Speed (acceleration) Limits

[storeylf]

The doomed as a romulan thread ended up being less about plasma and more about whether cloaks are worth it.

This thread was from what I remember more about plasma.

[Mike]

Let's assume for a moment that some kind of acceleration limiting rule could be inserted into FC...

I think everyone who has posted about this has assumed anyone moving at speed 0 could only go speed 8 the next turn, speed 8 could only go 16 the next turn, etc. But what about a ship that is flat-out stopped? Would it be limited to going speed 0 the next turn? Sure, it would be able to accel as many impulses as it wanted and go an effective speed of 8, but would the accel limitation apply to this situation as well?

I'm merely probing the various facets of this, not to mention obeying the directive to bring the discussion over here from the other thread.

[duxvolantis]

Let's assume for a moment that some kind of acceleration limiting rule could be inserted into FC...

I think everyone who has posted about this has assumed anyone moving at speed 0 could only go speed 8 the next turn, speed 8 could only go 16 the next turn, etc. But what about a ship that is flat-out stopped? Would it be limited to going speed 0 the next turn? Sure, it would be able to accel as many impulses as it wanted and go an effective speed of 8, but would the accel limitation apply to this situation as well?

I'm merely probing the various facets of this, not to mention obeying the directive to bring the discussion over here from the other thread.

In SFB, if you ignore the post-Emergency Deceleration restrictions, you could go speed 10 the turn after not moving. I'd say that there would be no difference between base speed 0 and "stopped" (in part because it would be a confusing distinction). Both would be able to declare base speed 8 and therefore move up to 16 times.

[gar1138]

I think "stopped" and Speed 0 are quite well differently defined.

My suggestion would be that a ship "Stopped" could only declare base speed 0 (effectively speed 8 with acceleration every impulse) on the next turn. This is close enough to speed 10 in SFB that I think the balance differences would be minimal. Plus, how often in actual games does a ship actually declare being "stopped" (other than emergency deceleration, which would make a penalty for ED actually something to think about)? Yes, I know it happens, but it seems somewhat rare outside of specific scenario cases.

A ship going speed 0 would be able to declare speed 8 (effectively 16 with acceleration) on the next turn.

That is just my suggestion, but honestly, I would be OK with "stopped" and speed 0 being considered the same for speed limit purposes.

Garrett

[Kang]

I sincerely hope that none of this ever makes it into FedComm. It would become unplayable. Part of the bluff/counter-bluff of FC is the speed selection process. Remember this is FC, not SFB.

Keep it in Borders of Madness, because that's what it is to my eye - madness!

Just my two penn'orth

[IKerensky]

I am a new player but I will gladly use some kind of speed acceleration limitation.

It would help differenciate more between nimble and slow ships, it would provide more 'realistic' (or rather expectable) behaviour where ships doesnt goes from 0-24 then 0 again at will.

Perhaps relate it to the turn class (as this is an information already provided on the ships cards) and allow nimbler ships to adjust 2 grades while bulkier are allowed 1 grade or even 0.5 grade.

[storeylf]

I sincerely hope that none of this ever makes it into FedComm. It would become unplayable. Part of the bluff/counter-bluff of FC is the speed selection process. Remember this is FC, not SFB.

Keep it in Borders of Madness, because that's what it is to my eye - madness!

Just my two penn'orth

Same here- I see absolutely no need for it in FC. BoM fair enough.

I disagree with the things that have been suggested it will 'fix'. There is a penalty to ED, it may not be harsh enough for some, and there may be times when it is moot. Accel rules wouldn't alter the fact that at times that would be mootas well. The fact that ED doesn't have a harsher penalty is not a problem IMO.

[Kang]

I've never bought this thing about 'realistic' acceleration limits.

Because all theorising about maneuvering a starship at speeds in excess of the [real] Universe's absolute speed limits can only ever be conjecture, it's up to the game designer to decide what that physics will look like and how it translates into the game.

Sure, in SFB, Steve explains 'why' there is a limit to the acceleration any given ship can manage. But the established precedent in FC is that the ships are not limited in their acceleration from one turn to another.

And I for one am glad of that.....

[duxvolantis]

I've never bought this thing about 'realistic' acceleration limits.

Because all theorising about maneuvering a starship at speeds in excess of the [real] Universe's absolute speed limits can only ever be conjecture, it's up to the game designer to decide what that physics will look like and how it translates into the game.

Sure, in SFB, Steve explains 'why' there is a limit to the acceleration any given ship can manage. But the established precedent in FC is that the ships are not limited in their acceleration from one turn to another.

And I for one am glad of that.....

I disagree on two grounds:

1) FC is supposed to be set in the same universe as everything else, just with faster, easier more playable rules.

2) Even if not part of the canonical ruleset, I would truly love to see this and many other rules added to produce a robust set of optional rules clearly spelled out so that those of us who want to be able to introduce incremental (optional) complexity (and thereby different tactical situations and options) into our games have clearly defined options that are reasoned out and spelled out within the FC framework. I cannot go to my group and introduce rules that aren't in an FC rulebook. You can, at most, tweak a house rule here or there. Much much easier to say "in this campaign we are using the optional rules for X, Y and Z.".

Even in SFB there were rules that were optional (pre-plotted movement, hidden cloaked movement, and so on) and very rarely used. Even groups that knew and understood these rules would often only use them rarely and never in larger engagements. And to take that further, in SFB tournament many rules were excluded and some options introduced (such as the barrier) to create a concise balanced set of rules suitable for tournament play.

So I would very much like to see a whole lot of optional rules for FC so that each group can pick and choose the right balance of rules for their games.

[mjwest]

So I would very much like to see a whole lot of optional rules for FC so that each group can pick and choose the right balance of rules for their games.

Unfortunately, that is something that is completely antithetical to what Steve has said before. He is completely against optional rules for Federation Commander. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he will suddenly decide to implement "a whole lot of optional rules".

The closest you are going to get is Borders of Madness.

[Mike]

It seems to me that BoM is going to deal primarily with extra weapon systems such as maulers, fighters, etc. I always thought special sensors would be in BoM (and wish they would).

Changing acceleration limits changes the entire nature of the game mechanics, though. That doesn't seem to be something that should be a BoM feature.

Accel limits do not fix anything that is "broken" about the game, but they would help seeking weapon empires such as the Romulans, Gorns, and even Kzinti.