Briefing 3
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
Briefing 3
In the News Letter, it set a release date for Briefing 3, but not Borders of Madness. Is briefing three replacing BoM, or is it BoM, or are they both different products?
BoM and War&Peace are both currently scheduled for 2010.
Briefing #3 is going to contain support and logistics type ships that will support Federation Admiral, but are not set to be included in any other product. So, it will include several generic structures (including ground bases and other handy targets), troop ships, survey ships (presumably without special sensors), theatre transports, missing police ships, and missing fast ships.
It will be probably be smaller than Briefing #2, but will be as big as needed.
For BoM, there will likely be two products. Carriers and escorts will be segregated into their own BoM book, and the other stuff (scouts, maulers, and other stuff that is eluding me) will be in a separate book. The reason for this is because if it is all in one book, then each empire gets ONE scout and ONE carrier and ONE escort. With it split, there is enough room to provide each empire with more of a varient of each type of class. (Still nothing like SFB, but getting a couple different carrier and escort types will provide more flexibility in force composition.)
Again, this is just the current plan. Anything past Briefing #3 is subject to change as circumstance dictate.
Briefing #3 is going to contain support and logistics type ships that will support Federation Admiral, but are not set to be included in any other product. So, it will include several generic structures (including ground bases and other handy targets), troop ships, survey ships (presumably without special sensors), theatre transports, missing police ships, and missing fast ships.
It will be probably be smaller than Briefing #2, but will be as big as needed.
For BoM, there will likely be two products. Carriers and escorts will be segregated into their own BoM book, and the other stuff (scouts, maulers, and other stuff that is eluding me) will be in a separate book. The reason for this is because if it is all in one book, then each empire gets ONE scout and ONE carrier and ONE escort. With it split, there is enough room to provide each empire with more of a varient of each type of class. (Still nothing like SFB, but getting a couple different carrier and escort types will provide more flexibility in force composition.)
Again, this is just the current plan. Anything past Briefing #3 is subject to change as circumstance dictate.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
I like the sounds of that plan for BoM. I'd love to see something like that that lets each empire get a CVS-ish carrier (CA-hull) and a CVA-ish carrier (DN-hull). Those are the two "important" ones for each empire, IMHO. They certainly dominate the published historical battles and there are minis available which could see some token increase in sales.
There's lots and lots more carriers, but they could be done in other venues (Communique, CapLog) if they were really wanted/needed.
There's lots and lots more carriers, but they could be done in other venues (Communique, CapLog) if they were really wanted/needed.
I've always been one who likes well-done packages. As such, breaking up BoM into various specialized modules that give you more to work appeals to me. Include the nicer hardstock ship cards and charge appropriately and I'm game. Briefings don't appeal to me quite as much. Sure, I like the extra material. But I sure miss the nice ship cards.
Gunboats are an interesting topic. I imagine Steve is still trying to figure out 1) how to do gunboats in the FC mechanic and 2) whether they should be FC-proper or BoM. There are other areas of the game that can be (and need to be) addressed first.
As to DN sized carriers and SCSs, I worry about adding them to FC, or even BoM. A CVA with 24 fighters could be an absolute nightmare for even BoM, and could potentially break the game system.
As to DN sized carriers and SCSs, I worry about adding them to FC, or even BoM. A CVA with 24 fighters could be an absolute nightmare for even BoM, and could potentially break the game system.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
No doubt. To be frank, I still haven't used the CVS cards in CapLog, due to drone counter aversion.mjwest wrote:As to DN sized carriers and SCSs, I worry about adding them to FC, or even BoM. A CVA with 24 fighters could be an absolute nightmare for even BoM, and could potentially break the game system.
I'm an adamant "fighters are only for BoM (except Hydrans)" guy. BoM already takes the complexity well up into levels I don't usually want to go anymore. Some folks like their coffee stronger than me though.
Honestly, Battleships can be pretty board-cluttering too though and they are in mainline FC.
I do think some folks will want the CVA's for BoM, if only because of their place in SFU history, for campaigns, and just the sheer "munchkin factor". There is always that guy that wants the biggest and baddest, even if the card/SSD stays in his binder, year after year.
If CVAs would actually get used is a question I would leave to folks with bigger and more experienced groups. How many folks out there are using the CVA/SCS ships in SFB at this point? (Either of those in a scenario is a lifestyle choice, not a gaming evening).
We do! We regularly do CVA battles... sometimes a CVA on each side. It's just another ship to us (but then again, we've memorized the DAC to the 7th or 8th column... we regularly have 4 players per side... have a laminated set of impulse cards-cause the ink was wearing off the first set-... and when we play, it's an all day gig anyway...), but then again we probably aren;t the typical baordgaming group!djdood wrote:How many folks out there are using the CVA/SCS ships in SFB at this point? (Either of those in a scenario is a lifestyle choice, not a gaming evening).
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF
Department Head, ACTASF
Carriers only worry me in FC when we're talking so many fighters, drones, plasma torps, etc. I'm looking forward to the simplified solution to include these, even if BoM in FC. I've seen some good ideas in these forums for this and I think it will be cool to see how this is finally addressed. My current house solution is fighter wings with one icon representing up to 3 fighters at a time. But once 24+ fighters hit the board, it will still get unwieldy.
How about CVL's also being in the carrier/fighter BoM product?
And in regard to Briefing #3, I think it would be cool if it contained a few regular FC scenarios that included some of the ships it features as well as a scenario or two that could be used with FedAdmiral. Perhaps those who buy Briefing #3 for the ships to use in FC would get interested in FedAdmiral after seeing how it could be employed.
And in regard to Briefing #3, I think it would be cool if it contained a few regular FC scenarios that included some of the ships it features as well as a scenario or two that could be used with FedAdmiral. Perhaps those who buy Briefing #3 for the ships to use in FC would get interested in FedAdmiral after seeing how it could be employed.
Mike
=====
Sandpaper gets the job done, but makes for a lot of friction.
=====
Sandpaper gets the job done, but makes for a lot of friction.
I could Care less how many fighters are on the board. And for those who think there are too many drones, do this:
Get one drone Counter
In the white box, put a number. That counter represents that number of drones there. So, a 6 drone (or more) stack can be one counter, cutting the number of drone counters by up to about 85%
Get one drone Counter
In the white box, put a number. That counter represents that number of drones there. So, a 6 drone (or more) stack can be one counter, cutting the number of drone counters by up to about 85%
You're entitled to your opinion pinecone, but I'd also bet cash-money that it is an uninformed one. I'd recommend trying SFB to see what carriers are really like.
I've played SFB scenarios with lots of fighters and PF's on the board. It stops being a game and becomes a book-keeping exercise (and those "train mogol" games aren't very much fun to me).
It not the "number of counters on the board" that is the issue, per se. That is just the most visual indication of the larger issue (and it is an issue to quite a few people; note all the options SVC gave us for seeking-weapon reduction in CapLog when the carriers were first published for FC). The main issue with lots and lots of seeking weapons is book-keeping.
Making "swarm" counters like you suggest would help with board clutter (and they are already around), but what about the targets for all those drones?
They don't necessarily all have the same target (and in SFB that was all the more likely, due to "superstacks"). When you have 60 or more drones zipping around, no one can remember that much and it has to get written down. Kzinti carriers in a fight are quite an exercise for project management.
There's nothing hard about keeping the needed notes, but it does take the fun-factor down a notch, in much the same way that the Energy Allocation form for SFB was a turn-off for a lot of people. Blowing stuff up is fun, paying your taxes isn't.
There is the seeking weapon matrix printed on one of the FedCom weapons charts, and that helps, but still the book-keeping is there.
I'd expect that if I was in a FedCom fight with anything larger than CVEs (with "runt" 6-fighter squadron of fighters), I would end up using the "direct-fire drones" options.
I've played SFB scenarios with lots of fighters and PF's on the board. It stops being a game and becomes a book-keeping exercise (and those "train mogol" games aren't very much fun to me).
It not the "number of counters on the board" that is the issue, per se. That is just the most visual indication of the larger issue (and it is an issue to quite a few people; note all the options SVC gave us for seeking-weapon reduction in CapLog when the carriers were first published for FC). The main issue with lots and lots of seeking weapons is book-keeping.
Making "swarm" counters like you suggest would help with board clutter (and they are already around), but what about the targets for all those drones?
They don't necessarily all have the same target (and in SFB that was all the more likely, due to "superstacks"). When you have 60 or more drones zipping around, no one can remember that much and it has to get written down. Kzinti carriers in a fight are quite an exercise for project management.
There's nothing hard about keeping the needed notes, but it does take the fun-factor down a notch, in much the same way that the Energy Allocation form for SFB was a turn-off for a lot of people. Blowing stuff up is fun, paying your taxes isn't.
There is the seeking weapon matrix printed on one of the FedCom weapons charts, and that helps, but still the book-keeping is there.
I'd expect that if I was in a FedCom fight with anything larger than CVEs (with "runt" 6-fighter squadron of fighters), I would end up using the "direct-fire drones" options.
-
wedge_hammersteel
- Commander
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:42 am
- Location: Lafayette, LA
pinecone, he is right about the record keeping. Even when playing the standard tournament rules, I have to keep a list of which ship is firing on whom and how much damage and which shield and so forth.
But, and I think dj would agree on this point, each individual playing group can try and use whatever they like. Your private playing group doesnt have to use only standard FC rules.
Did you get a copy of the test fighter rules yet? You should try them in your group and then report back to us what you liked and didnt like about playing with multiple fighters and multiple drones. You seem to be good at using the on-line FC system so you must be good at keeping track of small details.
I would be interested on hearing how your multi drone battle plays out..
But, and I think dj would agree on this point, each individual playing group can try and use whatever they like. Your private playing group doesnt have to use only standard FC rules.
Did you get a copy of the test fighter rules yet? You should try them in your group and then report back to us what you liked and didnt like about playing with multiple fighters and multiple drones. You seem to be good at using the on-line FC system so you must be good at keeping track of small details.
I would be interested on hearing how your multi drone battle plays out..