Federation Commander

[storeylf]

Actually, just realised that I didn't show the right long range stats for your photons above - I had 3+ at short range and 4+ at long range (I forgot to add in an additonal -1, which you just reminded me of). I'll correct above post shortly. [Done]

[archon96]

My biggest issues were.

1. the rules as would teach them based on the book something would be changed.
2. the fact that it has taken over a year to flush out all of the fleets.
3. Some of the systems seem to either be under powered in effect or more powerful then their FC counter parts. Example we dabbled with FC and drones seemed more of an inconvenience that forced you to rethink youre movement same with plasma. In ACTA a smart drone user never has to get with phaser range and to beat the crap out of with drones. And back to plasma they are too easy to shoot down. I under stand the overwhelming blah factor when you do hit a ship it usually dies. But its been taken us about 4-5 ships to land 1 plasma strike and i tend to loose half of those to the barrage of photons. Mind you we just got the Gorn fleet painted and used only once before interest waned. Ill keep watching like I have been for a year and half. Im interested to see the squadron strike rules variant.

[storeylf]

Have to say I'm not keen on the seeker rules. But my experience with plasma is very much the opposite, I got into playing Gorns (mainly because people were saying how bad they were) and found that they tended to crush everyone or certainly Feds and klingons, not sure they ever got played against Kzinti.

[Savedfromwhat]

Lincon,
Would something like Kill Zone but for accuracy work?

Short Range X - This weapon receives +1 to Dice rolls within X.

It could be tweaked this way pretty easily.

[archon96]

i like the fact that in FC seeker made you change course. I could through up a wall of plasma make my opponent run around and get away from while I repositioned for better phaser shots. Yes plasma die to easy but manly do to IDF. If you removed accuracy from the IDF shot then I think it would balance a bit. Escorts are a whole different issue. What my mind cant process is this, I have to relod a photon, but a drone never needs reloaded and can with luck do more damage to shields. Even though it can be shot down I think the plain jane simple drone that youve put this huge engine on to get the 36inch range should do a set amount of damage, maybe a 2points worth. This would leave room later for bigger shorter range drones.

[lincolnlog]

[Savedfromwhat]

That's why I think a trait would be best. This way it could be applied to other weapons, like the Fusion Beam, etc.

[lincolnlog]

The problem with Plasma is it's multi-hit D6. But when you shoot at the plasma with phasers your not just reducing single damage points, your eliminating entire dice of damage.

Plasma by the way is already broken into 3 range brackets due to the energy bleed trait. I would create an energy bleed table and show actual damage points that bleed versus D6 damage. That would bulk up plasma. If a plasma R is 42 damage instead of 7 AD Multi-hit D6, yuo would have to score 42 damage to kill off all the damage. Or 24 Damage at 16" after it energy bleeds.

[archon96]

What about this

I fire 7ad of plasma range 12
Follow the steps to assess damage.

step 1: remove 2 ad for range.
step 2: roll 5ad to determine the actual damage of the plasma torp. (roll come up 1
step 3: defensive fire takes out 10points of plasma damage.
step 4: ship gets hit for 8 points of damage.

This seems like a tedious process but i bet if the players were on the ball it would go very quickly.

[storeylf]

[Marauder]

[storeylf]

[storeylf]

[Steve Cole]

The problem with seekers is that they mostly force the enemy to move, rather than destroy him, at least, in real SFB/FC. The primary defense against seeking weapons is to move out of their way, run them out, lead them around, and kill them only when you have to.

ACTASF treats seekers as direct-fire weapons, meaning they have no effect on movement, and are far more effective for that.

My idea was to make seekers a two-turn weapon (beyond a certain range, maybe 6 or 12 inches). Launch a seeker, it moves 12 inches toward the target, and you place a numbered marker on the table. The number then corresponds to a written list that says #3 is four drones targeted on the USS Nicholas Baruche. On the next turn, I can (after the Baruch moves) move the marker to impact, up to a certain range, anyway. Drones might get two "nights" on the board and move three times. Plasma moves twice (but is faster).

But Matthew said "no" because that required record keeping and record keeping is anathema to the ACTA concept. (I can see that, BUT, it makes seekers just direct-fire weapons you get to shoot at and changes the entire game. It's just not realistic, and it's just not SFU.)
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[Bill Stec]

Steve, re: drones

Would it be viable to reduce damage done by drones from 1d6 to a fixed value? Say 2 damage per drone? While this does not address the rate at which said drones hit a target, it does reduce damage taken.

Or another idea: I have seen naval games that specified that if a ship is fired upon by torpedoes (sub or ship launched) and the ship did not make a radical turn and try to evade the torpedoes, that the chances of a hit went up enormously.

Applying this to ACTA:SF, in that drones at 18" or less are already auto-hit, might require something creative to make it work. Something like add a seeking weapon fiiring step before movement... Specify a target for your seeking weapons, and if during it's next move the target does not make at least a 45 degree turn and move X inches, that the seeking weapons get a major bonus if they hit. Something like convert a drone from doing 1d6 damage (variable damage due to possible detonation short of the target) to doing maximum damage (6) because you didn't evade and the drone scored a direct hit. Similarly, if you fired a S-torp (4 dice damage) at a target and the target did not turn at least 45 and move X inches, that S-torp scores maximum damage (24 pts).

You would calculate hit chances based upon the range to target during the Attack phase. So if the enemy remained within 18", the seeking weapons (drones in this case) would auto-hit. If the target of drones moved beyond 18" away, use the 5-6 on a D6 to hit per drone.

While this would add some minor record keeping, it isn't as bad as having seeking weapons on the map and having to track them over multiple turns. You'd only need a token marking the target ship, or in smaller games a verbal announcement that so and so is shooting this ship with seeking weapons... It surely would encourage the target to be darn sure it can shoot down the incoming seeking weapons or get really hammered when they all score direct hits (maximum damage per die) because it did not evade.

Which would accomplish the goal of forcing the enemy ships to maneuver to evade seeking weapons or pay the price if they don't shoot them all down.

If we can't change the game mechanic that turns seeking weapons into direct fire seeking weapons, I would think changing the way they work while maintaining that direct-fire property would be beneficial.