 |
Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mjwest
Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4074
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:10 am Post subject: Purpose of Borders of Madness |
 |
|
[From the Fighters in BoM thread ...]
| storeylf wrote: | If these are going to be BoM rules then it might be worth clarifying what BoM is supposed to be about. Is it:
An attempt to bring more SFB players into FC, in which case your audience is probably much more into the drone clutter and minute detail.
An attempt to bring additional SFB 'concepts' to FC players (as optional rules?), in which case it probably wants to tend towards FCs simpler and less cluttered approach.
Or somehow straddle the 2.
Something else? |
Originally, BoM was intended to be a two-way street, allowing for the mingling of SFB and FC as desired. However, a vocal minority of SFB players go ape-$$$$ when trying to bring things into SFB, so that whole concept was completely tossed. I think the actual goal is to straddle the two: to provide an opportunity for SFB players to play faster games in FC, but still get to use many of their widgets AND to give FC players a chance to play with those extra widgets.
Personally, the approach I have always taken to Borders of Madness is to adopt SFB rules or concepts that are not in Federation Commander to the FC game system. I am actually not that concerned about the user, as much as trying to make it fit as well as possible. It would appear that fighters are the one subject where the audience really does matter, and that approach has to be modified.
_________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mjwest
Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4074
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Follow up posts from the other thread ...
| Monty wrote: | | mjwest wrote: | Originally, BoM was intended to be a two-way street, allowing for the mingling of SFB and FC as desired. However, a vocal minority of SFB players go ape-$$$$ when trying to bring things into SFB, so that whole concept was completely tossed. I think the actual goal is to straddle the two: to provide an opportunity for SFB players to play faster games in FC, but still get to use many of their widgets AND to give FC players a chance to play with those extra widgets.
Personally, the approach I have always taken to Borders of Madness is to adopt SFB rules or concepts that are not in Federation Commander to the FC game system. I am actually not that concerned about the user, as much as trying to make it fit as well as possible. It would appear that fighters are the one subject where the audience really does matter, and that approach has to be modified. |
Do you find that SFB players have more trouble with the lack of rules in FC compared to SFB or the game structure such as sub-pulse system? |
| duxvolantis wrote: | | Monty wrote: |
Do you find that SFB players have more trouble with the lack of rules in FC compared to SFB or the game structure such as sub-pulse system? |
I miss three things about SFB:
1) All the tactical subtleties. The outcome of an FC battle is much more predictable than in SFB. Cloaking and cloak hunting in SFB, for example, was infinitely more varied and interesting than in FC.
2) The flavor. Having all the ships be fully refitted leaves some of the flavor out of the game. Proximity photons added flavor. DERFACS and UIM added flavor. Truly weak rear shields and point defense on un-refitted ships added flavor.
3) The precision of the rules. FC is well done, but there are some pretty basic rules that require some assumptions and leaps of intuition. (For example, the tractor rules and the 'me too' rules.)
Things I find that I don't miss:
1) Firing decisions every impulse and the Mizia effect.
2) Having to keep track of the rules for myself *and* everyone else since only maybe 15% of SFB players knew the entire rulebook well.
3) Spending hours designing the drone load-out for a 2000 point Kzinti-Klingon fleet engagement.  |
| Nerroth wrote: | I can't speak for some of the other things you list, but there are plenty of unrefitted ships for several Alpha Octant empires in Briefing #2 (either the print or e23 versions) which are ready to go.
Plus, most of the Omega ships currently in print for SFB (let alone FC) are essentially "middle years" designs; with no lack of flavour to go around.
(Since I work on the Omega project for FC, I might be expected to say that, but how and ever...) |
_________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barry Kirk
Lieutenant JG
Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Posts: 46
Location: York, PA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A two way street would have been nice...
There are a couple of FC concepts that are really superior to SFB.
1. Only one TAC per turn.
2. No mega bricks.
Those items prevent Star Castling.
3. I actually think that maneuver is superior in FC than SFB.
4. Every ship in FC actually has a form of Aegis...
In SFB very often you will fire 2 P3 at a drone just to make sure that you kill it. In FC you will fire a single P3 at each drone in a stack, counting on the fact that you can tractor the "leakers" that survive a single P3.
Example in SFB with 3 drones incoming assuming all Type I, you would fire 6 P3 at a power cost of 3 to kill them all.
In FC, those same 3 drones, you would first fire 3 P3 for a cost of 1.5, and on average one would survive which is than tractored for one power. The next impulse you fire a single P3 to kill off the last drone for another 0.5.
Power cost of three on average is the same for killing all 3 drones.
However, in SFB you needed 6 P3 whereas in FC you used 4 P3 and a tractor.
It's an option... You could still just fire 6 P3 in FC...
The point, is that in FC you have the option to save a pair of P3 to fire at the other ship. And if your firing P1 as P3, it's even better.
_________________
Kiera is my top winning show puppy.
After the show bath and before the show, she went digging in the mud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Cole
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3828
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Barry, you aren't the only one who thinks FC could teach SFB a few lessons (and lots of those who think like you are Lyrans who want the FC ESG rules in SFB), but the majority of SFB players not only do not want any FC rules brought into SFB but get very upset at the mere mention of the idea.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blammo
Lieutenant SG
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 170
Location: Barnesville, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I kind of like the on-the-spot accel and decel without a ongoing speed change. Sort of like tapping the gas or brakes in a car. If I ever ported anything over to SFB (not that I would, but if I did) this would be one of the things I would bring. Being able to make those temporary changes brings up a whole different set of tactical options and surprises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Ibekwe
Commander
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 453
Location: Manchester UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Lyrans who want the FC ESG rules in SFB |
Considering how much more effective the ESG is in FC, that's hardly surprising.
I'd hazard a guess that there aren't too many Hydran players clamouring for the FC treatment of Hellbores or Stingers to be ported over, or SFB Kzinti pining for the FC drone reload rules.
Due to a lack of local opponents, I've shifted more or less from SFB to FC now. When I begin trying to move my local club on from their current starship game, it will be to FC. However, as an old SFB hand I do miss maulers, PFs, X-ships et.c, and BoM will make them a good deal more accessible, and maybe woo back some old SFB players with the chance to revisit their favourite toys.
Plonking down my main SFB folder tends to elicit sharp intakes of breath - the gamers 'round here are simple souls, and big books frighten 'em (especially if they might be asked to purchase them).
In that respect, FC has been a godsend.
_________________
We are Hydrans! NO ONE LIKES US!
Last edited by Dan Ibekwe on Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve Cole wrote: | | Barry, you aren't the only one who thinks FC could teach SFB a few lessons (and lots of those who think like you are Lyrans who want the FC ESG rules in SFB), but the majority of SFB players not only do not want any FC rules brought into SFB but get very upset at the mere mention of the idea. |
Nothing stopping them from introducing the ones they like as house rules.
I like the FC DAC better. (We'd all switched over to battlecards even though they were "less purely random" than the standard DAC, for example).
I like the energy allocation and pre-planning of SFB better.
I like the maneuver of FC better.
I never perceived Star Castling as a problem that needed to be solved. Trading the initiative for energy was just one more choice in a very complex tactical game.
I liked the average fleet speeds of SFB better. IMHO the higher speeds of FC have broken some things.
I liked the specific shield reinforcement rules of SFB and wish there were a mechanism for it in FC.
I like t-bombs (even if they can't be hidden and they hit all ship classes).
I really like SFB-style EW, but don't think it has a place in FC.
I miss all the various refits and oddball ship variants of SFB simply because of the flavor they added.
I would prefer some middle ground between pure me-too and secret fire allocation. "Me too" works if the game is friendly, but it can degenerate into "I don't know, are you firing." stalemates that you have to work around.
All in all I am happier with FC than I thought I would be and I am growing to appreciate the game for what it has to offer, although I will probably try to introduce a substantial subset of BoM into our local play when it is available--mostly because it will allow a broader range of scenarios and ship choices.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blammo wrote: | | I kind of like the on-the-spot accel and decel without a ongoing speed change. Sort of like tapping the gas or brakes in a car. If I ever ported anything over to SFB (not that I would, but if I did) this would be one of the things I would bring. Being able to make those temporary changes brings up a whole different set of tactical options and surprises. |
LOL. Good analogy.
I loved, flat out loved, mid-turn speed changes (both plotted and unplotted). Manipulation of the impulse chart was part of the art of the tournament and FC has "dumbed" this down a bit. Anyone who played where they were allowed and did not take advantage of them was underutilizing their ship.
That being said, they did add a lot of time to energy allocation phase unless you were *really* familiar with your ship. I could plot a 24-17-24 sequence on a Fed TC with my eyes closed. Figuring that out for a whole fleet, however, took some time
Loved it.
Don't miss it
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barry Kirk
Lieutenant JG
Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Posts: 46
Location: York, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And that is what borders of madness is... it's not FC... it's not SFB... it's sort of a fusion of the two.
_________________
Kiera is my top winning show puppy.
After the show bath and before the show, she went digging in the mud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjwest
Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4074
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| duxvolantis wrote: | I liked the specific shield reinforcement rules of SFB and wish there were a mechanism for it in FC.
I like t-bombs (even if they can't be hidden and they hit all ship classes). |
Don't ever expect to see these in any form in FC or BoM. These were intentionally not include in FC.
| Quote: | I would prefer some middle ground between pure me-too and secret fire allocation. "Me too" works if the game is friendly, but it can degenerate into "I don't know, are you firing." stalemates that you have to work around.
|
I find a lot of this is from the whole "fake them out" games that SFB fostered. Once you get use to FC, I tend to see this just go away and drop down to what it was intended to do: allow for reactive fire declaration.
_________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mjwest wrote: |
I find a lot of this is from the whole "fake them out" games that SFB fostered. Once you get use to FC, I tend to see this just go away and drop down to what it was intended to do: allow for reactive fire declaration. |
I think perhaps you are projecting. The specific incidents I have witnessed have involved people who have never even seen the SFB rulebooks.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blammo
Lieutenant SG
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 170
Location: Barnesville, GA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mjwest wrote: | | duxvolantis wrote: | | I like t-bombs (even if they can't be hidden and they hit all ship classes). |
Don't ever expect to see these in any form in FC or BoM. These were intentionally not include in FC.
|
Which is sad to me because since BoM is supposed to be that bridge to bring concepts from SFB to FC it seems unusual that any sort of mine warfare would be left out. You would think that it would be fairly simple to translate these concepts (for instance, you strike a mine on sub-pulse 2, but the damage is not applied until defense fire, etc). Popping out T-Bombs (or NSMs) that you can't set trigger conditions for (or that only have a 0 range blast radius), create all sorts of interesting tactical issues. It also brings into play a whole new range of ships (mine-sweepers/layers). You don't have to have captor mines, sensor mines or any of those, but just so good old explosive mines would be great!
Of course, all that said, I am just putting together my own mine rules regardless. It's just I would prefer something that has been through the whole "development" process to make sure it works with the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duxvolantis wrote: | | mjwest wrote: |
I find a lot of this is from the whole "fake them out" games that SFB fostered. Once you get use to FC, I tend to see this just go away and drop down to what it was intended to do: allow for reactive fire declaration. |
I think perhaps you are projecting. The specific incidents I have witnessed have involved people who have never even seen the SFB rulebooks. |
Me-to allows you to react to fire decisions by the other guy, not decisions not to fire. If you just treat 'don't know' as no fire (or to put it another way there was no actual fire declaration, therefore it must be a no fire) then the other guy can say 'no-fire' and the game moves on a phase, end of stalemate. If he had wanted to fire, but was 'gaming the sytem' then tough he missed his chance and should have declared it. If the other guy does declare fire then he can react to it anyway.
Played like that, which is as I read the rule, I don't really see where the stalemate of 'are you?' comes from. 'Are you?' becomes meaningless as you can react to a 'yes' anyway, the only question is whether there is any fire you really really want to do, you need to declare that or possibly lose the chance if the other guy just passes on firing.
A similiar thing happened with us recently, my opponent declared a bit of fire to see what I would do, but I was sure that he really wanted to fire quite a bit more. I pointed out that if I said 'no fire' then he couldn't go back and add in anymore (and I possibly would have passed to make him miss his main volleys for another impulse). That made him declare all the fire he actually wanted to do, at which point the proper reactive firing declarations kicked in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjwest
Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4074
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mines: There may or may not be minefields in BoM. This would allow for better fixed location defenses, and introduce minesweepers. There would be no minelaying, however. There would definitely be no T-bombs.
Me-too: Storey got it nailed. Very simply, if your opponent always wants you to go first, on any impulse you don't plan on firing, always say, "No Fire." If your opponent says, "No Fire," too, then you move one. If he declares fire, you can react to that and add fire of your own.
The only time you can run into problems is if you are trying to play mind games on your opponent. But then, the whole point of me-too is to short-circuit those mind games.
_________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bolo_MK_XL
Captain
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 836
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, even with "Me-to" -- all it requires is a phaser (be it even a ph-3) ---
Since they want to instigate -- their requirement to declare first they are firing --
If your tactics are working i.e. Saber Dance - then you know when you want to fire -- any opponents headgames shouldn't be changing your mind on that -- |
|
| 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
