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 

Federation Admiral
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Campaigns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3492
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Savedfromwhat wrote:
The idea that the book would be better as FEDCOM specific is not plain wrong. But only taken from a certain perspective, that being if the system had been designed with FEDCOM ships in mind so there wouldn't have to be fuss over not having a CAR+r-p+x or whatever ship that is only in SFB. That being said it doesn't sound like that is the way fed admiral was designed in the first place so in that respect SVC is correct.

That is not what Steve is talking about. The issue with FC isn't that it is "missing" a Fed CAR+a or various refits and crap like that. No, the issue is that it is missing things like survey ships, mine layers, mine sweepers, troop transports, supply ships, theatre transports, scouts, carriers, gunboats, ground bases, and probably some other things I am forgetting. "Strategic" means "logistics", and FC has no "logistical" ships*. It takes a while to get ships like that into the game, assuming they all make it in.

[*] Yes, with Transports Attacked, we have tugs and LTTs. It is a good start. But FC is still primarily focused on combat units, not logistical units.
_________________

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


Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Posts: 127

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your comment raises its own question, Mike.

If an issue is that FC is missing things like carriers and scouts and gunboats, i take it to mean that FA has those things. If FA didn't, then we wouldn't care that they were missing from FC.

So if FA has (or must be changed to include) carriers and scouts and gunboats, and FA is supposed to be an umbrella campaign for all of the systems, does this work the other way? Do those items that had been slated as BoM material creep toward offical canon in FC because they are actual historical non-BoM ships and classes in FA?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3492
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned fighters and gunboats in my prior message. Mentioning the mine ships may have confused things, too. Other than those three categories, however, the others are needed and not BoM.

As for how FA will handle the FC/BoM divide, I dunno. My point (which apparently got lost) is that the "missing" ships are more logistical in nature, not just more flavors of combat ships.
_________________

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


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 1865
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought Steve said that Mine ayers and Sweepers would never be in FC. Ever.
_________________
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
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1880

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strategy doesn't mean logistics, in the same way it doesn't mean economics. It might involve logistics and it might involve economics, but then it might not. That depends on what level of strategy you are talking about.

Even if you are playing at a level where logistics/economics are important you do not necessarily need certain ship cards. FA is (was?) a campaign system for FC/SFB as I understood it, there is a difference between real world strategic minutae and a campaign system for a tactical combat game. Logistics can readily be abstracted out, and leave the players to concentrate on the combat. I don't remember tons of logistics ships in F&E (or at least the version I have), I think a couple of tugs per empire may have been in and that was it. That was 'strategic' yet 'logistics' was abstracted out to the level where we didn't need to know about individual logistic ships, or resolve combats against them.

A lack of the ships you talk about hasn't stopped our group playing campaigns. The campaign Eric came up with that we were going to play (before he disappeared) handled logistics extremely abstractly, but quite suffciently for a FedCom campaign. They might not be the sort of campaigns that some like, but there are probably as many styles of campaign as there are players. Some of the extra ships you talk about would be nice, but nice doesn't mean needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jean
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 1291

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To go back in time and rewrite Federation Admiral to subtract all the logistical ships would delay it even more, going from what I remember seeing. It's a great campaign system, but it needs a depth of ships (and types of ships) that are not available in FC at this point. I think that is what SVC is getting at.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3492
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jean said it more simply than I. Sorry for confusing the situation.
_________________

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


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4468
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thing to remember about Federation Admiral.
It's a modular campaign system. You can add as much detail to it as you desire - or leave out anything you don't want.

Lots of potential campaign players could care less about the logistical aspect of the race to conquer your little sector of space. But just as mnay potential gamers want to be able to account for every single widget and gizmo that can produced, transported, and sold for a profit. The FA system can handle both of those campaigns... and several dozen layers of complexity in between those two extremes.

Unfortunately, the complex econ system requires those "missing" ships.
Releasing a system that's only half usuable until the missing ships are preovided only serves to fracture the community... and revising the system to remove references to the missing ships will delay it longer than just finishing it as started would have taken.

It's a fine line that SVC adn ADB must tread and I do not envy them those steps. Every business decision made is by necessity going to disappoint a fraction of their customer base.
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Simple answer is too include some Generic ships

Generic : supply ships, theatre transports, ground bases

which only leaves scouts and Survey ships.

Ground bases were just added in the last Captains log so we can take those off the list, Supply ships or Theatre transports are the LTT's we have now so take one or both of those off the list.


This is already looking like a smaller problem.

As for mine ships, Carriers, and PFT's/Gunboats... Those are not logistics units at all (arguably the mine layer could be considered as such) and so have no affect on the strategic game.

looks like we need a scout and survey ship for each fleet and we would be set (some of which have already been provided in communique).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jean
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 1291

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

savedfromwhat, except that some specifics are already included and to take them out means more time rewriting. Sad

I do not envy SVC his task of integrating the two systems while keeping true to our license.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leathernsteel
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Location: Orlando, FL

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a big believer in "good things come to those who wait". It's better it come out right than rush it out with a bunch of problems. My big thing is that I'm dying to play Star Fleet Marines Assault. It takes all the restraint I can muster to keep myself from harping on that on a daily basis. But I know that when it does come out, it's going to be dynamite, just like Admiral will be!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3073

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Without the logistical units, you don't need fed admiral, you just need a kitchen table, because you just have battles.

FA does not "need" nor does it "require" gunboats or carriers, but it could use them if the players wanted to use them. (No matter what combat engine you use, everyone can feel free to leave out whatever they want to leave out.) Making it possible for FA to use carriers and such adds about one page (and about an hour of work).

The problem is the logistics. Campaigns have to have some logistics or they aren't campaigns, by definition, and the earlier statement of "then just add" made me laugh as the additions are a lot of ships (although most are in TrA and it's boosters).

None of which is the point. Including or not including SFB, including or not including transports, would not speed up or slow down the project by a single day. THOSE are NOT the problem.

The problem is that the manuscript is VERY big and every page includes things Jay didn't get right and which have to be fixed. And every page means I have to work on it, send it to Jay who has to work on it, then Jay sends it back for me to work on again. And I don't even want to talk about Jean working on it.

Like I said, we all assumed that the FA manuscript was plug and play and it turned out not to be. In all seriousness, this project should never have been mentioned in public until it was finished, and those who playtested it did not point out the "universe consistency issues" to Jay, which meant that all of the playtesting was wasted as they were playtesting rules that could not be published.

The best thing to do would be to publicly cancel the project, work on it in secret, and then suddenly announce it was not cancelled at all, but I don't like treating my customers that way.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1880

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
Without the logistical units, you don't need fed admiral, you just need a kitchen table, because you just have battles.


Given FedCom is just a tactical battle game, I'm not sure what that is meant to mean. If you aren't going to play battles then you are not playing FedCom anyway, but presumably some seperate strategy game. What would you do other than just play battles even once FedCom has the ships.

Quote:
The problem is the logistics. Campaigns have to have some logistics or they aren't campaigns, by definition, and the earlier statement of "then just add" made me laugh as the additions are a lot of ships (although most are in TrA and it's boosters).


It is true that some people may want logistics units in their campaigns. It may be true that FA needs logistics stuff to be a proper complete product. But since when has the defintion of a campaign system for a tactical game meant logistics (and the units in particular) are mandatory?

A campaign for a game at FedComs tactical scale usually means something that allows you to play a series of games where results of one feed into others, or an over-arcing victory condition. Practically standalone strategic games (with logistics) are just one of many ways of achieving that.


Last edited by storeylf on Thu Sep 15, 2011 7:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bolo_MK_XL
Commander


Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 791
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't the point of a Campaign engine to provide battles, that losing a ship affects future battles --
Instead of just using the best fleet you can pick, with no regard to losing them ----

There are those that wouldn't ever change their fleets if not forced (gets boring after a while) ---
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3073

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is always an issue. Given their choice, people want a fleet of 11 dreadnoughts, but that means 10 other battles don't have a dreadnought.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Campaigns All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 8 of 12

 
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