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 

Carriers
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
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3067

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Changing all of their weapons to driect fire would mean FC and SFB are unrelated games. That's a challenge, for a number of reasons, not least because the tactics are totally different. Seeking weapons exist to affect enemy maneuver, something direct-fire weapons don't do. You see a seeker coming and you move to best deal with it. Direct fire is over and done and has zero effect.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1956
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
Direct fire is over and done and has zero effect.

Especially if it's a Phaser-3 at range 5 Twisted Evil
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
TrotskyTrotsky
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In regards to drones launched from fighters, if it is not going to be a direct fire model then restricting target choice to only one ship would be beneficial - keeping track of lots of drone swarms targeting multiple targets is already time consuming - any increase would slow the game further. You can still have different 'flights' of fighters launching from different hexes to restrict target movement and increase chances for impact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monty
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 231

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if it, as the fighter group owner I had a large swarm of inbound enemy drones targeted at my carrier?

The best defense may be drones from my fighters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
TrotskyTrotsky
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

True - but any streamlining of play will have to see some compromises, which is what this discussion is all about. If we are going to see rules that are fast play then something will have to give or we will just end up playing SFB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3067

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We already have one SFB and do not need two.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Monty
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 231

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Limit targeting of fighter groups (or flights) to one unit but give the group Aegis capabilities in return. Allow their unlaunched drones to fire as ADD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
akula
Ensign


Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was reading the playtest rules from CL35 for FedCom fighters and I noticed an "error" and had some rules feedback.

In the second paragraph it notes that fighters are not part of "trek". This is true in the original series but certainly in DS9 fighters were routinely shown as part of the Dominion War.

On the issue of Fighters in Federation Commander: Borders of Madness. I would really like to use Federation Commander to resolve SFB battles. That means I would really like to see gunboats, heavy fighters, bombers, and use of existing SFB fighter variants and SSDs. I thought the rules in general were pretty good. I don't like 5QM3c because I think it is as cumbersome as tracking the actual drones. I'm also in favor of tracking fighters as groups of two (leader and wingman) and treating them as one unbreakable counter. I also think that ADD's are going to need to be able to target shuttles and that SFB dogfighter drones should be treated as rail launched ADDs in Federation Commander. If you want to reduce the number of drones on the board make fighters incapable of controlling their own drones, or reduce fighter drone control limits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


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

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carriers and fighters are likely to only be added to Federation Commander via Borders of Madness. That is not set in stone, or anything, but still appears to be the plan of record.

Even so, it is highly unlikely that all of the variants and options will be seen in Borders of Madness. It is likely that most empires will have to be content with a single one-space fighter (Feds likely get two). If two-space fighters, or even bombers, are added, it is again quite likely there will only be a single version of each per empire.

On a separate note, the current Rev6 version of the rules does allow ADDs to fire at shuttles and fighters in the offensive fire phase. It would be pretty easy to use these rules for RALADs, if so desired.
_________________

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


Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really hope that we see the ability to use all existing SFB units in BoM. If not why bother? I think sometimes the FedCom community confuses diversity with complexity. There is nothing complex about have several hundred different unit types as long as they have common rules and individual SSDs. For example the only thing that is complex about refits in SFB is that they are on the same ssd. If you give them their own ssd like in middle years then you have no issues.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DNordeen
Commander


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I think sometimes the FedCom community confuses diversity with complexity.


Maybe, but I have more issues with play time and counter numbers. If FC becomes SFB, I'm done. I stopped playing SFB, I'm playing FC because it's NOT SFB.

With that said, I don't have any issues with BoM having everything the SFBers want.
_________________
Speed is life; Patience is victory

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
akula
Ensign


Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DNordeen wrote:
Quote:
I think sometimes the FedCom community confuses diversity with complexity.


Maybe, but I have more issues with play time and counter numbers. If FC becomes SFB, I'm done. I stopped playing SFB, I'm playing FC because it's NOT SFB.

With that said, I don't have any issues with BoM having everything the SFBers want.


No disagreement here. One look at either the ew rules or mid turn speed changes is enough to send chills up the spine of the most ardent tax law lawyer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1878

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

akula wrote:
I really hope that we see the ability to use all existing SFB units in BoM. If not why bother? I think sometimes the FedCom community confuses diversity with complexity. There is nothing complex about have several hundred different unit types as long as they have common rules and individual SSDs.



It always been said that counter clutter is one of the big issues that FC is trying to avoid, and that is the big issue with carriers (well not the carriers so much, but the seekers the fighters carry). The defintion of complex is something that consists of many related parts, several hundred types in a game certainly rates as complex, even more so with non trivial rules. E.G. I don't want all the drone types and drone rack types. Sure it allows diversity, but it also complicates the game. I don't want to play where a Kzinti player spends half the evening just working out his rack/ammo loadout. I don't want to have to keep checking what ship had which racks, and which drone was which type.


That said, over the years I've shifted from being anti BOM to being OK so long as it isn't just port stuff over more or less as is. If all you want is better SSDs then you don't really need BOM, all the basic rules for fighters and carriers exist, fighters go speed 16, drones go speed 20 and last until they have 3 dots on them etc etc. What else do you need? just knock up some SSDs and off you go and play them more or less as they are in SFB.

To me though, that is the 'why bother' case. If you just want nice SSDs then there is litttle point in BOM. If you like the hundreds of types and complexity then why bother when you already have SFB. To me the point of BOM should be to convert stuff that is in SFB but in way that significantly reduces the complexity/clutter for those of us who can't stand SFB for those reasons (and not the SSDs).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pipboy101
Ensign


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 23
Location: Kansas City, MO (Northland)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I completely agree that the reason I love FC is that there is very little clutter. One of the owners if the store was watching a game of FC and was wondering where all the counters were and admazed on how fast turns were. This is the reason that my SFB stuff has sat in my closet for years now going on to almost a decade.I played the carriers in the BoM rules and it slowed the game up and it was super hard to run the game becuase there was way too much on the board. If SFB players what that stuff leave it in BoM. Just leave the streamlined nature of FC.
_________________
Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun.
Everything I learned in life I learned from Pipboy!

You can also find me on DAKKADAKKA.COM as Pipboy101. Soon to be posting battle reports for FC and SFM there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1878

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are starting to discuss who we may want to play once our current campaign is over and we start another. It appears hydrans will almost certainly be in, I was looking at them, but so is someone else.

Given that I'm looking at some form of fighter flight rule. Handling a dozen stingers is one thing, handling the number of stingers in a large squadron or fleet is another matter - the hydrans can readily hit 60+ stingers. A DN and 3 Rangers/Mohawks would be just shy of 40 stingers. Running those sort of numbers of stingers is not going to work when each stinger is a distinct unit in its own right.

I have some ideas for some intial flight rules. But out of interest are there any ideas floating around ADB that might be something we might consider for playtesting?

I'm looking at something beyond simply saying every 3 (or whatever number) stingers is 1 counter. It also needs to be something that reduces the shooting/targeting to that many less decisions as well. So for example when the flight shoots all 3 stingers will have to shoot at the same time in 1 volley at the same target. When someone shoots at a flight they shoot at the flight and not individual fighters etc.

NB before anyone jumps in and says but you lose flexibility, its not like SFB nada nada, be aware that we are talking something that will handle large numbers of fighters here and still be playable within 1 day*, not your 1 ship duel, or tourney game with 8 stingers max which can be handled with stingers as individuals.

* - Whilst many of our larger games go over 2 sessions, and some into a third, that is where each session is an evening, with some eating, setting up, chatting etc. A full day session is sort of what I think of as my benchmark for how long would be too long for the biggest game, and don't think any of our games would have taken longer than that had they been played as a full day session.

As an aside, if the hydrans are taken by someone else, then I'll probably go Kzinti and try out my earlier proposal regarding pulling drones out of the standard move sequence to see how much that improves mass drones, so we'll play some sort of flight system and mass drone rules. I'm also considering using kzinti strike carriers, to really mass the drones and see just how far you can push the drones and still be playable Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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