Federation Commander

Over on the BBS, it's been noted that an agreement is in the works between ADB and Ad Astra Games (founded by Ken Burnside, the author of SFB Module C5) to allow for a Star Fleet Universe adaptation of the Squadron Strike 3D space combat engine.

(A section has been opened up on the BBS covering this joint venture.)


It's still early days, but it looks like we'll finally have a game engine for which the full X/Y/Z coverage of the weapon mounts of those shiny new Starline 2500 minis would come into their own! (Well, this game is intended to be used with six-sided "box miniatures", but you get the idea.)


EDIT:

News flash! SVC writes: Star Fleet Squadron Strike: Leanna has given a green light to an e23 project that would be a series of PDF modules. A paper product might follow if there is support for it.

Ken Burnside adds: FAQ:

Q1) Will this product require Squadron Strike or will the product include Squadron Strike baked in?

A1) The product will require that you own the Squadron Strike game. It will not have an "abbrevated" rule set as part of the product.

Q2) Is ADB going to PoD Squadron Strike now?

A2) No, Ad Astra has that covered.

Q3) Will this be a 3D fighter dogfight game?

A3) No. It will be SFU spaceships converted to Squadron Strike.

Q4) What's the version of the SFU you're working from?

A4) I'm basing the designs off of Federation Commander. There may be a few things from SFB that migrate back in, like suicide overloaded fusion beams.

Q5) How close will it be?

A5) Very. There will be overloadable weapons, and action point management (think Fed Commander power management). Plasma torpedoes chase ships across the map. Drones may be a fire-and-shoot-down, rather than chase ships. Box counts will (mostly) match the Fed Commander ships.

Q6) What will the differences be?

A6) Squadron Strike ships will move about 8-15 hexes per turn; weapon ranges will be based on Fed Commander. Overloads go to range 9, due to some decisions made about the base game.

Q7) How close is this to being done?

A7) As of 19 MAR 2013, I have designs for 45 ships. I have a rough conversion notes document that can be sliced into a set of race specific "this is why this was done this way" document.

I need art assets to finish off the SSDs. There are some things I'm playtesting yet. If you've got a group of SS players and know the SFU, and are NOT CURRENTLY WORKING on something for ADB already, contact me. I do have some fairly active playtesters in Toronto and Vancouver I can hook interested people up with.

Sounds interesting. Does anyone here know what Squadron Strike is like as a game? Is it at the SFB end of the spectrum where one turn can take an hour or is it at the Starmada end of the spectrum when an entire game can take an hour?

Shadow Warrior wrote:Sounds interesting. Does anyone here know what Squadron Strike is like as a game? Is it at the SFB end of the spectrum where one turn can take an hour or is it at the Starmada end of the spectrum when an entire game can take an hour?

I've played SS.
Since you are moving and firing in 3-Dimensions, as well tracking the pitch, roll and yaw of each ship in 30 degree increments - which do you think it would be?

It's not as rules heavy as SFB, but you're not going to finish a small squadron action in two hours either.

I've been playing quite a bit of SS lately. The play aids in SS turn what sounds like a mathematical grind into a very smooth game. It takes some time to get the hang of it (more than one game), but it is well within the realm of most gamers to learn. Once you get the hang of it is surprising how fast the turns go by.

You do have to have the patience to learn some new skills. I have some friends who are a bit lazy and they have not got the hang of it or they easily forget what they learned in one game because they can't be bothered to read the rulebook and go through the examples between games.

IMHO the game is really worth taking the effort to learn. The effort really isn't any different than for those who have become very good at SFB or FC, the difference perhaps is that in SS some of that time has to be spent up front just learning how to use the AVID and shooting bearings to targets.

The nice thing also is that once you learn it its not just that you will have a great 3D version of Star Fleet - but you'll also have a system that you can design pretty much any ship you want - and it will be compatible with any other ship that's been designed in SS.

Before getting into SS our group was playing a lot of other games with generic design engines. I can safely say SS is the best not only for the truly distinct ships you can make but also in game balance. Ken has actually run "design competitions" daring people to break the system, and when they have he's taken the opportunity to correct those exploits.

I have lots of Starline 2500 minis now (group moving away so I've inherited fleet+squad boxes for Fed, Klingon, Romulan and Kzinti). We were using them for ACTA but the group became disenchanted with that system. I was never happy with the bases that came with those ships, so I picked up the omni stand system from Corsec Engineering. They are fantastic. They even have a magnetic sphere so you can tilt your ship. However, its a bit limited. It is only strong enough to hold the lighter ships in position - and now that most of them are pewter the number of candidates is even less. I've asked them to contemplate if they could make a stronger system and also one that allowed full inversion - no luck with that yet. But....

One easy solution is that if you want to play with a bunch of minis, is just to play SS in 2D. I've played with non SF ships 2D a couple of times, and the system works just fine played that way. We played that way because one of my buddies kept forgetting how to do the 3D stuff, but 2D not a problem.

Once SS-SF is out (and hopefully with box minis as well), I will likely play large games using 2D and smaller games using 3D - or heck even switch half way through the game once numbers on both sides dwindle.

-Tim

Thanks for taking the time to reply, both. Something that you have to work at between sessions to understand is, realistically, not going to get time in my schedule. When it arrives I shall sit back and gaze in admiration at the achievement involved in producing a 3D version of SFB that is playable by a human being.

Shadow Warrior wrote:Thanks for taking the time to reply, both. Something that you have to work at between sessions to understand is, realistically, not going to get time in my schedule. When it arrives I shall sit back and gaze in admiration at the achievement involved in producing a 3D version of SFB that is playable by a human being.

Lol, okay but when I say "work at" I mean, read the rule book and go over the examples until you "get them". But totally understand if that's not your cup of tea.

Fortunately you will be able to also play in 2D (I've seen some 2D SSDs that Ken has done). For 2D I really do think you'll be able to pick it up just playing. Plotting movement, and shooting bearings in 2D is quite simple, as easy as reading weapon arcs in FC.

Now you may ask, why bother to play SS in 2D - we already have ACTA and Starmada. Well even though SS's main selling point is that its 3d, I actually find its one of the best 2d generic space games as well. Here's a few reasons that I think its great for an SFU conversion in 2d:

-directional defenses (4 shield facings in 2d)
-seeking weapons that actually move on the table
-a very detailed damage system - yet its very quick to record system/weapon damage.
-a power management system that is simpler than FC but gives you a good level of tactical depth
-turn modes that are very reflective of FC
-hex based with 12pt bearing system

Thanks, Marauder, this is certainly something I shall keep a close eye on. I like the idea of action points, something that makes it seem a bit more in tune with SFB/FC than either Starmada or ACTA (both of which I tried and wasn't impressed enough to want to try them again).

As posted by ADB:

Joint Venture with ADB, Inc. and Ad Astra Will Not Move Forward

Due to design differences between Squadron Strike and Star Fleet Battles, as well as differing company goals and needs, the proposed joint venture between ADB and Ad Astra will not move forward. ADB wishes Ken the best as he continues his labor of love with Squadron Strike. Our company goal is to expand our game lines to include a wider audience who want to play games with fewer rules and more "toys" and to enhance our financial status. We believe our design time is best spent elsewhere.

And by Ad Astra:

The Star Fleet Squadron Strike project has been canceled by Steve Cole. He has made a counter proposal, for which we thank him.

It does not meet our needs at this time.

It is not our company policy to discuss the reasons for dismissed proposals in public forums.