Carriers
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
-
Steve Cole
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm
Changing all of their weapons to driect fire would mean FC and SFB are unrelated games. That's a challenge, for a number of reasons, not least because the tactics are totally different. Seeking weapons exist to affect enemy maneuver, something direct-fire weapons don't do. You see a seeker coming and you move to best deal with it. Direct fire is over and done and has zero effect.
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
-
TrotskyTrotsky
- Lieutenant JG
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:23 pm
In regards to drones launched from fighters, if it is not going to be a direct fire model then restricting target choice to only one ship would be beneficial - keeping track of lots of drone swarms targeting multiple targets is already time consuming - any increase would slow the game further. You can still have different 'flights' of fighters launching from different hexes to restrict target movement and increase chances for impact.
-
TrotskyTrotsky
- Lieutenant JG
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:23 pm
-
Steve Cole
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm
I was reading the playtest rules from CL35 for FedCom fighters and I noticed an "error" and had some rules feedback.
In the second paragraph it notes that fighters are not part of "trek". This is true in the original series but certainly in DS9 fighters were routinely shown as part of the Dominion War.
On the issue of Fighters in Federation Commander: Borders of Madness. I would really like to use Federation Commander to resolve SFB battles. That means I would really like to see gunboats, heavy fighters, bombers, and use of existing SFB fighter variants and SSDs. I thought the rules in general were pretty good. I don't like 5QM3c because I think it is as cumbersome as tracking the actual drones. I'm also in favor of tracking fighters as groups of two (leader and wingman) and treating them as one unbreakable counter. I also think that ADD's are going to need to be able to target shuttles and that SFB dogfighter drones should be treated as rail launched ADDs in Federation Commander. If you want to reduce the number of drones on the board make fighters incapable of controlling their own drones, or reduce fighter drone control limits.
In the second paragraph it notes that fighters are not part of "trek". This is true in the original series but certainly in DS9 fighters were routinely shown as part of the Dominion War.
On the issue of Fighters in Federation Commander: Borders of Madness. I would really like to use Federation Commander to resolve SFB battles. That means I would really like to see gunboats, heavy fighters, bombers, and use of existing SFB fighter variants and SSDs. I thought the rules in general were pretty good. I don't like 5QM3c because I think it is as cumbersome as tracking the actual drones. I'm also in favor of tracking fighters as groups of two (leader and wingman) and treating them as one unbreakable counter. I also think that ADD's are going to need to be able to target shuttles and that SFB dogfighter drones should be treated as rail launched ADDs in Federation Commander. If you want to reduce the number of drones on the board make fighters incapable of controlling their own drones, or reduce fighter drone control limits.
Carriers and fighters are likely to only be added to Federation Commander via Borders of Madness. That is not set in stone, or anything, but still appears to be the plan of record.
Even so, it is highly unlikely that all of the variants and options will be seen in Borders of Madness. It is likely that most empires will have to be content with a single one-space fighter (Feds likely get two). If two-space fighters, or even bombers, are added, it is again quite likely there will only be a single version of each per empire.
On a separate note, the current Rev6 version of the rules does allow ADDs to fire at shuttles and fighters in the offensive fire phase. It would be pretty easy to use these rules for RALADs, if so desired.
Even so, it is highly unlikely that all of the variants and options will be seen in Borders of Madness. It is likely that most empires will have to be content with a single one-space fighter (Feds likely get two). If two-space fighters, or even bombers, are added, it is again quite likely there will only be a single version of each per empire.
On a separate note, the current Rev6 version of the rules does allow ADDs to fire at shuttles and fighters in the offensive fire phase. It would be pretty easy to use these rules for RALADs, if so desired.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
I really hope that we see the ability to use all existing SFB units in BoM. If not why bother? I think sometimes the FedCom community confuses diversity with complexity. There is nothing complex about have several hundred different unit types as long as they have common rules and individual SSDs. For example the only thing that is complex about refits in SFB is that they are on the same ssd. If you give them their own ssd like in middle years then you have no issues.
Maybe, but I have more issues with play time and counter numbers. If FC becomes SFB, I'm done. I stopped playing SFB, I'm playing FC because it's NOT SFB.I think sometimes the FedCom community confuses diversity with complexity.
With that said, I don't have any issues with BoM having everything the SFBers want.
Speed is life; Patience is victory
No disagreement here. One look at either the ew rules or mid turn speed changes is enough to send chills up the spine of the most ardent tax law lawyer.DNordeen wrote:Maybe, but I have more issues with play time and counter numbers. If FC becomes SFB, I'm done. I stopped playing SFB, I'm playing FC because it's NOT SFB.I think sometimes the FedCom community confuses diversity with complexity.
With that said, I don't have any issues with BoM having everything the SFBers want.
akula wrote:I really hope that we see the ability to use all existing SFB units in BoM. If not why bother? I think sometimes the FedCom community confuses diversity with complexity. There is nothing complex about have several hundred different unit types as long as they have common rules and individual SSDs.
It always been said that counter clutter is one of the big issues that FC is trying to avoid, and that is the big issue with carriers (well not the carriers so much, but the seekers the fighters carry). The defintion of complex is something that consists of many related parts, several hundred types in a game certainly rates as complex, even more so with non trivial rules. E.G. I don't want all the drone types and drone rack types. Sure it allows diversity, but it also complicates the game. I don't want to play where a Kzinti player spends half the evening just working out his rack/ammo loadout. I don't want to have to keep checking what ship had which racks, and which drone was which type.
That said, over the years I've shifted from being anti BOM to being OK so long as it isn't just port stuff over more or less as is. If all you want is better SSDs then you don't really need BOM, all the basic rules for fighters and carriers exist, fighters go speed 16, drones go speed 20 and last until they have 3 dots on them etc etc. What else do you need? just knock up some SSDs and off you go and play them more or less as they are in SFB.
To me though, that is the 'why bother' case. If you just want nice SSDs then there is litttle point in BOM. If you like the hundreds of types and complexity then why bother when you already have SFB. To me the point of BOM should be to convert stuff that is in SFB but in way that significantly reduces the complexity/clutter for those of us who can't stand SFB for those reasons (and not the SSDs).
I completely agree that the reason I love FC is that there is very little clutter. One of the owners if the store was watching a game of FC and was wondering where all the counters were and admazed on how fast turns were. This is the reason that my SFB stuff has sat in my closet for years now going on to almost a decade.I played the carriers in the BoM rules and it slowed the game up and it was super hard to run the game becuase there was way too much on the board. If SFB players what that stuff leave it in BoM. Just leave the streamlined nature of FC.
Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun.
Everything I learned in life I learned from Pipboy!
You can also find me on DAKKADAKKA.COM as Pipboy101. Soon to be posting battle reports for FC and SFM there.
Everything I learned in life I learned from Pipboy!
You can also find me on DAKKADAKKA.COM as Pipboy101. Soon to be posting battle reports for FC and SFM there.
We are starting to discuss who we may want to play once our current campaign is over and we start another. It appears hydrans will almost certainly be in, I was looking at them, but so is someone else.
Given that I'm looking at some form of fighter flight rule. Handling a dozen stingers is one thing, handling the number of stingers in a large squadron or fleet is another matter - the hydrans can readily hit 60+ stingers. A DN and 3 Rangers/Mohawks would be just shy of 40 stingers. Running those sort of numbers of stingers is not going to work when each stinger is a distinct unit in its own right.
I have some ideas for some intial flight rules. But out of interest are there any ideas floating around ADB that might be something we might consider for playtesting?
I'm looking at something beyond simply saying every 3 (or whatever number) stingers is 1 counter. It also needs to be something that reduces the shooting/targeting to that many less decisions as well. So for example when the flight shoots all 3 stingers will have to shoot at the same time in 1 volley at the same target. When someone shoots at a flight they shoot at the flight and not individual fighters etc.
NB before anyone jumps in and says but you lose flexibility, its not like SFB nada nada, be aware that we are talking something that will handle large numbers of fighters here and still be playable within 1 day*, not your 1 ship duel, or tourney game with 8 stingers max which can be handled with stingers as individuals.
* - Whilst many of our larger games go over 2 sessions, and some into a third, that is where each session is an evening, with some eating, setting up, chatting etc. A full day session is sort of what I think of as my benchmark for how long would be too long for the biggest game, and don't think any of our games would have taken longer than that had they been played as a full day session.
As an aside, if the hydrans are taken by someone else, then I'll probably go Kzinti and try out my earlier proposal regarding pulling drones out of the standard move sequence to see how much that improves mass drones, so we'll play some sort of flight system and mass drone rules. I'm also considering using kzinti strike carriers, to really mass the drones and see just how far you can push the drones and still be playable
Given that I'm looking at some form of fighter flight rule. Handling a dozen stingers is one thing, handling the number of stingers in a large squadron or fleet is another matter - the hydrans can readily hit 60+ stingers. A DN and 3 Rangers/Mohawks would be just shy of 40 stingers. Running those sort of numbers of stingers is not going to work when each stinger is a distinct unit in its own right.
I have some ideas for some intial flight rules. But out of interest are there any ideas floating around ADB that might be something we might consider for playtesting?
I'm looking at something beyond simply saying every 3 (or whatever number) stingers is 1 counter. It also needs to be something that reduces the shooting/targeting to that many less decisions as well. So for example when the flight shoots all 3 stingers will have to shoot at the same time in 1 volley at the same target. When someone shoots at a flight they shoot at the flight and not individual fighters etc.
NB before anyone jumps in and says but you lose flexibility, its not like SFB nada nada, be aware that we are talking something that will handle large numbers of fighters here and still be playable within 1 day*, not your 1 ship duel, or tourney game with 8 stingers max which can be handled with stingers as individuals.
* - Whilst many of our larger games go over 2 sessions, and some into a third, that is where each session is an evening, with some eating, setting up, chatting etc. A full day session is sort of what I think of as my benchmark for how long would be too long for the biggest game, and don't think any of our games would have taken longer than that had they been played as a full day session.
As an aside, if the hydrans are taken by someone else, then I'll probably go Kzinti and try out my earlier proposal regarding pulling drones out of the standard move sequence to see how much that improves mass drones, so we'll play some sort of flight system and mass drone rules. I'm also considering using kzinti strike carriers, to really mass the drones and see just how far you can push the drones and still be playable