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 

Fighters in Borders of Madness
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1547
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If direct-fire drones get flushed, why not make fighter drones exactly like the other drones? Less rules that way.
_________________
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
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3489
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
If direct-fire drones get flushed, why not make fighter drones exactly like the other drones? Less rules that way.

With the suggestion I made above, they functionally are. The only restriction is that fighters must be 8 hexes or closer to fire. Which is a restriction on the fighter, not the drones. And that type of restriction is necessary to force the fighter to get into the fight instead of staying 25 hexes back and lobbing drones in from the relative safety of distance.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sir Drake
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok here is my proposal for BoM fighter rules. I have looked at the SFB rules for fighters and the master index of fighters types and compared them with the FC shuttle and stinger rules to try and find the K.I.S.S. base line. I here are my first thoughts. All fighters shall follow the rules for shuttles and stingers as laid down in FC with the following bits added. All non Hydran fighters will have 1xP3 in the FA arc. All heavy weapons with have a max targeting range of 10 hexes. Meaning direct fire weapons shoot 10 or less like the stinger’s fusion and seeking weapons must be launched at a target with in 10 hexes. To keep the rule clutter down once a seeking weapon is launched it should act like the ship version of the seeking weapon. All fighters will move at speed 16 and have the same number of hits to kill and cripple as stingers.

Fighters with seeking weapons would be drone fighters, and plasma D and F fighters. A drone fighter whether it be a Fed, a Klingon, or a Kzinti would be armed with a P3-FA and a drone rack FA. The drone rack would work in all ways like a standard drone rack from FC except that it couldn’t launch drones at a target more than 10 hexes away. The drones would the same drones from FC speed 24, dmg 12 , 4 hits to kill ,3 turn life span to keep it simple. For balance there might need to be a control limit of 2 for each fighter.

Plasma D fighters would have a P3-FA and 1 plasma D rack FA that worked the same as a plasma D rack works in FC except it can’t launch at a target more than 10 hexes away. A plasma F fighter would have a P3-FA and one plasma F tube FA and work the same as FC except it can’t launch at a target more than 10 hexes away. Once out of the tubes the plasmas would in all ways follow the rules of plasmas from FC. The fighter would have to return to there carriers to reload drone and plasma D racks and the F tube.

New Direct fire fighters such as the Photon would have a P3-FA and a Photon FA . The photon would have one shot that can’t be overloaded and can’t fired at a target more than 10 hexes away. The disruptor fighter would be the same except it would have 2 charges, so would be able to fire 2 times before being reloaded ( not in the same turn of course). The Hellbore fighter would have a PG-FA and a single shot non-overloaded hellbore FA with a range of 10.

I have tried to make the so there are as few new rules as possible and hope this helps. This is just my first run at this so I know it is probably far off the mark, anyway just my 2cents
_________________
Colour Sergeant Bourne: It's a miracle.
Lieutenant John Chard: If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.
Colour Sergeant Bourne: And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind.
From the Movie ZULU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1876

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
Maybe we need to split this into two threads, one for "lots of drones" and one for the non-historical DF fighters.


Not that I have any great knoweldge of, nor interest in 'historical', but what non-historical DF fighters?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3489
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rather than make whole new rules, please base any suggestions off the CL37 rules (found here).

Also, the whole point of this is to model the fighters in FC off the fighters in SFB. We don't need whole new fighters created from thin air; we need to use what we already have.

Likewise, I don't think we need to create whole new DF fighters. They exist in SFB, already. Instead, we will likely just need to use the ones that are already there (perhaps slightly tweaked, but that is it). The "non-historical" part is using them as the primary fighter, not that they are whole new designs.

Now, changing direction slightly, what about plasma fighters in a "direct-fire" environment. If having 12 fighters and 12 drones on the board sucks, I can't imagine having 12 fighter sand 12 plasmas is any better. However, drones are always secondary weapons, meaning that the empire has some kind of direct-fire heavy weapon that can be mounted on a fighter. In the case of plasma empires, plasma is the heavy weapon. So, should plasma empires still keep their normal plasma fighters, or should they get "bolt-only" fighters instead?

(Again, we don't need any new fighters. The SFB fighters can easily be adjusted to fit whatever the final direction is. What is being asked about is the direction.)
_________________

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


Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about just "Drone Bolts", the same as plasma bolts. You can use the same brackets as plasma bolts, but I would prefer 3 hex brackets for better game balance and to match that drones move 3 hexes per impulse. The shot still takes place in launch phase, so the fighter still has to survive direct fire to get its shot off.

Something like:

Code:
Range  To Hit
0        1-6
1-3      1-5
4-6      1-4
7-9      1-3
10       1-2


These brackets can be adjusted to 2 or 4 hex brackets if speed 16 or 32 drone rules are in effect.

A "hit" means that the drone immediately impacts the facing shield of the target and it can conduct normal defensive fire in the next impulse.

If these rules are too powerful, you may allow any ship to fire at them at any hex of its flght path to the target during the next impulse defensive fire phase to represent fire as the drone approaches.

Plasma fighters can either bolt their plasma, or use these rules with 4 hex brackets. If they bolt, the defending ship can't defensive fire. If they use these rules, they do more damage but the defending ships can use defensive fire.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1876

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those (CL37) rules include the direct fire drones.

They may be a bit rough, but those DF drone rules more or less work for me if I am going to use drone fighters.

They are still based on SFB fighters, just the mechanics of using the drones is different. To emphasise something I said a page or 2 back, they also state "To avoid 'map clutter', players may elect to use these special rules.".

I.e. they were not the rules for drone armed fighters, if you want to stick with standard drone rules then do so, but they were provided as an option for those of us who value lower clutter/tracking over SFB style play.

Certainly IMHO the game slows down enough with plenty of fighters (of any type) on the map in addition to half a dozen+ ships, all those drones from the fighters as well is just way too much for my own tastes.



If these are going to be BoM rules then it might be worth clarifying what BoM is supposed to be about. Is it:

An attempt to bring more SFB players into FC, in which case your audience is probably much more into the drone clutter and minute detail.

An attempt to bring additional SFB 'concepts' to FC players (as optional rules?), in which case it probably wants to tend towards FCs simpler and less cluttered approach.

Or somehow straddle the 2.

Something else?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3489
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:
If these are going to be BoM rules then it might be worth clarifying what BoM is supposed to be about. Is it:

An attempt to bring more SFB players into FC, in which case your audience is probably much more into the drone clutter and minute detail.

An attempt to bring additional SFB 'concepts' to FC players (as optional rules?), in which case it probably wants to tend towards FCs simpler and less cluttered approach.

Or somehow straddle the 2.

Something else?

Originally, BoM was intended to be a two-way street, allowing for the mingling of SFB and FC as desired. However, a vocal minority of SFB players go ape-$$$$ when trying to bring things into SFB, so that whole concept was completely tossed. I think the actual goal is to straddle the two: to provide an opportunity for SFB players to play faster games in FC, but still get to use many of their widgets AND to give FC players a chance to play with those extra widgets.

Personally, the approach I have always taken to Borders of Madness is to adopt SFB rules or concepts that are not in Federation Commander to the FC game system. I am actually not that concerned about the user, as much as trying to make it fit as well as possible. It would appear that fighters are the one subject where the audience really does matter, and that approach has to be modified.

EDIT:
Please put any non-fighter related responses to this post in the Purpose of Borders of Madness discussion.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy


Last edited by mjwest on Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sir Drake
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike I asked a question two pages back on this threed that no one answered about stinger IIs and how that they related to BoM. with out that answer what I did was look at other fighters from SFB and tweek them in a simalar maner. my idea might not what you are looking for I have no problem with that, I thought we were throwing Ideas to make this the best game possible. but my direct fire fighters arnt created out of thin vacum photon figher = A-10 with with 4 added to spd. the 2xI drone racks dropped of which would help with cluter and imho be equall to the Stinger 3 not being able to fire both fusions in one turn, oh yah and that RA p3. It also seamed better for all the fighters to have the same hit points but that was just an idea to make ssd easyer all fighters would be the same except for their hvy weapons. sorry what I was tring to do was a FC version of the fighters because I thought thats what was closer to the mark and I didn't have any feed back from my question. [i]Edited last part out as too snarky[/i], thanks Story Elf for asking the questions that I was just going to ask.

Drake out.
_________________
Colour Sergeant Bourne: It's a miracle.
Lieutenant John Chard: If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.
Colour Sergeant Bourne: And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind.
From the Movie ZULU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3489
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not sure what question you are asking. Stingers (which are based on the SFB Stinger II) is pure Federation Commander. I don't see them being changed for Borders of Madness at all.

The A-10 is just weird. It is a monster fighter. Maybe a smaller fighter will be added to SFB so we can more easily use it in FC. Maybe we just end up using the A-10 with all its warts, anyway. Even if the A-10 is used straight up, it will cost more, so it should even out anyway.

On the larger point, any DF fighters do not need to exactly match Stingers. Any potential DF fighter will probably be forced to use speed 16, but its weapons and damage points could vary significantly from Stingers. And that is OK, as you will have to pay a cost for better fighters, and get a break for cheaper fighters.

And, if the A-10 doesn't work for you, try the Z-D. Does it work? Is it reasonable?
_________________

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


Joined: 07 Jun 2008
Posts: 254
Location: Cary IL

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
Now, changing direction slightly, what about plasma fighters in a "direct-fire" environment. If having 12 fighters and 12 drones on the board sucks, I can't imagine having 12 fighter sand 12 plasmas is any better. However, drones are always secondary weapons, meaning that the empire has some kind of direct-fire heavy weapon that can be mounted on a fighter. In the case of plasma empires, plasma is the heavy weapon. So, should plasma empires still keep their normal plasma fighters, or should they get "bolt-only" fighters instead?


I prefer the idea of plasma bolt only fighters. 12 extra plasmas on the board is a little more difficult than 12 drones for me because you need to continually track the number of impulses since launch for the warhead strength.

I also like the idea that each empires' fighters do not have to match the stingers exactly in BPV/capabilities. Some races have better fighters and some races have inferior fighters makes it more interesting and less cookie-cutter.

Perhaps the empires with inferior fighters have better launch / landing rates than the empires with superior fighters? (Hydrans excluded).

If the BoM rules do eventually develop into using seeking weapon fighters (drone, plasma), then perhaps each fighter can only control one drone/plasma at any time on the map? At least then the number of extra drones is limited to the number of fighters on the map at any time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3067

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The A-10 in SFB is just wrong, but it's too deeply burrowed into the database to fix. If it comes into FC, it will be fixed there.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3489
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
The A-10 in SFB is just wrong, but it's too deeply burrowed into the database to fix. If it comes into FC, it will be fixed there.

This most likely means that any "A-10" (or whatever name the "fixed" fighter is given) will look a lot like the Z-D from the CL#37 rules.
_________________

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


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 452
Location: Manchester UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given the passage of time since SFB appeared, you could use a new generation of fighters for FC - the F22 (powerful but *very* rare), F35 (numerous and stealthy but not superiority-capable), Z-27s for the Klinks with 10 drones each and the Gladiator-10 (based on a reverse-engineered F16) and Gladiator-20 for the Romulans. The Gl-20 is rumoured to have a cloak (at any rate, hardly anyone has ever seen one).
_________________
We are Hydrans! NO ONE LIKES US!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dal Downing
Commander


Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 552
Location: Western Wisconsin

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"New" fighters are not going to work because SFB & FC use the same time line. Now if people want to call a F14DM a F22 or call a F18 a F35 then more power to them. Lets not go renaming things just because. And I thing a spiffy name for a Fed equivalent ZD would be a A4 or use a redesigned F18 and call it a AF18.
_________________
-Dal

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

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 -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 6 of 10

 
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