How about a fighter game similar to Air Superiority or Speed of Heat but using SFB fighters and weapons? Might be a little niche, however. Perhaps a close air support adjunct to Starfleet Marines?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Fighter game: studied before, and never selected.
1. No fighters in trek, no Trekkers will buy it.
2. SFB/FC players already have fighter rules.
3. No fighter game engine produces SFU results.
4. Nobody here has any idea how to design one that is consistent with SFB/FC that isn't SFB/FC.

If somebody does one that is SFU consistent we'll take a look at it, but don't wait for a Steve to design it.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 12:21 am: Edit

No fighters in TOS Trek, but TNG had Runabouts, and during the Dominion War other ships that acted very might kinda like fighters. Although they didn't get much screen time doing anything like 'fighter-y' stuff - mostly they just acted as scenery around the huge capital-ship-slugging-it-out duels.

No doubt, it'd be a stretch.

That said, though...the 'Defiant' and (Klingon) Birds-of-Prey-class ships are some of the fan favorites. And they pretty much fly and shoot like 'fighters' (most weapons limited to 'FA' arcs).

Maybe have some X2-era units that sit somewhere between PFs and Frigates that have similar use to the Defiant/Birds-of-Prey? Technically 'starships'...but small ones, that maneuver like fighters.

(Although if you wanted to ape another game system for this, you'd want to pick a "beer and pretzels" type of game - about the polar opposite of 'Speed of Heat'. In comparison, FFG's "X-Wing Miniatures" is pretty much selling out everywhere, full reprint after full reprint. DEFINITELY want any such game to be more like that!)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 04:29 am: Edit

Then go design one like it and show it to us.

By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 06:51 am: Edit

It probably wouldn't be that hard to convert SFU fighters over to the X-wing game. What would be hard is borrowing their mechanics without infringing on their copyright, I suspect. If you try to make a game too close to what they are doing, you risk at the least being labelled a copycat, at worst, the dance of the lawyers commences...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a SFU-oriented easy to play fighter combat game. But how big is the market, really? Like Steve said, Trek-people probably won't buy it, since Trek didn't have fighters...

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 11:08 am: Edit

Xander, thanks for that link. Someone at the store tried to explain the game to me, but without any open packages to SHOW me, what he was saying didn't make any sense.


Garth L. Getgen

By Charles Lister (Daboss) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Recently picked up the Playstation 2 game: Star Trek: Shattered Universe - fighter combat in the Mirror Universe with Sulu and the Excelsior.

good fun - lots of stuff from the original series transposed to the MU - so Juggernaught, computer controlled ship squadrons etc.

If you can recall Colony Wars for the PS - which I love - its a bit like that

Played X Wing minis game - to me a poor version of Wings of War - which is were the good bits in the new game come from - GW's Imperial Aeronautica uses similar card system as well.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Thoughts would be:
1) It'd have to be a one-off. I can't see it being 'crunchy' enough for a series of titles, and it'd have to be one of the Kickstarter offerings. It won't fly without at least glossy cards for the fighters ( Something like the 'Wings of War' system?), minis being vastly preferred, and pre-painted ones the ideal. And that's obviously not cheap.

2) Designing a catchy mechanic for it would be somewhat tricky. X-Wing is using standard miniature templates, and a movement wheel to 'secretly select a maneuver' and has that copyrighted as the 'Flight Path System'. Which, notably, WizKids is licensing the system for their 'Star Trek: Attack Wing' game (a rather awful attempt to port it into their Star Trek license. But, hey, if you like the idea of Khan commanding the original series Enterprise alongside Cardassians in a duel with Dominion ships...) And, of course, the aforementioned 'Wings of War' using a deck of maneuver cards to choose your maneuvers and use as the movement template. I have a hunch that licensing out one of those systems would be the easier way to go, and as 'flight path' is already being used for a (dreadful looking) Trek game, it makes the 'Wings of War' system the more likely choice...although, again, more cost. So - back to Kickstarter.

It's probably more trouble than it'd be worth to chase down, but maybe once or more other projects have succeeded on Kickstarter it could be a good candidate for the queue...

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 12:41 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

which is were the good bits in the new game come from

---

By Charles Lister (Daboss) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 01:56 pm: Edit

I totally disagree (in the friendlist manner)

I have played all three games which use similar movement mechanics - which is the good bit. although the cards are nicer than the move templates in X Wing.

The really stupid if you touch another fighters base you loose all your dice is deeply annoying and serves no purpose that I can see. Its nearly a bad as the forget to move the turn counter in Blood Bowl penalty.

The damage mechanic is much more fun in WoWar and there seems to be major balance issues in the points cost - things like turreted Ion cannons and Lukes powers seem way to good..........

but each to their own

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Sounds like some kind of house rules are the problem, there.

If you touch another fighter's base, you have collided and cannot take an 'action' (like focus/boost/target lock/etc)...although note that if you'd already taken your action before they collided with you (you'd moved first), you don't lose anything at all. You also cannot shoot at the thing you collided with (unless you are using Arvel Crynyd), but everything else on the board is fair game.

As to the movement templates vs cards...nah, I prefer the templates. Particularly with the nubs on the stands to help place them. With the 'Wings of War' minis, getting the cards lined up in the right way just resulted in us knocking the minis around a lot, or not quite aligning properly. Even when trying to play as honest as possible, it was a more fiddly/less precise system. And for gamers that didn't mind a bit of favorable 'confusion'... (Though, I did like the mechanic of picking three maneuvers in a row and revealing one at a time...that's something I'd want to pilfer from the system.)

FWIW, I don't see how the damage mechanic is 'more fun in Wings of War' - you just draw a card from the deck based on weapon that hit you. With X-Wing, you have a similar mechanic, but more interesting crits (owing to more elaborate ship systems) and differing effects (shields, then hull, ionization effects, etc).

And general consensus is that ion cannons are pretty much useless in the game, so I'm wondering if you don't have some house rules creeping in, there, too... (basically, they deliver one point of damage, and allow you to predict where the ship will be next turn pretty well - nothing else, the ship is otherwise unaffected).

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Centurion (Renegade Legion), is pretty close to fighter combat with aggressive players.

Due to the different weapons/ammo types you have some complicated damage templates.

Never played the fighter/ship part though it might work in the SFU.

Somewhere they were discussing SFU as a spectator game (similar to chess), if that was done, might consider using larger models mated to the Mustangs and Messerschmitt pieces.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Used to play Interceptor, is that what you meant?

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Yes, Interceptor, not sure how close the damage templates are to Centurion.

Mentioned Centurion, as the concept of movement up to 700KPH, in atmosphere could be considered a type of fighter combat, even though performed by tank like vehicles.

Even Battletech's Fighter vs Fighter/Ship combat rules might be something to look at for what I believe is being discussed.

By Charles Lister (Daboss) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 06:26 pm: Edit

We played a game agains the Ion Canons - basically you get to move straight forward, no turns no special actions ect - did it every siingle turn to Slave 1 which meant it could do nothing. Given that all you have to do is hit the enemy ship to render it useless - no turns so enemy craft just move out of arc.........

Sorry I meant SA not dice - given that you are fightng in 3D space, the collision is silly - especially as you take no damage and can't actually ram. WoW was better in that you just couldn't shoot aircraft you were too close to.

re damage - WoW had various critical effects when we played - engine damage, rudder damage etc. We mostly played WWII.

I have Interceptor/Leviathan (have done a ACTA conversion of the latter) and AeroTech which are ok - both have great backgrounds

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 08:20 pm: Edit

I made you guys your own topic. Have fun.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Using something like Starfire could be an option with simpler ship data representing fighters. What were the lines of alpha numerics called that represented the ship systems? Rules for 3D combat could be made similer to already existing fighter combat games. I would suggest making it much simpler than either Starfire or any existing 3D engine to make it more marketable. Without gravity or air to worry about that should not be a problem. Much of modern jet wargames centers around energy management from altitude and turning.....something you do not need to worry about in space. And, you can even ignore Newtonian concerns since SFB fighters travel in subspace.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 12:56 am: Edit

Y'all are getting ahead of yourselves. Before anything else is decided, you need to come up with a cool name. I'm thinking either Achtung Stinger! or Flaming Zorans.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 06:53 am: Edit

Kzinti Furballs

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 12:54 pm: Edit

There really needs to be a "Like" button on this forum.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 10:57 pm: Edit

Starfleet Warp Fighters? I think you really want to take advantage of the Franz Joseph license and appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Thinking more about it would it be fun to have continuous impulse movement? I mean flying around is continuous and initiative is determined each impulse or few impulses based upon speed, advantage, pilot skill, angle of attack etc. I always thought a fun 3D tracking method woud be to simplify it using a map and sliding bar for elevation. A chart to find the angled range would be needed so nobody has to do any trig :-)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 11:14 pm: Edit

That's a good name!

Have fighters, heavy fighters, bombers and PFs?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 01:13 am: Edit

Star Fleet Warp Fighters

Is a good name, but star fleet has to be two words.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 12:30 am: Edit

I am not sure you would want to go PF's......too close to the size of starships and it might be hard to have them interact in an all-fighter game and perform like they do in SFB....IMO. I kinda see a fighter game breaking down in detail what happens in SFB when a dogfight is initiated in a given hex. Just my thoughts. A PF or even an interceptor might just stand still on that scale like ME-109's buzzing around a B-17.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 01:52 am: Edit

Most gunboats are going faster than the fighters really. Since Gunboats already have a simplified DAC it really should not be a problem the bigger problem IMHO would be something like a F14DM.

So has anyone pulled out the fighter section of the Rulebook and started figuring out how to simplify it sorta like FedCom. I mean SFB already has a Miniature Rules Template.