Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Middle years question
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
drwibble
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 06 Sep 2008
Posts: 79

PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2009 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Inari was playing in fleet scale.

The results tend to be more dramatic then. The Fed was only making two photon rolls, so it's easier to get seemingly extreme results. In squadron scale, you'd be a lucky Fed indeed to hit with all four torps.

And in fleet scale, getting hit by two overloaded photons is really sure to spoil your day!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1529
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like a BoM thing...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3473
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
Sounds like a BoM thing...


Narrow salvo? I doubt it.

There are things in SFB that were not included in Federation Commander because of complexity, and there are things that were not included because they were not wanted. Rules in the first category are eligible for BoM, but the second category is not. I figure the narrow salvo rule is in the second category.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1379

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Narrow salvoes do have some uses in SFB, like making sure your disruptor fire doesn't prematurely trigger a scatter-pack instead of killing it. But that doesn't apply to FC.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1529
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now wait a sec...

Isn't BoM supposed to be an alternate system of game mechanics so that SFB players can play SFB games quicker? Shouldn't just about any of the normal rules be able to be ported into the FC system?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3473
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
Now wait a sec...

Isn't BoM supposed to be an alternate system of game mechanics so that SFB players can play SFB games quicker? Shouldn't just about any of the normal rules be able to be ported into the FC system?

BoM is potentially a two-way street.

One way is to adapt FC rules into SFB so that SFB games can be played more quickly. One would be to port over the whole movement system. Another would be to adapt the FC ESG rules into SFB. This way has not been explored much.

The other way is to adapt SFB rules into FC so that FC games can have more of the options that are present in SFB. This is the way that has been explored. Note that any such rule moved from SFB into FC needs to fit into FC, and not all rules from SFB are worth moving over.

For example, with the scout channel rules, only the effect of the scout channels was moved over. The whole of EW was not. This implies (if not directly states) that EW rules as a whole will not be ported over to FC because they don't "fit".

Another example is fighters. Fighters will be provided in BoM, but dogfight drones, chaff, WPBs, and such probably won't be.

Other rules, eg phaser capacitors, probably won't ever be included in BoM, because they just don't fit into the FC system nicely, or don't accomplish what was intended for FC. I am postulating that the narrow salvo rules fall into this category.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Requete
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 75
Location: Leander, TX

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
Now wait a sec...

Isn't BoM supposed to be an alternate system of game mechanics so that SFB players can play SFB games quicker? Shouldn't just about any of the normal rules be able to be ported into the FC system?


I was under the impression that some SFB "problems" (like starcastling) were "fixed" by not including certain rules.
_________________
"In Klingon Empire, drone launches you!"

----

Pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy:
http://www.catholicity.com/prayer/divinemercy.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pinecone
Fleet Captain


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 1865
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Id like to see the SFB 8 impulse thing proposed a while back...
_________________
Doomed to live in secret since discovering that the Air Force Tapes were a fantasy... Embarassed

"Your knowledge of my existence must be punished" Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1529
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

grumble...grumble...

It seems like every time this BoM things comes up, there is a different answer.

One time its, "BoM is different from FC because it will be bringing some SFB rules/concepts into the FC system."

Another time its, "BoM is different from FC because it will be bringing the FC game mechanics into SFB."

No matter what, BoM will be a different animal from either FC or SFB, but it will be much closer to FC.

If BoM will be bringing other SFB concepts into the FC game system, then I'm left wondering why there is such a big hangup about calling BoM stuff optional for FC. I understand the issue about not wanting to fracture the FC community of players into two groups: those who use all or some of the BoM rules and those who go strictly by the FC rules.

Hasn't changing the avowed principle of using only GW era ships in FC already been compromised with the MY ships of Briefing #2? And now there's talk of an EY segment, too.

Folks just need to get the point that FC can be an evolving game system and not get hung up on things that supposedly will never be allowed in the game system.

I remember when the basic rules set was all there was for SFB. Then the Expansions started coming. Some of the rules in the Expansions were for playtesting only. Others were changes and additions to the base set of rules. What happened with SFB, among other things, was that the preponderance of rules became so massive that it was frustrating to the casual gamer to keep up with all of them.

We're already seeing FC gamers develop their own interpretations of some SFB rules (some of the so-called "house rules") in order to fill the void. Everyone realizes (or, should realize) that ADB has a limited staff and supports games other than FC, so we know that it will take time to develop these other things. I, for one, do not want a repeat with FC that we saw with SFB...namely, a continual rules development process that makes earlier versions of rules out of date and which requires players to pay more money for the same thing time and again. That was one thing that drove me away from SFB.

So, nothing wrong with BoM and thinking of it as more systems/weapons/options for the FC system as long as the regular FC rules are not supplanted. So far it doesn't look as if that is going to happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nerroth
Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bringing in new factions, eras of ships and so forth is, in my view, not a problem - assuming that each new addition is made in light of making these additions work as well as can be with the current 'game engine', as it were.


And it's not something I'd directly relate to the kind of things that would, or could, affect the actual working of the system itself, such as narrow salvoes, special sensors and what have you.
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3473
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lots of different topics ...

I dont think there was any promise to use only FW era ships in Federation Commander. There was just the idea of not using refits and too many variations of the same ship. Look at the Lyran CW. You could have the +, phaser, ESG capacitor, power pack, or UIM refits, and in various combinations. The intention was to simply remove all of that and just have a "Lyran CW".

None of that meant there couldn't be different "settings". The fact that the "MY Fed CA" is really just an unrefitted "GW Fed CA" is besides the point. The "MY Fed CA" is its own distinct ship within Federation Commander. That will be true for any of the proposed settings (Early Years, Omega, Magellanic).

On the subject of BoM, the current use of BoM is to port over rules from SFB into Federation Commander that allows more situations in the SFU to be played out in Federation Commander. However, these rules need to fit into Federation Commander and work within its system. Rules that were specifically excluded don't need to be added (e.g. wild weasels, EW). However, there are still some rules that are major parts of the SFU that can still fit into the structure of Federation Commander (e.g. scout channels, fighters, maulers).

On the whole "optional" thing, yes, it is semantics. However, semantics can still be useful.BoM is a superset of Federation Commander, but it is still distinct.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group