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 

Point Value of Ships
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
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: 3496
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, BoM isn't really "optional rules for Federation Commander". However, if it helps makes things clearer, you can treat them that way.

And, while I do enjoy writing BoM rules when I get the chance, there is no guarantee I will do all of them, or even get to do any more. One never knows. (Though, I do hope to get the chance for a few more.) But, any of the truly important ones will always be done by Steve, and he always has to approve any rule I come up with.
_________________

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


Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe we are both not understanding each other Dal Downing. I still do not understand how a Romulan not knowing how to use a cloaking device is similar to a Stinger being on a floating map. I still feel the similarity to your statement is a federation player who does not know how to use Overloads. I am probably just not understanding.

With the Things that were left out to streamline the game, I understand what they are and I understand that the point values are affected. I was speaking of the time order these took place. I thought you said these took place in the following time order


1) SFB created
2) Federation Commander created and sold to customers
3) New things were changed to streamline and then BPVs were made inaccurate

But I believe now you are saying this is the correct time order:

1) SFB created
2) Federation Commander created (Things that were left out to streamline the game)
3) BPVs were made inaccurate because of (2)
4) Federation Commander sold to customers with BPVs that are inaccurate.

Why were the BPVs not fixed before being Federation Commander sold to customers if they were known to be inaccurate? I am reading that people knew the streamline would make BPVs inaccurate is this not correct?

speaking of "I will say your chart is not a bad ideal but look at the match ups it will creat. The 500 point fleets aside are we saying a fair fight is taking a Fed oCL (111) aginst a Klingon D7 (131)?" I believe my words "less than a guess" should have been "out of thin air". My multiplier of 0.8 could have been 0.9 or 0.98. The chart was a "format review" as said at work and hoped to be filled in by others to see their thoughts. I also should think more to find the exact multipliers I believe are true.

and one additional thing to say is I do not believe we should add in SFB rules. I am not sure but I am thinking others believed that was my thought due to their comments. Maybe that is also my misunderstanding of others comments.

My one wish was to have the points accurate for fixed and for floating.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dal Downing
Commander


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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Masat getting back to the original question you asked...

Masat wrote:
Also why were SFB values used when they are known to be inaccurate with different rules in SFB and Federation Commander?


The reason was and still is that if you fight a battle in SFB. Then play the same exact battle in FedCom you are suppose to get the same exact results. That is why the points are the same as they are in SFB.

Now this conversation has meandered here and there a bit but the main premise for the point still holds true. And yes, as more rules and empires were added and more interactions were made it caused a shift in the points. Also as more games were played and new tactics were developed the points begin to slip. Remember that FedCom was not released all at once. Case in Point, Stingers didn't come out till what 2 years into FedCom? And even then there was some talk about not having stingers at all. I still feel Stingers are badly short changed but that is my opinion. Just like I think leaving Plasma Sabots out was a bad move when all the ships are the ones that were designed or have the refits present that made the Plasma Sabots necessary in the first place.

As far as things left out like WW, SP, ECM Drones, F14DMs, Energy Balance Due to Damage, T Bombs. or whatever. Yes I think that for the most point these were good calls. There are some things that were left out for balance sake maybe now should have a second look at being put in Fed Com. Just like the recent change to Plasma at the start of the game or ADDs.

Anyone remember why the F5W was put in one of the early Communiques? Or why there was a Fed Frigate Card that had a 3/8 move cost in a Communique?

People say the Klingons are weak, well why not look at giving the Klingons and only the Klingons UIMs. It would be there gimmick like Hydrans have Stingers or Lyrians have ESG or Tholians have Webs? Some people think Photons are too powerful because you can hold overloads. Why not change that to you can only overload Photons at the moment/instant that they are fired? This would eliminate the Holding Overloads and flying at speed gazillion. Would Photons still be a bear? Probably.

Masat if you want to work up a chart to balance things. Please do so and I will eagerly await to see how things work out and personalty hope you are successful. Just in my opinion and mine alone. The points are not that far off. Some Empires suffer in different terrain or maps. That is there so that not everyone is Flying a Cookie Cutter Fleet, its what makes things a challenge.

PS: The point that is being missed about the Roms and Cloaks is I know people who will never use it. Because of this they are short changing themselves. Now because I know this I usually tell them go ahead and throw in a Frigate or a Destroyer to balance it out. But technically I should just make them add 15 or 20 persent to there build totals.
_________________
-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
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I'm concerned the BPV are accurate enough. People like Paul are hard core tournamenet players and want things to be uber accurate for their level play. Many are neither tourney players or hard core wargamers.

There are numerous ways of playing FedCom - tourney games on a clear small map with 3 or 4 ships. Pick up games that could be for any number of points or ships on any type of map with any type of terrain. scenarios with totally different victory conditions that may not be based on balaned points at all. campaigns etc.

Why should the points be based on one map type? The points as they are a good rough guide. If they were adjusted to the tourney game then they would be massively out for other games. Hydrans and Feds for example are massively potent in a tourney game at Pauls level of play. If they were pointed accordingly they would be way out of kilter on open maps or in other styles of games where they are not so good.

Whilst other may disagree I'd rather see a rough finger in the air 'average' points value, and leave it up to those who want to have there own house rules adjust accordingly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4470
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Masat wrote:

1) SFB created
2) Federation Commander created (Things that were left out to streamline the game)
3) BPVs were made inaccurate because of (2)
4) Federation Commander sold to customers with BPVs that are inaccurate.

Why were the BPVs not fixed before being Federation Commander sold to customers if they were known to be inaccurate? I am reading that people knew the streamline would make BPVs inaccurate is this not correct?

Late to the party here, but as one of the early playtesters... this is a simpe answer to provide.
The BPVs (for SFB) were fine tuned over the course of 20 years and 4 editions of the game; and even then - they are only estimated values.
An expert in Andromedan tactics can get way more bang for the buck (as it were) then a relative noob. Same for Klingons and the sabre dance, Tholians and the web, Orionsand the "cocaine effect", etc.

As with many of the ideas in SFB... waht holds true in SFB , holds true in Federation Commander. An experienced player gets more value for the specified points and some empires funcution better against empire A than they do against empire B. It would have taken a Cray supercomputer to compile a 100% totally accurate listig of point values for every ship against every other ship in every situation on every type of map... and you still would have had to factor in the variables of player A versus player B, as well as consider if you were in a fleet action and what units you where fielding and what units the other guy was fielding... The point value listign for each ship would rapidly have reached a book the size of the New York yellow pages.

So accept the point values for what they are, relative guide lines and try not to overthink it. And you can always do what our group does. When we're facig each other - we use the point values as set forth. When we are going up against someone we're still taching the game to... we spot them a 10 or 15% advantage.
_________________


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


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee,
If you read back you will see I am arguing something very different. I don't think the problem with BPV is lack of accuracy - though in many cases I think they are not accurate either. I think the problem is too much granularity where no reasonable excuse for that granularity exists. Alternatively, because outside of the tournament this won't be that big of a deal, I think the use of BPV as the tournament balance mechanism is a mistake.

I'd actually like to see both. I see no reason for the Romulan WE, for example, to be 103 points. I would be much happier if it was just called a light cruiser (OLD) and cost 100 points. I want to see point costs go to a 50 base for a FF and go up by 25 from there. I think that system would be accurate enough and not cause really bazaar circumstance when people play a "X BPV" game - such as the tournament.

I think if you did something like that and actually took Fed Com, rather than SFB, rules into account when assigning values, then you would get a system that was "accurate enough."

I also do agree with Maast that a ship should have two point costs, open for a small closed map (because that is one popular method of play) and one for a floating map (because, for reasons I will never understand, that is another popular method of play).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The_Rock wrote:

I also do agree with Maast that a ship should have two point costs, open for a small closed map (because that is one popular method of play) and one for a floating map (because, for reasons I will never understand, that is another popular method of play).


Lol. I never understood why anyone would want to play with some artifical wall around an area of space (beyond table size issues at any rate). Each to their own I suppose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Rock
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A closed map is far more "realistic" than a floating one. If you really have "open space" and no reason to be there, no one engages. When you do play on a floating map, nothing can really ever happen unless one of the player's (the one who is not advantaged at closer range) chooses to force the issue.

A floating map with a fixed or slow moving objective makes sense and that is all a closed map is. It is not "an artificial barrier" it is just an abstraction of the only reasonable scenario where actual combat occurs - when some limit - be it time, or that fixed or slow moving objective, requires that the ships engage in that space and at that time. The closed map is just a way of removing and abstracting whatever limitation exists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry explain to me how the tourney map, with no objective beyond kill all is somehow realistic with its purely artificial boundary?

If you are playing a meeting enegagement, and if there is no clear 'objective' then that is all it is, then the battle can quite readily move around as each side looks to out manouver the other. You are not fighting over a piece of space, you are fighting simply to kill the other guy, destroy a capital ship etc. If the close range side wants to hold onto the empty space then it can and it will get shot to pieces.

If there is an objective then equally each side should look to achieve as best suits them, if that means holding at range and enticing the other out into a running engagment, or killing them because they want to sit still then so be it.

Sure if you have a scenario with a time limit that may not work, but without a time limit then there is no 'realism' reason whatsoever to have some artifical boundary beyond which you are miracously assumed to have disappeared and disengaged.

Time limits to achieve an objective on an open map, not artificial boundaries are far better for balancing such games.


Last edited by storeylf on Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1966
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:
Sorry explain to me how the tourney map, with no objective beyond kill all is somehow realistic with its purely artificial boundary?

It's Deus ex machina. Them doggone Masters again Wink
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kang wrote:

It's Deus ex machina. Them doggone Masters again Wink


Aye - the most overused excuse that exists in SFU.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1380

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry explain to me how the tourney map, with no objective beyond kill all is somehow realistic with its purely artificial boundary?


Doctrine. Smile
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

terryoc wrote:
Quote:
Sorry explain to me how the tourney map, with no objective beyond kill all is somehow realistic with its purely artificial boundary?


Doctrine. Smile


Question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1380

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

F&E inside joke.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1562
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A tournament map is for a tournament...a competition. In such a competition there is no reason to try to simulate a rationale for ships being there. It is a tournament for players of the game.

And, by the way, the winner is the one who had the best skills combined with some luck against that particular field of opponents in that particular setting. That does not mean that the winner is the "best player" of the year or whatever. It just means that the winner proved him/her-self the best and most fortunate player under those tournament conditions and against those particular players.
_________________
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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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