Federation Commander

[mjwest]

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

[Masat]

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.

[Dal Downing]

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

[storeylf]

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.

[Scoutdad]

[The_Rock]

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).

[storeylf]

[The_Rock]

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.

[storeylf]

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.

[Kang]

[storeylf]

[terryoc]

[storeylf]

[terryoc]

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

[Mike]

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

=====
Sandpaper gets the job done, but makes for a lot of friction.