 |
Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1887
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
As an FC player, rather than an SFB player, I'd prefer to see stuff that is part of the main time frame of FC, like Eric. I was never into X ships in SFB, and don't see myself being interested in them in FC. I was always a fan of slightly older and more quirky ships which IMO provided more interesting tactical challenges.
Drone (and rack) variants are about the last thing I'd like to see. I'd rather not see them at all. Not sure about the variants Eric mentioned - maybe they came in after I quit SFB.
I really hope that PFs stay out of FC, i.e. make them BoM if they ever turn up.
Simulator races don't really interest me. I was only ever interested in the main races from SFB as I remember it - and with W&P they are all out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Monty
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regardless of what gets included and when, I would be interested in seeing an effort that's more than a mere port of SFB rules and more of an abstraction of SFB features. I realize that having rules 'rooted' in the original system makes playtesting and game balance easier.
I applaud the direct fire drone rules in the BoM fighter module and would like to see more of this kind of thinking. This is a great system to get the drones off the map, so, what could be done to get fighters off the map too? Are there any off the board operation level concepts that could be borrowed from F&E?
Monty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjwest
Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4096
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Monty wrote: | | I applaud the direct fire drone rules in the BoM fighter module and would like to see more of this kind of thinking. This is a great system to get the drones off the map, so, what could be done to get fighters off the map too? |
Really? If the fighters are abstracted off the map, what, really, is the point in even including them? Not being facetious. I am seriously wondering why fighters would even be worth the bother if they are only going to be totally abstracted out?
EDIT: As an aside, any rule added to Borders of Madness is always intended to fit into the Federation Commander game system and paradigm, not just be a direct port from SFB. Some things are nearly direct equivalencies (e.g. photons). Some are not (e.g. ESG and PPD). But the primary concern is to fit the FC game system.
_________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mjwest wrote: | | Monty wrote: | | I applaud the direct fire drone rules in the BoM fighter module and would like to see more of this kind of thinking. This is a great system to get the drones off the map, so, what could be done to get fighters off the map too? |
Really? If the fighters are abstracted off the map, what, really, is the point in even including them? Not being facetious. I am seriously wondering why fighters would even be worth the bother if they are only going to be totally abstracted out?
EDIT: As an aside, any rule added to Borders of Madness is always intended to fit into the Federation Commander game system and paradigm, not just be a direct port from SFB. Some things are nearly direct equivalencies (e.g. photons). Some are not (e.g. ESG and PPD). But the primary concern is to fit the FC game system. |
The best way to abstract fighters would be to treat "N" fighters as a single fighting unit.
For example one could declare that instead of each fighter being a unique unit with its own damage track, miniature, etc you could say that they travel in 'wings' of 3. Each wing would have (for a typical 10-box fighter) 30 boxes and be crippled after 24 hits. (If this made them too durable you could simply lower the crippling threshold a little bit.)
This would make fighters a little less flexible but a little more durable and it would reduce the # of figurines on the map, the number of shuttle bay operations to keep track of, the amount of units one needs to allocate fire for and so on.
(*calculate* *calculate* *calculate* "Okay, each of those four fighters is being shot with 3 disruptors, 2 phaser 1's and 3 phaser 2, except the fourth which gets 2 disruptors, 4 phaser 1's and 4 phaser 2's..." roll roll roll roll roll roll roll roll. ..... ) <--- massive time sink
This would cause a minor problem for those few oddball ships (eg: Hydran K7H) that carry less than 3 fighters but for Carriers it would be very easy to abstract. Non-carrier carriers with amounts not easily abstracted could simply be given a smaller wing. Really big carriers might be given bigger wings. (Maybe a CVA carries wings of 6?)
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terryoc
Captain
Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1384
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Me no like this proposal.  Hydrans, like the chewing gum stuck on the bedpost overnight, would lose their flavour. And lots of existing Hydran Ship Cards would need redoing. And more testing. And so on... Existing fighter rules are I think adequate, although I think fighters are a little slow at speed 16. OTOH at speed 24 they'd be too fast. Maybe WBP's, turn them on or off at the beginning of the turn (only) and if on the fighter goes 24 but takes double damage.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| terryoc wrote: | | Me no like this proposal. Hydrans, like the chewing gum stuck on the bedpost overnight, would lose their flavour. And lots of existing Hydran Ship Cards would need redoing. And more testing. And so on... Existing fighter rules are I think adequate, although I think fighters are a little slow at speed 16. OTOH at speed 24 they'd be too fast. Maybe WBP's, turn them on or off at the beginning of the turn (only) and if on the fighter goes 24 but takes double damage. |
Heh... fair enough. I'm not sure why people want to 'abstract' fighters.
I am enjoying FC, but I have to be honest and say that every single fight I secretly wish I was playing SFB instead.
Unfortunately there are very few SFB players.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Targ
Lieutenant SG
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 125
Location: York U.K.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Duxvolantis, this was proposed, or something like, way back before distant kingdoms, but rejected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monty
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mjwest wrote: | | Monty wrote: | | I applaud the direct fire drone rules in the BoM fighter module and would like to see more of this kind of thinking. This is a great system to get the drones off the map, so, what could be done to get fighters off the map too? |
Really? If the fighters are abstracted off the map, what, really, is the point in even including them? Not being facetious. I am seriously wondering why fighters would even be worth the bother if they are only going to be totally abstracted out?
EDIT: As an aside, any rule added to Borders of Madness is always intended to fit into the Federation Commander game system and paradigm, not just be a direct port from SFB. Some things are nearly direct equivalencies (e.g. photons). Some are not (e.g. ESG and PPD). But the primary concern is to fit the FC game system. |
Yes, really.
Abstract the individual fighters off the map, but not fighters as an entity, like the old war game Flat Top. As an entity, collection, sortie or whatever you want to call it, they become as manageable as a stand alone ship. Strike, CAP and Escort are tride and true ideas for the creative game designer to flesh out.
I remember my old SFB group would let out a collective moan when someone selected a CV group with several wings of fighters, scout and MRS support. Many occasions we'd have guys leave early out of pure frustration. It was more fun to setup than actually play. This would lead to several house rules to get all the damn counters off the board. Many times Fighter combat would come down to an exercise in negotiation and reason. Your small drone stack passing near my fighter group counter would be easily neutralized, take it off the board; yeah, that makes since, go ahead, let's move on.
I want to manage my carrier operations, not all that interested in micromanaging individual speed, facing, firing arcs, turn modes, crippled status, em, chaff pod deployments and drone control of 24+ tiny ships.
I see this as a wonderful design opportunity.
Monty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1887
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Monty wrote: | Yes, really.
Abstract the individual fighters off the map, but not fighters as an entity, like the old war game Flat Top. As an entity, collection, sortie or whatever you want to call it, they become as manageable as a stand alone ship. Strike, CAP and Escort are tride and true ideas for the creative game designer to flesh out. |
The problem with the likes of Flat Top and other similiar games that I remember playing many moons ago is that they are on a different scale.
Abstracting out individual fighters at that higher level makes more sense. Why track what each fighter does or how much ammo it has in a game where a turn is measured in terms of hour(s). Ship combat in most of those games was itself abstracted out, you didn't micro manage your ships in combats and decide such things as whether to fire your guns now or in a few moments time, or whether to turn a few degrees to port etc etc.
When you get down to a game where each turn is representing mere moments, and each decison is down at the precise moment to fire and low level manouvering decisions then abstracting out fighters to that level really would feel odd.
I don't want this game to be about 'managing carrier operations', SFB was starting to go that way when it got to tedius to play, and probably got even more tedius from what I hear others say of later rules to when I played. I don't want to track deck crews, the reload status of each fighter weapon and all that rubbish. I want to play the person in charge of combat tactics and shooty bang bang bits, and assume that the deck crews/logistics guys are trained to do their job and it just happens without me directing whether they should pick up a 2" spanner or hammer drill, or which fighter they should work on first.
I used to have (probably still do have in the garage) a board game where you were in charge of that sort of detail, and it could be pretty good fun, do you take short cuts to turn around the aircraft or lower the risk of being caught with fuel and ammo exposed all over the place, do you go bombs or torps, how much cap, how much escort etc etc. That game, however, was a game of carrier operations and not a game of tactical ship combat. Horses for courses.
I don't disagree with the overall sentiment. I fall in the camp that some others do - feeling that fighters should have been abstracted a wee bit further than they have, grouped into wings or something. I've played a few games with lots of stingers and they can slow things down, and the BoM carrier game we played to test out the direct fire drones really very noticeably bogged down to a crawl, and those were games with just fighters on one side.
Last edited by storeylf on Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:12 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monty
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| terryoc wrote: | | Me no like this proposal. Hydrans, like the chewing gum stuck on the bedpost overnight, would lose their flavour. And lots of existing Hydran Ship Cards would need redoing. And more testing. And so on... Existing fighter rules are I think adequate, although I think fighters are a little slow at speed 16. OTOH at speed 24 they'd be too fast. Maybe WBP's, turn them on or off at the beginning of the turn (only) and if on the fighter goes 24 but takes double damage. |
Yeah, that idea is an interesting proposal for big carrier operations but proabably wouldn't work for the Hydrans.
The abstraction could be done without modifying any existing ship cards or changing designs of proposed carrier based ship cards already in the pipeline. Hydran units would not need to change and their projected firepower would be roughly equivalent. Fighter displays on those cards would be utilized by the absraction.
Btw, I'm a huge fan of the ported PPD/ESG rules.
Monty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hod K'el
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Lafayette LA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| terryoc wrote: | | Me no like this proposal. Hydrans, like the chewing gum stuck on the bedpost overnight, would lose their flavour. And lots of existing Hydran Ship Cards would need redoing. And more testing. And so on... Existing fighter rules are I think adequate, although I think fighters are a little slow at speed 16. OTOH at speed 24 they'd be too fast. Maybe WBP's, turn them on or off at the beginning of the turn (only) and if on the fighter goes 24 but takes double damage. |
This is how I use these rules for Vipers as I play BSG; my Vipers can run for 2 turns at speed 24, so I use 1 turn going in hot and 1 turn getting out hot. Well, whoever is left...Cylon base ships can be such a pain...worse than an SCS...more like a starbase that can fly. It is very much like the Kzinti Civil War...missiles and fighters everywhere!
_________________
HoD K'el
IMV Black Dagger
-----------------
Life is not victory;
Death is not defeat! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dal Downing
Commander
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 660
Location: Western Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As was stated earlier the whole make Fighters a Flight Rule was disscussed before Distant Kingdoms and that battle is over as far as I am concerned.
BUT, maybe what people would like to see is rules for Heavy Fighters introduced in a Communique. Basiclly you remove 2 Fighters and replace it with a Double Sized Fighter that requires 2 Shuttle boxes to land and rearm in. I would rather see F101s instead of A20s but I am kinda crazy to start with.
_________________
-Dal
"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Ibekwe
Commander
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 449
Location: Manchester UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stingers suffered an arbitrary reduction in firepower in FC. Perhaps the number of fighter drones could be kept in check by reducing them to one or two per fighter.
Similarly, the Hydran Ranger arbitrarily lost 1/3 of her fighters in FCB No. 2.
The game could be sped up by reducing other empires' carriers' fighter groups in the same way.
_________________
We are Hydrans! NO ONE LIKES US! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marcus_aurelius
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Jun 2008
Posts: 254
Location: Cary IL
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
If / when fighters make it into FC BoM I would hope that each empire gets a direct fire fighter option (photons, distruptors, small plasma bolts??).
That would make the rules and operation of those empires' fighters roughly the same complexity as the current Hydran fighters which I think work fine in FC.
Squadrons of drone armed fighters in FC, and the subsequent dozens of drones, does make me nervous. The direct fire drone rules didn't really enthuse me.
Although would having Kzinti without drone armed fighters dilute their starship drone capabilities in carrier battles and inordinately weaken them with respect to other empires? I don't know.
I do miss the Stinger-H though!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1887
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Any hints yet on how the new ADD rules will interact with direct fire drones?
ie. will they get any extra ADD capability to allow for the offensive useage that they will be missing with direct fire drones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
