Federation Commander

I explained that the devastating trait on the Photons is supposed to compensate for the inaccuracy. I hate when bad dice ruin a game. In SFB bad dice with your photons can be mitigated with good dice from your phasers.

I don't follow that line, in SFB/FC the photon is the ultimate 'lucky roll' weapon. If it fails there is seldom such a thing as good phaser rolls that can make up for it, the damage range on phasers is so small that 'good' rolls won't make up for whiffing with 64 damage. But all you really seem to be saying is that given I have lots of dice to roll bad rolls will average out. The same is even more true with ACTA which is geared to larger battles hence with larger number of dice, and where phasers are relatively more potent. Surely if you think whiffing with some photons in SFB/FC can be made up by the phaser rolls then that is even more true in ACTA.

Steve Cole wrote:Yes, Bob, exactly the point. The photon has changed from the SFU where it is the ultimate long-range weapon to useless at anything beyond short range. The disruptor has changed from the SFU where it is useless beyond short range to the ultimate sniping weapon. These were BAD decisions and before the game is reprinted they will be changed, or the game won't ever BE reprinted.

I dunno. I know nothing of ACTA or SFACTA. Don't have the rules and (to be brutally honest) am not getting the rules. However, if we are comparing to the effect of weapons in Federation Commander (not SFB, but FC), then the photon is short ranged and nearly useless outside 12 hexes. The disruptor is comparatively long ranged, as it highly effective out to 15 hexes and useful out to 22 hexes.

The only thing that gives photons sniping ability is the proximity fuse firing option, and that is only in SFB. So, if SFACTA was being built using FC as the source material, rather than SFB, then I can easily see how they came to the conclusion that the photon is a short-ranged weapon (it is inarguably inaccurate in any game system) and that the disruptor is a sniping weapon.

storeylf wrote:

I explained that the devastating trait on the Photons is supposed to compensate for the inaccuracy. I hate when bad dice ruin a game. In SFB bad dice with your photons can be mitigated with good dice from your phasers.

I don't follow that line, in SFB/FC the photon is the ultimate 'lucky roll' weapon. If it fails there is seldom such a thing as good phaser rolls that can make up for it, the damage range on phasers is so small that 'good' rolls won't make up for whiffing with 64 damage. But all you really seem to be saying is that given I have lots of dice to roll bad rolls will average out. The same is even more true with ACTA which is geared to larger battles hence with larger number of dice, and where phasers are relatively more potent. Surely if you think whiffing with some photons in SFB/FC can be made up by the phaser rolls then that is even more true in ACTA.

Okay, first of all there are two factors between Photons and Disruptors. Yes Photons lose accuracy sooner, but Disruptors loose damage. In keeping the game simple this was forgotten. There was no way to factor the penalty that the disruptor receives to get those long legs. Also, when you consider that on average at over 7.5" only 2 in 6 photon will hit, but at 7.5" 4 in 6 disruptors will hit with no requirement to reload, and 3 in 6 at over 12" with no need to reload. The statistics show that there is no way to score similar damage with photons. Also, considering that you also do not have the option to grit your teeth and bear in for optimal shots at point blank range, I have to say I believe the weapons to unbalanced in the rules.

At Nashcon 2 players brought Federation fleets. Why is this? Because in a tourney, people feel they are hobbled, and the Klingons with that bulked up fron shield rule, along with weapons that fire every turn, improve fire power, and therefore win probability.

Phasers at close range can deliver more damage that photons, and average better than disruptors until you are over 4 hexes. The when you consider miss probabilities with both Photons and Disruptors, Phasers are powerful weapons.

Anyway, I'll put this together for Steve and e-mail it, then its up to the authors. I can tell you, most SFU players acknowledge the need for a simpler fast play fleet game. But, want some consistency.

Okay, first of all there are two factors between Photons and Disruptors. ....

Sorry, but what does any of that have to do with 'good' phaser rolls making up for 'bad' photon rolls. That wasn't what the previous post was about it was your bit about bad photon rolls being compensated by good phaser rolls.

Sure there is a difference between disrupters and photons, and sure phasers are good.

In FC a cruiser can readily miss with 64 damage from photons, or hit with all of it, It is weapon that is well known for its wild variation in damage.

But.. you roll bad at range 8 with photons and miss. At that range your average phaser shot is 2.166 damage, and your max is 4. Even if you have utterly stunning uber dice rolls you will score an extra 11 damage or so with the 6 or so phasers, in practise merely 'good' rolls will maybe score and extra 4-6 or so damage, how did that make up for whiffing with 4 photons, which was probably losing 32 average damage?

How is ACTA even worse than that?

In keeping the game simple this was forgotten. There was no way to factor the penalty that the disruptor receives to get those long legs. Also, when you consider that on average at over 7.5" only 2 in 6 photon will hit, but at 7.5" 4 in 6 disruptors will hit with no requirement to reload, and 3 in 6 at over 12" with no need to reload. The statistics show that there is no way to score similar damage with photons. Also, considering that you also do not have the option to grit your teeth and bear in for optimal shots at point blank range, I have to say I believe the weapons to unbalanced in the rules.

You are looking at it from a raw damage points inflicted perspective. The 2 weapons are really pretty well balanced. The game doesn't work purely on a damage points aspect like FC does. The more relevant point is that statistically photons kill as quick, if not quicker than disrupters.

In FC if a ship has 70 internals and 30 shield you need to do about ~100 damage to kill it (as a single volley ignoring shield manouveirng etc), it doesn't matter how it occurs. You may get away with those last few points as the frame collapses before the last internals.

In ACTA a ship with 30 shield and 30 hull (damage, whatever they call it) doesn't need 60 to kill it. That more or less does it, but it can die a lot lot faster. Leaks can kill ships without ever touching the shields - the shield and delithium crits can drop the shield before they are touched, or at least significantly reduce the amount to shields to get through.

On top of that crits inflict bonus damage - a very significant amount as you get up the charts. A single disrupter on a pristine ship inflicts a max of 3 damage (leak and 2 crits that hit the same system). A photon has a max damage of dead ship (3+ delithium crits), or 20 odd damage for hitting another system 3+ times. OK we are talking the uber extreme there. But given the photon inflicts twice the leak damage with twice the crit level (ie. 4 times the crit levels on leaks) it is a significant factor.

ACTA has damage over time as well, in the form of escalating crits, again something that noticeably benefits the devastating crit.

Add in that the way shields and repairs work in ACTA via boosts means that shield damage is less useful than irreperable hull hits. The ratio of shield/hull damage for a disrupter is heavily biased to shields when compared to photons. That makes disrupters noticeably weaker.

Certainly in very small games of ACTA you will only occaissonally see such things as the ship killing photon volley, but as the size of the battle increases (which is where ACTA is designed to be at) then those leaks become the average, and with enough dice that you will not have hugely wild variations.

A Fleet game with 60 of each weapon at 'long' range will on average see the Photons score 20 hits total (80 damage), 10 of which leak (40 'hits'). Those 40 hits average 6-7 crits, doubled up due to devastating. Every crit is guaranteed to add hull damage (at least cancelling the bulk head hits), and with multiple crits may well get into the large extra hull damage from crits. There is pretty good chance that the photons will kill 2 D5s purely from the leaks never mind the other 40 shield damage.

The 60 disrupters on the other hand get 30 hits, 10 leaks. So 40 damage to shields (just like the Feds) and 20 hits to internals, but without the devastating. 3-4 crits with no devastating will be somewhat lucky to do even 1 point of extra damage (but they will probably lose some bulk head damage). 60 disrupters probably kills 1 cruiser if it wasn't shield boosted. Over 2 turns they may even out with photons (ignoring that they are now 8 or so disrupters down on the second volley). But don't forget you have to keep disrupters in arc twice as long, and face double the mitigation from things like Evasive/Boost SAs etc.

Photons and Disrupters are nicely balanced, you just have to stop fixating on pure 'hits' and look at how ships die in ACTA.

Do they reflect FC. In many ways yes.

In FC the photon is the weapon that you power up, head in and fire hoping that you do not whiff. An average roll will probably mean you still have a tough but fair fight against the klingon, a bad roll means you are probably in trouble and a good roll probably won the game. That is pretty much the same in ACTA, on average you are about the same as disrupters, bad rolls can affect you badly (as in FC) and good rolls can win the game in one fell swoop.

Disrupters, however, are the 'wear them down' weapon. In both games they just keep on delivering unexciting damage that after a few turns has worn down the enemy and equaled what the photon did in one fell swoop.

Does the photon look like it has been made into some long range weapon. Yes, but that is deceptive. The movement systems are just hugely different. In reality the overall effect isn't that much different.

In FC I will overload photons and come at you, I will get into overload range, and I will be in arc, and I will get to fire the overloads. On a closed map (as ACTA is played on) then there is almost nothing you can do to stop that in FC. Sure I have a range of 8 to get my first decent shot, but on a tourney map that is going to happen on turn 2, maybe 3 in the worst case. The short range doesn't have a huge effect on my ability to quickly deliver the shot.

In ACTA the intiative/move system is such that it can be very hard to get close, and in arc. Giving the photon the longer range simply allows them to fire them as often and with similar effect to FC. The idea of a finer gradiated range system just doesn't work as well in ACTA because of that movement system where ships can go from 12" in front of you to 12" behind you without a chance to fire.

Steve,

I sent you two e-mails. The first was how to attempt to fix what's printed. The second is a complete redesign but encompasses all weapons (all races), turn modes, ship conversions and a ship card example on a nice compact single Excel spreadsheet.

Keeping with the K.I.S.S. principle.

Bob

I have to do Tribbles, FCTM, and Traveller before I even look at ACTASF. I have a file where a dozen people have sent their comments, and you're all welcome to send yours. Someday, I will read them all, but that day is not this summer.

Based on my very limited experience with Starmada, observations of what other people write about ACTASF, experience from long ago with both the SFBM game and the old FASA ST Combat Simulator game, the one thing all of these game systems seem to have in common are very long ranges for just about all weapons compared to very short movement distances within a single turn. If this is inaccurate, someone please correct me.

My experience with SFB and FC shows that the reverse of this can be true (and depending on one's style of play, often may be true).

This one thing is a major differentiation between SFB/FC and all these other games. That is why I am not surprised at all that results inconsistent with SFB/FC are showing up in those other games.

This is probably too simplistic an observation, but it has always led me to look for ways to speed up SFB or FC and to more easily incorporate more ships. FC has tried to incorporate that with fleet scale. Both SFB and FC have simpler, beginner rulesets that can be used.

But there is a large, existing market for ACTA and it would behoove whoever to fix the apparent problems so the ACTASF version will continue to be acceptable.

Mike wrote:Based on my very limited experience with Starmada, observations of what other people write about ACTASF, experience from long ago with both the SFBM game and the old FASA ST Combat Simulator game, the one thing all of these game systems seem to have in common are very long ranges for just about all weapons compared to very short movement distances within a single turn. If this is inaccurate, someone please correct me.

Depends on your definition of long and short.

I'd have said the opposite of ACTA, with ships moving up to 12 (or 16 inches with all power to engines), or 14 and 21 for fast ships. and most weapons in the 15-24 inch range (drone being the standout weapon with 36 inches). Combined with the way the move system works it is possible for 2 ships to start facing each other out of disrupter range and end up behind each other before you get to fire.


As to apparent problems, I do not see most things mentioned here as an apparent problem (i.e. turning, klingon shields, photon/disrupter comparisons). SVC, Lincoln etc may see problems because it doesn't fit their view of how the ships and weapons have converted in minute detail. That is not going to be remotely apparent to those who are not steeped in SFB/FC play, nor to those like me who have played FC hugely but accept that a fast playing game is going to be different. For the most part I think it does a good job of representing the SFU given its simplicity. My main issue is that the major special actions (which are not really 'special') are 50/50 dice rolls - the game revolves around a few key 50/50 rolls, and less to do with the players tactics. If those target numbers were set at 5/6 chance then I think it would be a really good game.

storeylf wrote:My main issue is that the major special actions (which are not really 'special') are 50/50 dice rolls - the game revolves around a few key 50/50 rolls, and less to do with the players tactics. If those target numbers were set at 5/6 chance then I think it would be a really good game.

I have to strongly agree with you about the special actions. 50-50% is not good. 5/6ths chance allows ships to do what the crews are trained to do fairly reliably with a small chance of a foul-up.

One thing that has been kicking around the back of my brain for a while is this: if the Federation is supposed to have highly trained crews, why isn't it apparent in the game? One thought I had was to borrow something that was in an play by mail game I played in the '90s (run by Agent of Gaming, forget the name) that gave Fed ships a crew quality value of '5' instead of '4' for other Empire's crews.

Right now, I don't know of anyone using the variable crew quality rules much. It's hard to value what a higher or lower crew quality is worth. Are 2 E4 frigates downgraded to level 3 equal to upgrading a D7 to level 5 (Veteran)? Knowing the cost of upgrading/downgrading a particular unit would be pretty handy, you know?

So even if one doesn't want to change the overall crew check numbers from a 4 (50-50 chance of success) to 6 (5/6ths chance of success), it would perhaps more accurately reflect Fed ships having better trained crews.

Or perhaps simply add an ability to veteran/elite crews that gives them a +1 on their attack dice. This would stimulate use of the campaign/crew quality rules. On the flip side, we don't have any numbers as to what the various crew quality levels would cost if players were allowed to purchase ships with veteran/elite crews, or if a player wanted to downgrade a particular ship to free up points for use elsewhere.

Storyelf,

Perhaps when I began the disruptor/photon rant I wasn't clear. My fault, lets start over. By the way I agree with you and Bill on SA's. So at least we agree on one point.

I also agree with mjwest and you that the photon is not especially a reliably long range weapon. But, in FC/SFB every weapon has it's sweet spot. That's what I was referring to with the Phaser remark. When the damage for heavy weapons was produced, basically damage was halved.

Okay, so a disruptor does 5 damage to 2 hexes, 4 damage to 8, 3 damage 15, and 2 damage to 25. From 16 to 25 your hit probability is 50%. Half of 5 is arguably 2, half of 2 is 1. In ACTA the disruptor never has a worse chance that 50% at long range and 66.6% at short.

The Photon does 8 period. Which was halved to 4 and given a devastating trait. It hits on a 1-5 at 2 hexes and below, 1-4 to 4" and 1-3 up to 8 hexes. To keep things simple 1 hit number was needed I agree with this, toss out the 1-6 hit at 0, if you use the pure 50% probability at 8 hexes for the short range hit probability, then this weapons sweet spot is lost. Average of 1-5, 1-4, 1-3 (2x5=10+2x4=8+4x3=12/8= Average 3.75 or 1-4. In ACTA my best hit probability is 50%, and worst is 33.3 %.

When comparing the Disruptor and the Photon, one has to remember the disruptor fires twice, and usually the photon gets 1 shot rarely a reload especially against the Klingons. In ACTA you cannot boost shields, run away at high speed and reload photons. And with the overly maneuverable Klingons you just can't break contact.

So, 2 turns of Disruptors from a ship with 4 at 50% probability=4 hits (8 Damage). 2 turns of disruptors at less than half range is 5.28 for 5-6 hits average 10-12 points.

Photons fire at 33.3% at long range for 1.32 or 1-2 hits possibly 8 points my experience is 4 damage. Short range 50% for 2 hits or 8 points.

Both weapons can get very good or very poor shots/rolls in a given turn. In an earlier post you said forget damage, I realize this games meta revolves around good use of special actions, maneuver and critical hits. But, all wargames are based on mathematical statistics. I can't speak for Steve Cole or anyone else, but I believe that SFB and FC balanced the statistics to provide a fun challenging game. ACTA does not, period.

Lets look at the Klingon front shield rule. The D7 has an 18 point shield, the CA has a 24 point shield. In ACTA shield damage is halved to the fron and rounded up. So, the D7 isn't really doubled from the front, but it's still more than 1.5. But lest just say 1.5=27 shields in the front, sacrificing the ability to effectively boost the shield.

Comparing the CA with 30 front, 24 side and rear, and the D7 30 front, 22 side and rear. The front shield were the same, the side and rear shields were only 2 less than the front. On the war cruisers you get uniform shielding. This rule was backward. Some ships should have gotten weak rear shield, and possibly firing from the rear you would leak on a 5 or 6. Once again I question the statistical analysis. I have looked at ship after ship compared with equal ships in other races and don't see better front shield, I see weaker rear shields. Lets apply this almost double front shield to ships with weak rear shields. Sorry, my friend this doesn't make sense to me.

If you average every ship's shield score (remember game is supposed to be quick and simple), multiply it 1.5, take all ship damage boxes and divide them by 2, average all damage in short, medium and long range brackets with a hit number per damage point possible, give ships a standard 45' turn score A-3", B=4", C=5", D=6" etc, Klingons still as more maneuverable without being overly so.

You'll find using the formula above ships will still explode just as fast, shields will drop just as fast, weapons are modeled with their sweet spots including the disruptor gets 3 points of damage at short, but only 1 at long. It simplifies the game by dumping kill zones (factored in), and devastating. You still need precise. The critical system in this game is brilliant I wouldn't change it. Yes SA's need to change. HET should be automatic for the first and CQC for all after. Averaging Plasma made it much more powerful, so giving every ship IDF may be okay.

Tournament games need balance. This game is not balanced, but was developed from a balanced game. So what happened? There was not a uniform conversion algorithm applied. Because of weapons tech that needs to be added in the future, in order to apply simple portability, that is what should have been done.

Here is what I think the D7 should look like.

[/img]http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/83257390/s ... MG.jpg[img]

Not real sure how to post and image, but you can load the URL to look at it, or:

Klingon D7:

Turn: 4
Shield: 36
Damage: 46/15
Marines: 7
Shuttles: 2
Traits: Transporter 5, Labs 4, ADD 1, Tractor Beam 3

3xPH-1 F,P,S [Short 4", DAM 3, Hit 2+],[Med 9, DAM 2, Hit 2+],[Long 18", DAM 1, Hit 4+]
2xPH-2 T [Short 3", DAM 2, Hit 2+],[Med 8, DAM 1, Hit 3+], Long 15", DAM 1, Hit 4+]
2xPH-2 A,P [Short 3", DAM 2, Hit 2+],[Med 8, DAM 1, Hit 3+], Long 15", DAM 1, Hit 4+]
2xPH-2 A,S [Short 3", DAM 2, Hit 2+],[Med 8, DAM 1, Hit 3+], Long 15", DAM 1, Hit 4+]
4xDisr F [Short 2", DAM 3, Hit 2+],[Med 15", DAM 2, Hit 3+], Long 24", DAM 1, Hit 5+]
2xDrone T [Short 18" DAM 6, HIT Auto],[Long 36" DAM 6, Hit 3+]

As a comparison:

Photon F [Short 2", DAM 4, Hit 2+], Med 8", DAM 4, Hit 3+],Long 15", DAM 4, Hit 5+]

On the ship charts Photons, Drones and Web Fist are in Red which indicates do not roll for single damage, roll to hit and apply damage.

Phasers are still precise, but kill the or keep if you like (if feels redundant to me) the devastating trait. Kill Zone is not need each ship has it's sweet spot but still does average damage at medium range. Before you balk at the shield strengths and damage scores, remember the weapons are doing more damage. And I was able to stat every weapon in the SFU, because the conversion factors are uniform. I'm taking a balanced game and converting it uniformly to a balance.

Above, except for drones, photons and web fist, you roll 1 d6 for the damage multiplied by the number of firing weapons. So, if I'm firing the D7's forward Phaser-1's at range 7, I will roll 6 dice 2-6 hits and convert to single point of damage (3 x firing phaser 1 x 2 DAM= Each die that hits is 1 Dam Point). 6's still blow through and precise is applied. We're going to play test this on Friday 5 July and I can provide a report afterwards.

Look we have differing opinions, I respect yours and I hope you respect mine. I have had too many experience SFU players walk away from my tables over the last 2 years saying what the heck! Biggest 4 complaints Photons can't hit, there is never a negative with disruptors, the Klingon front shield, and the Klingon over maneuverability.

I'm not going to call you crazy if you don't see things my way, I respect your opinions, but I can read the FC/SFB combat charts (have played SFB since 1981), statistical math is statistical math. I don't have a problem with a Klingon shield rule, but it probably should have been applied to the rear shield as a weakness (using superior maneuverability to cover that shield) and definitely should not have been applied to every ship. Looking at the FC ship charts, it isn't necessary to apply a generic shield rule to every ship.

Also, when a POL can take more damage than a FFG, something is wrong there also. The problem once again was in correct statistical data used. Matt assumed, I guess that Hull in FC/SFB equals ship toughness. Ships in FC/SFB rate toughness by how much damage they can take before all frame is gone. But also, to keep weapon damage consistent and easily convertible from the source, if you are going to apply statistical damage from weapons you should probably apply consistent damage to ships. 1/2 works best, I tried 1/3 and ran into trouble with later weapon conversion.

This may end up for me, being a heavily modified home rule set. I have no need to tournament play. I would quite frankly, rather campaign. I saw the tournament at Nashcon as an opportunity to play 4 games of ACTA-SF in a single weekend, and nothing more. I hope to go back next year and will view it the same way.

lincolnlog wrote:Here is what I think the D7 should look like.

[/img]http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/83257390/s ... MG.jpg[img]

Not real sure how to post and image, but you can load the URL to look at it, or:

You need to put the one after:

Tournament games need balance. This game is not balanced, but was developed from a balanced game.

I'm taking a balanced game and converting it uniformly to a balance.

I'll reply to some other bits later (busy now) but I've not played a 'tourney' game of ACTA before, just games. It's just a game like FedCom. If you mean you want to take the game and create a balanced tourney then you don't need to make wholesale rules changes for that - just design the tourney to work within the system in the first place, plus Matt seems quite happy to adjust points on ships if they are clearly wrong so far, that would seem the obvious simple way of getting a better tourney balance.

Go look at the FedCom tourney if you want to talk tourney balance, it is pretty much seen as very unbalanced by almost all the players who take part in them (me included), and the last several tourneys have had significant handicaps per empire to stop a few empires dominating it. Your statement that it was developed from a balanced game has a fairly hollow ring if you are talking 'tourney games'.

How do you know you have converted it into a balanced game? Simply converting some number from one game into another with a totally different system does not make a balanced game. How many people have you had involved in play testing, how many games, how many different matchups etc.

Nerroth: Thanks!

Storelyf: Agreed on the play testing. That will have to occur, and I agree over many games and not just a few. So, I concede that point. But, when converting from source data, there needs to be consistency.