• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

"At Close Quarters"

Being first and foremost a miniature gamer, I'm insterested in picking up a copy of "At Close Quarters" from BITS which I hear can be used as a stand-alone combat system. Does anyone have any info on it or give it a quick critique?

Thanks,
Mark A. Siefert
 
Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
Being first and foremost a miniature gamer, I'm insterested in picking up a copy of "At Close Quarters" from BITS which I hear can be used as a stand-alone combat system. Does anyone have any info on it or give it a quick critique?

Thanks,
Mark A. Siefert
ACQ is a very very very (etc :D ) good system put together by a former infantry soldier. The heart of the system is action points, the more you have the more you can do. But they get used up very quickly and once they're gone you're just a sitting target. It's the only system I've seen that models what happens if you run around like a panic'd chicken... ;)

It's roughly on a par with the stand-alone combat systems of CT - Snapshot and AHL. I have all three and I consider Mr. Berry's work to be the best of them.

Hope this helps.

William
 
ACQ is a very very very good system...
Could somebody describe ACQ a little bit more? Is it 2d6? Does it work with Traveller "out of the box"? There's been considerable chatter about ACQ on the TML recently, and I'm interested. But I've had difficulty finding any nuts-and-bolts details about it.

Thanks!
 
I know it's based on T4, which is a big strike against it. It's supposedly adaptable to other versions as well, but I don't know to what extent (i.e. whether you're still stuck with T4's range/difficulty and armor/damage systems, neither of which I liked). Now that QLI is carrying BITS products I'll probably break down and buy it from here sooner or later, so if no one else has stepped forward I'll give a detailed assessment when/if that happens.

Also, not to cast aspersions, but something that's always made me a little wary of this product is that those who praise it to the skies are almost invariably friends of the designer -- frequently close RL friends (i.e. not just 'TML-friends'). Not that this necessarily invalidates their praise, but I'd still like to hear some more honestly disinterested opinions.
 
Originally posted by T. Foster:
I know it's based on T4, which is a big strike against it. It's supposedly adaptable to other versions as well, but I don't know to what extent (i.e. whether you're still stuck with T4's range/difficulty and armor/damage systems, neither of which I liked). Now that QLI is carrying BITS products I'll probably break down and buy it from here sooner or later, so if no one else has stepped forward I'll give a detailed assessment when/if that happens.

Also, not to cast aspersions, but something that's always made me a little wary of this product is that those who praise it to the skies are almost invariably friends of the designer -- frequently close RL friends (i.e. not just 'TML-friends'). Not that this necessarily invalidates their praise, but I'd still like to hear some more honestly disinterested opinions.
Well, I'll amplify my description a bit.

1) Yes it is based on the T4 combat system. At the time it was written that was the currently available version of Traveller. The core is based on a task system being available, however the system is neutral to the task system. The BITS task system conversion table included contains the T4, T4.1, GURPS, TNE, MT, and CT task systems. It does have charts for weapons and armor based on T4 but I don't see anywhere where they are used in such a way as to prevent you from plugging in a different set of weapon and armor stats (say from T20).

2) As I mentioned origonally, the core of the system is action points. A characters action points are equall to current DEX + current INT + tactics skill level. Each possible action is expressed in a number of points needed to be spent. edit - I had this backwards. The lowest goes first as the higher AP character gets the advantage of seeing what the others are doing before taking their own actions. (Initiative is handled by highest action points going first and then down the list.) All actions in ACQ cost points - there are no free actions. If you run out of action points you can not do anything. If your dex or int changes for any reason, you're action point total is immeadiately recalculated. You could go from 6 points left to no points left after being wounded and be unable to help yourself.

3) Because of the above, players quickly learn to move slowly and cautiously - crawling around behind cover and conceilment just like in real world combat.

4) Actions themselve may be tasks - there are many examples given for tasks that might be needed to be rolled for. From firing your weapon to jumping down into cover, it's all an action to attempt and a task to succeed.

5) Damage is applied to the 3 physical characteristics (Str, Dex, End), weapons have a dice rating (from T4 but could be changed) and the armor rules from T4 are also used (each point of armor subtracts one die of damage. Flexable armors still subtract a die, but 1 point of damage per die is still done as blunt trauma from the force of the impact.).

6) Last, a disclaimer. While I have met Doug once, I can't really claim to be anything more than a TML-friend. A better description would be that I am a fan of his work much as I am a fan of Loren, Hunter, MJD, or Marc's works.

Hope this helps,

William
 
Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
Interestingly, while doing a web search on Azhanti High Lightning, I found a review of ACQ:

http://www.caliverbooks.com/valk%20website/rv_ACCPt.html
One thing I noted in the review is that it states that ACQ "requires Traveller, or another science fiction RPG, to provide the character details." I hope that means we can use it with T20 despite the fact that it was originally written for T4.

Later,
Mark A. Siefert
 
Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
Interestingly, while doing a web search on Azhanti High Lightning, I found a review of ACQ:

http://www.caliverbooks.com/valk%20website/rv_ACCPt.html
One thing I noted in the review is that it states that ACQ "requires Traveller, or another science fiction RPG, to provide the character details." I hope that means we can use it with T20 despite the fact that it was originally written for T4.

Later,
Mark A. Siefert
</font>[/QUOTE]I don't see why not. T20 has Dex and Int as well as a tactics feat, so the AP pool could be calculated the same way. Use the D20 task system and D20 weapons and armor tables and your T20 character is ready to go.

It is, perhaps, somewhat unfortunate that T4 has the reputation it does and this does color peoples attitude towards ACQ. However ACQ is not T4 - it simply uses that as it's baseline. It can be used with any task based RPG that you choose.

William
 
Originally posted by William:

It is, perhaps, somewhat unfortunate that T4 has the reputation it does and this does color peoples attitude towards ACQ. However ACQ is not T4 - it simply uses that as it's baseline. It can be used with any task based RPG that you choose.

William[/QB]
I haven't actually read the old T4 rules. All I know is that it was universally panned by Traveller fans. I saw a copy of T4 at the local Half-Price Books. If it's still there, I'll pick it up.

Later,
Mark A. Siefert
 
Originally posted by William:
I don't see why not. T20 has Dex and Int as well as a tactics feat, so the AP pool could be calculated the same way. Use the D20 task system and D20 weapons and armor tables and your T20 character is ready to go.

William
If anyone is interested I've actually written notes on how to use ACQ as the T20 combat system. They are rough, in desperate need of playtesting and require both ACQ and D20 to understand, but if anyone is interested please drop me a note:

tjoneslo@together.net
 
Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by William:

It is, perhaps, somewhat unfortunate that T4 has the reputation it does and this does color peoples attitude towards ACQ. However ACQ is not T4 - it simply uses that as it's baseline. It can be used with any task based RPG that you choose.

William
I haven't actually read the old T4 rules. All I know is that it was universally panned by Traveller fans. I saw a copy of T4 at the local Half-Price Books. If it's still there, I'll pick it up.

Later,
Mark A. Siefert[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I'd certainly grab it. However...

There are 2 things that you need to do to make T4 better. First, the task system is broken. Badly. Simply replace it with whatever is your favorite. I use MT/DGP. Second, go to http://www.bits.org.uk and go to the Archive section. There are lots of free goodies there, but at minimum you want QSDS V1.5.1 as it is a fixed version of the ship design system in the T4 book.

Those 2 things done, it's a good basic system. Not up to the hype it had before it came out, but nowhere near the dog everyone tries to claim now.

William
 
I have to agree with William: my chief complaint was the die mechanic. T4 tried to marry TNE's stat + skill level as a base target number. The difficulty level added or subtracted dice (all d6 btw) with which you had to roll under your "number". The net result was that characters with high stats always succeeded. The task system was quite broken indeed.

A simple fix was to revert to the d20 roll used by TNE and apply multipliers for difficulty level (.25 for impossible, .5 for difficult, etc)... or drop back to the MT die mechanic. Either method worked well enough to fix most of the game's problems.

Character gen was more or less an updated version of CT LBB, with characters generally receiving more skills than before, and additional careers.

T4 was an attempt to go back to CT in general, and is viewed by many (myself among them) as having failed. Why? IMHO, T4 tried too hard to retain the details of TNE and at the same time the simplicity of CT. The result was a *mostly* usable workhorse pieced together from differing sets of rules. Very patchy in places. It had more of a home-brewed feel to it than that of a polished product. As a result, the product met the expections of pretty much nobody.

The shame is that T4 had potential. It just needed that extra bit of polish and a *working* die mechanic.
 
Back
Top