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 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Campaigns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3828

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's say that I should have gotten more into FA before I put it on the schedule and leave it at that. Jumping the gun was a mistake made, regretted, and learned from.

And Mongoose is upset this morning that I'm not doing their stuff (answering memos, checking ships, typing up rulebook notes) as fast as they want me to do it. I told them that they have nearly destroyed ADB's release as it is.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
JonPerry
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Completely and totally agree with Savedfromwhat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3828

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You would be completely wrong to think that "taking on" the other game systems delayed the product. (It did not, not one day. The delay was caused by things wrong with the manuscript and the size of the project. The original supply system totally contradicted everything every published about SFU and could not be published under the license. The original techblock system had nothing to do with how SFU tech development works and could not be published under the license.)

You would be completely wrong to think that "taking on" the other game systems made the book bigger. (That added about one page. Basically, everywhere that said FedCom now lists four games. One or two places have a note about ship list availability being different in the games.)

You would be completely wrong to think that "taking on" the other game systems changed the book in any way.

The idea that this book would be better if it was FedCom specific is just plain wrong. It's a campaign, and FedCom is a combat engine. Any campaign will (and needs to) work with any combat engine.

The other issue is that for FedAdmiral to work correctly, it needs a LOT of ships that are NOT in FC (and quite a few that never will be). FedAdmiral actually works a lot better with SFB than it does with FC because the ship list is ten times as big.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 657

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4069
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: 124

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: 4069
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: 1862
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897

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: 1732

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.
_________________
Business Manager/RPG Line Editor
Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4069
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: 4754
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.
_________________
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 657

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: 1732

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.
_________________
Business Manager/RPG Line Editor
Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc.
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
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 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 6 of 16

 
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