Archive through November 08, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
Federation Commander rules in SFB:
Archive through November 08, 2005
Here are some ideas I had for a quick-play version of SFB using some of the Fed Commander rules.
1. Movement in reverse costs double.
2. No warp tactics, only impulse tacs.
3. No cost for shields, life support, or fire control.
4. The whole on-the-fly energy system.
5. No shield reinforcement until you get hit, then used unused power up to number of batteries, but do this volley by volley until all batteries die or you run out of power.
6. formation rule, no more than three ships in the same hex can fire in the same arc or at the same target in a given impulse.
7. I dunno about the sub-pulse thing but it does cut down on decisions by 75%.
8. The damage allocation system.
9. The repair system.
Anybody else have a thought?
SVC,
It would help to see what rules that you listed weren,t being used for FC could/would work with the above simplified SFB.
What are the distictive features of SFB that you want to retain that will make it different from just a more complex FC?
You have mused about doing a third box for SFB (extreme missions). Perhaps the above ideas could be part of that third box?
The way I look at SFB with FC type rules would be like SFB Fleet scale rules. In Gurps PD there is warp movement background information. This information could be the basis for between-scenario movement rules (SFB Sector Command Rules?).
1. No EM
2. No EW
3. No Boarding, H&R only
HET debatable
check out the Fed Commander Archives
Hmmm, well I have to say that a Quick Play version of "SFB" isn't really something I, myself, would be interested in. I'd rather just play FC.
I love the complexity of SFB and how sometimes itis a small interaction of rules that saves your life. I personally enjoy those "Ah Ha!" moments.
That said these things and Scotts list would make for a faster game.
However, I think there are some ways to not eliminate rules but alter them to make a more stream lined version of SFB. The NUMBER 1 time killer is EW. But to just eliminate EW takes out a lot of fun stuff. But there can be a middle ground as well. I have just the solution but this is not a proposal topic so I won't put it forth here.
As far as energy allocation goes I think that a middle ground that would keep a good deal of flavor would be to have some mix of energy allocation and some on the fly.
Weapons are loaded during normal EA. (Phaser still have caps)
Movement speed is paid during EA.
Shield Reinforcement can be paid during EA and/or during the turn using the battery capacity rule above. (i.e. equal to batteries during EA + reinforcement equal to batteries during the turn. This allows a double strong "brick" for the first volley of the turn should it strike a shield that has been reinforced. This lets you plan to take some damage in your battle run better.)
In fact, SVC, would you consider that shield reiforcement rule for FC? If the proposal isn't clear I can explain it better I think.
I am not aware of any debate on HETs in FC. Of course FC will have them. Who ever said otherwise? Also, board-to-capture will likely be a part of FC at some point and there is a different EM rule.
5. Can "battery reinforcement" be applied after the shield is down? Being able to continuosly feed unused power as reinforcement per volley would cut down on minor Mizia attacks, greating reducing the number of times you need to stop play to roll up three internals. (Then again, #8 may reduce Mizia attacks on its own.)
No, if the shield is down, you can't reinforce it.
Garth: this topic isn't about interesting twists. it's about FC rules in SFB.
I think eliminating housekeeping gives the ships a different balance depending on their power curve, impacting some classes of ships more then others. An E4 might get an 11% boost in power, a D7 a 9%, Fed CA 12.5%, but the D5 and NCL get 15% and 14% extra. Might not seem like much, but the CW class (D5 particularly) is one of the best bpv values, and that is what is getting the most help. A WE gets 18% extra if it wants fire control.
I think dropping EW helps smaller ships more, since the larger ships can afford more EW. People often play this way, so it probably isn't a big deal, but might be worth noting.
I'd like to see the pay-as-you-go system come into somewhat regular use in SFB.
I bring this up in the context of maintaining the maximum flexibility in energy allocation to meet any changing tactical situation. Plasma launch, dump all power into movement, little or no power for weapons, etc.
There is a necessity in both games to control or close the distance. It would seem this can be done more easily in FC as opposed to SFB where planned speed changes and locked-in energy allocations are required. My assumption is that such a system has been kept in SFB as it adds to the strategic planning aspect of the gameplay, but it can seem a bit restrictive to a newbie like myself.
Ivan. Most SFB players would see part of mastering the game being putting together an Energy Allocation for the turn that allows you the flexibility to react appropriately to your opponent's actions. In many ways, filling out the EA form is the most important part of the turn.
Ivan, I have to back up Andy here. The pay as you go system for FC is to make it much easier for the average gamer. SFB, in contrast, is rooted in planning and understanding of the rules.
FC will be attractive to SFBers as a quick simple way to play some starship combat but ultimately I'm guessing it will also lack much of the depth SFB has. SFB begins as a challenge then you start a scenario that is even more of a challenge. It is this great challenge that provides a high degree of satisfaction.
I haven't played FC yet so I can compare but I do know that the complexity in SFB that lends to it's beauty will be lacking in FC by design.
For me it's going to be play one or the other.
Considering we are in a topic discussing applying FC rules to SFB, I am not sure it is terribly appropriate to poo-poo the idea, although I myself have never been terribly appropriate. I clearly acknowledge the strategic aspect of doing the EA in my post, so you're not telling me anything I don't know.
However, it would seem to me that it is largely an artifical constuct (the current SFB implementation of Energy Allocation), especially in light of a new gaming system that is basically doing away with EA. Would SFB be radically altered by a pay-as-you go system? Single turn weapons are still charged and useable in a single turn. Multiturn weapons require multiturn enery allocations. Can't use more power than you got. Movement costs are the same.
So I doubt such a pay-as-you-go system would have a huge impact, but I am not even suggesting that. I'd merely like to see an option to use such a system as it is more flexible.
Perhaps the two systems (SFB and FC) are a bit too incompatible to pick and choose what to keep from one or the other. I'll leave this all up to those who have some experience with these issues, as I have little to none.
I think that what we're saying is that if you take Energy Allocation out of SFB, then why are you playing SFB? Just play FC...Yes, SFB's EA system is more restrictive once you've planned your turn, but that's what the designers want.
I think that this topic is about using some FC concepts to change some of the tactics that have evolved in SFB, stuff that's grown out of rules interactions rather than source material. Things like the unbeatable retrograde, or the superstack, or star-castling.
Ivan. Pay as you go would have a huge impact on SFB and would most greatly benefit ships with one turn weapons. With pay-as-you-go, a disruptor ship could move and wait until mid-turn before deciding to 1. split that 16 points of power between disruptors and weapons or just to 2. move faster or 3. overload the disruptors.
I think that implementing some of the FC rules for SFB may be appropriate material for a captains log article, presenting them as optional rules, but I do not see SFB being radically revamped in this way.
Well, first off, any two players can decide to use whatever rules they want. Even making pay-as-you-go an official optional rule would not change THAT.
Second, PAYG really only works with the "baseline speed" system also used in FC and I'm not sure it would work well without the "only eight impulses, but 32 sub-pulses" system. Assuming you were willing to do that, you would lose a lot of the flexability you think you are gaining.
As far as the rest of the FC rules (and the purpose of this topic), there's a lot here. some SFB players just want fleet scale SSDs for all of the SFB ships so they can play massive SFB scenarios a little faster. Some want to just add the rules like "no more than 3 ships firing out of a superstack" and "double cost to move in reverse" out of FC to SFB and change nothing else. Starcastle is impossible in FC but only because FC has no warp tacs, and you can take the warp tacs out of SFB all by yourself if you both agree. (somebody remind me to ban them from the tournament rules.) The FC damage system is a heck of a lot faster than SFB and has been tried in SFB with success.
I don't really know of anyone wanting to use FC tactics in SFB, but if somebody does, like, whatever, dude.
Ivan, I wasn't poo-poo-ing the idea of meshing FC/SFB rules. I have called for some to do just that, like Double Cost for Reverse Movement.
Ultimately, I was just trying to share some of my experience with you as you mentioned you don't have a lot. Don't give up on your ideas around here at the first seemingly negative comments else you will never make progress here. One of the tests of a good idea is how it stands up to pressure.
Just wait until Jessica Orsini starts to lay into you. Hoo, boy!
Pay as you go? People, please! Us Andromedans have been using this system forever. We simply use whatever it takes to move our ship and dump the rest into the batteries to be allocated by reserve as the turn goes. And yes, it has serious distinct advantages compared to EA plots.
If a PAYG energy system benefits one turn arming races, then that would seem to be an unbalancing factor in FC. I am sure that the game designers have addressed that issue, so I can't see this as an issue. Be that as it may, I was merely expressing an opinion. I find everyone's arguements here to be sound, but heck, SVC brought it up. I just thought I would add my two cents. 
About as much as it is worth.
I think there is a slight counterarguement to be made to the "just go play FC" arguement. A rule or system in a game is largely arbitrary. Anyone at any time might have proposed a PAYG system for SFB. No one did, I assume, because EA and the EA form is so integral to SFB. It's a bit of a cognitive blindspot if you will. It isn't a huge stretch to suppose a PAYG energy system. What has forefronted the idea of PAYG is this new game.
I wonder if I can draw an analogy. I know almost nothing of baseball, but it's as if someone were proposing the use of a Designated Hitter in inter-league games. Does adding in the DH for National League vs American League games change the game of baseball? I don't think so. No one says, "Hey, you want a DH? Go play in the American League." Apples and oranges? Probably. Perhaps more apt would be if there were a league where batting orders could be changed at will. Three men on, two outs, and the pitcher is next in the order. Argh. Merely change who's up next to increase the chances of scoring. Does this fundamentally change baseball? I don't think so. It's still 3 bases, a ball, and a bat.
Andy: I'm not so sure a PAYG would benefit one turners more than others so much. Think of a Fed in the second turn of his cycle - does he overload or use it for movement? With PAYG he can decide at the point of firing. If we allowed plasma ships to evelop/shotgun at the point of firing as well then balance may be restored somewhat. Even on the first turn of arming a Fed could choose to leave some tubes empty, and wait until EoT to arm them.
As pointed out by William, PAYG would give all ships Andromedan like or X-ship like power flexibility. Do one turn arming X-ships have a significant advantage over multi-turners? I don't think so - and the balance with PAYG would be similar.
David is essentially correct. The PAYG system will take a lot to get used to but I don't think it will matter too much since everyone will use it simultaneously. What it will do is give a hellova lot more adaptability to a player who has been caught with his pants down. In many cases, after EA we've all had to live with the hand we dealt ourselves. With PAYG, you can essentially turn in your bad cards by energizing a whole new set of tactics on the fly.
Actually, you can't use PAYG to decide if your are going to use the points for speed or overloaded photons.
the most flexiblity you have for speed is 8 extra movement points, and you have to make that decision one point at a time (every fourth 1/32 of the turn). Unless this decision comes along fairly early in the turn, you'll have already spend the money on movement (or not spent it) before the golden firing opportunity turns up.