Haven't given up hope of being able to help. We'll see.
Our campaign is still running.
What is a Federation Commander Campaign?
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
-
Pinkfluffychicken
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:46 am
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
What VBAM is trying to do is amazing. Our group has contributed a bit, but I haven't yet because what they are trying to do is soooooo complex. My head keeps exploding.
Haven't given up hope of being able to help. We'll see.
Our campaign is still running.
Haven't given up hope of being able to help. We'll see.
Our campaign is still running.
Famous last words #11: "That's a very big fleet!"
Good to hear! Yeah, we took your suggestions to heart to separate everything you need to play from everything a regular gaming group will want. You should see the outline of that in the latest draft that boils down the few needed sections. We have talked about making those available as a "First Campaigns" type PDF, but are far away from such a decision yet. A lot will depend on how the other five groups do.
All the best,
-Jay
All the best,
-Jay
@mwaschak: Good to hear that you're boiling things down. The good thing about VBAM is that you have lots of options; the bad thing is that it's a LOT to try to absorb. The best way to learn VBAM seems to be to start running a little solo campaign before teaching the rules to others (or just play in a compaign that some else is running)
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
No. Galactic Conquest is an ADB product that is a Star Fleet Battles campaign and as such includes rules for many weaons, systems, ships, and functions that are not a part ofthe Federation Commnader game.
Federation Admiral on the other hand is designed from the ground floor up strictly as a Federation Commander campaign system.
Federation Admiral on the other hand is designed from the ground floor up strictly as a Federation Commander campaign system.
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF
Department Head, ACTASF
We are almost there. I am shuffling through many playtest reports each day and have plans to talk about FA with SVC this year at Origins; time permitting. I know that is the rough cut off date for playtesting too to discuss any changes that FA may need.
While doing the playtesting I am preparing a "First Campaigns" and example of solid 3 months of campaigning at the Local Campaign level. The idea here is to give a pruned version of the rules to try, much like "First Missions" does for FC. That is, assuming there is interest in such a PDF.
-Jay
While doing the playtesting I am preparing a "First Campaigns" and example of solid 3 months of campaigning at the Local Campaign level. The idea here is to give a pruned version of the rules to try, much like "First Missions" does for FC. That is, assuming there is interest in such a PDF.
-Jay
Then you're really going to love this one.
IU haven't completely disgested the latest revision of the rules, but it's coming together nicely.
In case you've missed previous comments about it, here's a run-down:
It both modular and scalable:
The basic rules will be the same at any scale, but it's designed to be played at one of three separate scales:
Local - This can be as small as a single sector controlled by a Starbase and it's Commodore, or a the patrol zone of a single flagship...
Regional - This bumps the size to as much as a single front in the General War... i.e., the Lyran / Kzinti front or the Rom / Gorn front...
Grand - At this level, you can play out the entire General War with all 8 races and the minor races too (if you have the players and the time)...
Modular:
The basic rules fo the campaign will remain coinsistent, but there will be a series of optional (or modular) rules that can be added to increase the depth / flavor of the campaign. some groups will want all of them... some will want this one or that one, some groups will want none of them. But the game will play the same regardless.
For example: You can play with the optional missions rules...
We're set in the Lyran / Hydran front during the early stages ofthe General War.
The Hydran mission is to build forces for the upcoming assualt w/o alerting the Lyrans to whats coming.
The Lyrans are to retain a resisting force while supplying the war effort on the Kzinti front...
Thrown in the random mission generator and not only does our Lyran Commdore have to keep and eye on the Hydrans, but now there's an Orion Pirate raiding his supply-train convoys and they must be driven off.
It just gets better from there...
You have "X" economic points...
do you upgrade the Base Station to a Battle Station?
Do you start construction of a new Destroyer that won;t be finished for 3 more years?
Do you spend it researching the technology to produce more efficient weapon systems?
Lots and lots of choices and not only do they affect the next turn, but the are still having effects 10 or 12 years down the road...
IU haven't completely disgested the latest revision of the rules, but it's coming together nicely.
In case you've missed previous comments about it, here's a run-down:
It both modular and scalable:
The basic rules will be the same at any scale, but it's designed to be played at one of three separate scales:
Local - This can be as small as a single sector controlled by a Starbase and it's Commodore, or a the patrol zone of a single flagship...
Regional - This bumps the size to as much as a single front in the General War... i.e., the Lyran / Kzinti front or the Rom / Gorn front...
Grand - At this level, you can play out the entire General War with all 8 races and the minor races too (if you have the players and the time)...
Modular:
The basic rules fo the campaign will remain coinsistent, but there will be a series of optional (or modular) rules that can be added to increase the depth / flavor of the campaign. some groups will want all of them... some will want this one or that one, some groups will want none of them. But the game will play the same regardless.
For example: You can play with the optional missions rules...
We're set in the Lyran / Hydran front during the early stages ofthe General War.
The Hydran mission is to build forces for the upcoming assualt w/o alerting the Lyrans to whats coming.
The Lyrans are to retain a resisting force while supplying the war effort on the Kzinti front...
Thrown in the random mission generator and not only does our Lyran Commdore have to keep and eye on the Hydrans, but now there's an Orion Pirate raiding his supply-train convoys and they must be driven off.
It just gets better from there...
You have "X" economic points...
do you upgrade the Base Station to a Battle Station?
Do you start construction of a new Destroyer that won;t be finished for 3 more years?
Do you spend it researching the technology to produce more efficient weapon systems?
Lots and lots of choices and not only do they affect the next turn, but the are still having effects 10 or 12 years down the road...
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF
Department Head, ACTASF
Not really. That's an apples to oranges comparison.
F&E is a grand strategic game, wholly self-contained, that plays out the entire General War, if you run it with everything "maxed".
There are some folks who use it as a campaign-engine for SFB, but they are increasingly rare. F&E is just too big, with potentially dozens of conflicts being resolved per turn (many of them "blow outs" and not much fun to play out in SFB) and some truly massive battles (which would be next to impossible to play out in SFB in an average person's time-frame).
From what I've gathered, FedAdm is being positioned as first and foremost a campaign-engine, to be used in conjunction with FedCom. It will be able to resolve battles with it's own combat system (why play-out something that is unavoidable and the result is a "given" [ex. a Heavy Cruiser raiding a small unprotected convoy]?), but it's main function is to generate battles to resolve using FedCom.
You're right about the "streamlined" part though. Everything I've read indicates that FedAdm is trying to fit the mold that FedCom did, with faster, cleaner rules.
F&E is a grand strategic game, wholly self-contained, that plays out the entire General War, if you run it with everything "maxed".
There are some folks who use it as a campaign-engine for SFB, but they are increasingly rare. F&E is just too big, with potentially dozens of conflicts being resolved per turn (many of them "blow outs" and not much fun to play out in SFB) and some truly massive battles (which would be next to impossible to play out in SFB in an average person's time-frame).
From what I've gathered, FedAdm is being positioned as first and foremost a campaign-engine, to be used in conjunction with FedCom. It will be able to resolve battles with it's own combat system (why play-out something that is unavoidable and the result is a "given" [ex. a Heavy Cruiser raiding a small unprotected convoy]?), but it's main function is to generate battles to resolve using FedCom.
You're right about the "streamlined" part though. Everything I've read indicates that FedAdm is trying to fit the mold that FedCom did, with faster, cleaner rules.
Will is essentially correct.
If you wanted to re-play the General War, you could. but why? They have F&E for that.
The big attraction to Federation Admiral is the ability to set-up and run a small (i.e., 2-player or so) campaign.
You establish the empires at war...
You establish the size of the map used...
You determine the frequency of planets appearing...
You establish a time frame... do you want a quick and dirty 12 turn game or do you want 25 or more turns? It's your call.
A 12 turn game doesn't allow much time for developing new technologies or buiding new units... but that might be your groups focus, either.
And as Will said (and I forgot to add in), FA will have it's own internal, abstracted combat system... but since all the units available are either in FC now (or will be soon), you can choose to fight out as many or as few of them using Fed Comm as you like.
It'll be a big change of pace for most groups having to think about how much to fight (i.e., how much damage is too much) before retreating since most guys just throw two ships on the map and fightto the death like there's no tomorrow!!!
In the Campaign game, damage can be repaired, but only at the cost of something else and a lost ship is vry hard to replace in a short game (or close to the end of a longer campaign...)
If you wanted to re-play the General War, you could. but why? They have F&E for that.
The big attraction to Federation Admiral is the ability to set-up and run a small (i.e., 2-player or so) campaign.
You establish the empires at war...
You establish the size of the map used...
You determine the frequency of planets appearing...
You establish a time frame... do you want a quick and dirty 12 turn game or do you want 25 or more turns? It's your call.
A 12 turn game doesn't allow much time for developing new technologies or buiding new units... but that might be your groups focus, either.
And as Will said (and I forgot to add in), FA will have it's own internal, abstracted combat system... but since all the units available are either in FC now (or will be soon), you can choose to fight out as many or as few of them using Fed Comm as you like.
It'll be a big change of pace for most groups having to think about how much to fight (i.e., how much damage is too much) before retreating since most guys just throw two ships on the map and fightto the death like there's no tomorrow!!!
In the Campaign game, damage can be repaired, but only at the cost of something else and a lost ship is vry hard to replace in a short game (or close to the end of a longer campaign...)
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF
Department Head, ACTASF
You raise a major reason why I am looking forward to FedAdm so much. The two groups I play in right now are focused on "pick-up" games (duels and squadron engagements, with the occasional monster, etc.). This is mostly driven by a lack of time. Short time windows to play and even less time available to "manage" a campaign.
It's looking like FedAdm will fit the bill for a framework to generate fights that "mean something", as opposed to our usual throat-grasping death spirals. I've never once seen my primary opponent disengage - if he takes too much damage, he just calls it a win for me and we pack up. I'd rather see his ships take a licking and then come back someday, scarred but smarter.
It's looking like FedAdm will fit the bill for a framework to generate fights that "mean something", as opposed to our usual throat-grasping death spirals. I've never once seen my primary opponent disengage - if he takes too much damage, he just calls it a win for me and we pack up. I'd rather see his ships take a licking and then come back someday, scarred but smarter.
-
Wolverin61
- Commander
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:07 am
- Location: Mississippi
- Contact:
That's only a week away!mwaschak wrote:We are almost there. I am shuffling through many playtest reports each day and have plans to talk about FA with SVC this year at Origins; time permitting. I know that is the rough cut off date for playtesting too to discuss any changes that FA may need.
Oh, there's interest alright, from me anyway!mwaschak wrote:While doing the playtesting I am preparing a "First Campaigns" and example of solid 3 months of campaigning at the Local Campaign level. The idea here is to give a pruned version of the rules to try, much like "First Missions" does for FC. That is, assuming there is interest in such a PDF.
"His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
-
Dan Ibekwe
- Commander
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:06 pm
- Location: Manchester UK
Wow, this sounds excellent.
I particularly like the 'scaleable' part. I've played F&E once, was very impressed by the game itself, but utterly daunted by it's sheer size. Also, a bit put off by the 'set history' of the General War - not much fun, if you're a Hydran.
An open-ended sector campaign is right on the money. One module I've despaired of ever seeing in SFB (due to the demands on SVC's time) is Module V - Operational Movement. This sounds like something very similar for FC.
Is there an ETA?
I particularly like the 'scaleable' part. I've played F&E once, was very impressed by the game itself, but utterly daunted by it's sheer size. Also, a bit put off by the 'set history' of the General War - not much fun, if you're a Hydran.
An open-ended sector campaign is right on the money. One module I've despaired of ever seeing in SFB (due to the demands on SVC's time) is Module V - Operational Movement. This sounds like something very similar for FC.
Is there an ETA?
Thank you. The thing about the SFU is that there is a tremendous amount of detail that is worth gaming in nearly every sector of space. So when I started building the initial design everything I considered was something I would want to play. There would be times when I would want to refight a Gorn/Romulan War, and others where I just want to be a pirate cartel harassing some border systems.Dan Ibekwe wrote:Wow, this sounds excellent.
I particularly like the 'scaleable' part. I've played F&E once, was very impressed by the game itself, but utterly daunted by it's sheer size. Also, a bit put off by the 'set history' of the General War - not much fun, if you're a Hydran.
I think the biggest delay right now is a die-cutter issue. I need to check again with SVC this week.Dan Ibekwe wrote: An open-ended sector campaign is right on the money. One module I've despaired of ever seeing in SFB (due to the demands on SVC's time) is Module V - Operational Movement. This sounds like something very similar for FC.
Is there an ETA?
-Jay