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 

Damage Comparisons Between FC and ACTA-SF
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> A Call to Arms Star Fleet
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because every race has significant numbers seeking weapons. If you can't defend at all a 50/50 chance with just 8 drones can do a lot of damage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
archon96
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 20 Aug 2011
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something to think about to make cloaking a more effective measure in acta, is maybe as part of the decloak action remove the ability to do idf against plasma fired from a ship that had just decloaked that turn. This will give it the surprise factor that is really kinda needed. and make the stacking effect from romulan fire worth cloaking in the first place. If I had a play group anymore i would test this. If any of you that wouldnt mind trying it and seeing how it would that would be cool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1881

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Added in Kzinti.

I'm not sure why you'd compare the newer Roms with the older Gorns at the smaller level, mainly DD, CL when the newer BDD and HDD are the more accurate match for their size category in terms of newness and they are not hugely different in points, so I've changed to them.

It is of courtse slightly misleading to say don't include older Roms, new roms are not the only Roms and many older Roms get played as well - in fact I almost exclusively play older Roms when I play them (FC or ACTA) as I just prefer the feel of playing 'true' romulans.

Gorn BDD 98 points 4 Ph1 2 Ph3 (6)
Rom Skyhawk 102 Points 4 PH-1, 2 PH-3 (6)
Kzin DD 102 points 4 Ph1 2Ph3 (6)

Gorn FF 50 Points 3 PH-1, 2 PH-3 (5)
Rom Seahawk 42Pts 2 PH-1 (2)(you got me on this one)
Kzin FF 87 points 2 Ph1 2 Ph3 (4) (Kzin don't do cheap small ships!)

Gorn HDD 117 points 5 Ph1 2 Ph3 (7)
Sparrowhawk A 135 Points 5 PH-1, 4 PH-3's (9)
Kzin CM 122 points 2 Ph1 4 Ph3 (6)

Gorn CM 161 Points 7 PH-1, 2 PH-3 (9)
Gorn BC 160 Points 8 PH-1, 2 PH-3 (10)
Firehawk 179 Points 7 PH-1, 4 PH-3 (11)
Kzin BC 144 points 4 Ph1 8 Ph3 (12)
Kzin NCA 140 points 4 Ph1 6 Ph3 (10)

Gorn BCH 192 Points 10 PH-1, 4 PH-3 (14)
Novahawk/Royalhawk 192 Points 7 PH-1, 4 PH-3 (11)
Kzin BCH 195 points 9 Ph1 7 Ph3 (16)

Gorn DN 10 Ph1 2 Ph3 (12)
Rom Condor 9 Ph1 4 Ph3 (13)
Kzin DN 7 Ph1 13 Ph3 (20)


I'm not sure I'd say the cloak is a death sentence against seekers in ACTA. It all comes down to your situation. Seekers don't leak, so halving the overall damage can be quite good if you are going to get hammered. Cloak in ACTA is bad against a few seekers but pretty good against large numbers. Again it is the way the usual defensive fire creates a fixed threshold which means it is great up to that level but crap as the attacker overwhelms it. Cloak on the other hand scales with the attack. If you have 6 phasers able to fire and expect to hit with 4 or 5 then from 8-10 AD of incoming attack you are as good or better going cloak, but worse off with less than that.

E.g. A FireHawk without support relying on its own phasers can take about 9 AD more seekers to kill using a cloak SA, and is obvioulsy immune to seekers after that until it uncloaks.

Of course, as ever the fact that you currently cloak before seekers get launched hinders it, as the attacker gets to see who did what.

What makes cloak crap against seekers in FC is that it slows you down and ensures you will get impacted, when you other wise wouldn't. That dynamic doesn't exist in ACTA where you will always get impacted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IainMcG
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 22 Jul 2011
Posts: 48
Location: Paisley, Scotland

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Savedfromwhat wrote:
Because every race has significant numbers seeking weapons. If you can't defend at all a 50/50 chance with just 8 drones can do a lot of damage.


So cloak behind/in cover and at long range. ACTA isn't usually played on a featureless table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IainMcG wrote:
Savedfromwhat wrote:
Because every race has significant numbers seeking weapons. If you can't defend at all a 50/50 chance with just 8 drones can do a lot of damage.


So cloak behind/in cover and at long range. ACTA isn't usually played on a featureless table.


There isn't always terrain. And staying at long range is rarely an option, disruptor races will chew you up at long range. Do you use the cloak Ian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IainMcG
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 22 Jul 2011
Posts: 48
Location: Paisley, Scotland

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Klingons have been known to double as KRs, yes Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lincolnlog
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 108
Location: St. Louis, MO

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has anyone seen Tony's Call out Notes on the Klingon Front Shield?

The tactic is a good and has occured to me before. However to speed play we normally roll all like attacks together.

My problem with having to find a tactic such as this is:

1. Klingon front shields weren't stronger, rear shields were weaker (this was menthioned in the article). My pea brain sees this as defying the overall logic of what it was meant to represent. Since rear shields were weaker lets make front shields stronger?.....hmmm seems a simplier approach would have been more beneficial to the both the Klingons and their opponents.
2. It cheats the Klingons out of being able to reasonably being able to boost their shields. Since they were trying to refleact all other shields as being weaker the Klingons often get only 1 die of re-inforcement. And yest on some ships escpecially the small F5, E4 ect the rear shields are weak, but in 75% of Klingon ships the shields all the way around are comparable to other empires. Special rule 25% of the fleet and apply it to 100%?
3. Klingons have less hull and therefore take less damage that most other empire ships. Once again the flawed hull represents the ships displacement, extremely flawed argument. A D7 takes a very close similar amount of damage as a Fed CA. But the CA has more hull on the SSD, so hets more damage in ACTA.

Tony's tactic is a good one (and I know first hand he a great ACTA player), but the design parameters still seem flawed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3082

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here it is in a nutshell, and none of this is anything new or anything I haven't told Matthew before.

The game needs a revised PDF and maybe a new edition. I doubt that happens this year, but who knows?

ADB is committed to the idea that if ACTASF will continue, the problems need to be fixed. There are a lot of kinds of problems, and a few in each category. In rough terms, these categories include: the usual typos, some clarified wording, I personally will demand cross referencing (if a rule on page 19 is an exception to a rule on page 14, then page 14 needs to mention it and not just assume everybody remembers every rule), some universe consistency issues (that contractually must be corrected to keep the game inside the license).

Beyond that are some "tactical issues" that may or may not be things that need fixing. You guys are supposed to be identifying and confirming or disproving those while I'm busy with other things. This include seeking weapons and other things. It will be a couple of months (at least) before I even try to sift through all of the gripes looking for legitimate problems that I must see fixed.

Beyond that are some "game design issues" that you've all talked about. Things that make the game bad or would make it better. Personally I want every crew check removed from the game, even if "that is not ACTA" because it just turns the game into a crapshoot. I might settle for an optional rule but the issue must be addressed. Certainly, I will never play ACTASF with crew skill checks, and the universe background pretty much makes those anathema EXCEPT for ships with "poor crews" or "understrength crews".

I do fully recognize and understand that ACTASF is such a simplified game system that it cannot do the universe correctly. It's just beyond what the game cengine can do. I don't really want to add a bunch of record keeping to the game. Long range seekng weapons fire could be made an optional rule that requires two or three turns in flight, as I described before, or you could reduce those to shorter ranges only (with a way for the target to turn and run away to avoid/reduce hits).

I am painting broad strokes here, because I don't have time to get into details. Like I said, everybody start listing what you think are real issues and then start debating whether or not they really are issues. I'll drop in now and then, but won't really even read this before the end of August.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
archon96
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 20 Aug 2011
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seeking needs a change, both for drones and plasma.
"thought to fix drone either give them a lower damage rate or a reload"

Shields on Klingon vessels
"the half off in the front doesnt portray the klingon very well and gimps them on boost shields"

IDF
"loose accuracy for shots fired in idf this should even it out, but let those with the escort trait retain accuracy because thats what they were designed for."

Cloaking
"I love cloaking but as it currently is id rather start a match uncloaked. Maybe adjust the decloak special action to include a - hit modifier when firing on seeking fired from a decloak vessel. Even in the original series plasma fired from a decloaking vessel was a traumatic event.

These are the big four that bother me. Just some thoughts hopefully someone might try them and see what happens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1571
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In terms of game design issues, there are a number of semi-related issues that I was wondering about, in terms of which scale A Call to Arms: Star Fleet should be set, and what it should be capable of doing.


The first issue is in terms of which side of the Federation Commander Ship Card should be used as a basis for consideration.

Right now, most of the ACtA:SF stats rely on the Squadron Scale side, in keeping with what you see in "regular" SFB and in Starmada Admiralty Edition. (I gather that the ships in Starmada Nova Edition are more abstracted out, in terms of which partiucular weapon mount goes where.) One current exception is in terms of Marine squads, which have been cut down to match the Fleet Scale sides of a Ship Card instead. (I'm not quite sure if this was a good idea or not.)

But, for the sake of argument, would it be an idea to re-visit this setup, and to consider going further towards the Fleet Scale versions of each ship instead? Depending on the average forces players are expecting to use in this game system, it may (or may not) make sense to trade in the kind of added detail in the current setup for the faster play (or perhaps, reduced amount of dice rolling) that a "fleet scale" version of the game might offer.

Or would it be worth providing both options, and allowing the players to decide for themselves which scale to go for? They can do so already in FC, and I suppose technically you could consider the choice between Admiralty and Nova as being broadly equivalent (in terms of deciding which way you want the game to play out).

I'm not necessarily saying things should go over to Fleet Scale. But on the other hand, I'm not saying they should stick slavishly to Squadron Scale either. The question is more about what kind of game ACtA:SF is trying to be, and whether either scale would do a better job of making things work for that purpose (or if offering both scales solves more problems than it risks creating).


The second issue may, or may not, be tied in to the above discussion: faceted shielding.

This question has popped up over on the Mongoose forums, with a number of play groups already going out to see how the ships work with four 90-degree shield arcs instead of one unified arc. (Personally, if that were to happen, I would suggest turning the #1, #2, #4, and #6 arcs into the F, S, A, and P arcs respectively; sort of like what would have happened for the x- and y-axes in the now-defunct Star Fleet Squadron Strike project. That game would have moved shields #3 and #5 to the z-axis, but that would not be an issue here.)

If the ships themselves were adjusted to more closely work with Fleet Scale (or if a Fleet Scale option was put on the table), the halved shields of each facing in that level of play would translate over to this game system. So, if you were playing a large enough battle where using "fleet scale" ships was preferred, each ship would have only half the amount of individual shield factors to worry about.

Plus, faceted shielding (based on either Squadron or Fleet Scale) would eliminate the need for the Klingon/Kestrel front shield rule. And it would even make it easier to handle Middle Years ships (such as the earlier editions of the Fed CA shown in the "evolution of the Constitution-class" srticle from Fleet Update #2 and Captain's Log #47) by simply allowing the pre-refit hulls to have weaker aft shield facings.


The third issue is an omission from the current set of ACtA:SF game mechanics (but not from other incarnations of the A Call to Arms ruleset): boarding actions.

Right now, you can use your Marines to launch hit-and-run raids, but not to try and capture ships. (There are no commando variants in ACtA:SF as of yet. But then, there aren't any in FC either, but you can still try to capture enemy ships if you have enough Marine squads available to make the attempt.)

As it happens, there is a reasonably straightforward set of boarding rules already in A Call to Arms: Noble Armada, where it is considered to be a very prominent dynamic. (In that setting, there is a high premium on capturing enemy ships, rather than just destroying them.) In ACtA:NA, boarding actions revolve around the use of grapple guns, to secure a physical connection between vessels. This wouldn't be a factor here (unless attempting to dock with a base, or land on a planet?), but some means of replacing the need to use grapple guns with the reliance on offensive transporter operations shouldn't be too difficult to arrange.


The fourth is a relatively minor factor in terms of pick-up games, but might be more of a factor in campaign play: how cargo boxes are factored into the conversion process.

I believe there have already been players (either here or on the Mongoose forums) who have experimented with running a separate Cargo Trait, enabling certain ships (such as freighters and Orions) to show the distinction between cargo and hull boxes.

In a campaign setup, it may be useful to have that kind of listing, not least for empires like the Kzintis who have to worry about the logistical networks supporting their extensive use of drones.

And it would allow enemy players to go on commerce raids, and perhaps even to try and target more critical supplies. (To go back to the Kzinti example, they may have to decide on a campaign level which transports to use in order to replenish their line ships' drones. If an enemy player is able to generate a convoy raid scenario where the transport was captured or deatroyed, the Kzinti player might have to play their next stand-up battle with a limit on the amount of drones they can use in that engagement.)

Of course, this sort of campaign dynamic would be wholly optional, and many players may not bother using the Cargo Trait at all. But, not only would having it there support those players who may elect to use it, having a more consistent means of translating FC cargo boxes into ACtA:SF might help keep each unit where it is more or less supposed to be relative to other units in the game.

And even then, as a Trait, it could still act as a sort of padding for more mission-critical Traits, when it comes to dealing with certain critical hits.


In summary, my "game design" questions would be these:

*Should more (or less) emphasis be put on either the Squadron or Fleet scale of the Ship Cards used as the basis of conversion; or should both scales be offered at the same time?)

*Should faceted shielding be brought in; and if so, should it be based on either Squadron or Fleet Scale Ship Card facings?

*Should the rules for boarding actions be lifted out of ACtA:NA, re-adjusted to better suit the SFU, and plugged in to ACtA:SF? (And, for that matter, should the number of Marine squads on each ship be adjusted or not?)

*And should there be a distinct Cargo Trait, offering a consistent means of converting cargo boxes from FC (and to potentially allow campiagn-minded groups to make use of it)?
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion


Last edited by Nerroth on Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:08 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3495
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nerroth wrote:
But, for the sake of argument, would it be an idea to re-visit this setup, and to consider going further towards the Fleet Scale versions of each ship instead?


This should never be done. You should only ever base any conversions on the squadron scale side of the ship card. The squadron scale side of the card is the "real" ship, and the fleet scale side is a rough representation. There are too many compromises made on various fleet scale ships to use them as the basis for something else. ACTA should only base their conversion on the squadron scale ship card.

BTW, this doesn't mean you can't make adjustments from that. Perhaps you need to use a multiple to handle hull or frame damage or whatever. That's fine. In fact, I doubt that the marines are based on the fleet scale side of the ship card. In reality, I am willing to bet the marines are based on the squadron scale side, but use a multiple of (1/2) to scale it to what ACTA needs. The fact that matches the fleet scale count is merely coincidental.

But when doing a conversion like ACTA (or anything else), only use the squadron scale side of the ship card for that conversion.
_________________

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


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1571
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
Nerroth wrote:
But, for the sake of argument, would it be an idea to re-visit this setup, and to consider going further towards the Fleet Scale versions of each ship instead?


This should never be done. You should only ever base any conversions on the squadron scale side of the ship card. The squadron scale side of the card is the "real" ship, and the fleet scale side is a rough representation. There are too many compromises made on various fleet scale ships to use them as the basis for something else. ACTA should only base their conversion on the squadron scale ship card.

BTW, this doesn't mean you can't make adjustments from that. Perhaps you need to use a multiple to handle hull or frame damage or whatever. That's fine. In fact, I doubt that the marines are based on the fleet scale side of the ship card. In reality, I am willing to bet the marines are based on the squadron scale side, but use a multiple of (1/2) to scale it to what ACTA needs. The fact that matches the fleet scale count is merely coincidental.

But when doing a conversion like ACTA (or anything else), only use the squadron scale side of the ship card for that conversion.


In that case, the question would then be replaced by this one: Once the basic translation of the ship is done, should it be left "as-is", or scaled down to offer a more "fleet scale-esque" abstraction?

Will players only want to use the "correct" scale of ship (in terms of it having the "proper" number of phasers, photons, transporters, tractor beams, etc), or does the kind of gameplay gap that Fleet Scale fills for FC be a factor for players looking to use truly large fleets in ACtA:SF?

Right now, the furthest any of the "non-native" tactical combat games go towards abstracting away from the Squadron Scale set up is Starmada Nova, but even it doesn't quite go to Fleet Scale. (It still seems to have Squadron Scale amounts of each type of weapon, but it looks like they are abstracted into batteries rather than treated as separate mounts; as shown on this sample of the Nova-scale Klingon C5.)
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion


Last edited by Nerroth on Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1881

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never understood fleet scale. It doesn't fill any gap that I can see.

Games are not really much faster - ships are half as big, but shoot half as much at each other. It is, however, a crapshoot - the smaller number of weapons makes it very variable - photons in fleet scale are very uber streaky when even a cruiser only rolls 2 dice, 25% of no damage, 25% of max damage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dal Downing
Commander


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

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay here are my opinions and that is what they are my opinions.

Nerroth wrote:
In summary, my "game design" questions would be these:

*Should more (or less) emphasis be put on either the Squadron or Fleet scale of the Ship Cards used as the basis of conversion; or should both scales be offered at the same time?)


Squadron Scale - There was not a lot of wildly enthusiastic support for a Fleet Scale ACTASF using 3 ships per card when Mathew brought it up on the Mongoose Forums. Any speculation or discussions for such a thing really should be driven over on those boards.

Nerroth wrote:
*Should faceted shielding be brought in; and if so, should it be based on either Squadron or Fleet Scale Ship Card facings?


No, ACTASF regardless how it may be marketed is NOT a Tactical Simulator it is a Fleet game. Multifaceted shields really should not concern an Admiral running a battle.

Nerroth wrote:
*Should the rules for boarding actions be lifted out of ACtA:NA, re-adjusted to better suit the SFU, and plugged in to ACtA:SF? (And, for that matter, should the number of Marine squads on each ship be adjusted or not?)


No, Mathew has rules that work real well for that already in 3 other systems. When Mathew is good and ready I am sure we will see Boarding Action and Commando Ships but the Book 1 revision is not the place to discuss them. However some thought should be given to upping the Marines to match the Squadron Scale complements of the respective ships now but that really is a Chicken and a the Egg discussion.

Nerroth wrote:
*And should there be a distinct Cargo Trait, offering a consistent means of converting cargo boxes from FC (and to potentially allow campiagn-minded groups to make use of it)?


Cargo has already been touched on. In the end I am sure Cargo and Repair will wind up being Traits like Scout and not used for Damage Calculations.
_________________
-Dal

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



Last edited by Dal Downing on Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dal Downing
Commander


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

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Once again hes are my thoughts and opinions on these so take them with a grain of salt if you want to.

archon96 wrote:
Seeking needs a change, both for drones and plasma.
"thought to fix drone either give them a lower damage rate or a reload"


Umm not following you here. First off reducing the Damage would break the Universal consitancy SVC wants to see. Drones really should be MultiHit 5 but I kinda like the variable damage thing. Also because you are using a D6 the means the average damage that a Drone would produce is 3.5 hits per strike so there is room to argue changing Drones to Multihit 4 weapons.

Reload tracking is book keeping and with the current drone rules there really is not a need for it. And, by the way, even if we do get a Seek Weapon Phases I still expect the # of Ships Targetting Limit and Rolling to hit at Range will stay. Drones in the SFU just do not hit targets that often. There is only some much we can do to dress up the I Go You Go Mechanics.

archon96 wrote:
Shields on Klingon vessels
"the half off in the front doesnt portray the klingon very well and gimps them on boost shields"


Once again I do not agree with this statement. Mongoose wanted to take the rules and the fluff and add that flavor to the Fleets to try to differentiate them some. The Wallowing Gorns were an abysmal failure in this regard but the Klingon Shield has a precedent in forcing the Klingons to Saber Dance. It rewards them for using the traditional oblique Attacks and punishes them for just jumping into to close range and sitting in the middle of a enemy fleet. I am curious to see what other races get in the future.

archon96 wrote:
IDF
"loose accuracy for shots fired in idf this should even it out, but let those with the escort trait retain accuracy because thats what they were designed for."


Actually I am hoping in the future we can split Special Actions into 2 catagory Powered Special Actions and System Special Action. Yeah it is a tad more book keeping but why can I not go APE to close and Conduct Hit and Runs or Activate Tractors to start a Anchor? I feel instead of eliminating Crew Checks we should just raise/lower the Check number to make a more realistic success probable.

archon96 wrote:
Cloaking
"I love cloaking but as it currently is id rather start a match uncloaked. Maybe adjust the decloak special action to include a - hit modifier when firing on seeking fired from a decloak vessel. Even in the original series plasma fired from a decloaking vessel was a traumatic event.


Yeah Cloaking needs looking at but, what do we change. Which Hit Modifier do you want to adjust Attacking or Defending both. Also should the rules be changed so that you can no longer Shotgun Space to kill a Cloaked Vessel? You can not do this in Fed Com which is where basis for ACTASF came from in the first place.

archon96 wrote:
These are the big four that bother me. Just some thoughts hopefully someone might try them and see what happens. Laughing Laughing


Keep them coming feed back is what is important at this stage. The more the merrier.
_________________
-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 -> A Call to Arms Star Fleet All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 10 of 12

 
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