Federation Commander

[Kohanavich]

I know it had to happen. ADB has to release new material to survive. The introduction of carriers , swarms of fighters with swarms of guided weapons slowed gameplay down badly in SFB. FC should deal better. From a power production standpoint I think it doesn't work to allow something as small as a fighter or shuttle to generate the power required to operate phasers, torpedoes and move as fast as they do.
I remember a discussion many years ago about the carrier aviation guys influencing SFB. Many players liked it. I am not a fan. It changes the entire SFU and is detrimental to playability.
So while I have bought pretty much everything for FC and play SFB a couple of times a year I am not interested in carriers for FC. It's a dead end for playability for us and pollutes the feel of the SFU.
Only my opinion , sorry if I'm ranting.
SK
A player since the TFG days.

[Nerroth]

Most of the game development discussion for SFU games (including FC) takes place over on the BBS. This is the thread where much of the current fighter discussion has been taking place, if you wanted to review the way things have been going thus far.

There had been a plan to come up with an optional set of "Borders of Madness" rules, which would stand apart from those integrated into "vanilla" FC. While some of the initial BoM concepts (such as scouts) have since been incorporated into the "vanilla" ruleset, others (such as maulers) may remain purely optional rules only.

I'm not sure if the current plan is to keep non-Hydran fighters in the BoM category or not - but even so, the proposed rules and fighter selections are significantly pared down relative to the vast array of options showcased over in SFB.

For example, the current talk seems to lean towards offering only one fighter type per empire to start, to force fighters to be grouped into "flights", and to force drone-armed fighter flights to launch their drones in "swarms" (an idea inspired by developments in another SFU game system, one which struggled to cut down the seeking weapon clutter while retaining the correct "feel" of the setting).

Of course, none of this means that anyone should feel obligated to make use of fighters (or gunboats, for that matter). Hopefully the rules being offered would, if all goes well, avoid the kind of complications which carriers (or PFTs) present over in SFB, for those who do choose to make use of them.
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion

[Kohanavich]

That sounds like a great plan with fighters. I gave up on the concept after a battle with a Fed SCS with the works.... A hundred drones ! Too many fighters with Gatling phasers etc. the system was way out of balance.

[Kohanavich]

With regards to weapon swarms not moving across the map. How would other ships other than the target resolve fire against them?

[mdauben]

[Steve Cole]

They do not actually add complexity. they add WORKLOAD. More things to move and keep track of and mark damage on and cross-check the damage track on paper with the counter on the map.

Changing from individual drones to swarms of many drones keeps the workload very manageable.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[mjwest]

[Steve Cole]

I don't see how we can do that since we already announced Fighters Attack?
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[mjwest]

[Nerroth]

I suppose one option could be to "double-book" FC this time around, by putting gunboats onto that 4th countersheet slot (alongside Fighters Attack, the F&E Planetary Ops reprint, and SFB Module X2).

But then, there are plenty of potential candidates from the SFB side of the aisle which might well argue for a place there instead.

Is there a point at which a discussion on what to do with that 4th slot might be carried out here or on the BBS - and, if so, is it too soon to say whether or not any SFB or FC options could be on the table?
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion

[Paul B]

I would think Fighters and Carriers have more mass market appeal than Gunboats given that it's more analogous to WW2 whereas Gunboats I think are more associated with WW1.

That and from my experience talking to SFB players and just reading on the web, Gunboats (PFs?) have been largely vilified as game-breaking or cited as the reason why people stopped playing SFB. So reputation-wise fighters might be a safer choice. Though that's entirely anecdotal.

Don't Gunboats also require new rules for Tenders? Or do they operate as the Andromedan ships do? Whereas rules for Fighters already exist in FC with the Hydran ship.

[Kohanavich]

We always considered fighters and carriers as an allternitive timeline in SFB.

[Nerroth]

From what I gather, SFU gunboats were inspired by PT boats from the Second World War.

So far as PFTs go, there had been an idea to put "casual" PFs into "vanilla" FC, and PFTs (along with PF leaders and PF scouts) into Borders of Madness. I suggested over on the BBS that one could handle this by splitting a flotilla into two Ship Cards of three PFs each: one card with three "combat variant" models (which could be taken as "casual" boats), and a second with the variants needed to flesh out a full flotilla (that could be BoM only).

(It may be worth splitting the gunboat side of this discussion into a new thread, perhaps.)
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion

[Paul B]

Ah second generation Torpedo Boats then basically.

I saw something about tender-less PFs on the boards but doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? The whole point of WW1 Torpedo Boats and WW2 PT boats is that they're coastal ships. They're small and fast and incapable of long range operation or of operating in rough seas.

If SFU PFs are similarly limited in endurance then shouldn't they require a conveyor or tender of some sort? Why could PFs be put onboard without a tender while Fighters would require a carrier?

[mjwest]