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 

Request for Scenario Issues

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3491
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:15 pm    Post subject: Request for Scenario Issues Reply with quote

[I realize this might not work perfectly, but I am going to go and try this anyway ...]

In preparation for the Master Scenario Book, I would like for anyone who believes that a scenario is broken or has problems to tell me those issues. You can either send a PM, or make a post in this thread.

Note that I am not asking for opinions on the scenarios themselves. There are always going to be scenarios you don't like or don't appeal to you. Rather, I am looking for scenarios that are totally broken or have rules errors or something like that.

Also note that I am not promising that anything will necessarily get changed. (E.g. Hood Goes Down won't change, though it could possibly use an extra sentence explaining it.) However, I know people have mentioned on this forum before about problems with some scenarios (particularly the earlier ones) and if we can get them fixed, I would like to at least try to do so. Steve has not asked me to do this (at least not yet). I am simply trying to be proactive.
_________________

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


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1556
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:22 am    Post subject: The Dakota Incident Reply with quote

Scenario:
The Dakota Incident (8CM30)

Product:
Communique #42

Problem:
1. All the Federation ship has to do is move at baseline speed 24 to win.
2. Two levels of victory conditions are listed, but both are the same.

Solution:
Somehow during the editing a couple of important things were left out.
1. Add this as a Special Rule:
The Federation ship is limited to a baseline speed of 16 for this scenario. You may not use acceleration, but you may use deceleration.
2. This is how the victory conditions should read:
Victory: You win an overwhelming victory by executing an emergency transport of the crew of the freighter to your ship, exiting the right side of the right map with less than half your internal system boxes marked as damaged, and not causing more than 10 internal damage points on any Klingon ship. You win a marginal victory by rescuing the crew and exiting the right side of the right map with less than half your internal system boxes damaged. You win a tactical victory by rescuing the freighter crew and exiting the right side of the right map.
_________________
Mike

=====
"Sometimes our best is not enough. We must do what is required." -- Winston Churchill


Last edited by Mike on Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scenario:
The Destruction of Mobile Base X-Ray
Product:
Romulan Border
Problem:
The scenario requires the Romulans to CAPTURE the base to win, a Romulan War Eagle only has 5 marines, the base has 8, plus an astute federation player will add marines from the DW. As it stands the scenario is unwinable by the Romulans.
Solution:
Add marines to the Romulan War Eagle
Change the victory conditions
Remove marines from the Federation units
Create a scenario specific rule for combat casualties
Any combination of the above
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JimDauphinais
Commander


Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 765
Location: Chesterfield, MO

PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scenario:

(8CM13) Asteroid Operations



Problem:

The setup calls for the Tholian Base Station to be setup on the center of a map panel. The Tholian Base Station needs to be setup in the center of the map, not the center of a map panel, in order for the scenario setup to work.

While the ships all start within 20 to 30 hexes of the Tholian Base Station, the starting positions for the opposing ships will not be able to fit on a 3 x 2 small hex map or 4 x 3 large hex map due to the distance and direction setup requirements relative to the Tholian Base Station.



Recommended Solution:

Change:

"Setup the map with 3 panels across and 2 panels high if using small hexes (4 wide and 3 high with large hexes)."

to

"Setup the map with 4 panels across and 2 panels high if using small hexes (6 wide and 3 high with large hexes)."


Change:

"Place a Tholian Base Station in the center of a map panel."

to

"Place a Tholian Base Station in the center of the map."



Alternative Solution:

Change:

"Place one Klingon D6 and two F5s 30 hexes from the Tholian base anywhere between directions E and F."

to

"Place one Klingon D6 and two F5s 20 hexes from the Tholian base anywhere between directions E and F."


Change:

"Place a Tholian Base Station in the center of a map panel."

to

"Place a Tholian Base Station in the center of the map."



Other Problems:

None. No other mechanical issues were identified during play and the play balance appeared to be within the range of 40/60 to 60/40.
_________________
Jim Dauphinais, Chesterfield, MO

St. Louis Area Fed Comm Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/STL_Federation_Commander/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1960
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(8CM76) HUN IN THE SUN, Comm #89

Special rule 2 - Effects of Star Glare. The impact directions for seeking weapons are incorrect. It reads, "A seeking weapon will miss if it "impacts" its target from directions B through C". What it should say is, "A seeking weapon will miss if it "impacts" its target from direction E or F".

Alternatively if the SWs are moving in directions B or C, then the weapons will miss.

This is all because the star is in directions B and C, so logically a weapon impacting from directions E or F will be facing in directions B or C respectively, i.e. looking at the star's glare and therefore unable to find the target.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1556
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scenario:
(8J) Sabotage!

Product:
Communique #2

Problem:
The printed format is not according to the now-finalized standard.

Solution:
Edit to put the scenario in the standard format.

NOTE: This suggestion also applies to Base Assault in Communique #1, (8C3) The Battle of Juggernaut Alpha in Comm#5 (which also has another problem: the sections go from 8C to 8H), (8C1) The First Battle of Juggernaut Beta in Comm#6 (which also has the problem of going from 8C to 8H).
_________________
Mike

=====
"Sometimes our best is not enough. We must do what is required." -- Winston Churchill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3071

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The scenario format has evolved over time. There really isn't much point in going back to "fix" the old ones and designer time is prioritized to NEW products. Would you rather have that scenario fixed or a new scenario in a new product? And don't offer to fix it for us; it would take us as much time to check your fixes as ot do it ourselves, and again, the priority is new stuff.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1960
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That all makes sense. The only other point I would raise is that this *is* to do with a new product - the Master Scenario Book. I think Mike just wants everything to be straight before it goes into that new product.

Is that product in fact in the pipeline, btw? I'd definitely be interested if it was.
_________________


Last edited by Kang on Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Panda21
Ensign


Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I, for one, would like to have old ones fixed. I definitely understand the business priority, but as a new customer, I feel the need to remind you that these scenarios aren't old to me, they are still new. They reflect completely on my FIRST IMPRESSION of the game.

I'm trying to learn FC by playing these scenarios and I'm still not sure what things are minor issues I should just change myself and what items are scenario breaking, so I don't know what is ok to change and what is just "cheating".

I do understand that it might not seem a priority to change old stuff, but when you are trying to market to a new crowd and get new customers, these issues can be frustrating.

For instance, when I start trying to play the Planet killer scenario and it says to set to the map as 3 x 2, but put the ships 50 hexes from the Planet Killer, which I can't do, I get stuck. I ended up printing out more map sheets and laying it out 4 x 2.

May seem like a minor issue to most of the veterans around here, but I honestly questioned what to do. I didn't know if I was breaking balance by changing the rules, or which rule to adjust.

So, then I played the scenario and found that the 350 points of ships I used easily blew up the planet killer. It didn't stand a chance. So I search the board and find that many people have mentioned the issue but it has never been fixed. It's relatively unbalanced the way it is. So I just spent 2 hours of my time with my kids playing through a scenario that wasn't that fun because I (the PK) never stood any realistic chance.

It just makes it hard to recommend the game to a bunch of other players when the details aren't fixed right.

Don't get me wrong. I love the game, and I love playing it. But having to tell people, "You should get this game! It's great!" is very different from saying "You should get this game, but be patient with it cause there are mistakes in the scenarios and some are unbalanced, so you might waste your entire afternoon to find out you picked a bad one".

If you want to market to the same game to new people, it would be greatly appreciated to have some time spent fixing these kinds of details. It's all about professional presentation and refinement and polish.

Sorry to be a downer. I do love the game and plan on buying more of it. Please keep up the good work. But this kind of cleanup would easily take my review scores from a 7/10 to a 9/10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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