Federation Commander

mjwest · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:08 pm Post subject:

Remember that I said you could think of BoM as optional rules for FC? Well, I simply meant exactly that. You can think of it that way. In reality, BoM is a different game that uses FC mechanics. As such, if you are playing FC, then you are playing FC, and BoM is not part of the discussion. If you are playing BoM, then you are playing BoM, not FC.

Why BoM? Because some people just like the FC game system better than SFB. However, they also like some of the chrome of SFB. BoM is designed to meet the needs of those players. And those players do exist. ADB is not going to just ignore them.

As for SFB players, I guess the primary resentment is that they view every FC product as an SFB product that isn't made. In other words, FC is a direct threat to the very existence of SFB.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

Steve Cole · Site Admin Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3828

Well, reminder, BoM is there is bring in units and concepts for those who want them, not clutter which nobody wants.

But perhaps you see why I commented Saturday that the debate over whether BoM should be done at all is far from over.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

Nerroth · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:54 pm Post subject:

I might note that from my point of view, the hope I had for Omega (and for the LMC and other such settings) was that the ships compatible with the "vanilla" ruleset would be treated as belonging to a separate setting, the way the Middle Years and the M81 Galaxy are currently split from the Main Era, but would still be part of the broader "vanilla" game; but that any BoM-esque units (such as carriers) would be treated as, well, BoM.

So, the likes of the Auroran battlecruiser would be FC, but the strike carrier would be BoM.

Not that I'm in a position to confirm any of that, I should add; but I at least wanted to point out what my hopes for the Omega project have been.
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion

ericphillips · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:15 pm Post subject:

I am not enthused about BoM1. Carriers and fighters are too much clutter. Escorts are so so with the current aegis rules, and the FC mauler is a no go for me.

So I will probably wait for future BoM products. What I would like for BoM 2 would be optional rules (things like EPTs, Alternate Drones, Mines (no minelayers, just as terrain objects) proximity rules) so the game becomes more of what I want: a simplified SFB somewhere between SFB and FC.

Also, I would like to see two BoM books: Ships that Never Were (some of the cool ones), and BoM: Simulator Empires (long live the Canadiens).

kinshi · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:12 pm Post subject:

SVC gives a good explanation that clarifies my fears about BoM right here;

http://www.starfleetgames.com/federation/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3950&start=15

"The problem with BoM is that if it is released at all, there will be people for some BoM becomes FC (they won't play FC without BoM) and that might split some groups into two warring factions, each of which are too small to survive normal attrition."

This right here is why to me the solution is simple...if one TRULY wants the richness and depth, and fiddly bits and chrome, they should play SFB instead, AND be willing to accpet at least SOME minor record keeping ideas from FC (stuff like the ship cards, seeking weapon tracks, arming tracks, and fleet scale SSDs)..and leave it at that.

SFB is a good game, a great game in fact if you really like having options and LOTs of them.
_________________
If you are local to the Kitsap, Jefferson, Peirce, Thurston or Mason County area in Western, WA state, feel free to PM me about getting a SFB/FC group going.

ericphillips · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:20 am Post subject:

terryoc · Captain Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1386

Agree with Eric. The idea that Borders of Madness = SFB Fed-Com-ised is completely and utterly false. Seriously, just compare the rules on ESGs or Andromedan PA panels to the SFB rules and see how different they are. Or even just the drone rules.

If I wanted to perform calculus to work out which shield was hit by an ESG, I'd be playing SFB. The trouble is, right now, if I want to play with carriers or SFGs or whatever, I'd have to play SFB with all the baggage that comes along with it. Like sixty-seven different kinds of drones, 3,000 ships all with refits, commander's options, electronic warfare, et cetera ad nauseam. Of course, I could play SFB tournament rules, which are a subset of the main ruleset, but I still get too much complexity and too slow a game minus the cool stuff - the stuff I want to play with in a simplified, faster form.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West

Sneaky Scot · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:41 am Post subject:

I'm a member of Scoutdad's growing (?) minority - I am looking forward to the idea of BoM. I think it gives the option of a middle ground of complexity for the game - I like PFs, carriers and differing types of drones for example, but dislike the idea of bombers, deceleration due to damage (did anyone ever actually use that?), and tactical intelligence. Doesn't mean they were bad rules, just that they didn't appeal to me all that much. That's the attitude I intend to adopt for BoM; use the stuff that I find interesting, ignore that which I don't. I would expect the vast majority of my games to continue being with "vanilla" FC, and I think that's fine too!

I'm just a happy little bunny. With disruptors... Very Happy

_________________
Nothing is quite as persuasive as a disruptor pistol on slow burn and a rotisserie......

semperatis · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:53 am Post subject:

The interesting thing to note Nerroth,is that the FRA CVS uses only DF fighters,there are no seeking weapons used on them. This means,that we could possibly adopt the rules for the Hydran stingers with some slight ammendments,(if they're needed),without any real problems arising. Very Happy

_________________
Federal Republic of Aurora fleet builder.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes.

Steve Cole · Site Admin Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3828

I don't see simulators as BoM, but as simulators, just more empires. For the most part, they don't use any new weapons.

We've gone around and aorund on carriers and fighters. The goal is to do them without clutter.

They idea that any FC player who wants carriers, maulers, SFGs, penal ships, and scouts should go play SFB is nonsense and a non-starter.

Remember that BoM was never stated to bring in goofy rules (energy balance due to damage, crew quality) but only new technologies (as listed above).

All of that said, my plate is full for this month and next, so chill.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

DirkSJ · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 08 Jun 2010 Posts: 239

mjwest · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:57 pm Post subject:

bolenbr · Lieutenant JG Joined: 01 Jul 2011 Posts: 35

could someone explain why you call this proposed expansion borders of madness.. why that name? Is this a reference to something in SFB

storeylf · Fleet Captain Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 1897

Anyone wanting the sort of stuff that BoM introduces must be bordering on madness.