Federation Commander

Scoutdad · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:59 pm Post subject:

Since I usually end up running these types of things, I've love to actually participate in one run by someone else.

Count me in.

Tony L. Thomas
Battlegroup Murfreesboro
_________________
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF

mwaschak · Lieutenant JG Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 94

Scoutdad · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:24 pm Post subject:

JonPerry · Lieutenant SG Joined: 12 Jul 2010 Posts: 124

terryoc · Captain Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1386

I'd prefer sector commander scale.

If turns are weekly or biweekly, using the CSCR would be better for me (less time commitment, and I just can't seem to find time to get online for fCOL)

I suppose a historical medium-scale campaign would be OK. I would NOT want to play a huge scenario.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West

mwaschak · Lieutenant JG Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 94

Thanks for the reply everyone. I am sure we will get a lot of preferences, and fortunately it is not hard to accomodate players to some extent. So if we did go with a medium weight campaign around the time of the 4 Powers War near the WYN Cluster, we could find a way to fit a player in based on how many resources they wanted to control or how involved they want to be.

So for example we could give someone who knows FA a little better, like Tony, supreme command of the Lyran forces as an admiral. Then maybe we could give him two sub-commodores who could run a small section of the map with a much smaller fleet. There are easy ways to divide up the game to give everyone something important to do and fit their preference.

I do think whatever we do we should keep the objective system intact. I have this vision of one side trying to passively trigger a conflict, while the other needs time to prepare. And like Tony said, the Klingons are allied with the Lyrans but each side might have very different goals. This makes for some very interesting scenarios in my experience, and a lot of interesting diplomacy.

As far as battles go, I am all for FASCRS for most battles. If the battle is too important we can find a way to play it in FC.

If this sounds good I will start drawing up a map, and maybe some custom scenario goals.

-Jay

JonPerry · Lieutenant SG Joined: 12 Jul 2010 Posts: 124

It didn't occur to me that the system could be played at two different scales at the same time like that - or at least could be kit-bashed to allow for it.

Interesting.

Yep, I'm in.

What is an upper limit for players? Do I ask the others in my game group if they are interested, allowing for your restrictions on order turn-around?

mwaschak · Lieutenant JG Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 94

Nerroth · Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:44 pm Post subject:

If you are thinking of the Four Powers War, would that mean you'd plan to use the Middle Years ships from Briefing #2 to play it out?
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion

The Shat · Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject:

I am in if you don't mind a noob. I am excited to try this system out!

-Matt
_________________
Word.

Scoutdad · Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:44 pm Post subject:

mwaschak · Lieutenant JG Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 94

I think this summarizes a good scenario for us. Thanks Tony.

So let's use this as the template. The more interest we have, the more small commanders we can squeeze in as border commodores with a minimum of 5 players. I also thought about having a player just run the plot points I might need here and there.

Lyran
Kzinti
Klingons
Orion Cartel
WYN

I believe I am going to build this to be at the regional campaign scale. That should give us plenty of wiggle room, and keep the fleets fairly reasonable. I will also draw up some preliminary ship lists and OoB to make sure I am consistent with the SFU history. I think setting the campaign in the years building up to the General War is a good idea.

How do you guys feel about using the objective system? For those who haven't seen the material this is basically more about fulfilling the goals of your empire, not necessarily the standard 4x of most space campaigns. This opens the door for minor players to actually win games if they are completely ignored. Like Tony mentioned, this might mean that the Orion player making money is scoring VP for that player.

-Jay

JonPerry · Lieutenant SG Joined: 12 Jul 2010 Posts: 124

If I and a friend or 2 of mine joined this, and we were placed in opposing sectors (Klink/Kzin border) - am I correct in saying that the objective system (and the Fed Admiral system in general) would/could act as a scenario generator for us, allowing us to run some small battles locally, as well as providing a larger strategery framework with decisions, repercussions, pathos, etc?

Scoutdad · Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:44 pm Post subject:

Jay:
Some points...

Regional Scale: Perfect choice.
This gives us room to grow, but will not bog down with massive accounting efforts. And as you stated, gives a chance for expanding the pool by adding sub-commanders. And the best thing is - they can be added at any time they are needed / available.

General War setting:
Still a good idea. I don't know if it's feasible or not - but what if...
Starting units were Middle Years units (of course, this would require Briefing #2) and new units added over the course of the event were regular GW units? It would recreate the existence of older ships at the frontier locations, slowly being upgraded as the certainty of war increased.
And it would force the commanders to decide where to station his older ships.

Objectives:
I definitely vote FOR these.
We played one small campaign w/o them to learn the basics, then added them into the next one. Having objectives certainly increased the enjoyment on our end. Knowing that you have more things to accomplish than you have ships to use,a all the while trying to guess what your opponent is striving for really rachets up the enjoyment.

That said, now to decide who I want to play...
Hmmm...
_________________
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF

gambler1650 · Lieutenant JG Joined: 30 Mar 2009 Posts: 71

Heck... I think I'm gonna have to dive into this one...

I agree about Regional Scale being the sweet spot. I'm an SFB player not a Federation Commander player, so I wouldn't be able to play out any tactical battles. Not sure where that means I would fit best.

My favored race of the ones listed would be Kzinti followed by Lyran. I'm perfectly happy to be more of a fleet commander than a regional commodore, but wherever is needed I can give a shot.

Oh, and Objectives? Yes.