cool..... but you got to agree with that where are some companies that does not do that ....you will have buy the item again..but thanks for all the feed back .....mholiver

By Michael Bennett (Mike) on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Maybe this was discussed elsewhere, but, if so, I couldn't find it...

What is Star Fleet Rescue?

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 10:14 pm: Edit

I don't know, the only information I have seen on SFR is what SVC has mentioned in his my day blog. I'm curious too.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 06:06 pm: Edit

SVC, I posted a suggestion to Loren down in the Deckplans topic, If it isn't too entirely obvious an idea that you've already had and discarded?

I'd be happy to take credit for it.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 02:17 pm: Edit

In the SFU we have SFB at the difficult end of the game spectrum and Federation Commander at the easy end of the spectrum. Is it possible that there is room in the SFU for a game that would be in the middle of the spectrum and be medium difficultly? Could such a game have some of the best qualities of Federation Commander and Star Fleet Battles while being different in its own right? Would the fans embrace such a game? What would it be called? Federation Battles? Star Fleet Commander? Anyone have any thoughts about this?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Isn't that part of the idea behind Borders of Madness? To bring some of the more "advanced" features of SFB to FC, without the 150+pages of rules, resulting in a system of intermediate complexity.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 06:02 pm: Edit

I believe so, but I also think that there are FC players that will reject Borders of Madness, just as there are players who reject any FC rules making there way into SFB. I think Borders of Madness is a step closer to the middle but only a half step. If F and E were a 10 on the scale and SFB is a 9, Star Fleet Battle Force would be a 1 and Federation Commander would be a 2, with the Borders of Madness rules, it might hit 3. I am proposing a game that would be a 5 or 6.

By Mark S. Hoyle (Resartus) on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Rules for SFB are only a minor part of the manual --
If it was an RPG, that argument wouldn't be happening (because all the extras that would be in a separate manual there), come with the part that contains the added rules i.e. R, S, etc sections ---

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 08:12 pm: Edit

ummm...

Rules sections A-P of the SFB Master Rulebook = 366 pages....

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 11:02 pm: Edit

I seriously doubt that ADB has any interest whatsoever in creating a brand new game that somehow fits in the sliver between Federation Commander and SFB. They already took a huge risk by creating two game systems that cover basically the same ground. It would be suicidal to create a third*.

Also, Federation Commander is more complex than you are giving it credit for. If SFB is a 9, then FC is likely around a 5, not a 2. There are plenty of people who complain that Federation Commander is too complex as it is. Bad-mouthing it isn't going to do anyone any good. Please don't.

Jason is absolutely correct. What you are looking for is Borders of Madness. It doesn't matter if some Federation Commander players don't play it. It wouldn't be for those players anyway, and they can easily ignore it.

(Do note that BoM was intended to be two-way. Provide some SFB rules in an FC context, but also provide FC concepts in an SFB context. Unfortunately, attempts at the second direction caused such a vitriolic reaction, it was dropped and will apparently remain dead. Note that this also means any attempts at "simplifying" SFB itself are also DOA. Heck, they are probably dead before arrival!)

[*]Actually, they let someone else create a third with Klingon/Romulan Armada. But it is lower on the complexity scale than Federation Commander, not between Federation Commander and SFB.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 11:32 pm: Edit

*scratches head*

You do realize, of course, that FedCom is NOT 'simple', right?

IE., if there was a scale of game complexity, with Shoots & Ladders a '0', Monopoly a '3', SFB would be a '10', and FedCom a '9.95'.

Yes, it's simpler than SFB. But not by MUCH. Enough to catch the coveted FFG crowd (Arkham Horror, Battlestar Galactica, etc), but hardly anywhere near enough to catch the eye of the casual gamer.

But that's okay, it works - there is a pretty big crowd there, and FedCom has a good balance of simplicity vs complexity with sound 'modern' production values.

However, the idea of a game *between* FedCom and SFB??? The mind boggles. Are you splitting quarks, now? There is no market there, I assure you!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 10:37 am: Edit

Wrong again, Xander, but I expect that of you. On the Xander Scale, FedCom is more like a 7, and Starmada more like a 5. FedCom is MUCH simpler than SFB, and Starmada simpler still, and SFBF is probably about 4 or 3.5.

Mike West: we already did a third one (Starmada) which came with its own customers.

By Mark S. Hoyle (Resartus) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 10:53 am: Edit

Are the discussions on "how simple the rules are" or "how simple it is to master the tactics" required to win regularly ---

See many complaints about huge rule sets (not just in SFU), but many games with a less rules don't necessarily make playing them easy --

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 11:13 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Mike West: we already did a third one (Starmada) which came with its own customers.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 11:28 am: Edit

I concur. BoM would be the only thing to fit in that "niche".

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Well since there is no room between Star Fleet Battles and Federation Commander except for Borders of Madness and apparently no support for such a thing. What kind of SFU games can exist that are simpler than FC but not thought of or designed yet? Would this game be simpler than Starmada or more complex (but not as much as Federation Commander)? Is there still room in the SFU at this end of the scale? Thoughts?

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 01:50 pm: Edit

I don't know, I think that ADB has pretty much covered the gamut when it comes to tactical space combat games in the SFU. You couldn't fit anything between the existing games, and I don't think you could really make anything simpler than Starmada and still have much of a game. (Not a criticism, it's just that Starmada is elegantly simple.) And if you want anything more complex than basic Starmada, you just add elements from the published optional rules books to make the game play how you like it. So I don't see what kind of combat games are left to be done.

With the games that have been announced, I don't see a niche that ADB does not have a game in. PD is for the roleplayers, and they are well served with two popular systems (and more on the drawing board). SFB/FC/Starmada cover tactical space combat thoroughly. Battlestations will cover the co-operative game genre. SFBF is more casual. From what I have seen of Star Fleet Marines: Assault, it should be around the same level of complexity of SJ Games' Ogre, a game which is still well-loved by many gamers (including me).

There aren't any "economic development" type games set in the SFU (not counting F&E ). Maybe a "develop your colony" type game might work, on the lines of Settlers of Catan, M.U.L.E. (old computer game), Puerto Rico, or many others (it's a huge genre). Or a trading game in which players are trying to make a profit as captains of Free Traders, going from planet to planet to buy low and sell high while dodging Orions and evading tariffs.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 01:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Mike West: we already did a third one (Starmada) which came with its own customers

---

---

Quote:

On the Xander Scale, FedCom is more like a 7, and Starmada more like a 5. FedCom is MUCH simpler than SFB, and Starmada simpler still, and SFBF is probably about 4 or 3.5.

---

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Now, to Terry's point, obviously outside of complexity levels, there is room for game TYPES.

SF:A for ground combat, PD for the RPGers, the Battlestations game (EAGERLY AWAITING THAT!) for co-op experience (seriously - the idea of a co-op game in the SFU? Those are the only games the wife will play, so...*Very Exciting*!!), etc.

Makes sense. But another tactical game aimed at 'between SFB and FedCom'? I don't see it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Let's see...

3.9 x 2.5 = 9.75 SFB

3.4 x 2.5 = 8.5 FC

2.8 x 2.5 = 7 Starmada (Klingon Armada is no more complex)

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Right - note how even the spacing is. I think BGG's 1-5 scale works better than converting, though - if only because 'how complex is this game' is a really subjective thing for an opinion on, a smaller scale is easier to get user ratings on.

But still, the various games whereby ships may be fighting each other differ by about .5 at the BGG scale:
F&E: 4.3
SFB: 3.9
FedCom: 3.4
KA: 2.8
SFBF: 2.0

...the farthest two apart are KA and SFBF, so if the question Shawn really is asking is "where is there a gap in game complexity in the SFU lineup", then a game at ~2.4 complexity could fit in there (but why?). And given the 1-5 scale, another game at a ~1.4/1.5 could possibly make sense.

(I guess if you wanted to take marketing advantage out of any of this, as Avalon Hill/SPI/GMT/APL/etc did and do, it may make sense to put those little graphs on the back of the box for 'complexity' and 'solitaire suitability'...those were always fun to see. Or when dealing with wholesalers or shops who are befuddled by a widening lineup, it may be simple to say "This is our complexity-4 game tactical game, this is our complexity-3 tactical game, if you want to sell just our miniatures, our complexity-1 tactical game is available free from the website*" and so give context to your offerings in a soundbite they can digest.)

* Obviously, suggesting something new, here

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Where would the SFB Cadet Handbook fall on that scale? How does Star Fleet Battle Force compare to Star Fleet Missions for complexity? At various times I had heard of a FED and Empire lite or Axis & Allies meets F&E there was also a train game being worked on. Any progress on these? Would these be the last missing pieces to the SFU puzzle? Is a train game, the same as a trading game?

By Scott Johnson (Sejembalm) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Shawn: Cadet falls between Star Fleet Battle Force and Federation Commander (so 3?). The good thing, with the programmed instructions, you can satisfactorily play basic parts of the Cadet/Intro game (or play with your favorite space power) and not concern yourself with the rest. Such as the later rules that dealt with the Lyrans, Hydrans, and ISC. Or you can just stop at page 14 and only fight out the Feds, Klingons, and/or Kzintis, if you so desire.

Problem with the programmed instructions, the rules are kind of jumbled around, making it a bit difficult to find a rule you are looking for. But I solved that (minor) problem! By taking the Cadet rules, getting rid of the programmed instructions, and compiling them into a standard rulebook format of 32 easy-to-print and toner-friendly pages, the rules are condensed into their categories. I bought old copies of SFB Volume 1, put them together with the Cadet Game, and given them to friends stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 10:32 pm: Edit

So we have a range of tactical games at various difficulty/complexity levels. What about the strategic level? Is there a simpler, beer-and-pretzels version of F&E in the works? Is that what Federation Admiral is all about?

I'd personally love an F&E-lite game so that I could introduce my nephew to the SFU. Something self-contained that you could play in afternoon. Obviously, the scale would have to be adjusted (task forces instead of individual ships and provinces instead of individual hexes) and the game mechanics simplified.

I'd love to see that, but I also realize the G.O.D. only has so many hours in a day. But I can dream, no?

By Scott Johnson (Sejembalm) on Tuesday, September 07, 2010 - 07:00 am: Edit

Kosta: Yes, I believe Federation Admiral is a simpler F&E for FC. I earlier mentioned The Forbidden Game (Federation Space) in this thread as a comparison to F&E, but the comments were moved to the non-SFU game discussion section. But its detractions aside, FedSpace is a very simple game whose basic rules contain only around three and a half pages of actual rules and the game can be bashed out very quickly, or the Star Fleet Battles game can be used to fight out the battles. The fleets are small and manageable. The Federation fleet is only composed of 63 ships: 6 (10-11-6) Dreadnoughts, 6 (9-8-6) Command Cruisers, 15 (8-8-6) Heavy Cruisers, 12 (5-5-6) Light Cruisers, 15 (7-6-6) Destroyers, 6 (2-6-6) Scouts, 3 (11-9-5) Fleet Tugs with Battle Pods, 3 (4-8-6) Attack Shuttle Carriers, 6 (6-3-0) Fighter Squadrons, along with the bases and fleet repair docks. People complained about the ship ratings (attack-defense-movement) and simplistic game mechanics, but the game was actually fun and could be bashed out quickly.

Hopefully, Federation Admiral will actually be a fun, quick, and streamlined strategic game for Federation Commander.