fighters attack) and because in ACTA interceptors are not used against fighters. I know B5 used them as AF weapons in the series but the game splits the two. Although it may well be the same weapons performing the same task.
 
Concerning the first question, couldn't you run your ship straight ahead it's full movement and save your turn for the last thing you do. This would put your ship into the port or starboard fire grid and bring on your broadside. If the ship has 2/45's then you turn 2" short of your full move, make first 45, move 2" and make second 45. :wink:
 
I'm sorry, but does anyone else get the image of the agammemnon charging into battle, only for the captain to pull on the handbrake at the last minute and skid into a broadside position :lol:

whilst Inertia would be nice and make sense, it's just more book-keeping, which mongoose want to keep down, and I wanna keep down too!, if i want to present a broadside, i'll just have to fly in at an angle and turn at the right moment. . . not that my Narn actually care about broadsides. .
 
Why would you want to turn to present a single broadside? It's better heading between two enemy ships and getting one either side..... Worked for Nelson.
 
Actually what worked for Nelson was getting injured early in the battle and his second in command taking over. His reports of the battle credit Nelson far more than was deserved as a final testimonial. History did the rest, no hero like a dead hero
 
Maybe using "All stop" to move from 0 to half speed may help.
Or even easier one, just move and use your turn(s) ;-)

Inertia IS in the rules because if you use no special order and unless being SM you HAVE to go forward for at least half your speed. That's what inertia is for me.

For point defense just think of interceptors as "Anti-missile" big enough to destroy a threat going forward to you but not fast enough to get rid of a "moving" target like a starfury where you would need lighter but faster guns.

If you're strong on the sides a "All power to engines" might be very good to get in the middle of the battle quickly. (remember that it's one of the best place to use the most of your guns) ... just doing it with my sharoos ;-)
You might not even need to turn.

You can also adopt a V shape or a scale formation in order to present fore arc plus one side arc to the enemy and there you just need to go straight ahead. (unless you are scenario restricted of course)
 
Inertia is modelled in ACTA in a VERY generalised way with the special orders rules and the fact that ships have to move if they dont do all stop. If you want true newtonian movement I'd recommend you give Full Thrust a go. (you can download the rules for free from ground zero games website).

Personally I think FT is a better game than ACTA but then, ACTA is B5.....

As for interceptors/anti-fighter. Well everyone else and his dog seems to have answered this one already pretty clearly but, the interceptor trait is purely for blocking incoming shots not taking out fighters. Anti-fighter represents a ships ability to shoot down fighters. Now ships with high interceptor ratings I daresay may have better antifighter ratings representing some of that interceptor grid shooting down fighters but its still a seperate game rule!
 
Right Hand of God said:
Actually what worked for Nelson was getting injured early in the battle and his second in command taking over. His reports of the battle credit Nelson far more than was deserved as a final testimonial. History did the rest, no hero like a dead hero
Click to expand...

Ummm...

In Age of Sail battles once battle was joined there was no real method of constructive command and control, ships just lined up on one another and fired until one or the other sank or gave in. They simply couldn't maneuver fast enough. It took several hours of sailing towards each other knowing the other was their to engage in the first place...

Nelson's success at Trafalgar was achieved through the punching through the Fraco-Spanish line rather than engaging it side on as was conventional. His ships were able to rake two enemy ships at once whilst they couldn't fire back with anywhere near as much firepower (only the few guns in the bow or stern).

This was achieved by his positioning of the British Fleet prior to the battle long before he was wounded.

Plus much was achieved due to the superior gunnery of the British. On board French ships the guns were manned by just about any member of the crew available, whilst British gun crews were specialists who trained exstensively in their role as well as other ships duties. They could fire their guns much faster than their opponents.


Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
K'kree character creation questions, AoCS1
Replies
0
Views
225
mavikfelna
M
ResslynHalvik
Field Catalogue questions
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
MasterGwydion
M
D
Primordial System Age Question (WBH)
Replies
6
Views
358
rinku
R
Terry Mixon
Quick Jump Turnaround
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
3K
Condottiere
C
Yenaldlooshi
Extreme Range is -4 regardless of using a Scope or not?
Replies
16
Views
902
Annatar Giftbringer
A
Back
Top