Archive through May 07, 2011
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battle Force: Battle Force Expansions:
Archive through May 07, 2011
Well, if you could make a "rigged demo" deck out an existing deck by arranging cards in a certain order, that would work.
Wouldn't an F5C just be a regular F5 card with a phaser-1 button instead of a phaser-2 button? As for the Fed DD, I always pictured it as having two photon buttons (DDG would have one photon and one drone, DDL would have one photon and one plasma-F), one phaser-1 button, one phaser-3 button and two free hit buttons myself, but that's just me...
Anyway, on the subject of a demo for SFBF, the Munchkin Rigged Demo also comes in the form of a short Flash movie, something that, I think, would also be good to do with SFBF. Hmm, I wonder if the maker of the flash game Hidden Dimensions or someone like him might be willing to make something like that in exchange for a commission from ADB for doing the work. I'd bet the farm that there'd be at least a small spike in SFBF sales if a flash demo of it were uploaded onto all the big flash gaming websites (Armorgames, Kongregate, Miniclip, Newgrounds, etc.). This is assuming, of course, that ADB would be allowed to do such a thing within the terms of their contract...
For those wondering, you can find Hidden Dimensions here. Decent enough game... Nothing spectacular, but decent enough...
http://armorgames.com/play/7120/hidden-dimensions
@TOC Yes I can and have been playing around with it but I was amining more for a e23 Freebie so that any one could download and play a very basic game to develope a intrest.
@JS Yes change the Phaser to a Phaser One and maybe add a "hull" box. I picked the F5C just to have a Different type of Card out there just like I picked the FJD Destroyer because it as a Freebie it might get around the paying a commission angle that could keep this ship out of SFBF.
Interesting idea. As a freebie that could be printed on cardstock and cut out, it might be workable.
Possible names:
Star Fleet Academy Battle Force
Cadet Battle Force
Academy Battle Force
Star Fleet Battle Force: The Cadet Game
It would be more interesting to include at least 3 ships per side (perhaps 3 Feds, 3 Klinks, and 3 Roms because they are the "known" trek empires). That way 3 people could play. That would also give more variety for weapons cards (phasers used by all, photons by Feds, disruptors by Klinks, and plasma by Roms).
Leave out all the advanced rules, fighters, the Organian Ceasefire, and Orion optional weapons. Include Klingon Mutiny, PF Flotilla, and Prime Teams just for a little flavor.
Design the action cards and ship cards with white or light gray backgrounds instead of black to save on printer ink. Players would supply their own pennies or beads for markers.
Inlcude an advertisement for the full-blown SFBF game with descriptions of the full-color cards and playing components.
Put it on e23 as a freebie and get the word out in as many venues as possible. Send free printed copies to game stores on the company mailing list and encourage them to make them available for players to use in their game rooms.
I wonder how many sets of SFBF are still in the ADB warehouse?
"I wonder how many sets of SFBF are still in the ADB warehouse?"
That's a complex question, and I'll show you why.
The simple answer is "23" because that's what's on the shelf (I just asked Mike).
The next answer is "Boss, I have enough parts to make about 70 more."
The next answer is "If Leanna orders more video boxes, we'll run out of rulebooks after we make over a thousand, I'm not sure, I'd have to count, but then we can just print rulebooks on the pod equipment."
The next answer is "the total number of decks of cards is... Dunno, I haven't counted them... Leanna says 'thousands' and she'd kinda grumpy about that." (The point being that printing more decks would be a deal killer.)
Frankly, I'd rather put the effort into doing SFBFOL than doing some kind of goofy cardstock demo version, which I don't think would work anyway. (I think that what's already on the website would do 99% as much good as a PDF or cardstock demo, assuming you could actually make a demo pack that functionally works at all.)
"Frankly, I'd rather put the effort into doing SFBFOL than doing some kind of goofy cardstock demo version, which I don't think would work anyway."
Well as I said, I think setting up an "SFBFOL" as a flash-game with a multi-player function would be the best option. If you want people to pay for it, you could set it up the way Tactics Arena did it and make it so that the basic SFBF deck can be played with for free, but a low-cost subscription is required to access anything else (such as playtest Lyran and Hydran cards and indeed anything else you are/were planning on adding to hard-copy expansions of SFBF).
As a veteran of the microgame era I really like the idea of a cardstock demo. I’ve been fascinated by the recent proliferation of “postcard games” such as---
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/474029/morgans-a-comin
http://72.233.16.130/thread/527917/rattenkrieg
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/401266/space-dogfight
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/507992/postcard-from-the-revolution
I think you could squeeze a complete Starfleet Battle Force Mini-Game onto a 6 x 9 (or smaller) Full Color Postcard. If you shrink the sample cards down a little you could fit six ships (1 from each major race) onto a single postcard along with several rows of chits that would stand in for the action cards & damage markers (the chits would have the symbols & values from the action cards but not the background art work - which should still look pretty cool).
Rather than shuffling cards the players would simply pull the chits from a cup or mix them face down. The rules on the back of the postcard would be a Spartan edit of the basic rules, perhaps the backside of the individual ship cards could each be treated as a separate numbered “page” of the rulebook so they can still be read after the postcard is cut apart.
PDFs are fine, but I think something professionally printed that you can hold in your hands (or even mail to a friend!) has more impact.
So, I'm new to this version of SFBF (there was a previous SFU card game that was much different, back in the 90's, but I haven't ever seen/played SFBF).
(I realize my first question probably goes in the more general topic, but questions 2 and 3 seem to be "expansions" questions, that's why I'm putting them here)
How would you compare SFBF to the old "Naval War" game, where you had ship cards that you could put into formations, but you didn't maneuver on a hex map. I don't recall there being order and action type cards for Naval War, so that's one difference I can think of ... but, other than that ... is it a similar level of "faster, lighter, play" than SFB?
The second question would be: will there be more fleshing out of the various races, and their other ship types? (or is that what the "I'd rather do SFBFOL" discussion thread is about?)
Last, has anyone come up with campaign rules for SFBF? Sort of like "I want to use SFBF as a faster option for playing out battles in campaigns that use the campaign designers rulebook"?
John - like the older Naval War game, the 'sides' are rather mixed. IE., you start with a fleet of ships (we commonly play with 5-7) drawn from a deck randomly...so you get all kinds of ships and empires. You put these in front of you as your fleet, and there are some formation choices ('screen', 'main body', or 'reserve'), as well as special actions that Romulans (cloak) and Tholians (web) can take defensively.
You CAN play with just single-empire fleets, I suppose, but it really causes some issue with the gameplay. Basically, you have a hand of 'action cards' you draw (and these you keep hidden), which determines what actions you can take - fire a phaser, launch a drone, etc.
So the game is really about formation management (putting ships in the right place in your formation to attack, putting them in reserve when needed, etc), and hand management (if you build up a huge hand of offensive cards, you may get a strong attack if you get the chance...but you won't be able to defend quite so well. On the other hand, if you have a killer hand of defense cards that you never use because you are trying to prevent any attack from being successful...well, you aren't going to be scoring many kills!)
So the mixed fleets are important to give you options. If you don't have any Klingon or Kzinti (or Orion) ships, those 'Disruptor' cards are just wasting space in your hand. Sure, you can discard them, but...you are now wasting turns trying to get something you can use.
Aside from theme of various elements (an ECCM card counters an ECM card, a plasma attack can be doubled with an 'enveloper' card, etc), it's really not much like SFB at all.
Very well suited for play at a pub, though, and that's a pretty big selling point for us! 
It plays fast, and in a group (4 players), there is a lot of 'take that' and 'screw you' moments. Massively organized attacks that fail miserably, unlikely successes, etc. And because the play is so fast...so many turns go by, so many (MANY!) ships are lost...it's easy to enjoy and not get too wrapped up in the outcome.
Definitely one of the ultimate beer-and-pretzels games!
Hrm. That's kinda unfortunate. It would be nice to see a game that's as light and quick as Naval War, but could handle the rather varied SFB battles (published scenarios, campaign battles, etc.).
Clearly, you couldn't expect the same exact results... and those who are extremely into tactics wouldn't be as satisfied. But those who want campaigns with battles that are more detailed than F&E might be interested in it.
I wonder how hard it would be to come up with a rules expansion to SFBF that filled that role.
The cards do have a lot of data on them - heavy weapons, hull points, phasers, etc. I suppose you could arrange something where you put all the phaser cards in a deck, all the disruptor cards in a deck, all the plasma in a deck, etc and when attacking, draw a random card from the deck matching the weapon used (the weapons all vary in damage).
SFB is all about energy management, so you'd need to come up with some kind of...something to manage in that system. Something that prevents the ships from just firing all the weapons all the time. (Hmmm - maybe, I dunno, a handful of glass beads you place on the ship card to represent power tokens? Firing a heavy weapon costs 2, a phaser costs 1? You'd need to figure out how they recharge, though...how are they damaged, etc.)
I dunno, it may be possible.
For what it's worth, though, I'd recommend trying SFBF as it is. While that idea may be worth exploring, the base game, itself, is a lot of fun. While it is a fleet battle, and not really scenario-based so much as a 'tournament'-kind-of-slugfest, it does capture some of the feel of SFB in that you always feel like there is far more you WANT to do at any given moment than you CAN do. The game is about managing your hand and reserves (your action card reserves, which you can use to draw your hand up to the usual 5, but can't play directly from)...balancing cards you want to keep vs cards still in the deck you may hope to get, actions you can take or want to take, etc...fleet positioning, et al.
It isn't like SFB, but it is a very good game.
FWIW - if you were looking for something lighter than SFB, but more deep than SFBF, have you checked out the Federation Commander material?
I haven't really looked at FC much yet, but the hexmap component kinda tells me it's "more depth than I want" for the thing I have in mind.
As for SFB being all about energy management ... that's true, but that doesn't mean it's a necessary component to all SFU games. I mean, my step-father (the retired Cmdr USN)'s main objection to SFB was "you wouldn't design military ships with less power than you need to fire every weapon and move at a good solid maneuvering speed, with all shields/etc. up, you design them with 2-3x as much power as they need (after you factor in redundant design, etc.".
Clearly, it's a game, and that's a big part of SFB as a game (and he recognized that as well). But, if the goal is "resolve a fight between any SFU forces, in an SFU based campaign game, using a light and quick card-game level of mechanic" and not "duplicate SFB exactly", then I don't think energy allocation is a meaningful piece of the puzzle. I didn't mention using SFB scenarios as a matter of "duplicate every aspect of SFB", but as a matter of "pick any setup and ship-match-up from SFB".
I do think the idea of decks for phaser, disr, plasma, etc. might work. Or even just a "immediate discard and re-draw of weapon cards you can't use" or a rule for how to substitute weapon cards you can't use. Though, I bet the immediate discard/redraw idea would lead to a lot of shuffling of that deck.
But, yeah, I should buy and play the base game (both for it's own merits, and before I start coming up with the deck strategies I gave in my last paragraph). It's not expensive... and maybe I'll come up with a way to make it work as a light battle game for campaigns.
Quote:Clearly, it's a game, and that's a big part of SFB as a game (and he recognized that as well). But, if the goal is "resolve a fight between any SFU forces, in an SFU based campaign game, using a light and quick card-game level of mechanic" and not "duplicate SFB exactly", then I don't think energy allocation is a meaningful piece of the puzzle.
I wasn't thinking of it more as 'a way to get SFB-like details into the card game', but, rather, as a method of limiting your choices.
Kind of to your first point - good 'game design' revolves around giving the players a lot of options, and much more that they want to do than they can do. So you have to make choices.
That said...
Quote:you wouldn't design military ships with less power than you need to fire every weapon and move at a good solid maneuvering speed, with all shields/etc. up, you design them with 2-3x as much power as they need (after you factor in redundant design, etc.
...this has been only briefly true in human history. Consider the 'Dreadnought battleship' era. The ship designs were all very much mixing-and-matching various balance levels of armor (which the Germans usually went with) vs speed (the British inclination) vs firepower (Helllooo, Japan!) vs size (this was the US choice), etc.
And this was true of the age of sail, too.
Heck, it's true again - read up on some on some of the design compromises that went into the Littoral Combat Ship.
Now, granted, SFB lets these type of decisions ('I want to move faster' vs 'I want to shoot more') be made by the ship captain at battle time, rather than during the ship design...but those decisions have always had to be made!
well, yes, the decision always has to be made, because a given parameter of ship can only do so much. you optimize the design around a particular goal. But, then you make sure it can do all of that.
But I wasn't really trying to harp on SFB's design. Like I said, it's a game, it's a successful game, and it's a fun game. I'm just saying: just because it's a game design element that's in one SFU battle game doesn't mean it has to be in every SFU battle game.
It's not in F&E for example, which boils the battle down to a very minimal level of detail. Less detail/depth than what I'm looking for. What I'm looking for is somewhere between SFB and F&E, close to the amount of detail as "Naval War".
I'm very sure I don't want energy allocation, impulse movement, and pretty sure I don't want hex map maneuvering (maybe in a VERY general way, but not anywhere near the way SFB does it ... there's a picture on ADB's Facebook page, that shows a Fed and Klingon neutral zone battle map, with 1 neutral zone area, 3 areas right behind the border (on each side) 5 areas between two planets (where you ferry cargo back and forth), and a "raider area" behind that (again, all of that on each side of the neutral zone). That's the level of map detail I'm thinking of, only at an individual battle scope, not a sector command type scope.
If you were to translate that into something like "inner battlegroup zone" (1 space), "outer battle group zone" (2 or 3 spaces wide), "picket" 3 to 5 spaces wide), a space or two of area between those (both 5 spaces wide), and then the same 3 zones for the other side ... that's about as much "map and maneuvering" as I'd want to deal with in this hypothetical game.
And that's about what level of battle resolution I'm looking for.
(and, I just realized, it's YOUR map that I'm talking about...)
SFBF does kind of do that, already. You arrange your fleet into a 'screen', 'main body', and 'reserve'. Each turn you have one movement phase, where you can move a ship from any section to any other. However, you only have that one, and it happens before 'attacking'. So you can't, say, move your ship OUT from 'reserve' (ships in 'reserve' cannot be attacked by any other player as you go around the table), attack with it, and put it back...if you pulled it out, it's stuck out until your next turn, when you can put it back in 'reserve' if you want.
Similarly, the 'screen' represents ships closer to the enemy. Certain weapon cards (Phaser-3s, Plasma-F, etc) have a symbol that indicates they can only be used offensively *from* the screen *to* enemy screen units. 'Overload' photon or disruptor attacks can also only be done from the screen.
The main body doesn't really have any special function except to sit between the reserve and the screen - since the 'screen' represents ships closer to the enemy than the rest of your fleet, you MUST have ships there...if the entire screen is destroyed, your fleet is dragged forward (IE., there are no ships 'closer to the enemy' than your main body, so your main body is now the new screen).
It does present a bit of maneuver, although not ships in relation to enemy ships MUCH...aside from the general concept of 'closer to the enemy than my other ships' or 'safely in the back, far away from the enemy compared to my other ships'.
Well, you could always add more "layers" to the existing SFBF formations set-up if you want, Rudd... Maybe create a "rear guard" that can only fire (or be fired upon with) disruptors, hellbores, PPDs and drones (and, if you want proxy photons, photon cards at half strength rounded down)...
You might also (if you want the game to be a little more complex, as you seem to) consider adding plasma-Gs to the game by way of having Gs fire plasma-F cards but with the range limit removed and having the capacity to use eveloper cards. Gs could be fired by R and S buttons, two optional weapon buttons or the plasma-F button on Gorn Destroyer or ONE of the two plasma-F buttons on the Battle Destroyer (the F on the Destroyer and one of the Fs on the Battle Destroyer effectively become plasma-G buttons).
I ordered SFBF last night, so I'll go from there.
Xander: I think what you're describing is in the ballpark of "how much maneuvering I want". What you're describing works for me.
Swift: I don't think I'd need to add a new "echelon" really, but I haven't played the game either. Interesting ideas though. I'll keep them in mind.
And, thanks for the input/humoring :-)
Well, actually, SFBF is as light and quick as naval war, vastly more fun the play (see below), and has all of the flavor of SFU.
Improvements over naval war...
Naval war uses the fired shell card to record partial damage. SFBF uses damage markers on icons. This means a lot of good things. For one, the card goes back into the deck. For another, a partially damaged ship has only part of its stuff working. Naval war has no way to handle air strikes other than "kill" or "miss" but with damage markers, fighter strikes can cause variable numbers of damage markers.
Naval war has no real means of counter-fire. SFBF allows you to take a phaser card and fire it at an enemy ship, or fire it at an incoming drone or plasma torpedo.
SFBF has a "reserve card" system. You have five action cards in your hand, but you can put some others in a reserve place and when you need to refill your hand, you can draw from the deck or from your own reserve.
There's more, but you'll discover it.
Too right, Steve, too right... It's just too bad the people over on [another board] were so disparaging of the game after I requested to have a section opened on their forum for SFBF-related discussions... "Not something you take seriously" my ass...
Edited to remove reference to an unauthorized site as that violated Rule 4 of the BBS. -- J.Sexton
Big news! Star Fleet Battle Force gains a starring role!
http://www.youtube.com/user/starfleetgames#p/u/5/7h7J47WJduo
This is an "In the Box" video, showing you what you get when you buy the game. Stay tuned to the end for an announcement about plans for next year.
Link
4-12 is whatever chuckles
Les, SVC has always said that we're going to expand the game. Getting Leanna to agree has always been the difficulty.
Huh? Never asked anything about it. I just fixed the broken link by posting it properly.
Les. I was trying to understand the "4-12" comment. Sorry if I misunderstood your point. 