Federation Commander

Yes, the Objective system basically adds another layer of complexity to the scenarios. We can create scenarios without them, and even alter the force level in each battle. For example, you may have a Romulan raid on an invading fleet, but the engagement is only the raiders against a picket squadron in an Interception Scenario.

There is a small decision tree to reach these based on some scenario decisions like "You have spotted X, what is your level of engagement."

The scenario system uses these decision to kick out a FACRS or FC battle based on the squadrons in the engagement.

Where the objective system comes in is the goals of a player in the battle.

So there are major objectives (the big goals from your superior commanders), and minor objectives (little things to do from your superior commanders), and you can look back a few pages on this thread to see a few examples. This is how you measure success in a game with the objective system.

This gets especially complicated if the orders conflict! "Wait, I need to deliver medical aid to a neutral planet the Klingons are blockading AND you don't want me to start an incident"?

This translates in to some very interesting encounters when you put all the pieces on the table in FC.

As far as this setting, I wouldn't mind having a number of Middle Years ships still hanging around, and focus on the build up to the greater conflict. In fact we could probably argue and debate the tech tree quite a bit before we get started.

I should be posting a "Calm Before the Storm" campaign signup list here soon. The name seems appropriate anyway.

I am glad to see objectives as something you want to keep.

Gambler, you will be fine for any command role I think. The pirate and the WYN will likely be the only "lonely" roles in the game.

As for battles, we can vote before an engagement and figure out the best way to resolve it. FACRS is fine, but we can outsource important battles here or to other FC groups.

-Jay

Oh mna... I was thinking of taking the Pirates.

I was going to offer to sell intel to both sides regarding small force build-ups...
Then offer to sell my services to both sides to go in an d remove the threat...
Send two forces of ships in... fire energy weapons (from both forces) wildly into space to create a bild-up of ionized energy...
Fake the sensor logs to show that both sides had driven off their respectively opponents...
Then get both sidesto provide me with replacement drones and disruptors to compensate for those lost during battle...


So much for that idea.

Hey, the pirate player certainly doesn't have to play lonely. I expect we will have all kinds of diplomacy going on. I am definitely going to gear their victory conditions to profit (among some other ideas).

I did do a first pass on the map. Thoughts?

To accurately reflect the SFU map, the western end of the neutral zone needs to turn north. This would give the Kzinti a bit less frontage and the Lyran a bit more frontage...

Although, it's a bit more evenly matched between the Kzinti and the Klingo-Lyran Coalition as is.

Map, Take 2:

Map, Take 2:
Perfect. I like that one.

Can I be the Federation player?

Map looks good to me!

I will note that if it's acceptable to play some of the battles using SFB, that I also would be happy to play some of the battles on SFB Online. If however the combat resolutions are tied to FC and FCARS, that's fine too.

I would definitely stay away from SFU Starmada as a potential combat resolution system since some of the ships actually change 'relative power'. And I say this as someone who would benefit as I think most Kzinti ships have a relatively higher point value compared to other races' ships (at least Klingons) in Klingon Armada. I think though, that the SFB/FC BPVs are the same for all ships found in both games (whether that means they're actually as balanced is another question ).

Oh, and are there Kzinti DD's in Fed Commander? I _love_ that ship. It almost feels like a light war cruiser in a much earlier era.

Scoutdad wrote:
Can I be the Federation player?

Sure! Why not!

-Jay

You can use SFB. Dale ran the Ajax battles with no issue. Since the price of the ship is tied to the economic value of the campaign system I imagine we won't have a problem with KA either. The real issue would be if there was a ship in FA, since it is based off of FC, that doesn't translate 1 to 1 in SFB.

I like the Kzinti DD as well, but I like drone slinging.

-Jay

I think I can find the time for a minor role, say sector commander. I'm rather swamped at the moment, but this doesn't look as if it will kick off for a little while?

Edit: in any case, I'm glad to see this happening, I think it will be fun to read about even if I cannot contribute.

I want Terry on my team!!!

Playground rules:
Team captains pick the teams...
I pick
You pick
Other you picks...
repeat...

Last man to pick has to take Jay.

Minor note on the map when compared to the F&E map. The WYN cluster could probably be a bit bigger - which could of course, affect fleet deployments. It looks like, superimposing the F&E map over yours mentally, that the Wyn Cluster could be a hexagonal cluster of 7 hexes centered on and adjacent to 1207.

I'm something of a perfectionist, so ignore if so desired. But I think this might make it more interesting for the Wyn player and those who deal with the Wyn due to the slightly increased frontage.

Like so?

Actually, I meant:

Wyn Cluster: Hexes 1106, 1107, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1306, 1307...

I'm going off this map here:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/federation/west_map.shtml

It's not at all a dealbreaker, just it looked off and I figured out why.

compared to the official F&E map, the border looks like its been scaled up by a factor of 2 (twice as many hexes on the Lyran/Kzinti border. Which is fine. But then the neutral zone has been increased by a factor of 3, and the WYN zone increased by a factor of 7?

I like the "take 2" map, but with only 2 hexes of neutral zone - and no neutral zone between the WYN and the major powers.

BUT....its really no big deal.