Federation Commander

Is there a list somewhere of SFB scenarios that have been converted over to use in FC? I have one in mind that I was thinking about trying to convert, but if it's already been done, I don't want to bother.

Check here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/me ... 1298657732

Thanks, Jean!

There is an FC master scenario list which is updated twice a year, and it lists all SFB conversions. It's on the website somewhere; check the master index.

Here

http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... rios.shtml

Thank you, Steve

Yeah, I confess, I grew up in the Army and I think in two dimensions, not three.

three dimensions makes my game designer head hurt. The only 3d game I have ever seen that worked was that thing my son Ken Burnside did, and it's (sadly) too hard to play, even after he stripped the rules down to slivers of bare bones.

Steve Cole wrote:...three dimensions makes my game designer head hurt. The only 3d game I have ever seen that worked was that thing my son Ken Burnside did, and it's (sadly) too hard to play, even after he stripped the rules down to slivers of bare bones.

Come on, Steve. It's not that hard to play.
I've got AV:T, Squadron Strike, and Birds of Prey and after a few games, 3D movement becomes intuituive.

So, you'd be one of those wanting me to make a deal with Ken so he could do Star Fleet Squadron Strike?

Three dimensions are not necessary; this game and its forebears all worked perfectly well with just the two

Umm... no.
We can already play enough SFB stuff in SS using the current Squadron Strike rules.
I'd rather see more official Fed Comm stuff, followed by F&E Civil Wars, SFBF: the Next Generation, SFM: A, KRAG, etc.

I can lose easily enough in two dimensions.

I think StarForce is the only game I ever saw that was three dimensional and we never actually played it.

And of course my sig line is from a famous film describing a certain notorious enemy's tactics.

There was a game back in the late '70's by SPI called 'Vector 3', which basically consisted of drawing lines on graph paper (you used it as a 'board') to indicate velocity vectors. That was in three dimensions and had loads of square/square root tables to allow players to calculate range more 'easily'.

Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/44pyjna

It had a two-dimensional option as well, for playability's sake. And I must say that we always used the 2-d game for precisely that reason. Three dimensions added nothing to the game's 'fun', such as it was, but detratced seriously from the playability. I always felt, because of that, that SFU games would suffer the same low return on any 'investment' into 3-d rules.

I've played plenty of 3 dimensial games in the past - mainly air combat rather than space battles. Don't see an issue with 3D in itself, though some of those games are not the sort of games I'd really play nowadays, but I still play some of the quicker games that have a vertical dimension.

Not that I'd want FC to change, it is broadly fine as it is.

For aerial combat I think the 3rd dimension is more relavant; gravity, and the differences between potential and kinetic energy are pretty important factors and how different aircraft handle in the 3rd dimension are often a key difference.