Federation Commander

[DNordeen]

So here's a SITREP from a single turn.

First everyone fills out their EA. There's a break in the game for everyone to see the opponents EA to include Base Speed. Than everyone turns in SOPs which result in a SITREP like this:



As you can see, the game can break quite often. There were 21 breaks between the first movement and the end of the turn. Each break allows players to see everything that's happened and redo their SOP based on that new knowledge.

So if you are worried that you can't play PBEM because you have to plan out your whole turn (or half anyway), don't be. The game will break almost every impulse. You can redo your SOP quite often to account for change. Additionally, if someone accelerates you can "me too" accelerate. If someone fires heavy weapons, you can "me too" fire.

Everything's on the computer, so you don't have to keep a gameboard set up or anything.

If you're interested in playing, just give it a try. It's free, and including me, there's three moderators available.

And if you don't like all these break points, you can use conditional orders to ignore them or react to them. Such as "if my opponent accelerates, I will accelerate too. Ignore the speed change break in this case."

Or, "If my opponent turns away from me, ignore the break for course change"
_________________
Speed is life; Patience is victory

[Sebastian380]

Is it possible to play FC PBEM without any of the 'me too' breaks during the movement phase? I imagine it will result in some unpredictable situations at the end of a movement phase but would it make much of a difference?

[DNordeen]

Right now, only if a player specifically says "don't break for the enemy turning" or whatever me, too option he/she doesn't want to take. Of course, the "me, too" break will still happen for the opponent.

PBEM are very long games, but it's the nature of the beast. There's just too many variables to skip the standard breaks all the time.
_________________
Speed is life; Patience is victory

[Scoutdad]

And a player can issue orders to ignore any breaks... all breaks, or only certain types of breaks.

I've moderated several games and have seen standing orders such as:

Ignore all breaks until the enemy is within 10 hexes.
Ignore all breaks that allow me to remain in the front arc.
Ignore any breaks for acceleration.
Ignore all break points until impulse 6.

And so on.

As the units are approaching, it's OK to ignore some breaks if you want to. But once the range narrows, you'll really appreciate the opportunity to break.
And the duration of the game depends more on everyone's ability to respond to queries in a timely manner.

Storeylf for example, will respond almost immediately and his games are usually over quickly.

And I once started a game with a player who was only on the internet for about one hour, late every Saturday evening. The game took 3 1/2 months to get to the end of turn 1, impulse 4. I surrendered...
_________________
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF

[Sebastian380]

I'm now moderating a game using SFB Cadet Rules (check it out at sebastian.palozzi.com) and I've been thinking about options.

I can understand the need to pay attention to all breaks when the ships get close to each other but I was thinking that not having the option to break might be more like playing SFB with pre-plotted movement. I've never played it that way but I've read the rules and I'm sure it was playable.

What if an FC PBEM game was run in the same way, that is, without any breaks during the movement phase of each impulse?

Both players will be doing some guesswork for each impulse but it would be an easier game to moderate. I'm not thinking of speeding up PBEM--I think Duane is right when he says that PBEM is a slow game.

By the same token, what if we didn't allow for any "me-too" breaks during the Offensive Fire step or any 'me-too' at all?

Am I right in thinking that the 'me-too' concept was built into FedCom to avoid slowing down the game with the mechanics around Simultaneous Fire? If so, it is ironic that the 'me-too' concept makes FC PBEM slower than SFB PBEM.

[Sebastian380]

I'm now moderating a game using SFB Cadet Rules (you can check it out at sebastianpalozzi.com) and I've been thinking about different ways to run PBEM games.

I can understand the need to pay attention to all breaks when the ships get close to each other but I was thinking that not having the option to break might be more like playing SFB with pre-plotted movement. I've never played it that way but I've read the rules and I'm sure it was playable.

What if an FC PBEM game was run in the same way, that is, without any breaks during the movement phase of each impulse?

Both players will be doing some guesswork for each impulse but it would be an easier game to moderate. I'm not thinking of speeding up PBEM--I think Duane is right when he says that PBEM is a slow game.

By the same token, what if we didn't allow for any "me-too" breaks during the Offensive Fire step or any 'me-too' at all?

Am I right in thinking that the 'me-too' concept was built into FedCom to avoid slowing down the game with the mechanics around Simultaneous Fire? If so, it is ironic that the 'me-too' concept makes FC PBEM slower than SFB PBEM.