Will there be another Call to Arms?

[Rick]

I mentioned this idea on another post, but I'm going to mention it again - I think ACTA would be ideally suited for 2 games set in the same universe; a big ship/big fleet style game similar to ACTA:B5 or Star Fleet, where you would have scope for squadrons and fleet manoeuvres, and a smaller-scale game with smaller ships, sort of a pirates and privateers style - a bit like ACTA:NA. The smaller scale game would have scope to do boarding actions, customisable ships, more detail and possibly link in with an RPG, but still retain all the ACTA flavour!
Both games would use the same basic ACTA mechanics, but just go in slightly different directions on the rules - fleet scale would be slightly more abstract, focussing more on grand strategy, whereas the 'skirmish' scale rules would have a bit more individual detail.

Just an idea.

 

[Spike1382]

I would like to see a game with 'hero' units or characters that have better stats than an average crew. Maybe special weapons systems on unique ships?

I would love to see an xp system for fleets, like Mordheim. Capitol ships get xp individually and smaller ships get xp as a squadron group.

 

[Rick]

I would like to see a game with 'hero' units or characters that have better stats than an average crew. Maybe special weapons systems on unique ships?

I would love to see an xp system for fleets, like Mordheim. Capitol ships get xp individually and smaller ships get xp as a squadron group.

Hopefully - if ACTA is released as a generic or 'Mongoose Universe' system, there might be a lot more scope for add-on or expansion rules. Maybe it is time to do a single 'baseline set' that takes the best (non license) bits from the previous editions and can act as a basis for any future licenses or stand alone?

 

[AdrianH]

It's worth noting that B5:ACTA already has all this. Hero characters are called admirals. Ships can earn XP in campaigns, then spend them on upgrades or one-off tactical advantages (re-rolls) in subsequent battles. Raiders get customisable ships in "Powers and Principalities". The Earth-Minbari War supplement had stats for several specific Sharlins, though that was for an earlier version of ACTA. The abstract boarding system is pretty much the same in B5 and NA. (I believe there was a more detailed boarding system intended for NA but it was dropped.)

So it's already been done and it can be done again. As for background, Traveller seems to be the logical choice. Mongoose already owns it, and the Fifth Frontier War should provide a suitable backdrop to nice big fleet games. Or they could invent a whole new background, and maybe create a RPG (or set of Traveller sourcebooks) to tie in with it.

If Mongoose are going to try for another licence then I wonder if E. E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series could be adapted to ACTA and Traveller?

 

[Rick]

Yeah - ACTA:B5 was arguably the best - it hit the right note between complexity and playability. If you could remove the licensed terms/names from it whilst still keeping the distinct flavour of each fleet, I'd buy it in an instant!

 

[AdrianH]

For me, the main attraction is that it is B5. I bought quite a lot of ships just to have models of ships from the series (many of which suddenly became a playable fleet when "Powers and Principalities" introduced the Army of Light fleet list).

Comparing B5 to NA, we've found that NA is significantly slower. This may partly be because we're newer to NA, so need to look at rules a bit more often. But it's also because NA ships have fewer weapons, mostly on the sides, whereas B5 ships have their main guns on the front. So B5 encourages fleets to close whereas NA encourages fleets to circle and point broadsides at each other. And NA ships all have shields.

Traveller, with its big spinal mounts, would probably be more like B5. Bad news for anyone who hates boresights, though.

 

[Da Boss]

It might well be rose tinted spectacles but ACTA:B5 remains my favourite.............and it seemed a high point in the number of people playing.

The fleets all seemed characterful and very different.
The movement, special traits and weapon systems and was of making ships up offered huge variety....and encouraged people to make their own additions to the game.

I have been making some very early attempts at making a "3rd Edition"......anyone want more info please pm me

Incorporating the FAQs and P+P tweaks along with some other aspects that many of us considered improved the game: Adjustments to the critical system - like proportional speed critical hits, A points system - the FAP system is great for quick fleet selection but has issues with balance with levels and with otherwise great elements like Admirals.

One controversial aspect I kept was crew - which I like and I feel also gives another way or making ships individual - for instance high damage/well protected/regenerating but low crew versus normal damage but loads of crew etc. Also great for boarding actions and watching your marines slaughter their way through the enemies crew......

A "generic" ACTA would be great - especially if its was a tool kit system which allowed various universes to be incorporated and made up officially or unofficially....

 

[locarno24]

Traveller, with its big spinal mounts, would probably be more like B5. Bad news for anyone who hates boresights, though.

I don't mind reasonably narrow-arc forward guns, and big spinal weapons are fine. It's just how boresights and initiative interacted in B5 ACTA that made them so massively unworkable.

I've often suggested down the years that something akin to Man'O'War's "I move and shoot, then you move and shoot" approach might work - that way, spinal mounts do get to shoot, but only if you specifically line the ship up to fire; and if you need more than a gentle turn to do so, heavy warships will struggle to line up on you.



Just trying to remember... did Mongoose not start doing 3d traveller sculpts at one point?
Hmm...
Ah, here we are.

The Gionetti.

 

[MongooseMatt]

And if you are on Facebook's Eye on Mongoose group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/195633123795147/), you will have seen more, this time for 2300AD, last week!

 

[AdrianH]

I don't mind reasonably narrow-arc forward guns, and big spinal weapons are fine. It's just how boresights and initiative interacted in B5 ACTA that made them so massively unworkable.

I've never had a problem with boresight as written, and have happily played Earth and Drazi by themselves, or as parts of an Army of Light fleet along with a G'Quan. ACTA:SF sort of re-introduced boresights because of its rule that a ship on the boundary between two arcs could be hit by weapons from both arcs, effectively making arc boundaries into boresights.

I've often suggested down the years that something akin to Man'O'War's "I move and shoot, then you move and shoot" approach might work - that way, spinal mounts do get to shoot, but only if you specifically line the ship up to fire; and if you need more than a gentle turn to do so, heavy warships will struggle to line up on you.

That would probably have played merry havoc with the rest of B5:ACTA, especially balance. It may be worth considering as part of a new version of ACTA. Another possibility is to have the forward arc split in half, and a ship which is right on the boresight can be attacked with a double strength weapon. (For example, in B5 a Hyperion has a laser mount on each side of the bow. Give them 2AD, and if the target is on the boresight then both guns can hit it, for 4AD total, which is what the Hyperion has normally.)

"Power Projection" didn't have boresights. There were templates showing firing arcs, with spinal mounts having a narrow arc. I don't know how practical it would be to measure such arcs without templates, something ACTA has never needed in the past. 90 degree arcs and boresights are easily marked on and measured from ship bases, narrower arcs may be harder.

 

[Bellicose]

let me also second that the next product A Call to Arms should be a generic ship builder. I have always considered it odd one doesnt already exist. Full Thrust has one. Starmada has one. The original Holistic Noble Armada had one. Likely other systems I am not familiar with have one. I think a generic ACTA ruleset, perhaps with a Traveler tie in would definately be the way to. go. Me and some friends want to play full Thrust, I just transfer my Hawkwood ships over to that game system. if I want them to play ACTA, well there is some head scratching if they want to use their NAC minis.

 

[JohnDW]

Homeworld: A Call to Arms?
Edit:
Battlefleet Gothic: A Call to Arms?

Mathiew did do some writing for BFG back in the day for Armada and BFG magazine. I think if anyone could renew BFG, with Games Workshops blessing , Mathiew would be one of the people I'd pick for the job. Heck it could be something that they would license out to Mongoose if GWS doesnt want to do any of the production of models.

I would love to see a 2nd edition of BFG, or some renewal of it.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Mathiew did do some writing for BFG back in the day for Armada and BFG magazine. I think if anyone could renew BFG, with Games Workshops blessing , Mathiew would be one of the people I'd pick for the job. Heck it could be something that they would license out to Mongoose if GWS doesnt want to do any of the production of models.

They won't licence another company to do miniatures for them. Ever.

 

[JohnDW]

Mathiew did do some writing for BFG back in the day for Armada and BFG magazine. I think if anyone could renew BFG, with Games Workshops blessing , Mathiew would be one of the people I'd pick for the job. Heck it could be something that they would license out to Mongoose if GWS doesnt want to do any of the production of models.

They won't licence another company to do miniatures for them. Ever.

A damn shame too. While they do produce some fine models, tech is getting to such that smaller and smaller companies can produes models just as good, or depending on the people designing the models, even better than GWS stuff. I can see them not relaunching games they used to produce because of not wanting to produce models for those games for fear of low sales, but they seem perfectly willing to license stuff out like the boardgame 'relic' and 'talisman', or video games and pen/paper role playing games.

I wish they'd make the next step and license out their 'smaller' miniature games to other companies.

 

[DinoDoc]

Mathiew did do some writing for BFG back in the day for Armada and BFG magazine. I think if anyone could renew BFG, with Games Workshops blessing , Mathiew would be one of the people I'd pick for the job. Heck it could be something that they would license out to Mongoose if GWS doesnt want to do any of the production of models.

They won't licence another company to do miniatures for them. Ever.

What are the chances of a Homeworld: A Call to Arms then? There's some hype surrounding the franchise with the HD remake and prequel on approach. The IP issues have been straightened out and miniatures obviously wouldn't compete with Gearbox.

Edit: I also don't understand GW's view on that. You'd think the success of Firestorm Armada would show them that naval games are indeed viable. Pairing a solid IP like 40K with a solid ruleset like ACTA would only make sense. It's not as if you'd be actually competing with 40K proper or WFB.

 

[Bellicose]

So Matt, since you said that rules for the League have been made, what possibility is there for them to be released in a pdf or in a signs and portents? I have done my own based off of the ssds from the Holistic game, but an official set would be great. Thanks!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Sorry, I am afraid we can't hand out that kind of information any more - might be worth getting in touch with Holistic.

 

[steelbrok]

So Matt, since you said that rules for the League have been made, what possibility is there for them to be released in a pdf or in a signs and portents? I have done my own based off of the ssds from the Holistic game, but an official set would be great. Thanks!

Any chance you could let me have your version?

 

[AdrianH]

The problem with BFG:ACTA is that it involves licencing another game company's IP for use with ACTA. We've seen where that led with NA and SFU.

The fundamental problem, which nobbled both B5 and NA, is that a game will attract some attention, people will buy the rules and their choice of ships, and then they're done. If it can't keep attracting new attention then sales drop off. B5 lasted for quite a while, perhaps because of the link to a popular TV series, but attention dropped because the series has been off air for some time. NA never had that sort of exposure to begin with. And if Mongoose develops its own background so it doesn't need to worry about licence fees or negotiating with another company, it will also need to do a really good job of getting new people interested in that background.

Generic ACTA might not even have a background, so good luck getting much interest in that. On the other hand, it wouldn't have miniatures associated with it either. The rulebook could be produced as PDF only. Production costs would then be 0. Just sit back and let the money come in. Players could use whatever miniatures they have. It could be customised (unofficially, of course ) to fit B5, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica or whatever other background players like. We could finally have ACTA: In The Pirkinning. :lol:

 

[Bellicose]

Hey steelbrok, I will message you when i get home.