Damage Comparisons Between FC and ACTA-SF

[lincolnlog]

I've been musing about this, these are just my thoughts so far. They do not necessarily provde what some want, or even balance the game (playtesting needed for that). Either SVC or Matt may be dead set against these thoughts. As noted before I really think SAs need to be more reliable, so in the following I'm assuming a target 6+ for most SAs.

Agreed! See it happens.

Whilst I don't mind markers I don't like record keeping in a game like ACTA - record keeping is what FC/SFB does (and I do play FC a lot, its not like I'm against record keeping per se). Markers I can handle, e.g a drone 6 marker to show 6 drones are attacking a ship, but I'd really rather not get into recording who launched what etc. A bit like SAs - we place markers to show what SA and use mini dice against a ship to show Shield boost.

The more I think about it the more I do like the idea of declaring drone fire before movement. I do prefer the ACTA mentailty of minimise things across a turn for what is meant to be a simple fast playing game.

I like the fire before movement concept. But, because the position of the firing ship will change from where the drones were launched, there will have to be a marker placed so that range can be determined after movement. I am going to incorporate this into my playtest today. I am also doing drones as Multi-hit 6.

In FC There are 2 main ways of avoiding plasma. Run away or shoot them down.

Note that simply going fast is not the same here, whilst you can avoid drones by going fast directly at them, that simply results in you getting hit harder against plasma. With plasma you will nearly always be running away at speed.

I'm not play testing plasma today. Next time we play. But plasma with the multi-hit D6 and killing entire Damage dice versus reducing damage is unnecessary. Plasma-X does this much damage based on range to target after movement. Then, the weapons whittle it down, then it hits and does X-amount of damage after it hits. And if IDF is going to be easier to achieve, it'll balance out.

So, this is the way I see the Turn Sequence:

Initiative Phase
Drone Launch Phase
Movement Phase
Plasma Fire Phase
Plasma Fire Phase/Defensive Fire Phase
Offensive Fire Phase
End Phase

The Drone Fire Phase should only take seconds. Take your drone markers place them on the target, Take your ship marker and place it under the ship Stand.

For the playtest today, I am using the ships from the core rulebook, plus the F6, D5W since the Klingons came up short in the core rule book. All ships are FC damage divided by 2, divided by 3 for crippled score. Shields are averaged and the on a separate set averaged multiplied by 1.5. Turn scores are A=3, B=4, C=5, D=6, all turns are 45'. Armor trait was added to the OCL.

Weapons are three range brackets, damage averaged over range bracket divided by 2. This makes Disruptor 3 damage to 2", 2 damage to 15", 1 damage to 24". It's all on the combat chart. Don't need fingers or toes to adjust for range or kill zones. Phasers are still precise. For this play test I'm throwing out devastating, but as I have said previously, I'm not convinced devastating needs to go.

Okay, so here are the questions the play test must answer.

1. Is the game still fast and easy?
2. Do the ships feel balanced?
3. Are ships going to need the multiplied shields?
4. With more damage being inflicted, do you really need the Devastating trait?
5. In the opinion of the players did it feel right compared to FC/SFB.

Dal has stated that we shouldn't worry about future empires or tech. I heartily disagree. I communicate with several of the playtest groups, and there are problems not only incorporating future empire tech, but haven't even gotten the Tholians to work right. With re-statting to a baseline the Tholians and every empire in the SFU will fit like a glove with minimal special ruling. And I do have to caution about special ruling, do it to much and it over complicates an easy game.

Example: Bolt Action, it's an easy game. But people refer to it as the game of exceptions. There are special rules for everything. It's extremely difficult to cheat sheet the game because of all the special rules.

Full report after the game.

Bob

[storeylf]

But, because the position of the firing ship will change from where the drones were launched, there will have to be a marker placed so that range can be determined after movement.

In my opinion such a thing is not needed at all. If I'm in range at launch then that is good enough. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I'd get rid of the half range thing on drones as well as the 3 ship firing limit.

If you have the ability to see the drones coming at you then, with more reliable SAs I think you'll have all the defensive options you need. At very long range (36") you are probably not worrying about to much else, so drones are largely nuisance value even if they are auto hit and an entire fleet of drones is on one ship. At closer range you could handle all the drones but in doing so you are more giving up options that allow you to deal with the enemy, which is more how FC plays.


As to sequence, I would leave it as close as possible except for the drone launch.

Drone launch
move
fire (plasma as normal, and drones resolved as the target ship is choosen to fire, drones first then he shoots)

That keeps the playing with the order of ship activation still a key aspect. E.g. I fire phasers on Gorn agains the fast ship and get a leak and crit the impulse. He is now no longer a fast ship but plasma fodder.

[lincolnlog]

But, because the position of the firing ship will change from where the drones were launched, there will have to be a marker placed so that range can be determined after movement.

In my opinion such a thing is not needed at all. If I'm in range at launch then that is good enough. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I'd get rid of the half range thing on drones as well as the 3 ship firing limit.

How then would you determine if the ship out ran the drone? And if not as discussed earlier for the reason of out running and choosing SA's why bother with firing before movement.

[storeylf]

That was what I was explaining in my earlier post.

In FC you seldom out run drones. Even turning away from them is often for only a small part of a turn to get a lead on them before turning back in or cause a slight delay until turn end. If you outrun drones in FC it is usually because of some other happy coincidence. Worrying about literally running drones out of range is just not needed IMO.

As I noted before, dealing with drones is less about affecting movement, and more about limiting options (movement being a part of that). You often avoid drones by going fast directly at them, not away from them. They limited your options by requiring you go fast and therefore have less power for shooting and shields, but they didn't necesaarily affect your movement.

The point of launching drones first is again as I noted before:
A) to respresent that you often decide what you are doing once drones are coming at you and you can see who has to handle what. Because they last several turns and go slowish (for FC) you have plenty of time to react.
B) to make certain SAs actually useful. There is no point going evasive or fast when the enemy can then just shoot someone else. The same with IDF to some extent, drones will never target someone who failed IDF, they will shoot at those who succeeded so those who failed can't help out.

Launching first allows you to choose appropiate defenses as yo can see who has been targeted by what.

[Steve Cole]

I am not the target market for this thing so what I want isn't terribly relevant (as opposed to what 30+ years in this business convinces me the customers do want, like a properly designed game with cross references, rules that can only be read one way, and little errata) which is very very relevant. Then there is what it takes to keep the SFU intact and the license in place. which is incredibly relevant.

As for wants, I'd toss crew quality checks first thing. They turn the game into a crapshoot. Starship crews are really good at their very dangerous and demanding jobs and the idea that a ship would fail to complete some fairly routine manuever that is practiced continually just doesn't fly.

[storeylf]

rules that can only be read one way, and little errata

Certainly.

Starship crews are really good at their very dangerous and demanding jobs and the idea that a ship would fail to complete some fairly routine manuever that is practiced continually just doesn't fly.

That's taking a rather narrow view of what crew quality checks could represent in the context of ACTA.

Some one earlier said they like 'simulation'. If all ships followed your orders perfectly in a battle then you are about as far from simulating a battle as you can get no matter how detailed or simple the game. Can that trained crew do IDF in the simluator or exercises. Sure they can. Even the Green crew probably pulls that off.

In a battle though you are the commander of your force, not the captain of each ship. Like it or not commanders have to handle the fact that their orders are not always executed as they expected for any number of reasons.

Did the captain understand his order? in the middle of the battle and confusion of what is going on orders are not always crystal clear to the guy receiving them, history is replete with orders not being received in time or at all, or being misunderstood.

"Captain, new orders are to engage the enemy at full speed and breakthrough to attack the carrier".
"What carrier? Which enemy force? get back to who ever is in charge and find out what the crap he means!"

"Cover the Tokyo against drones! Huh, Tokyo was destroyed several minutes ago, does he mean Lexington"

"There's to much interference sir, I can only make out a few garbled words"

Then there is psychology, as much as we like to think our well trained forces are perfect and never hesitate or will ignore immediate local threats, that simply isn't always the case, more so if it will clearly be suicidal for that ship. The SFU Feds or klingons are not fighting with emotionless AIs but actual 'people' and all the weaknesses that implies. Faced with being currently shot to pieces by 3 D5Ws the captain of a ship may well be somewhat slow in acting on an order to turn his phasers on drones attacking someone else, or stop reinforcing his shield to do somthing else. It may not be that there will be any willful disobeying orders per se, but just enough hesistation for whatever reason that it doesn't happen when it was needed in a very fast moving battle where seconds can count.

Indeed in such a fast changing enviroment I would assume there are very few orders on such minutae that would make sense, and that crew quality more reflects the ability of a given bridge crew to take in what is happening and act of their own initiative for the betterment of the entire force. As fleet commander I want that ship to go Evasive and that one on IDF, but the captains are not mind readers and haven't realised what my new plan is, by the time I give the individual orders everything will have changed.

Maybe crew quality is a bad term, but for me it reflects a degree of uncertainty that I should face even with my own plan being executed properly, or the ability of a more experienced force to get things right quickly and efficiently. It is a crap shoot at the moment, being 50/50 for average crews (which is bad game wise), and it is maybe to high even at 1/6 chance of failure for well trained crews. Could it reflect a host of commmand confusion/fog of war things - like will they even move where you want, should it apply to all SAs? etc etc. Sure it can, but for what is meant to be a simple game the fact that some SAs fail is good enough to reflect that lack of certainty and also nice and simply reflect the difference between a merely well trained forced yet to fight a battle and a battle hardened force. The fact that Vets and Elites are so much better can reflect that they are much more used to handling the stress of a real battle, and not only capable of acting faster when ordered, but also more likely to act for the best without explicit orders.

On top of that, whilst the command and control concepts could be done differently, crew quality nicely fits into campaign concepts.

[Gimp]

Commanders do not micromanage their subordinates in a battle and get to the point of commanding starships, much less commanding a squadron of ships. That style of command has not worked for several centuries already.

Crews are trained to respond to orders quickly, and unless there is major damage happening near to them, are not likely to be inconvenienced by taking fire that is currently being blocked by other crew members doing thier jobs with the shields.

Crews train in simulations, including simulations that simulate taking battle damage, because the way you train is going to be the way you fight. Green crews might panic, and rarely experienced crews in exceptional circumstances, but training in realistic simulations really does help with combat.

Ground combat can be harder for training, because the situation deals more directly with the individual soldiier and their team instead of a cohesive team that may never see the rest of the combat team during a battle with a ship.

Can orders be delayed? Yes. Can orders be misinterpreted? Yes. As communications technology improves, however, those delays are reduced. As battlefield intelligence, including that regarding your own force, improves, misinterpretation is reduced.

Already we are moving to a more integrated battlefield environment, where units needing support do not have to be specifically identified before the proper order is given, rather they just need a touch on a screen to identify them due to their circumstances.

No squadron commander is going to order a suicide charge through a superior position and expect the order to be blindly carried out. That kind of commander does not get to command squadrons, and training scenarios can identify them.

Mistakes can happen in combat. Of that, there is no doubt. Ridiculous levels of mistakes, as represented by the crew quality checks in ACTA:SF, however, are not going to happen every battle. They are the occurances that break inept commanders from their command, and not the standard for every battle.

Having experienced crews operate like novices starting training, and green crews as inept morons that should never have been accepted for their duty positions, does not make ACTA:SF a better game. The concept could be made workable, but the execution is very, very poorly accomplished.

The poorly trained crews are not in Star Fleet, nor its primary adversaries. They are in the National Guard training fleet equivalents.

[storeylf]

I agree with every thing you say more or less.

But will 20 ships all do exactly what you want them to, as part of some over all new plan that they couldn't possibly be aware of mid battle, within the time frame of a turn in this type of game. How does captain of ship A on your left flank know that Ship B on the right flank who is currently shooting an enemy cruiser is going to retreat and that he needs to move over at full speed to be ready for IDF, whilst at the same time 17 other ships are suddenly all going to do something that wasn't in plan a moment ago.

Even with the sort of tech we are talking about we are still talking about 'people' giving the orders and people reacting to them, where a turn is half the time it takes to arm a photon that is expecting a lot.

Like I said it is currently done very badly at 50/50, and even 1/6 for average crews is probably high, but having crews do everything you want is going too far the other way for a battle level game.

At ship level like SFB where you are the ship captain then it makes more sense, you give an order, and the crew, spread around the ship, get on with it, probably not even aware of exactly what is going on around them.

That's not to say I'd be hugely upset at having no such uncertainty, there is non in FC either. But I do like games that have some representation of that sort of thing.

As I intimated above, It is not about the crews themselves, but about the few key command personnel, the 400 crew may be a well oiled machine, but whether the ship does what you'd like is about whether the captain takes in everything, understands what is happening, foresees what he needs to do and reacts correctly in a split second.

No squadron commander is going to order a suicide charge through a superior position and expect the order to be blindly carried out. That kind of commander does not get to command squadrons, and training scenarios can identify them.

Except we are not the sort who have to worry about whether we earnt our command. Gamers often send ships on suicide runs or other dud missions and for some reason expect it to be carried out without question or hesitation.


In many ways it is why I dislike the tourney scene, an FC tourney games sees ships fight to the death for no obvious reason. As a challenge in gaming against someone else it is good maybe, but it is just the unreal meaningless battles that puts me off playing them too much, they make no sense.

Ridiculous levels of mistakes, as represented by the crew quality checks in ACTA:SF, however, are not going to happen every battle.

The captain who doesn't go IDF exactly at the moment you need him to do that in a battle, where a turn is a tiny amount of time is not a ridiculous level of mistake, its not even a mistake really, its more a ridiculous level of expectation on behalf of the admiral.

[lincolnlog]

Play tested my altered rules last night. Some things worked great, and some didn't.

Conditions of the playtest: we used a Federation fleet composed of BCG, CA,CS,NCL,OCL,FF and a Klingon Fleet composed of C7,D7,D5W,D5,F5W,F5. There was about a 10 points difference in favor of the Klingons. All ships were total internal plus frame from their Fed Com ship cards divided by 2 for total points, and 1/3 of dividend as the crippled score. Shields were average x1.5 (we were unable to test shields averaged due to low attendance, it's a holiday weekend). We used the following expanded sequence of play.

Initiative Phase
Drone Launch Phase (Simultaneous)
Mark the position of the firing vessel
Mark the targets
Movement Phase
Declare Special Actions
Ships moved
Shuttles moved
Plasma Torpedo Fire/Defensive Fire Phase
Declare Plasma Torpedo Targets
Defensive Fire against Seeking Weapons
Attack Phase
Attacks
Roll Attack Dice
Stealth
Use Shields
Roll on Attack Table
Critical Hits
Close Blast Doors rolls
End Phase
Compulsory movement
Damage Control performed
Escalate damage

The first two turns we tracked where drones were launched from, and Storeylf is right, this is an unnecessary complication. From turn 3 on, we just announced drone fire using SFB drone counters before movement. The drone range was measured from the ship's post movement location.

We used the 3 range combat chart. Now I was playing with two guys that I have been playing this with since Feb 2011, both thought that the three tier range bracket system worked BETTER than all the weapons traits. The traits are factored in! Phasers did more damage than normal because of the averaged/halved stats. The game went 6 turns, ships died gloriously, the game played quickly. Because of the standard statistical conversion model I now have weapons stats for every empire. CQC's were reduced to 6+. There were still some failed rolls (I personally failed 2 IDF rolls), but rolls were consistently more successful. The devastating trait was not used, and everyone agreed there were plenty of critical damage without, but this needs to be tabled for more play testing. Turns were reduced to all 45', the Klingons were still more maneuverable but not overly so.

Separating the Defensive Fire into a separate phase sped the game up immensely. Since seeking weapons don't actually hit in this phase, it doesn't really change any outcomes.

What needs more testing: It's up in the air but the shields may have been to strong. But, this was a first game, so that's hard to say. We needed the second game with shields averaged, to see if they were strong enough. Maybe there is a need for a separate forward and rear shield (#6, 1 & 2 averaged; #3, 4 & 5 averaged).

What didn't work: Tracking drones from announcement point. Too much clutter on the board.

What did work: The three range combat chart. This chart eliminates so many special little rules that will just have to keep multiplying as you add weapons. It's easy, it's quick, and there is no natural adjustments, only special case adjustments for evasive action, damage to FC, etc. Declaring drone fire before movement. This allowed people to plan for what was coming at them. The sequence above needs to change to seeking weapon instead of drones, and plasma needs to be declared at the same time for the same reasons.

[Bill Stec]

Thanks for testing this out, and reporting back. I really don't have enough players to do more than one on one games, with several weeks notice required.

Please keep us posted.

[lincolnlog]

Sorry folks, the sequence didn't format properly, this is the sequence without the sub steps:

Initiative Phase
Seeking Weapon Launch Phase (Simultaneous)
Movement Phase
Defensive Fire Phase
Attack Phase
End Phase

And for the next game Drone Launch is now seeking weapon launch.

Bob

[storeylf]

Was there any particular reason you thought plasma needs launching a the start of the turn?

Unless I'm missing something about all the other mods you are making (makes it very hard to comment, as I'm no longer sure how close to ACTA you are) It could well make it impossible for plasma to ever win, as it means you have to endure being shot at range 8 or less in order to survive long enough to make it to the start of a turn.

Plasma is quite a bit different to drones. None of the SFU empires use drones as their main or heavy weapons. Even the Kzinti use them primarily as a way of limiting enemy options and tying up power/phasers to allow them to win with their direct fire weapons. The drone using empires are not going to auto lose if they find their drones easily negated, just somewhat disadvantaged to varying degrees.

Plasma on the other hand is a main weapon, the 2 main plasma empires won't win without them.

In terms of ACTA mechanics, plasma is very threshold driven. Doubling your plasma output doesn't double the damage inflicted, depending on the situation you could see a ten fold increase in damage (or even infinite increase). Even a 25% drop in plasma output can zero your damage inflicted.

Giving the enemy effectively an extra turn shooting plasma ships will probably have a dramatic effect on them, even more so when combined with easier SAs where you see what has been targeted before choosing. Any who thought that plasma had issues before will I suspect find it utterly impossible to win. Even for me who thinks plasma is maybe a bit to potent at the moment can't see how it wins in that proposal.

If you have 6 Gorn cruisers vs 6 'other' cruisers at the moment you have 72 AD of plasma at 8" or less. If you launch at 8-12 you have 48 AD.

In order to kill a cruiser you need a net ~17AD. The cruiser itself may well shoot down 5 or 6 AD. Even if you shoot 2 ships that made IDF there will on average be another ship on IDF, so you fire 48 AD, see ~15 AD shot down leaving ~33 AD hitting. On a bad day there may be extra ships on IDF which can reduce you to maybe only 24 AD, and if the enemy is canny he will ensure the IDF ships are just beyond range 12 and the failing ones are not, so that you can't shoot the IDF ships without losing massive amounts of dice. Against a decent opponent even on an average roll you shoudn't expect to actually hit with more than ~28AD. That is out of a raw 72 AD on the SSDs.

Add in more reliable SAs and you are looking at maybe hitting with only ~18 AD. If you then have launch at the start of the turn then the range 8-12 launch is not only facing IDF from those ships that are not targeted, but also things like Shield boost (if not much is coming at you) and evasive (if multi ships have launched at you) on the targets themselves. In such a situation you are probably looking at hitting with a net of zero AD. The range 8-12 launch goes out the window, yet you probably still get hammered at the same time.


Going to range 8 means you get absolutley hammered by the enemy phasers and heavy weapons, and your phasers are tied up by enemy drones unless you are fighting a plasma vs plasma battle, meanwhile you get to shoot nothing. You almost certainly lose a ship (and 12 AD), plus whatever happened prior to getting there. You may be 2 ships down against disrupters before you even launch. If you are 24 AD down you are in exactly the same position as range 8-12, you'll be lucky to hit with anything. Even if you halve the phaser vs plasma defensive fire then you are still looking at maybe only damaging an enemy ship given all the defensive aspects are stacked in the enemies favor.

After that you face all the problems of reloading, and somehow getting back in arc. Remember drones are 360 but plasma isn't. Plasma also has all its weapons as separate weapon lines which is a huge disadvantage when it comes to choosing SAs like shield boost or APE as one of the power drain choices is more or less useless (A single plasma being useful is extremely situational). Plasma needs to hit very hard in its volley to make up for the possible loss of ship before getting in range, and once it got in range, followed by the issues it then faces from a positional point of view.

[Gimp]

I agree with every thing you say more or less.

But will 20 ships all do exactly what you want them to, as part of some over all new plan that they couldn't possibly be aware of mid battle, within the time frame of a turn in this type of game. How does captain of ship A on your left flank know that Ship B on the right flank who is currently shooting an enemy cruiser is going to retreat and that he needs to move over at full speed to be ready for IDF, whilst at the same time 17 other ships are suddenly all going to do something that wasn't in plan a moment ago.

When you consider that IDF and such require rolls for success, where long ranged interception fire isn't incredibly difficult, it can be said rolling for such effects give a solid representation of whether the crew did their job to their best, or not.

As I said, a more direct C&C system with the possibility of error could be made workable, but ACTA:SF did, at best, a lackluster job on it.

[lincolnlog]

Was there any particular reason you thought plasma needs launching a the start of the turn?

Using the same rationalization as drones. People being engaged by plasma need an opportunity to react. I can see how this would limit the Romulans, which would just mean you know they are going to de-cloak a little earlier, and the launch point of the plasma and drones is still from where the end up after movement. Remember, Romulans get that 6" free de-cloak move, and 6" more of regular movement.

The Gorn have more firing options than the Romulans. They can fire carronades.

Unless I'm missing something about all the other mods you are making (makes it very hard to comment, as I'm no longer sure how close to ACTA you are) It could well make it impossible for plasma to ever win, as it means you have to endure being shot at range 8 or less in order to survive long enough to make it to the start of a turn.

ACTA is a game engine. When you use it in alternate realities (including Historical [VaS]) you have to concede some alterations from core processes. B5 was not based on another game, NA was based on another game. And VaS is and will suck after it is re-done. ACTA-SF is based on another game, there is existing IP. How do you honor the core material and stay with the exact content of the original ACTA engine. You can't and Matt didn't, he made alterations. The problem is, and this is a direct quote "If you change that it isn't ACTA". Yes it is, as long as the core game engine is left intact. And who really cares as long as it quick easy and fun, and the two companies make money off of it.

In-order to see the big picture, you have to see the entire new weapons model. But the biggest thing that made plasma weak was that you were losing attack dice from defensive fire. And Attack Dice were too random.

Now look I haven't tested the plasma yet. Next game. But the Phaser/Disruptor/Photon/Drone mechanics work, and it is ACTA except for the 3 range brackets.

Plasma is quite a bit different to drones. None of the SFU empires use drones as their main or heavy weapons. Even the Kzinti use them primarily as a way of limiting enemy options and tying up power/phasers to allow them to win with their direct fire weapons. The drone using empires are not going to auto lose if they find their drones easily negated, just somewhat disadvantaged to varying degrees.

I agree to some extent. Both the Gorn and Kzinti are Phaser light empires. Yes, the Kzinti have disruptors, but the Gorn especially have to rely heavily on Plasma.

If you have 6 Gorn cruisers vs 6 'other' cruisers at the moment you have 72 AD of plasma at 8" or less. If you launch at 8-12 you have 48 AD.

In order to kill a cruiser you need a net ~17AD. The cruiser itself may well shoot down 5 or 6 AD. Even if you shoot 2 ships that made IDF there will on average be another ship on IDF, so you fire 48 AD, see ~15 AD shot down leaving ~33 AD hitting. On a bad day there may be extra ships on IDF which can reduce you to maybe only 24 AD, and if the enemy is canny he will ensure the IDF ships are just beyond range 12 and the failing ones are not, so that you can't shoot the IDF ships without losing massive amounts of dice. Against a decent opponent even on an average roll you shoudn't expect to actually hit with more than ~28AD. That is out of a raw 72 AD on the SSDs.

Once again the ships have to be statistically equal to the damage charts. If you change the weapons to a standard models the ships must change with them to a standard model.

[Savedfromwhat]

Lincoln did you mean Romulan and Kzinti are phaser light empires? Because last I checked the Gorn phasers were pretty good.