Federation Commander

mjwest · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:04 pm Post subject:

To expand on Lee's answer, originally, when Federation Commander first came out, there was a lot of discussion on details that were in SFB but that are not present in Federation Commander. Steve maintained that wanting to add that stuff into Federation Commander was bordering on madness. The name kinda stuck after that. Then, to actually cement it in place, some of us convinced Steve to include a "Borders of Madness" section as a regular part of Captain's Log.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

DirkSJ · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 08 Jun 2010 Posts: 239

mjwest · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject:

Dal Downing · Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:08 am Post subject:

Ok, some people keep harping BoM should never see the light of day because it will alienate the fan base. True, but by not doing it, the exact same thing will happen as well. For the last several years I have enthusiastically bought Fed Com stuff because the things I have wanted to see, I kept being told would be BoM Material. I kept my mouth shut about when BoM would come out and pitched in when or where I could to get the base game finished because it was the fastest way to see official rules for the things I want to do.

Now with the release of War and Peace the Alpha Sector is pretty much complete. There are still 3 more Empires that could be published as a Ancient Empires type product. (Carnavons, Paravians, and Jindarians) And I would gladly look forward to adding them. But now reading this thread I find out there may not be a BoM? This has started me wondering where are my Minefields, Minesweepers, Fighter Hanger Bays, Gunboats, Electronic Warfare Platforms, and Carrier Units? When will I see realistic Fighter Rules that will function on a Open Map as well as a closed one? When will I be able to run Cavalry Charge, or Pleads Turkey Shoot?

Many times I could have started making a Grade "A" pain of myself harping. Well BoM could do this or, BoM could do that or, this is something I am eagerly looking forward to seeing in BoM... I didn't do that and I am not going to start doing it here now because we are all mature and intelligent people here so why should I have to sit back and keep poking and prodding for a product that the concept was already established for. If there is not a BoM will I take my ball so to speak and go home? Not a first I am too much of a Star Fleet Universe fan just to flush it after 30 years. but will I start shifting my interest to other games and systems in a attempt to get what I really want to play with? That answers is almost assuredly a yes.

Is this going to be a easy decision for SVC? No, but I had to make sure I expressed a counter point because I am sure I am not the only one that feels this way.
_________________
-Dal

"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!"

Steve Cole · Site Admin Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3828

The title is actually a play on my favorite Lovecraft novel

THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS

which I enjoyed reading in college. it's actually the only lovecraft novel I have read, although I have about 50 of them on Leanna's kindle. (Which I only get access to when there is not a new cat-detective book in the offing.)

Will doing BoM drive people away? Maybe some, not sure.

Will NOT going BoM drive people away? Probably more than the other option.

Will it fracture playing groups? Perhaps, but I'm not sure it will fracture them any more than not doing BoM and having players do BoM all by themselves.

Will BoM be a "laminated card product" taking up a production slot or just a briefing type product? Dunno. Maybe, maybe not. No real decision has been made. And there is no iron-clad law that we can only do one product a year with laminated cards, not with the new system that makes printing fewer of them practicable.

Biggest obstacle to doing BoM? I'm busy doing too many things. Running the company takes half of my time, and I have Marines, F&E, and FC to do, plus Starmada and ACTA and 2500 stuff to manage, plus I want to do more paperback books. And by the way, Leanna wants more hubby time and wants my hours cut back from 80 to 60 per week.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

leathernsteel · Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:42 am Post subject:

Alex Knight · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:55 pm Post subject:

kinshi · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:40 pm Post subject:

THis is an eklmet that confuses me a bit in the discussion fo BoM

Savedfromwhat · Commander Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 657

This topic comes up a lot. Frankly I don't understand the reluctance people are showing to this product. It is a game, it has modules, this is not 1985. There is an internet and rules changes/additions will forever be a part of gaming, unless of course the game you play is dead and then the rules of course are set in stone.

If all of your playmates hate BOM and you hate BOM then don't use BOM, but why would you come online and talk about how it will ruin your gaming group if you already know by your own account that 'not a single one of my old sfb friends wants this product'. Most who has advocated against BOM have claimed that 'everyonethe they know hares new rules', if that is the case this product isn't for you or for them.

terryoc · Captain Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1386

semperatis · Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:07 am Post subject:

BoM if it's ever published will only ever be OPTIONAL. These rules are only for those of us who would like to see some of the left out sections being re-written into FC format. I don't think that even then every rule would be used,rather we would probably just pick and chose the ones that were necessary to play the particular scenario that we were running at the time.
I personally don't see a problem with them,and I'll definately be buying them when they finally do appear. I like FC as it stands,but it would be nice to be able to add extra rules as and when required,I've no intention of going back to the hernia days of SFB. At the moment,I add in SFB rules when I play certain scenarios from way back,but the rules don't always dovetail in very well,hence the reason why I'm looking forward to BoM.
_________________
Federal Republic of Aurora fleet builder.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes.

mjwest · Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:09 pm Post subject:

Steve Cole · Site Admin Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3828

Random thoughts.

The problem with optional rules is that some players insist on using them while others insist on ignoring them, thus dividing the group. A little good will and the willingness to try something new and the willingness to play a simple version now and then is what makes things work.

Certainly, FC does not need the complexity of SFB. That does not mean that there are not FC players who want the capabilities of SFB.

I think a lot of people want carriers and some people want scouts, maulers, and Stasis generators. I don't see any reason that those could not be done without the complexity of SFB. I have avoided doing fighters, for example, until I can find a workable way to handle/avoid 635 drones in simultaneous flight. (WARNING: DO NOT START DISCUSSING POSSIBLE BOM DRONE RULES HERE. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TOPICS.)

Few people understand what is BoM and what is FC stuff we just haven't done yet. Ground bases (which were done a few months ago) were always a future part of FC and never a part of BoM. I don't see why commando ships are not plain old FC. There are people out there who think that tugs are BoM (they aren't) and that battle pods will be added to BoM (maybe). Also remember that we do things in Captain's Log to let players drive them around the block, not to the camel's nose into the tent.

There are a lot of things in SFB that don't ever need to come into FC, such as crew quality, legendary officers, and 11 kinds of drone warheads. I left enveloping plasmas and wild weasels out of FC and have zero plans for them to come into BoM.

BoM is about adding capabilities, not complexity.

Like all things that are poorly defined, they are all things (or all fears) to all people. Everybody has their own idea of what BoM is, and you're all probably wrong, ergo, basing your theories of why you want/hate BoM based on bogus information.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

Kang · Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:35 pm Post subject:

For myself, yes I am sometimes afraid of FC being made into SFB, but I really do trust that that ain't gonna happen.

What I do like a lot about the BoM idea is that I'm looking forward to seeing how the various systems are implemented.

I love FC's game system. It is clean and elegant, and although I have been to blame for more than my fair share of rules clarification requests, most of which have ended up being incorporated into later rulebooks as 'starred' items, it is still simple.

The elegance of FC will be incorporated into BoM, I am sure, whatever form it takes. And I really am looking forward to seeing how it's going to work.

Consider the beauty of how the Andromedan systems have already been implemented, in 'War and Peace'. They had the potential of being really potent, or too weak. But the designers got the balance just right - and kept it elegant, playable and simple at the same time.

For myself, I may well not play many games incorporating BoM concepts. But for me, part of the pleasure of simulation gaming is seeing how the designer represents 'reality' using a set of cardboard pieces. And that's where the elegance comes in and that's what I'm looking forward to.
_________________

Alex Knight · Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:04 pm Post subject: