Federation Commander

I know it had to happen. ADB has to release new material to survive. The introduction of carriers , swarms of fighters with swarms of guided weapons slowed gameplay down badly in SFB. FC should deal better. From a power production standpoint I think it doesn't work to allow something as small as a fighter or shuttle to generate the power required to operate phasers, torpedoes and move as fast as they do.
I remember a discussion many years ago about the carrier aviation guys influencing SFB. Many players liked it. I am not a fan. It changes the entire SFU and is detrimental to playability.
So while I have bought pretty much everything for FC and play SFB a couple of times a year I am not interested in carriers for FC. It's a dead end for playability for us and pollutes the feel of the SFU.
Only my opinion , sorry if I'm ranting.
SK
A player since the TFG days.

Most of the game development discussion for SFU games (including FC) takes place over on the BBS. This is the thread where much of the current fighter discussion has been taking place, if you wanted to review the way things have been going thus far.

There had been a plan to come up with an optional set of "Borders of Madness" rules, which would stand apart from those integrated into "vanilla" FC. While some of the initial BoM concepts (such as scouts) have since been incorporated into the "vanilla" ruleset, others (such as maulers) may remain purely optional rules only.

I'm not sure if the current plan is to keep non-Hydran fighters in the BoM category or not - but even so, the proposed rules and fighter selections are significantly pared down relative to the vast array of options showcased over in SFB.

For example, the current talk seems to lean towards offering only one fighter type per empire to start, to force fighters to be grouped into "flights", and to force drone-armed fighter flights to launch their drones in "swarms" (an idea inspired by developments in another SFU game system, one which struggled to cut down the seeking weapon clutter while retaining the correct "feel" of the setting).

Of course, none of this means that anyone should feel obligated to make use of fighters (or gunboats, for that matter). Hopefully the rules being offered would, if all goes well, avoid the kind of complications which carriers (or PFTs) present over in SFB, for those who do choose to make use of them.

That sounds like a great plan with fighters. I gave up on the concept after a battle with a Fed SCS with the works.... A hundred drones ! Too many fighters with Gatling phasers etc. the system was way out of balance.

With regards to weapon swarms not moving across the map. How would other ships other than the target resolve fire against them?

Kohanavich wrote:I remember a discussion many years ago about the carrier aviation guys influencing SFB. Many players liked it. I am not a fan. It changes the entire SFU and is detrimental to playability.

I'm split on the issue of fighters in SFB or FC. On the one hand, I really like the additional tactical choices and challenges involved in adding them to the game. On the other hand, they do add immensly to the complexity of the game (I've played more than one large SFB fleet game with multiple carriers/SCS/tenders per side, that took weeks of spare time to resolve!). My experience was also that they can to quickly dominate the game, at the expense of the more traditional cruisers and dreadnaughts.

If they can incorporate a simpler, more streamlined system for fighters in FC I would be all for it.

They do not actually add complexity. they add WORKLOAD. More things to move and keep track of and mark damage on and cross-check the damage track on paper with the counter on the map.

Changing from individual drones to swarms of many drones keeps the workload very manageable.

Steve Cole wrote:They do not actually add complexity.

In another topic, Gary reference Gunboats. I am going to use that opportunity to once more state that I would much, much rather see gunboats added to Federation Commander instead of, or at least before, fighters.

I gave a more exhaustive reasoning in the Legacy BBS, but the simple version is this:
- Gunboats require far fewer rules than fighters.
- Whole new concepts are not required for gunboats.
- Gunboats are tiny starships in a game designed to handle starships. Fighters are beefy shuttles in a game designed to marginalize shuttles.
- Gunboats solve the "points" problem in Federation Commander. Fighters just make that problem worse.
- Gunboats are versatile and can be used in pretty much any encounter. Fighters are highly specialized and have extremely limited usability.

Whether fighters add complexity or workload, gunboats add neither. Simply put, fighters have to be wedged sideways into Federation Commander; gunboats elegantly slide into place.

I don't see how we can do that since we already announced Fighters Attack?

Steve Cole wrote:I don't see how we can do that since we already announced Fighters Attack?

Just say we accidentally misspelled "Gunboats" as "Fighters".

I suppose one option could be to "double-book" FC this time around, by putting gunboats onto that 4th countersheet slot (alongside Fighters Attack, the F&E Planetary Ops reprint, and SFB Module X2).

But then, there are plenty of potential candidates from the SFB side of the aisle which might well argue for a place there instead.

Is there a point at which a discussion on what to do with that 4th slot might be carried out here or on the BBS - and, if so, is it too soon to say whether or not any SFB or FC options could be on the table?

I would think Fighters and Carriers have more mass market appeal than Gunboats given that it's more analogous to WW2 whereas Gunboats I think are more associated with WW1.

That and from my experience talking to SFB players and just reading on the web, Gunboats (PFs?) have been largely vilified as game-breaking or cited as the reason why people stopped playing SFB. So reputation-wise fighters might be a safer choice. Though that's entirely anecdotal.

Don't Gunboats also require new rules for Tenders? Or do they operate as the Andromedan ships do? Whereas rules for Fighters already exist in FC with the Hydran ship.

We always considered fighters and carriers as an allternitive timeline in SFB.

From what I gather, SFU gunboats were inspired by PT boats from the Second World War.

So far as PFTs go, there had been an idea to put "casual" PFs into "vanilla" FC, and PFTs (along with PF leaders and PF scouts) into Borders of Madness. I suggested over on the BBS that one could handle this by splitting a flotilla into two Ship Cards of three PFs each: one card with three "combat variant" models (which could be taken as "casual" boats), and a second with the variants needed to flesh out a full flotilla (that could be BoM only).

(It may be worth splitting the gunboat side of this discussion into a new thread, perhaps.)

Ah second generation Torpedo Boats then basically.

I saw something about tender-less PFs on the boards but doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? The whole point of WW1 Torpedo Boats and WW2 PT boats is that they're coastal ships. They're small and fast and incapable of long range operation or of operating in rough seas.

If SFU PFs are similarly limited in endurance then shouldn't they require a conveyor or tender of some sort? Why could PFs be put onboard without a tender while Fighters would require a carrier?

Paul B wrote:I would think Fighters and Carriers have more mass market appeal than Gunboats given that it's more analogous to WW2 whereas Gunboats I think are more associated with WW1.

Fighters are definitely more of a hot-button issue, that's for sure. Honestly, I have no idea which are more popular.

That and from my experience talking to SFB players and just reading on the web, Gunboats (PFs?) have been largely vilified as game-breaking or cited as the reason why people stopped playing SFB. So reputation-wise fighters might be a safer choice. Though that's entirely anecdotal.

That is entirely possible. However, when translated into FC, there is always the chance to tone them down some so that they can be useful units without breaking the game. Quite frankly, drone fighters can be just as game-breaking as gunboats in SFB. Fighters in FC will bear little resemblance to fighters in SFB as it is. Why would it not be possible to tone gunboats down, too?

Don't Gunboats also require new rules for Tenders? Or do they operate as the Andromedan ships do? Whereas rules for Fighters already exist in FC with the Hydran ship.

Again, read my assumptions. No Tenders. They are totally unnecessary. What I am asking for are what SFB calls "casual" gunboats. They are simply brought to the encounter by other ships in the fleet. You may have a maximum of two per ship; a max of six total. No carriers, no mech links, no special rules around any of that. They are just there. How they get there and how they are taken away are all abstracted out.

Again, that gets right back to what is so useful about gunboats. I can add one or two gunboats to any force. That will cost anywhere from 25-60 Points depending on the gunboats involved. This will help any force out there, and allow any force to be fine-tuned for any Point total. Or, I can add all six to a larger force at a cost of 150-180 Points.

There is absolutely no way to add a single fighter to a force. To get a fighter, I have to at least purchase a frigate carrier. (Otherwise known as an explosion waiting to happen.) I will also have to purchase at least one escort, too. So, that is two ships that cost at least 150 points that I have to buy before I even get the chance to purchase a single fighter. Then, I have to purchase 4-6 fighters to go on that carrier, for another 40-60 points. So, the minimum granularity to using any fighter is at least 200 points. That means that fighters will make the various "force Points problems" worse because they lack so much granularity.

Also, note that those six gunboats are under 200 Points. For that, you get six cool, useful, dangerous mini-ships. Those six gunboats can stay together, split up, move in sync, scatter, go fast, go slow, concentrate fire, or spread fire. They can carry cargo, deliver marines, or attack and defend. For those 200 Points with fighters, you get a toothless frigate, a very short ranged frigate, and not even six fighters. And those not even six fighter then will have to move in lock-step with the same fixed speed, same heading, and same targets. The only offensive portion of those 200 Points is incredibly limited in what they can try to do or accomplish. And they have no ability to do anything to fire their weapons. Once. OK, maybe twice. Then they have to land one per impulse on their toothless frigate while moving slowly.