STAR FLEET BATTLES MADE SIMPLE?
Stephen V. Cole
audience without cannibalizing the continued strong sales of SFB....
Starting with a clean sheet of paper is hard, but we tried....
Probably hex map based. "free miniatures" movement isn't really practical
for marginal gamers or even average gamers.
Starship vs starship, of course, is the point.
Maneuver must remain a key. Which means directional shields so you can try
to keep getting on his left flank and hammering one shield until it goes
down. And which means weapons that only fire in certain directions.
Energy allocation must remain a focus. Everyone understands the idea that
you have so much money (energy) and way too many things to spend it on.
But written energy allocation is complex. We have previously experimented
with a system where you get some kind of "coins" (probably counters,
possibly cards) and each turn you get as many as you have power points,
then spend them as you go along doing things (transporters, tractors,
movement, phasers).
Damage to the ship is a key principle. Not just a total number, but
actually hitting the tractor or the left engine or the weapons. "target
weapons array" is a key line in Star Trek dialogue. The problem is How to
record the damage. Three ideas:
1. Some kind of ship diagram with counters to mark what is damaged
isn't really practical. You'd need a 9x12 sheet and about 50 counters
just for "cadet" ships. One bump and the game goes kablooie.
2. Set of cards. Your ship includes one tractor card, one transporter
card, four phaser cards, two photon cards... possible, but lacks graphic
appeal. Does have the advantage of being able to be customized into any
ship you want, and even include "design your own ship: (i.e, pick 30
cards)" concepts.
3. A traditional SSD sheet is probably the most practical, but only if
we include 50 copies in the game for each ship, which limits the number of
ships. More ships could be posted on internet or sold in reinforcements
packs, but is a wide variety of ships really an issue?
Rules set must be limited. No seeking weapons, electronic warfare, armed
shuttles, and very few terrain types.
--
STAR FLEET BATTLES and all the rest of the universe:
www.starfleetgames.com
Neil Carr
some many layers of values. Instead of paying power for EW points
just have it so that if you pay x amount of power you get x bonus on
rolls or collum shifts. Streamline the signal channels and all of
that and it could be just another option for energy usage.
Neil Carr
Dallas MetroGamers
http://www.earthsea.com/metrogamers/
RedD...@aol.com
des...@starfleetgames.com (Stephen V. Cole) wrote:
> Rousing discussion of a simplified game that could reach a broader
> audience without cannibalizing the continued strong sales of SFB....
>
> Starting with a clean sheet of paper is hard, but we tried....
>
> Probably hex map based. "free miniatures" movement isn't really
practical
> for marginal gamers or even average gamers.
>
I agree.
> Starship vs starship, of course, is the point.
>
ditto
> Maneuver must remain a key. Which means directional shields so you can
try
> to keep getting on his left flank and hammering one shield until it
goes
> down. And which means weapons that only fire in certain directions.
Also agree.
>
> Energy allocation must remain a focus. Everyone understands the idea
that
> you have so much money (energy) and way too many things to spend it
on.
> But written energy allocation is complex. We have previously
experimented
> with a system where you get some kind of "coins" (probably counters,
> possibly cards) and each turn you get as many as you have power
points,
> then spend them as you go along doing things (transporters, tractors,
> movement, phasers).
As you say, this is awkward. FASA actually did this for when you
were playing a roleplaying game and got into a combat. Didn't work
because --- surprise --- roleplayers don't WANT to transition into
a tactical wargame, even an easy one, but FASA did do it. I think
you're frankly better off using an allocation sheet, but making it
as simple as possible. I'd say limit yourself to the minimum number
of systems -- movement, weapons, shields. You can have optional
rules for other systems, but make them optional so that you don't
have to use them. Your system should be one where you can allocate
power in just about 15 seconds if you know what you're doing. After
all the ones who want to do detailed combat will play SFB and you
WANT them to.
Frankly, as an additional editorial comment, SFB wouldn't be near
as hard to learn if the basic rules were simple with optional
rules you could play or not play. That way the basic game WOULD
ALREADY be that simple game and it would only get complex as the
optional rules annexes were added. This may not be possible with
SFB, I don't know.
> Damage to the ship is a key principle. Not just a total number, but
> actually hitting the tractor or the left engine or the weapons.
"target
> weapons array" is a key line in Star Trek dialogue. The problem is How
to
> record the damage. Three ideas:
> 1. Some kind of ship diagram with counters to mark what is damaged
> isn't really practical. You'd need a 9x12 sheet and about 50 counters
> just for "cadet" ships. One bump and the game goes kablooie.
I agree.
> 2. Set of cards. Your ship includes one tractor card, one
transporter
> card, four phaser cards, two photon cards... possible, but lacks
graphic
> appeal. Does have the advantage of being able to be customized into
any
> ship you want, and even include "design your own ship: (i.e, pick 30
> cards)" concepts.
Even that is going to be awkward. I'm not saying it wouldn't work,
but it wouldn't be my choice.
> 3. A traditional SSD sheet is probably the most practical, but only
if
> we include 50 copies in the game for each ship, which limits the
number of
> ships. More ships could be posted on internet or sold in
reinforcements
> packs, but is a wide variety of ships really an issue?
>
You could go the Renegade Legion Centurion route. They have the
shields not represented by boxes (though you could), then they
have rows of boxes representing armor (which could be your
shields)and then boxes below them with the ship systems. There
could be 'standard' box setups for various classes of ships. That
way you could have generic SSDs that could be customized on the
fly for the game. This implies a different damage allocation
strategy where you wear down the shields and then maybe deciding
what is damaged by rolling a dice and marking boxes damaged
inward from the damaged shield. Starbattles, a self published
variant of Starfire used something similar.
In effect you could have a giant hex which would contain ship
systems with shields on each face. Once the shields are damaged,
you would start damaging things right on the face of the hex and
then progress downward. Just an idea.
Now the hard part would be making the ships individualistic. You
don't want all the ships to play the same. And, you want more than
the number of shield boxes and the class to distinguish them. You
could allow players to mark the inner hex full of ship systems with
what they want depending on ship class. That way they have some
control over what their ship looks like and what gets damaged first.
You could also have recommended configurations. Again, Starbattles
kind of does this.
> Rules set must be limited. No seeking weapons, electronic warfare,
armed
> shuttles, and very few terrain types.
>
I agree. We don't see too many seeking weapons in the TV/Movies
anyway.
My apologies for rambling on like this. Feel free to take any
ideas you find that you like and disregard what you don't. Frankly
I think it's great that you started this thread.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aaron Day
>
> Rousing discussion of a simplified game that could reach a broader
> audience without cannibalizing the continued strong sales of SFB....
1) Big hexes. 2" at least. Kind of like Tikal or Starfarers o' Catan
with a nice painted starmap. Since most of the time wasted in SFB is the
pointless one-hex-an-impulse moving, make each hex worth about 3-6 SFB
hexes. This creates a more "in your face" feel while also speeding up
the closure time and strategic maneuvering.
2) Reduce SSD's to essential. Fed CA = 1 Phaser, 1 Photon, 1 Tractor, 1
Transporter, Two warp, One impulse. This makes energy allocation and
damage allocation easier.
3) Plastic ships. Visual appeal is crucial. Maybe I'm spoiled by
Starfarers. Emphasize fleet actions rather than ship to ship. If you
reduce the detail of the individual ships, a one-on-one fight will be
pretty sterile.
4) Card ship displays with nice painted ship overprinted with boxes. Use
little plastic markers for energy allocation and damage allocation on
the same display (if the area is damaged, you can't place energy there).
Numbers printed in the little boxes can state things like how much
energy this engine produces or how much energy a weapon needs to fire.
5) Boarding parties (nuff' said) Who wouldn't play a game with little
plastic klingons.
6) Maybe having a deck of cards which will allow you to do extra things
(repair shields, fix damage, get extra energy) without needing to devote
rules and SSD space for them.
7) Finally, put it in a big colorful box and sell it for $50-$60 bucks
and DON'T call it something like Star Fleet Battle Lite!
Aaron
RedD...@aol.com
directly, but there was a guy who did a crossover from Star
Trek to Battlestar Galactica to Star Wars to Babylon 5 etc. It
was kind of a wild game, but he apparently used a game called
Full Thrust by Ground Zero Games. Apparently this game is very
customizeable for different genres. Might be worth a look. I
understand it's an interesting system and it's supposed to be
relatively simple. Just another data point.
http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/rlyehable/ft/multiverse/crossover.html
Allen Eldridge
The German games are fine, but don't spend any money on them for "market
research" unless you want to play them. A better model for how to reach a
"semi-mass" market with SFB is Games Workshop. You would be better off
looking at some of their games, for instance, Battlefleet Gothic.
I am not suggesting you look at the GW games for ideas on mechanics, but on
presentation and components. As far as game mechanics, there is nothing
particularly novel or exciting about BFG, but it has the typical GW
high-quality components, graphics, and presentation. There are thousands
(maybe tens of thousands) of people, from 12 year olds up, playing BFG, as
well as the other GW games.
I have no doubt that you can design the mechanics for the game (you have been
doing that since the late 60's? - I think I met you in '72), just don't let
the SFB grognards influence you too much. A lot of playtesting by non-SFB
players would be a good idea.
A couple of random thoughts:
Hex-based system? You may be right about this, but you might be surprised how
easily the young GW players understand the non-hex mechanics of BFG and other
GW games. (I am not trying to go overboard on the GW comments, but their
success in undeniable).
SSD's: How about a thick cardboard SSD with small holes die-cut into it.
Damage to systems would be recorded by placing pegs into the holes (i.e.
Battleship, I believe I have also seen this done with some type of bingo
card).
Anyway, that my 2 cents.
Allen Eldridge
"Stephen V. Cole" wrote:
> Rousing discussion of a simplified game that could reach a broader
> audience without cannibalizing the continued strong sales of SFB....
>
> Starting with a clean sheet of paper is hard, but we tried....
>
> Probably hex map based. "free miniatures" movement isn't really practical
> for marginal gamers or even average gamers.
>
> Starship vs starship, of course, is the point.
>
> Maneuver must remain a key. Which means directional shields so you can try
> to keep getting on his left flank and hammering one shield until it goes
> down. And which means weapons that only fire in certain directions.
>
> Energy allocation must remain a focus. Everyone understands the idea that
> you have so much money (energy) and way too many things to spend it on.
> But written energy allocation is complex. We have previously experimented
> with a system where you get some kind of "coins" (probably counters,
> possibly cards) and each turn you get as many as you have power points,
> then spend them as you go along doing things (transporters, tractors,
> movement, phasers).
>
> Damage to the ship is a key principle. Not just a total number, but
> actually hitting the tractor or the left engine or the weapons. "target
> weapons array" is a key line in Star Trek dialogue. The problem is How to
> record the damage. Three ideas:
> 1. Some kind of ship diagram with counters to mark what is damaged
> isn't really practical. You'd need a 9x12 sheet and about 50 counters
> just for "cadet" ships. One bump and the game goes kablooie.
> 2. Set of cards. Your ship includes one tractor card, one transporter
> card, four phaser cards, two photon cards... possible, but lacks graphic
> appeal. Does have the advantage of being able to be customized into any
> ship you want, and even include "design your own ship: (i.e, pick 30
> cards)" concepts.
> 3. A traditional SSD sheet is probably the most practical, but only if
> we include 50 copies in the game for each ship, which limits the number of
> ships. More ships could be posted on internet or sold in reinforcements
> packs, but is a wide variety of ships really an issue?
>
> Rules set must be limited. No seeking weapons, electronic warfare, armed
> shuttles, and very few terrain types.
>
dog...@u.washington.edu
>Steve,
>The German games are fine, but don't spend any money on them for "market
>research" unless you want to play them. A better model for how to reach a
>"semi-mass" market with SFB is Games Workshop. You would be better off
>looking at some of their games, for instance, Battlefleet Gothic.
I am not sure that BG is all that good a model. Despite its showy box and
components it appears to be a marketing failure. There was a good deal of
early interest but no longer. The problem appears to be that it simply wasn't
that good a game combined with the lack of personal appeal of ships vs the
appeal of individual space marines, orks or what have you in GW's Warhammer
40K. Kids get into having a gnarly looking figure with huge weapons and an
evil scowl. It is harder to relate to a battle cruiser with minute death
cannons.
Having said that I do think the glitzy components are good for marketing
I also think that Full Thrust is a good model. It plays well and is simple. It
also looks great set up.
Mark
Aaron Day
>
> I just wanted to add a litte postscript. I've never played it
> directly, but there was a guy who did a crossover from Star
> Trek to Battlestar Galactica to Star Wars to Babylon 5 etc. It
> was kind of a wild game, but he apparently used a game called
> Full Thrust by Ground Zero Games. Apparently this game is very
> customizeable for different genres. Might be worth a look. I
> understand it's an interesting system and it's supposed to be
> relatively simple. Just another data point.
Main differeneces between Full thrust and SFB (other than one being a
mini game):
Full thrust uses the one box per weapon but uses graphical icons instead
of named boxes.
Full thrust doesn't have energy allocation (bad for Star Trek), shields
lessen the damage done and don't "wear down".
Damage isn't allocated in FT, instead once a ship has taken a certain
amount of damage you roll for all systems to see if any are damaged.
Aaron
Allen Eldridge
not say it was as popular as WH40K. I pointed out the success GW has had with
their methods of presentation/packaging/components. I used BFG as an example
simply because it is a spaceship combat game, as is SFB.
Allen Eldridge
dog...@u.washington.edu
not a good model of the kind of success that GW has had with 40K and WH,
BFG is failing in spite of presentation etc. and there are specific reasons
for that failure. I also agreed with you that presentation is a key to
marketing to a mass audience. I think the interesting thing is that BFG is
failing in spite of good presentation and Full Thrust doesn't have mass market
appeal either. It is a great game but lacks the nice presentation etc that GW
games have.
Mark
In article
<46DD3EA3585B9E98.43E3BDA9...@lp.airnews.net>, Allen
Ken McElhaney
"Stephen V. Cole" wrote:
> Rousing discussion of a simplified game that could reach a broader
> audience without cannibalizing the continued strong sales of SFB....
>
Nice to know what a little web talk can lead to.
>
> Starting with a clean sheet of paper is hard, but we tried....
>
> Probably hex map based. "free miniatures" movement isn't really practical
> for marginal gamers or even average gamers.
>
Well, this is were I diverge from the rest of the replies to this post. If
you are trying to reach an audience beyond what SFB already sells to, then I
suggest you do indeed "reinvent the wheel". In another post, I suggested that
you look at the Avalon Hill game Wrasslin'. That game could be the template
for a new kind of starship combat game.
1) A starship is represented by a 4 x 6 card with it different attributes
printed on it.
2) A card deck (decks) to handle combat, manuver, and special situations.
3) ONE track of damage boxes with a marker (or die) to keep track.
The map based system you describe, as well as the rest of your post, seems
to be just a simplified SFB system (a "flat tax" system, if you will) and will
just lead to the same type of game you have already. Which may not appeal to
the new gamers you are looking for.
My .02
Ken
spam...@phantaci.retlif.maps.com
>Rousing discussion of a simplified game that could reach a broader
>audience without cannibalizing the continued strong sales of SFB....
I think that the main question here is "what audience are you trying
to gain by these changes?" . The different groups that this game can
be marketed towards are all looking for games to be focused in differing
areas. (I.e. German games - nice bits, playable in a few hours,
interaction...)
For that reason, I think comments towards, "look at this company/game" are
misplaced since most of those companies/games are just examples of the
type of gaming (ie. GW is miniature gaming). Decide on a market,
decide what that market needs and then go from there. If the changes
required are changes you can make then your golden.
However, since you are posting *here* I am going to assume that you are
not looking to make a miniature game, but looking for people that consider
themselves boardgamers. First off, the audience of rgb has changed since
TFG stopped posting here awhile ago. They predominately like short games
with nice components, simple rules that describe an interesting gaming
mechanic married with a theme that catches their eye.
From previous posts that you have sent to the list you are looking for
a game that is complete but open to expansion (further income to
established buyers). You also dont want to completely alienate the
historical audience of SFB fans. I think doing that and appealing to
the masses on rgb is going to be difficult task.
My suggestions on this are:
a. Keeping initial ship types to a minimum.
b. Keep initial races simple and core.
c. Use hex movement.
d. High quality color cardboard ship design sheets for each race that
are generic and can be used for seperate ship classes. Use plastic
chips, or wooden blocks to represent shield/weapon strength...As the
shield is pounded, chips are removed.
e. Use a deck to determine hits and critical damage that will indicate
if particular weapons will hit or not at particular ranges. This
will remove chart lookups for damage.
f. Have a good reason why everyone is fighting each other.
g. Use only primary elements of power that are tracked with either cards
or small chits. Power allocation is done secretly but in a way that
all players will know if the allocation has been done fairly.
(my mind is really blank on this though)
The basic goals to me is to replace any paper tracking, simplify options
and give a direct achievable goal. Expansions can add more races, ship
types, different scenarios, event decks, special crew rules, fighters, etc.
--Jim Shumaker
--
Jim Shumaker |
ja...@phantaci.com |
Mountain View, CA |
Stephen V. Cole
> 1) Big hexes. 2" at least. Kind of like Tikal or Starfarers o' Catan
> with a nice painted starmap. Since most of the time wasted in SFB is the
> pointless one-hex-an-impulse moving, make each hex worth about 3-6 SFB
> hexes. This creates a more "in your face" feel while also speeding up
> the closure time and strategic maneuvering.
I think two inches may be a waste of space (1 inch may be) since you need
room (i.e., many hexes) to maneuver. However, I would also use eight
impulses instead of 32 which cuts down a lot of the clutter.
> 2) Reduce SSD's to essential. Fed CA = 1 Phaser, 1 Photon, 1 Tractor, 1
> Transporter, Two warp, One impulse. This makes energy allocation and
> damage allocation easier.
See the cadet ships in CADET TRAINING HANDBOOK.
>
> 3) Plastic ships. Visual appeal is crucial. Maybe I'm spoiled by
> Starfarers. Emphasize fleet actions rather than ship to ship. If you
> reduce the detail of the individual ships, a one-on-one fight will be
> pretty sterile.
Possible, although given the cost for each mold, this does tend to
seriously limit the number of ships you can have in the game.
> 4) Card ship displays with nice painted ship overprinted with boxes. Use
> little plastic markers for energy allocation and damage allocation on
> the same display (if the area is damaged, you can't place energy there).
> Numbers printed in the little boxes can state things like how much
> energy this engine produces or how much energy a weapon needs to fire.
See my original memo, which noted that this approach was not practical.
> 5) Boarding parties (nuff' said) Who wouldn't play a game with little
> plastic klingons.
I don't think so....
> 6) Maybe having a deck of cards which will allow you to do extra things
> (repair shields, fix damage, get extra energy) without needing to devote
> rules and SSD space for them.
There may be ways to do this.
> 7) Finally, put it in a big colorful box and sell it for $50-$60 bucks
Of course not. We want to hit the broadest market, which means under $20.
> and DON'T call it something like Star Fleet Battle Lite!
Nah, I was thinking of something like "Klingon Commander" but nobody
around here liked that title.
Stephen V. Cole
> Frankly, as an additional editorial comment, SFB wouldn't be near
> as hard to learn if the basic rules were simple with optional
> rules you could play or not play. That way the basic game WOULD
> ALREADY be that simple game and it would only get complex as the
> optional rules annexes were added. This may not be possible with
> SFB, I don't know.
So far as I know, that is how SFB is set up. The basic rules are actually
just a few dozen pages, and everything else is added on until you get to
the "commanders" rules set, which is what most players use. But the
"beginner" rules are indeed in that huge phonebook we call a rules manual.
Ken Agress
V. Cole) wrote:
<snip>
>
>Maneuver must remain a key. Which means directional shields so you can try
>to keep getting on his left flank and hammering one shield until it goes
>down. And which means weapons that only fire in certain directions.
I don't know that this *has* to be the case. Certainly, it makes
sense to retain it if possible. However, I saw a chart of Arcs for
SFB once (I've never played myself) and I nearly got a headache from
the number of possibilities. FASA's ST Combat Simulator had arc-based
weapons, but without this level of detail.
You could also contemplate increasing the overall power of the shields
(perhaps to levels considered unrealistic in SFB circles) and reduce
their recharge rate while cutting down on the importance of arc-based
firing. It's hardly perfect, but if you enclose a letter pointing out
the differences between this "basic" game and SFB, you'd at least
prepare those that choose to "upgrade" for the changes.
>
>Energy allocation must remain a focus. Everyone understands the idea that
>you have so much money (energy) and way too many things to spend it on.
>But written energy allocation is complex. We have previously experimented
>with a system where you get some kind of "coins" (probably counters,
>possibly cards) and each turn you get as many as you have power points,
>then spend them as you go along doing things (transporters, tractors,
>movement, phasers).
First - consider dumping boarding parties in the basic game. If you
want to capture the "flavor" of the Star Trek series and movies for
the non-serious gamer, they add little to the game and increase
complexity.
Second - simplification is again the key for a more basic game. I
have played Star Fleet Command (granted, not a perfect corollary for
SFB), and I'm glad the computer handles most of the "drudgery" of
tracking energy allocation for me. ECM and ECCM, while logical in a
military setting, are esoteric and hardly easy to grasp for the
uninitiated. Don't include them at all in a basic game and eliminate
them from the decision matrix.
Third - I like the card idea for a beginner's game. "You can select
cards up to your total available energy, so that Phaser card is 2..."
This could also simplify your "arc" problem, since you could print the
firing arcs on the cards themselves, making reference much, much
easier.
>
>Damage to the ship is a key principle. Not just a total number, but
>actually hitting the tractor or the left engine or the weapons. "target
>weapons array" is a key line in Star Trek dialogue. The problem is How to
>record the damage. Three ideas:
> 1. Some kind of ship diagram with counters to mark what is damaged
>isn't really practical. You'd need a 9x12 sheet and about 50 counters
>just for "cadet" ships. One bump and the game goes kablooie.
And it's very, very intimidating if you aren't used to those displays.
> 2. Set of cards. Your ship includes one tractor card, one transporter
>card, four phaser cards, two photon cards... possible, but lacks graphic
>appeal. Does have the advantage of being able to be customized into any
>ship you want, and even include "design your own ship: (i.e, pick 30
>cards)" concepts.
Better for "newbies," and again allows the cards to contain
information that might otherwise require scrambling for a book or
chart.
> 3. A traditional SSD sheet is probably the most practical, but only if
>we include 50 copies in the game for each ship, which limits the number of
>ships. More ships could be posted on internet or sold in reinforcements
>packs, but is a wide variety of ships really an issue?
I'd propose another idea. Instead of having to track each individual
ship component, track the overall system involved. Instead of
applying "damage points" to systems when you fire to disable, you
apply "disabling points". Disabling points are harder to repair (if
indeed your rules include the possibility of repair) as that specific
system has been targeted. Each system on a particular class of vessel
can suffer a certain number of damage/disabling points before it
fails, at which time drastic problems arise.
Even coming up with a combination system so that *every* hit
("damaging" or "disabling") hits a particular system. Red cards are
"damage" cards, blue cards "disable." You could even print a summary
of any repair rules on the different cards. Number them 0-9, and when
damage+disable=system total, you've got problems.
>
>Rules set must be limited. No seeking weapons, electronic warfare, armed
>shuttles, and very few terrain types.
You might include options for seeking weapons, though they do seem to
add greatly to complexity. I'd pass on shuttles, EW, terrain, and
transporters altogether. When people think of starships duking it
out, I have to think that "Wrath of Khan" springs to mind more readily
than another of the movies. Include the right setup in your rules,
and you can definitely put them in that frame of mind.
"Cadet, you're about to face challenges designed to rate your
abilities to command a starship under combat conditions..."
Ken Agress
EChoota
I agree from what another poster said, you need to have a colorful flashy
presentation filled with easily readable and icon heavy SSD. There should be a
chunkiness to the game with a strong emphasis on miniatures, but baring that
extra sized counters akin to the megahex but perhaps even larger and maybe have
the counters shaped into hexagons themselves.
Stripping down the game could be done in a way that leaves plenty of details
but just streamline everything and make their mechanics more "gamey" than
simulation. I like the idea of a pool of counters that you distribute your
power around on. You might even be able to integrate power allocation with the
SSD itself. A player could have an streamlined SSD with a larger diagram of
the ship. With the rules stripped down you could win back a lot of space on a
normal sized piece of paper (or better yet, card!) because there wouldn't need
to be as many charts. For the SSD you wouldn't need to have to mark it up,
instead the sheilds could be shown as numbered tracks. Each track has one
chunky counter (wooden block preferably) that gets adjusted along the values of
that particular shield. Power gets allocated to systems by laying the power
tokens on the particular systems, when they are used they get flipped over.
Once a ship gets damaged then damage markers go down on affected systems, or in
the case of engines, the player simply discards the power tokens.
Damage could be done with the good old battle damage type cards. Slap down
however many cards you need and plop a counter down on the ship systems.
The scale of the whole game would be altered to fit this setup. Instead of 32
impulses just use 16. Ships don't need as many obtuse systems and so the whole
scale of the game could be taken back a couple of notches, and thus the shields
don't have to be as large and thus less fuss keeping track of them.
By doing this having markers keep track of the ships systems could be kept to a
minimum. You wouldn't have very many ships systems. Even the hull could be
streamlined and represented as a number track also. In the end you would
either be undamaged and have plenty of power markers or as the game progresses
you'll have more damage markers but most likely less power chips to fool around
with also.
Direct weapons would still be main type of fire power but I'd think you could
include seeking weapons also. Just make them all fast drones that go every
impulse. A player gets an allotment of drones for each battle and can fire
only so many in a turn. They just grab them as fired and put them on the board
and shove them towards whatever they like.
That's about it at the moment...
Thanks for bringing up the thread.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> I don't know that this *has* to be the case. Certainly, it makes
> sense to retain it if possible. However, I saw a chart of Arcs for
> SFB once (I've never played myself) and I nearly got a headache from
> the number of possibilities. FASA's ST Combat Simulator had arc-based
OK here we get the mix of complexity and options. The concept of arcs is
dead simple. There are a lot of options of the arcs. In a SFBlite then you
merely limit the options. A forward arc, rear arc, left right and 360.
Make them 120 degree each and away you go. Or do straight lines and 360.
Makes 360's more powerful but is very very simple for firing and makes the
game even more maneuverable.
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Rousing discussion of a simplified game that could reach a broader
> audience without cannibalizing the continued strong sales of SFB....
>
> Starting with a clean sheet of paper is hard, but we tried....
OK, first it would useful to have some idea fo company outlook on this
game. So far I think I can conclude from what you've said that a) This is
not going to be a line of products, thats what SFB is for, b) it is to be
a game covering the flavour of SFB without all the complexity of the SFB
ruleset, and c) miniatures are pretty much a no go area on cost grounds.
One question would you target kids, to bring them into the hobby a la
Games Workshop, or would you look at current game players and trying to
draw then to the genre, or both?
> Probably hex map based. "free miniatures" movement isn't really practical
> for marginal gamers or even average gamers.
OK, then a megahex type scale would be best IMO. To attract people you
need eye candy, but you need something to appeal to both new players (ie
kids or non-gamers) and to gamers of other genres (eg board WWII
wargamers).
Megahex type stuff with good quality colour tiles would seem to do both,
the wargamers have familiarity and the colour is eyecandy.
> Energy allocation must remain a focus. Everyone understands the idea that
> you have so much money (energy) and way too many things to spend it on.
> But written energy allocation is complex. We have previously experimented
> with a system where you get some kind of "coins" (probably counters,
> possibly cards) and each turn you get as many as you have power points,
> then spend them as you go along doing things (transporters, tractors,
> movement, phasers).
Cards. Colour code the cards to say impulse, warp and reserve. Pay the
cards as you use them, print costs fo things on the cards themselves as a
standard quick reference. At the end fo the turn then they can use unused
cards to buy reserve power, which accumulates but has limited use.
> 3. A traditional SSD sheet is probably the most practical, but only if
> we include 50 copies in the game for each ship, which limits the number of
> ships. More ships could be posted on internet or sold in reinforcements
> packs, but is a wide variety of ships really an issue?
Stick to the SSD, its functional, and pretty easy to understand.
As to ship numbers and types. If this is to be stand alone, one convenient
link to SFB would be to only very small ships, this limits the weapons,
the number juggling and everything..it also allows the concept of the 'big
brother game' wwhere the big ships and the big rules are...
Why don't you take a limited SFB concept and use it, admittedly in a way
that it doesn't quite hold to SFB itself. Revive the interceptors. Make
them the logical equivalent of Frigates in the game, the PFs the cruiser
'level' (without the vast variants, leaders etc..though leader or scout
could the 'advanced' rules') and maybe the gunboat/police corvette as the
DN level. Add to the game a number of civilians ships eg the
basic freighters, free trader etc type ships. Bingo a Star Fleet
Interceptors game, fits in an area that is not hugely used or developed.
The ships involved are systems limited in a major way anyway, the cards
being held will not be obscene in number, the move cost thing could be
chucked for simplicity (or just down to the gunboat needs 2 per space)
You have a mix of ship to satisfy the tactician and to base 3 or 4
standard scenarios on. Limited options on the ships limits the rules
needed and so lower overall complexity.
Then to scenarios, make it simple. The Duel, Convoy Escort, Flotilla
Action, and 1 weirdy/solitaire/monster thing for spice.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> See the cadet ships in CADET TRAINING HANDBOOK.
How does this text (I'm not familiar with it myself beyond a basic idea)
fail in the purpose of being an SFB lite? Are we arguing over something
where the product already exists?
> > Numbers printed in the little boxes can state things like how much
> > energy this engine produces or how much energy a weapon needs to fire.
> See my original memo, which noted that this approach was not practical.
OK rather than his counter model...how about dry-wipe lamination for the
SSD's, or crayon wipe stuff. Easier and lighter than a significant number
of SSD's per box. Though you'd need to supply enough for all the
scenarios, so maybe that'd up the price. Its a pretty component though,
the idea of going to photocopy would put some people off....
> > and DON'T call it something like Star Fleet Battle Lite!
> Nah, I was thinking of something like "Klingon Commander" but nobody
> around here liked that title.
Well I've touted my SF Interceptors idea but thats genre based, for the
cut down, could you use Star Fleet Command directly linking to the
computer game, not bad marketing, but do you own the name rights....plus
its a tie in....two edged sword there.
Star Fleet Action(s)....the name conjures speed and activity, retains the
Star Fleet section of the name for continuity and also conjures the idea
of space ships flashing about.
David Damerell
>Electronic Warfare could work if it was streamlined and no longer have
>some many layers of values. Instead of paying power for EW points
>just have it so that if you pay x amount of power you get x bonus on
>rolls or collum shifts. Streamline the signal channels and all of
>that and it could be just another option for energy usage.
Plenty of people find EW tiresome enough that they don't use it in classic
SFB. I see no reason at all to put it into a simplified version.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
| |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; | |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down. "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |
David Damerell
>I just wanted to add a litte postscript. I've never played it
>directly, but there was a guy who did a crossover from Star
>Trek to Battlestar Galactica to Star Wars to Babylon 5 etc. It
>was kind of a wild game, but he apparently used a game called
>Full Thrust by Ground Zero Games. Apparently this game is very
>customizeable for different genres. Might be worth a look. I
Full Thrust is a fine, if flawed, game in its own right, but is also about
as massively unlike a game with the same general flavour as SFB (which I
would imagine is SVC's aim) as you can get.
RedD...@aol.com
<Pine.SOL.3.96.100012...@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk>,
Tim Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
...c) miniatures are pretty much a no go area on cost grounds.
>
Then use large hex shaped counters like FASA Starship Combat
Simulator did. The tiles were really pretty and cheaper than
miniatures.
...
> Stick to the SSD, its functional, and pretty easy to understand.
>
> As to ship numbers and types. If this is to be stand alone, one
convenient
> link to SFB would be to only very small ships, this limits the
weapons,
> the number juggling and everything.....
No don't do that. The SSDs need to be simpler than SFB. AND people
will want to play the Enterprise, not a gunboat. You MUST include
the Federation CA, the Klingon D7, and maybe the Romulan warbird.
It wouldn't hurt to have MOSTLY small ships so that the cruisers
are the "big guns" but don't leave them out. Provide a conversion
section so that the big SSDs can be converted to the other game.
>
> Then to scenarios, make it simple. The Duel, Convoy Escort, Flotilla
> Action, and 1 weirdy/solitaire/monster thing for spice.
>
That's fair, but give them a theme -- pick a period in SFB history
and havea set of scenarios in that theme.
Stephen V. Cole
> OK, first it would useful to have some idea fo company outlook on this
> game. So far I think I can conclude from what you've said that a) This is
> not going to be a line of products, thats what SFB is for, b) it is to be
> a game covering the flavour of SFB without all the complexity of the SFB
without going down to the level of Chutes & Ladders.
> ruleset, and c) miniatures are pretty much a no go area on cost grounds.
Not necessarily. they just come with their own limitations on number of
ship types.
> OK, then a megahex type scale would be best IMO. To attract people you
> need eye candy, but you need something to appeal to both new players (ie
> kids or non-gamers) and to gamers of other genres (eg board WWII
> wargamers).
> Megahex type stuff with good quality colour tiles would seem to do both,
> the wargamers have familiarity and the colour is eyecandy.
I would agree and can tell you that we did look into the idea of one of
our standard countersheets with one block of half-inch counters replaced
with
one-inch or three-quarter-inch colorful counters.
> Cards. Colour code the cards to say impulse, warp and reserve. Pay the
> cards as you use them, print costs fo things on the cards themselves as a
> standard quick reference. At the end fo the turn then they can use unused
> cards to buy reserve power, which accumulates but has limited use.
While cards cost more than counters (raising retail price several dollars)
your idea of putting the cost of the various things (fire weapons, move,
tractor something) on the cards has merit.
> Why don't you take a limited SFB concept and use it, admittedly in a way
> that it doesn't quite hold to SFB itself. Revive the interceptors. Make
> them the logical equivalent of Frigates in the game, the PFs the cruiser
> 'level' (without the vast variants, leaders etc..though leader or scout
Marketing gurus tell us that the ships must be cruisers. They must be
called cruisers and they must do what cruisers on the show did. We could
use the cadet ships without much trouble.
> Then to scenarios, make it simple. The Duel, Convoy Escort, Flotilla
> Action, and 1 weirdy/solitaire/monster thing for spice.
A logical selection similar to my own thoughts.
Stephen V. Cole
> >Maneuver must remain a key. Which means directional shields so you can try
It matches the show and makes for better tactics.
> First - consider dumping boarding parties in the basic game.
Actually, we have pretty much decided to do so. Maybe in an advanced module..
>ECM and ECCM, while logical in a
> military setting, are esoteric and hardly easy to grasp for the
> uninitiated. Don't include them at all in a basic game and eliminate
> them from the decision matrix.
I believe my original post said that electronic warfare would be eliminated.
> >Damage to the ship is a key principle.
> > 2. Set of cards. Your ship includes
> Better for "newbies," and again allows the cards to contain
> information that might otherwise require scrambling for a book or
> chart.
It's a thought.
> I'd propose another idea. Instead of having to track each individual
> ship component, track the overall system involved. Instead of
> applying "damage points" to systems when you fire to disable, you
> apply "disabling points". Disabling points are harder to repair (if
> indeed your rules include the possibility of repair) as that specific
> system has been targeted. Each system on a particular class of vessel
> can suffer a certain number of damage/disabling points before it
> fails, at which time drastic problems arise.
I'm not sure that the terms damage and disable aren't interchangeable.
If a ship has more than one something, then we would seem to need to keep
track of the fact you can only do it half as well when one is gone.
Keeping track of multiple damage points on the "tractor system" would seem
to be more complex than just keeping track that two of the three tractors
still work.
>Include the right setup in your rules,
> and you can definitely put them in that frame of mind.
That would seem to be the point.
Stephen V. Cole
> > See the cadet ships in CADET TRAINING HANDBOOK.
> How does this text (I'm not familiar with it myself beyond a basic idea)
> fail in the purpose of being an SFB lite? Are we arguing over something
> where the product already exists?
people to play SFB and not as a complete game in their own right. Oh, you
could play the cadet stuff for years, I guess, but the cadet stuff carries
a lot of baggage in that it must open doors for later rules.
> OK rather than his counter model...how about dry-wipe lamination for the
> SSD's, or crayon wipe stuff. Easier and lighter than a significant number
> of SSD's per box. Though you'd need to supply enough for all the
> scenarios, so maybe that'd up the price. Its a pretty component though,
> the idea of going to photocopy would put some people off....
The original SFB in 1979 was done this way. We included plastic page
protectors and grease pencils! Players didn't like them, preferring
photocopies and a pencil. Also, such a thing is rather expensive to do and
would add several dollars to the game. The players would end up paying
about three times as much for the pen in the box as they could go buy one
for.
>could you use Star Fleet Command directly linking to the
> computer game, not bad marketing, but do you own the name rights....plus
> its a tie in....two edged sword there.
I think it would be confusing to have two different things with the same title.
> Star Fleet Action
Now, there is an idea.
Aaron Day
>
> kag...@linkline.com wrote:
> > >Maneuver must remain a key. Which means directional shields so you can try
> It matches the show and makes for better tactics.
I don't understand how six shields matches the show? All I ever remember
is forward and rear shields. That seems enough to me to be in a simple
game. Besides, the game shouldn't be so much about tactics as it is
about blowing stuff up.
I agree with the marketing types though, The ship available must be the
enterprise.
Aaron
dog...@u.washington.edu
>will want to play the Enterprise, not a gunboat. You MUST include
>the Federation CA, the Klingon D7, and maybe the Romulan warbird.
Are we assuming that the game will be set in the time of the Original Series?
I think this is a mistake. People are much more familiar with the Next
Generation era, giving it much higher market appeal. Is there a problem
getting rights for ST:TNG?
Mark
Ken Agress
V. Cole) wrote:
>kag...@linkline.com wrote:
>> >Maneuver must remain a key. Which means directional shields so you can try
>> I don't know that this *has* to be the case.
>I read what you said, but remain convinced we have to have six shields.
>It matches the show and makes for better tactics.
I actually wouldn't argue the converse. I was merely pointing out
that this is a design decision and not necessarily a requirement. I'd
agree with either decision, so long as the game was engaging.
>
<snip>
>I'm not sure that the terms damage and disable aren't interchangeable.
They aren't if you design the game so they aren't. :-)
>If a ship has more than one something, then we would seem to need to keep
>track of the fact you can only do it half as well when one is gone.
While I agree that this is obvious at it's face and logical, I'd point
out that this is a decision affecting game play rather than realism.
There's nothing to say that my cruiser off your starboard aft can't
see both of your warp nacelles due to the joys of three-dimensional
space. Tracking both nacelles provides a great deal more realism, but
introduces complexity. For a basic game that's intended to attract
"flavor" players, skip the complexity and go for the playability. Is
it necessarily 100% accurate? No. Is it absolutely necessary for
game play? Also no.
As an example, I could see having the following systems:
Engines (both Warp and Impulse) - damage affects ability to maneuver
and speed.
Power systems - damage reduces available power by either
incapacitating the generation or delivery of energy to ships systems.
Command systems - affects your ability to control energy allocation
and maneuver.
Weapons systems - affects your ability to target weapons or allocate
energy to them specifically.
That covers many of the details that a "realistic" layout on an SSD
might provide, but simplifies it so that I don't have to worry about
how many hits my port warp nacelle has taken. You could even
implement "levels" of damage with ascending degrees of impact. 5
"hits" gets hull X to level 1, 6 more advances to level 2, etc.
>Keeping track of multiple damage points on the "tractor system" would seem
>to be more complex than just keeping track that two of the three tractors
>still work.
You may very well be right. Since the game we're discussing doesn't
actually exist, the suggestions I've made may very well be as bad or
worse than any other. However, I do have a card-based game called
Starship Command that is so obviously based on the Star Trek universe
it's not funny (the designer couldn't arrange a license, and thus
deleted references to the show/movies and altered names). It does not
have a maneuver component, clearly different from the game you're
discussing, but it does have three things a basic game should have:
1> It is terribly simple to play. I've taught it to children as
young as ten in under 30 minutes.
2> It is extremely fun to play. When we aren't in the mood for a
more "serious" game, it's a favorite. Heck, my wife even likes it,
and I can't get her to play *any* of my war games.
3> It is not intimidating in appearance, and has many possible
options for players to add as they desire. Want a more complex game?
Turn "on" the Assault Frigate's special ability. Or add the ability
of non-carriers to screen carriers from attack.
I'd think about things this way - in ST II, Scotty doesn't talk about
how the right Impulse engine has suffered a hit and the starboard warp
nacelle has been reduced to 4% efficiency. He tells Kirk that he has
to take the mains off-line for repairs. That's the level of "realism"
I'd expect beginners to desire, and can easily be simulated by dealing
with systems rather than components.
Is it "real?" Heck no. If they want "real," do what was done with
the release of Star Fleet Command - include a copy of the Cadet's
rules for the full game. That's even a handy marketing ploy ("Two
complete games for the price of one!"). Then they can try the more
complex, more involved, and more realistic version of the game as the
customer desires. However, complexity is frequently a turn-off to new
gamers, which calls for greater abstraction and simplicity at the cost
of "realism".
>
>>Include the right setup in your rules,
>> and you can definitely put them in that frame of mind.
>That would seem to be the point.
I'm glad we agree. :-)
I'd merely point out that the setup could easily include explanations
for abstractions, without having to be a set of designers notes. For
example:
"While a 'true' ship's captain must be aware of the damage individual
systems have sustained, given your current training this would
probably be overwhelming. Therefore, the computer will track the
'nitty-gritty' details for you, and simulate the effects of those
details as the simulation progresses..."
And perhaps the difference I'm actually trying to call out. Many new
gamers aren't looking for true simulations, they're looking for games
that allow them to tell a story (however unconsciously) and engage
their imagination and interest. Sacrifice some realism for the sake
of this "story-telling" aspect, and I suspect you'll sell more copies
of your game. Then those of us who *like* simulating things with a
greater degree of reality can "step up" to the "real" game.
Ken Agress
Aaron Day
Yes, very much so. ADB (they guys who make SFB) have a strange license
to make games based on some blueprints made for the original series
along time ago. They can't, for example, show Cpt Kirk or Spock.
Its all very strange.
Aaron
Ken McElhaney
"Stephen V. Cole" wrote:
> Tim Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > OK, first it would useful to have some idea fo company outlook on this
> > game. So far I think I can conclude from what you've said that a) This is
> > not going to be a line of products, thats what SFB is for, b) it is to be
> > a game covering the flavour of SFB without all the complexity of the SFB
> Undecided at this point. We'd like as broad an audience as possible
> without going down to the level of Chutes & Ladders.
>
In that case, I think you need to re-evaluate what format this new game will
be. From the post I've been reading so far, it seems that your line of
thinking is a stripped down version of SFB. I just do not believe this will
work. It is too similar to what exists already and you will end up hurting the
sales of both games..
What I believe you need to do is literally forget SFB exists, period, and
start from the premise of:
"What kind of system will produce the feel of commanding a starship without
bogging down in the mechanics."
If you proceed down a SFB-lite path (hex map, turn modes, power
calculations, etc.) then I have a question. Who are you trying to sell the
game to? It sounds to me that the only ones who are interested are those who
gritch about how many rules there are in SFB. The audience I believe you want
to reach (the casual or family gamers who play Settlers, etc.) have probably
never heard of SFB, or if they did, are only vaguely familiar with it.
I hope that you take a long look at what kind of audience you want to
reach. It sounds to me that you need to do a little more research before
trying to develop a new game system
Ken
dog...@u.washington.edu
It seems to me that this alone pretty well destroys the mass market appeal of
a revised SFB. The market will be a few old duffers (such as myself) who have
fond memories of the Original Series. To kids the time period will be unknown
and hence of limited or no interest. This is one of THE problems to solve.
Mark
Glen E. Bailey Jr.
Tim Fitzmaurice wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Stephen V. Cole wrote:
>
> > See the cadet ships in CADET TRAINING HANDBOOK.
>
> How does this text (I'm not familiar with it myself beyond a basic idea)
> fail in the purpose of being an SFB lite? Are we arguing over something
> where the product already exists?
>
> > > Numbers printed in the little boxes can state things like how much
> > > energy this engine produces or how much energy a weapon needs to fire.
> > See my original memo, which noted that this approach was not practical.
>
> OK rather than his counter model...how about dry-wipe lamination for the
> SSD's, or crayon wipe stuff. Easier and lighter than a significant number
> of SSD's per box. Though you'd need to supply enough for all the
> scenarios, so maybe that'd up the price. Its a pretty component though,
> the idea of going to photocopy would put some people off....
>
I still have mine. I used them for other games as well (i.e., Full Thrust).
Others use those plastic page protectors that you can buy for 50 at
a time. Mr.Cole already replied that it is too expensive. I agree, if
people want to use them they can buy them separately.
How much would a pad of SSDs of about 3-4 ships per race/empire cost?
Each sheet doesn't have to be 8x11. You could fit two of the original
SSDs on one sheet that large. Or, put the energy allocation form, if one will
exist, with the SSD.
> > > and DON'T call it something like Star Fleet Battle Lite!
> > Nah, I was thinking of something like "Klingon Commander" but nobody
> > around here liked that title.
>
> Well I've touted my SF Interceptors idea but thats genre based, for the
> cut down, could you use Star Fleet Command directly linking to the
> computer game, not bad marketing, but do you own the name rights....plus
> its a tie in....two edged sword there.
>
> Star Fleet Action(s)....the name conjures speed and activity, retains the
> Star Fleet section of the name for continuity and also conjures the idea
> of space ships flashing about.
>
I like that title.
Glen
Dr Faustus
>protectors and grease pencils! Players didn't like them, preferring
>photocopies and a pencil.
I've only ever used the plastic page protectors and grease pencils.
Lately, It seems like every time I try to copy an SSD I get tweaked by some
behind-the-counter geek who wants to gig me for photocopying copyrighted
material. Please, please put on *every* SSD "permission to photocopy for
personal use"
If your intent is to remain true to the show,
then it would seem that you need to somehow create the feeling that a cruiser
could be endangered by a much smaller class of ship (like a bird-of-prey.)
That kind of thing ALWAYS happens on the show and yet it is an impossibility in
SFB.
Just my $.02
Dan
Tim Fitzmaurice
> > ruleset, and c) miniatures are pretty much a no go area on cost grounds.
> Not necessarily. they just come with their own limitations on number of
> ship types.
Hmmm a good question to find the answer to would then be why did Silent
Death go unleaded?
> While cards cost more than counters (raising retail price several dollars)
> your idea of putting the cost of the various things (fire weapons, move,
> tractor something) on the cards has merit.
If you are looking for a component sell basis then it helps. I grabbed the
idea from playing Giganten the night before and their trading licence
idea.
> > Why don't you take a limited SFB concept and use it, admittedly in a way
> > that it doesn't quite hold to SFB itself. Revive the interceptors. Make
> > them the logical equivalent of Frigates in the game, the PFs the cruiser
> > 'level' (without the vast variants, leaders etc..though leader or scout
> Marketing gurus tell us that the ships must be cruisers. They must be
> called cruisers and they must do what cruisers on the show did. We could
> use the cadet ships without much trouble.
Hmmm, OK they have to be called cruisers. To be honest the idea for using
interceptor was two fold..the exploitable niche, which the marketing seems
to have blown away, and more importantly the fact that the level of
systems boxes involved seemed about right. So use the interceptor, the PF
and the gunboat as the level of complexity of systems boxes, but call them
whatever the marketeers want to. Its going to be spotted by SFB players,
but then they aren't your target market.....I'm not familiar with the
cadet ships..how similar to the above idea are they?
Tim Fitzmaurice
> > Stick to the SSD, its functional, and pretty easy to understand.
> >
> No don't do that. The SSDs need to be simpler than SFB. AND people
> will want to play the Enterprise, not a gunboat. You MUST include
Yes but i was talking more at the mechaics level...you can call it
anything marketing suggest. The main point was SSD layout is easy to
follow, however its implemented and I agree it needs to be simpler.
Call whatever you want the Enterprise....the shape of any Fed ship with
rear hull and twin engines is going to make anyone see what its meant to
be :)
> That's fair, but give them a theme -- pick a period in SFB history
> and havea set of scenarios in that theme.
Is that not a bit limiting. OK a broad band of years in SFB timeline is
do-able, but you could do that by careful ship selection.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> > >Damage to the ship is a key principle.
> > > 2. Set of cards. Your ship includes
> > Better for "newbies," and again allows the cards to contain
> > information that might otherwise require scrambling for a book or
> > chart.
> It's a thought.
Given that a number of people have pushed the idea of the card as a
mechanism, and it increases the cost, might i suggest that the current
rash of CCG's does make a game with cards more marketable, and given CCG's
are sometimes extremely complex themselves, a ready marketable audience of
whom loads should be capable of making the transfer to SFB, if a little
away from their normal haunt.
You could also go slightly collectible yourselves, says he typing off the
top of his knuckles, in that the basic game can include enough to play,
then extra ships can be added as 'booster packs', given that these are
unlikely to be tradeable it allows you to market the collectiblity while
avoiding the dreaded crazy external price trading you get. A booster apck
could contain enough power cards for the ship, a couple of 'special damage
cards' like critical hits that you can mix into the base damage cards
[balance can be done in playtest], a rule card for any new weaps or
whatever...again select the simple ones, a scenario card using the
ship, and a ship card, which holds the SSD on it....
OK I know you mentioned the greasepencil idea bombed but that not actually
what I'm driving at here....if you are doing the laminated card thing and
the costs are there then this seems to fit into the strategy, a card sized
SSD seems about right for a small cut down SSD, you can photocopy an
instant scenario by dropping 6 cards on the xerox machine and
bang...you're there. (OK some people that way inclined my go for the
crayon idea but at that point its a side effect they do themselves not
something you are selling on)
OK its just the germ of an idea, anyone out there to refine it....if a
card model becomes justified at that level.....
> I'm not sure that the terms damage and disable aren't interchangeable.
> If a ship has more than one something, then we would seem to need to keep
> track of the fact you can only do it half as well when one is gone.
Hmmm how about (again) Silent Deaths system....the damage track for eacvh
ship is on the bottom of the SSD type thing, certain boxes contain symbol
or letters that indiciate when the damage is more than just a hull box and
a weapon or other system needs to be dealt a blow. (rapidly adapting the
above card idea the critical hit cards become a damage track card...)
Tim Fitzmaurice
> The original SFB in 1979 was done this way. We included plastic page
> protectors and grease pencils! Players didn't like them, preferring
The things you learn about games you thought you knew about :)
On a serious note, in this day and age of flashy cards and so on, does the
target player still think this. What made it a bad idea to players, and I
know you mention price as I pull up yet another expensive component...so
how much of a killer is it, and one thing we haven't established it the
target price range for a game like this....sub 20 pounds ($30), 20-35
($30-50) or the big flashy 40pound/50-dollar box game. At one end you
can;t rewally do expensive bits (given the idea of a fancy colour board
and pieces seemed to attract your attention and IMO is the most important
thind, the mid range would give you what one or two fancy bits extra
(maybe one card deck), and the top end gives you most things within
reason.
What do your marketteers say on that one?
> > Star Fleet Action
> Now, there is an idea.
:)
David Damerell
>If your intent is to remain true to the show, then it would seem that
>you need to somehow create the feeling that a cruiser could be endangered
>by a much smaller class of ship (like a bird-of-prey.)
>That kind of thing ALWAYS happens on the show and yet it is an
>impossibility in SFB.
I've seen an F5 nail a Fed CA with judicious use of a scatter-pack...
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| Consenting Mercrediphile. Bev White's answer to |___|
| | | Next attempt to break the world in progress Andrew S. Damick | | |
RedD...@aol.com
<Pine.SOL.3.96.100012...@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk>,
Tim Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
grounds.
> > Not necessarily. they just come with their own limitations on number
of
> > ship types.
>
> Hmmm a good question to find the answer to would then be why did
Silent
> Death go unleaded?
>
Their latest edition has miniatures, though plastic ones.
...
> Hmmm, OK they have to be called cruisers. To be honest the idea for
using
> interceptor was two fold..the exploitable niche, which the marketing
seems...
One must be able to play the ships in the original show and that
means the Enterprise. Not just a frigate renamed the enterprise.
You know, I was just thinking there is another marketing angle
you could take with this game. If it was a microgame (under
$15, goes into a small ziplock, etc., you could conceivably
market it to SFB players for something to take along when SFB
isn't feasible. something they could put in their backpack or
even shirt pocket. Just an
Aaron Day
>
> Dr Faustus <drfa...@aol.com> wrote:
> >If your intent is to remain true to the show, then it would seem that
> >you need to somehow create the feeling that a cruiser could be endangered
> >by a much smaller class of ship (like a bird-of-prey.)
> >That kind of thing ALWAYS happens on the show and yet it is an
> >impossibility in SFB.
>
> I've seen an F5 nail a Fed CA with judicious use of a scatter-pack...
Oh yeah, scatter-packs. There's something you see in the show all the
time.
Aaron
Tim Fitzmaurice
> > Hmmm, OK they have to be called cruisers. To be honest the idea for
> using
> > interceptor was two fold..the exploitable niche, which the marketing
> seems...
>
> One must be able to play the ships in the original show and that
> means the Enterprise. Not just a frigate renamed the enterprise.
Yes but we've already discussed that the SSD's have to be cut down...
if its called a cruiser, is cruiser level in the game and identifiable
with the Enterprise then its the Enterprise. If you won't accept a cutting
down of the SSDs to something more limited, then you destroy the idea of a
limited game...you might as well just play SFB.
> $15, goes into a small ziplock, etc., you could conceivably
> market it to SFB players for something to take along when SFB
> isn't feasible. something they could put in their backpack or
> even shirt pocket. Just an
Not a bad Idea....
Anthony Christopher
There are so many plot devices, a scatter-pack would hardly be
inconceivable for the show, and things like that make it easier to model
how a small ship can get the jump on a larger. Better than writing rules
for all the plot devices they use, anyway.
--
Mark Christopher -- Shore.Net Technical Editor -- http://www.shore.net/
"Information causes change, and if it doesn't, it's not information.
You're sitting in a seat: that's not information. The person next to
you has a communicable disease: now that's information." -James Burke
Aaron Day
>
> >> Dr Faustus <drfa...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >If your intent is to remain true to the show, then it would seem that
> >> >you need to somehow create the feeling that a cruiser could be endangered
> >> >by a much smaller class of ship (like a bird-of-prey.)
> >> >That kind of thing ALWAYS happens on the show and yet it is an
> >> >impossibility in SFB.
> >>
> >> I've seen an F5 nail a Fed CA with judicious use of a scatter-pack...
> >
> >Oh yeah, scatter-packs. There's something you see in the show all the
> >time.
>
> There are so many plot devices, a scatter-pack would hardly be
> inconceivable for the show, and things like that make it easier to model
> how a small ship can get the jump on a larger. Better than writing rules
> for all the plot devices they use, anyway.
So its better to write rules about plot devices that aren't used instead
of ones that are?
Aaron
Aaron Day
Yes it is. Very much a bad idea. Very few gamers will buy a game in a
ziplock. It need to be in a big (Axis&Allies sized) box with lots of
colorful pieces. Its the only way to get 1) exposure and 2) new people
into the hobby. However, if it is ADB's view that a simplified SFB is
mearly an introduction to the regular SFB then a ziplock might make
sense but I think that that view is too limiting and is little different
from the Cadet stuff already available and, I might add, not too
popular.
Just compare the number of people who have heard of or played
Axis&Allies (despite is serious flaws) with those who have heard of or
played SFB.
Is it possible to appeal to those people with a game about Star Trek
ship combat? I think so.
Aaron
dog...@u.washington.edu
I will repeat something I said before. I don't think there is mass market
appeal in a game about the Original Series. It doesn't matter if its in a
ziplock or a big box. In many young minds the world of TNG is the ONLY Star
Trek they know and that is where market appeal exists.
Don't get me wrong. I do think that you need a big box, minis, a mounted
board, and lots of colorful components. But what will a young person think
when they open the box and the Enterprise in the box isn't THE Enterprise
(i.e. 1701-E) but something only their parents reckognise (1701, no bloody A,
B, C, D or E).
I think it all comes back to what someone has mentioned already: What market
is ADB trying to sell to?
Just my opinion, Mark
David Damerell
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Dr Faustus <drfa...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>If your intent is to remain true to the show, then it would seem that
>>>you need to somehow create the feeling that a cruiser could be endangered
>>>by a much smaller class of ship (like a bird-of-prey.)
>>>That kind of thing ALWAYS happens on the show and yet it is an
>>>impossibility in SFB.
>>I've seen an F5 nail a Fed CA with judicious use of a scatter-pack...
>Oh yeah, scatter-packs. There's something you see in the show all the
>time.
What you do see on the show all the time is a willingness to introduce new
devices without any regard for continuity; it's only a matter of time
before scatter-packs appear. :-)
More seriously, I don't see how one can reconcile a situation where a
small ship can endanger a large one with ordinary use of its weapons with
the idea that SFB is more a game of skill than of luck; clearly, the small
ship must need exceptional tactics (and the large one exceptional
stupidity) to reproduce that.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the
| | | Solace of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.
Aaron Day
>
> >Just compare the number of people who have heard of or played
> >Axis&Allies (despite is serious flaws) with those who have heard of or
> >played SFB.
> >
> >Is it possible to appeal to those people with a game about Star Trek
> >ship combat? I think so.
>
> I will repeat something I said before. I don't think there is mass market
> appeal in a game about the Original Series. It doesn't matter if its in a
> ziplock or a big box. In many young minds the world of TNG is the ONLY Star
> Trek they know and that is where market appeal exists.
I disagree with the notion that players of simple board games (which
includes many people on this list who are adults) have no idea about
Kirk's Enterprise. Its more in "young minds" than World War Two is.
> Don't get me wrong. I do think that you need a big box, minis, a mounted
> board, and lots of colorful components. But what will a young person think
> when they open the box and the Enterprise in the box isn't THE Enterprise
> (i.e. 1701-E) but something only their parents reckognise (1701, no bloody A,
> B, C, D or E).
There is outside the scope of possibility. They CAN'T make a SFB game
about TNG. Last Unicorn (the makers of the ST RPG) may be able to but
ADB cannot.
Aaron
Aaron Day
>
> More seriously, I don't see how one can reconcile a situation where a
> small ship can endanger a large one with ordinary use of its weapons with
> the idea that SFB is more a game of skill than of luck; clearly, the small
> ship must need exceptional tactics (and the large one exceptional
> stupidity) to reproduce that.
SFB may be a game of skill, but Star Fleet Action doesn't have to be. :)
It is a game of -action- isn't it?!
Like I said, I'd rather say away from simple one-on-one fights. To be
fair, these require ships to be very close in abilities which make the
whole fight rather dull or vastly complex. If SFA is fast playing and
simple, it could be used for multi-player fleet battles which would be
more fun and more appealing to game clubs.
Aaron
dog...@u.washington.edu
>dog...@u.washington.edu wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong. I do think that you need a big box, minis, a mounted
>> board, and lots of colorful components. But what will a young person think
>> when they open the box and the Enterprise in the box isn't THE Enterprise
>> (i.e. 1701-E) but something only their parents reckognise (1701, no bloody A,
>> B, C, D or E).
>
>There is outside the scope of possibility. They CAN'T make a SFB game
>about TNG. Last Unicorn (the makers of the ST RPG) may be able to but
>ADB cannot.
Right, which brought me to the last point of my post. What is the target
market? If ADB can't capture the kid market then does it matter much if the
packaging is glitzy? It has been argued that GW has massive sales because of
packaging, but their market is teen boys. If the market is older males then
packaging may matter much less than good tactical gameplay.
This leads to my next question, what is the current market for SFB? How old
are the current players?
Good discussion, Mark
Richard Bell
Dr Faustus <drfa...@aol.com> wrote:
>>The original SFB in 1979 was done this way. We included plastic page
>>protectors and grease pencils! Players didn't like them, preferring
>
>I've only ever used the plastic page protectors and grease pencils.
>
>Lately, It seems like every time I try to copy an SSD I get tweaked by some
>behind-the-counter geek who wants to gig me for photocopying copyrighted
>material. Please, please put on *every* SSD "permission to photocopy for
>personal use"
I was under the impression that it was on every SSD, but it is found in the
rulebook somewhere that we are free to copy them for our own use.
>
>If your intent is to remain true to the show,
>then it would seem that you need to somehow create the feeling that a cruiser
>could be endangered by a much smaller class of ship (like a bird-of-prey.)
>That kind of thing ALWAYS happens on the show and yet it is an impossibility in
>SFB.
>
The Bird-of-Prey in ST:TNG is NOT a small ship. It is what you have left
when you take a Galaxy class and remove one third of the guns, and evrything
not directly related to firing the remaining guns in combat (no labs, no
funky sensors except detection and fire-control, no passengers, no excess
crew). Small ships are ignored in the show.
Dweeb
Just reducing the number of impulses may quicken the game but will not make
it fundamentally simpler. Just limit the ship speeds to 5 hexes a turn or so
and institute a simple move & shoot (or vice-versa) system. I understand the
purpose of the impulse system but I do not believe it is necessary for a
"quick and fun" game.
Stephen V. Cole wrote in message ...
>Rousing discussion of a simplified game that could reach a broader
>audience without cannibalizing the continued strong sales of SFB....
>
>Starting with a clean sheet of paper is hard, but we tried....
>
>Probably hex map based. "free miniatures" movement isn't really practical
>for marginal gamers or even average gamers.
>
>Starship vs starship, of course, is the point.
>
>Maneuver must remain a key. Which means directional shields so you can try
>to keep getting on his left flank and hammering one shield until it goes
>down. And which means weapons that only fire in certain directions.
>
>Energy allocation must remain a focus. Everyone understands the idea that
>you have so much money (energy) and way too many things to spend it on.
>But written energy allocation is complex. We have previously experimented
>with a system where you get some kind of "coins" (probably counters,
>possibly cards) and each turn you get as many as you have power points,
>then spend them as you go along doing things (transporters, tractors,
>movement, phasers).
>
>Damage to the ship is a key principle. Not just a total number, but
>actually hitting the tractor or the left engine or the weapons. "target
>weapons array" is a key line in Star Trek dialogue. The problem is How to
>record the damage. Three ideas:
> 1. Some kind of ship diagram with counters to mark what is damaged
>isn't really practical. You'd need a 9x12 sheet and about 50 counters
>just for "cadet" ships. One bump and the game goes kablooie.
> 2. Set of cards. Your ship includes one tractor card, one transporter
>card, four phaser cards, two photon cards... possible, but lacks graphic
>appeal. Does have the advantage of being able to be customized into any
>ship you want, and even include "design your own ship: (i.e, pick 30
>cards)" concepts.
> 3. A traditional SSD sheet is probably the most practical, but only if
>we include 50 copies in the game for each ship, which limits the number of
>ships. More ships could be posted on internet or sold in reinforcements
>packs, but is a wide variety of ships really an issue?
>
>Rules set must be limited. No seeking weapons, electronic warfare, armed
>shuttles, and very few terrain types.
>
>--
>STAR FLEET BATTLES and all the rest of the universe:
>www.starfleetgames.com
Stephen V. Cole
> I'm not familiar with the
> cadet ships..how similar to the above idea are they?
Stephen V. Cole
> I will repeat something I said before. I don't think there is mass market
> appeal in a game about the Original Series. It doesn't matter if its in a
> ziplock or a big box. In many young minds the world of TNG is the ONLY Star
> Trek they know and that is where market appeal exists.
series. A license for TNG starts at about the cost of five or six
automobiles.
Stephen V. Cole
> There is outside the scope of possibility. They CAN'T make a SFB game
> about TNG. Last Unicorn (the makers of the ST RPG) may be able to but
> ADB cannot.
given year of designing SFB for the license. Unicorn doesn't have an
exclusive deal, and anyone with the cost of a small aeroplane or a light
armored car can get a license. Whether you'd make enough money to pay for
the license is another question. Where you'd find the money is another.
Banks will not lend money to buy a license, since they cannot confiscate
and resell the license if you go bankrupt.
Stephen V. Cole
>It is too similar to what exists already and you will end up hurting the
> sales of both games..
> to reach (the casual or family gamers who play Settlers, etc.) have probably
> never heard of SFB, or if they did, are only vaguely familiar with it.
I think there is a dichotomy here. If the audience we are trying to reach
(whatever the hell that is) is not familiar with SFB, they wouldn't seem
to mind much if it was similar.
Stephen V. Cole
> Are we assuming that the game will be set in the time of the Original Series?
> I think this is a mistake. People are much more familiar with the Next
> Generation era, giving it much higher market appeal. Is there a problem
> getting rights for ST:TNG?
Nothing that an amount of money up front equal to three years of an
engineer's salary wouldn't cover. If you want to invest a six-figure
amount, mail me a check. I'll go get a TNG license and we can write up an
investment deal later.
Stephen V. Cole
> I don't understand how six shields matches the show? All I ever remember
> is forward and rear shields. That seems enough to me to be in a simple
> game.
Well, that's how interceptors and Andros work, but the old TV show did
have six shields (they were mentioned several times in various battles,
although there are references to both four sheilds and six shields.)
> Besides, the game shouldn't be so much about tactics as it is
> about blowing stuff up.
I disagree. Just blowing stuff up gets boring. Why even bother to play if
all there is to the game is "I score six damage points. Oh, you do too?
Well, then, here are six more".
> I agree with the marketing types though, The ship available must be the
> enterprise.
Indeed.
Stephen V. Cole
> On a serious note, one thing we haven't established it the
> target price range for a game like this
Stephen V. Cole
> Lately, It seems like every time I try to copy an SSD I get tweaked by some
> behind-the-counter geek who wants to gig me for photocopying copyrighted
> material. Please, please put on *every* SSD "permission to photocopy for
> personal use"
It has been on the cover of every SSD book for more than 10 years.
> If your intent is to remain true to the show,
> then it would seem that you need to somehow create the feeling that a cruiser
> could be endangered by a much smaller class of ship (like a bird-of-prey.)
> That kind of thing ALWAYS happens on the show and yet it is an
impossibility in
> SFB.
Indeed, I notice that runabouts can outshoot cruisers on DS9. Oh well.
Take a look at the cadet ships and you may see where we could go with this.
Stephen V. Cole
How much would a pad of SSDs of about 3-4 ships per race/empire cost?
> Each sheet doesn't have to be 8x11. You could fit two of the original
> SSDs on one sheet that large.
Actually, you can get about 4 cadet ships to a page. Printed in bulk on
newsprint they're fairly cheap, cheaper than a set of page protectors and
grease pencils, anyway.
Randy Cox
of gamers. We quit playing SFB as soon as a second
version was available because it ceased to be a game and
turned into an engineer's simulation. I don't remember ever
seeing an episode of the original series where Scottie worried
about particular shields or particular torpedo tubes. I never
heard Kirk say "turn about so we can use our left forward
phaser bank." Nope, he just said "fire." And that's the way
it'd have to be to attract new gamers to this game. Any attempt
to allocate damage or worry about functionality will turn off
the casual gamers, the demographic that should be targeted.
RedD...@aol.com
des...@starfleetgames.com (Stephen V. Cole) wrote:
> dog...@u.washington.edu wrote:
...
Actually, you know, that's not such a bad thing. You've pushed
the timeline forward, only the movies/TNG/DS9/etc. went a
different way. I don't think the Romulan Nova class, the Klingon
B10, the Federation X class ships, etc., are inferior to the
movie versions. Of course your history has been a lot more ...
well... combative than the movies, but hey you are a combat game.
There are a lot of very nice ship designs in SFB that I really
like -- The nova class, the Fed frigate, The andromedans, etc.
And the Fasa designs, though somewhat more daring and soaring,
tend to be less durable in my foam box ;-) Now all you need
to do is design this game so I can use all those miniatures
again.
Stephen V. Cole
> The easiest way to simplify the game is to do away with the impulse system.
> Just reducing the number of impulses may quicken the game but will not make
> it fundamentally simpler. Just limit the ship speeds to 5 hexes a turn or so
> and institute a simple move & shoot (or vice-versa) system. I understand the
> purpose of the impulse system but I do not believe it is necessary for a
> "quick and fun" game.
Yah know, when I read this last night on another computer, I thought "boy,
is this guy crazy" but then I thought, "yah know, there may be a way to do
this."
I wonder if we might do it like Richthofen's war, where each ship moves
one at a time and tries to get in position to fire?
Of course, what's slowly seeping into my conciousness is that there are
about seven different games here. Do we do just one, or all of them?
1. Cards, no map, something like "wrasslin"?
2. Cards, no map, multi-ships, something like "naval battles"?
3. Map, sequential movement, something like Richthofen's war?
4. Map, impulses, cadet ships...
5. The cadet version of SFB.
6. The tournament version of SFB.
7. The commander's level version of SFB.
Andrew Harding
simultaneous plotted movement would be best. Moving one at a time and then
firing can reduce a game to a contest to see who moves last in a turn and
therefore wins due to a better firing position, at least once close range is
reached. The problem can be reduced in larger games, but one of the best
things about SFB is that duels are tactically interesting.
Andrew Harding
Stephen V. Cole wrote in message ...
>In article <86tek5$ltj$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Dweeb" <dw...@erols.com>
wrote:
>
>> The easiest way to simplify the game is to do away with the impulse
system.
>> Just reducing the number of impulses may quicken the game but will not
make
>> it fundamentally simpler. Just limit the ship speeds to 5 hexes a turn or
so
>> and institute a simple move & shoot (or vice-versa) system. I understand
the
>> purpose of the impulse system but I do not believe it is necessary for a
>> "quick and fun" game.
>
>Yah know, when I read this last night on another computer, I thought "boy,
>is this guy crazy" but then I thought, "yah know, there may be a way to do
>this."
>
>I wonder if we might do it like Richthofen's war, where each ship moves
>one at a time and tries to get in position to fire?
>
<remainder snipped>
Dweeb
>
>one at a time and tries to get in position to fire?
I think it's preferable that all ships move then all ships shoot, as in Full
Thrust. In Richtofen's War, (IIRC) there was a problem in that planes could
circle around and fire at each other's tails in the same turn, which is
ridiculous.
I guess the "problem" with eliminating the impulses is that ship ranges will
change dramatically between firing opportunities. But if the ship speeds are
low enough, and the weapon ranges are long enough, the problem will be
minimized. And after all, the object is to have a quick, fun game, not a
"simulation".
Eliminating the implulses (and limiting the ship speeds) will also allow you
to reduce the total energy that needs to be allocated, making a coin or card
allocation system more feasible.
>2. Cards, no map, multi-ships, something like "naval battles"?
Mag Blast??
Patrick de Haan
"Tim Fitzmaurice" <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.100012...@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 RedD...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > Stick to the SSD, its functional, and pretty easy to understand.
> > >
> > No don't do that. The SSDs need to be simpler than SFB. AND people
> > will want to play the Enterprise, not a gunboat. You MUST include
>
> Yes but i was talking more at the mechaics level...you can call it
> anything marketing suggest. The main point was SSD layout is easy to
> follow, however its implemented and I agree it needs to be simpler.
> Call whatever you want the Enterprise....the shape of any Fed ship with
> rear hull and twin engines is going to make anyone see what its meant to
> be :)
>
> > That's fair, but give them a theme -- pick a period in SFB history
> > and havea set of scenarios in that theme.
>
> Is that not a bit limiting. OK a broad band of years in SFB timeline is
> do-able, but you could do that by careful ship selection.
Patrick de Haan
"Tim Fitzmaurice" <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.100012...@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk...
>
> > > >Damage to the ship is a key principle.
> > > information that might otherwise require scrambling for a book or
> > > chart.
> > It's a thought.
>
> Given that a number of people have pushed the idea of the card as a
> mechanism, and it increases the cost, might i suggest that the current
> rash of CCG's does make a game with cards more marketable, and given CCG's
> are sometimes extremely complex themselves, a ready marketable audience of
> whom loads should be capable of making the transfer to SFB, if a little
> away from their normal haunt.
>
> You could also go slightly collectible yourselves, says he typing off the
> top of his knuckles, in that the basic game can include enough to play,
> then extra ships can be added as 'booster packs', given that these are
> unlikely to be tradeable it allows you to market the collectiblity while
> avoiding the dreaded crazy external price trading you get. A booster apck
> could contain enough power cards for the ship, a couple of 'special damage
> cards' like critical hits that you can mix into the base damage cards
> [balance can be done in playtest], a rule card for any new weaps or
> whatever...again select the simple ones, a scenario card using the
> ship, and a ship card, which holds the SSD on it....
> OK I know you mentioned the greasepencil idea bombed but that not actually
> what I'm driving at here....if you are doing the laminated card thing and
> the costs are there then this seems to fit into the strategy, a card sized
> SSD seems about right for a small cut down SSD, you can photocopy an
> instant scenario by dropping 6 cards on the xerox machine and
> bang...you're there. (OK some people that way inclined my go for the
> crayon idea but at that point its a side effect they do themselves not
> something you are selling on)
>
> OK its just the germ of an idea, anyone out there to refine it....if a
> card model becomes justified at that level.....
>
>
> > I'm not sure that the terms damage and disable aren't interchangeable.
> > If a ship has more than one something, then we would seem to need to
keep
> > track of the fact you can only do it half as well when one is gone.
>
> Hmmm how about (again) Silent Deaths system....the damage track for eacvh
> ship is on the bottom of the SSD type thing, certain boxes contain symbol
> or letters that indiciate when the damage is more than just a hull box and
> a weapon or other system needs to be dealt a blow. (rapidly adapting the
> above card idea the critical hit cards become a damage track card...)
Dr Faustus
>> behind-the-counter geek who wants to gig me for photocopying copyrighted
>> material. Please, please put on *every* SSD "permission to photocopy for
>> personal use"
>It has been on the cover of every SSD book for more than 10 years.
When I get an SSD book - one of the first things I do is rip out the SSDs and
put them into my 'fleet' folders. So having a permission to photocopy on the
cover of every SSD *book* doesnt help me here.
I suppose what you are suggesting is that we copy the SSDs out of the book
(leaving to book intact) and then do whatever with the copies. But then if I
want to look at my Gorn SSDs, I have to flip through several books. I guess I
just have a different method of doing things.
Dan
Ken McElhaney
"Stephen V. Cole" wrote:
> Ken McElhaney <mcel...@cherokee.nsuok.edu> wrote:
> >It is too similar to what exists already and you will end up hurting the
> > sales of both games..
> >The audience I believe you want
> > to reach (the casual or family gamers who play Settlers, etc.) have probably
> > never heard of SFB, or if they did, are only vaguely familiar with it.
>
> I think there is a dichotomy here. If the audience we are trying to reach
> (whatever the hell that is) is not familiar with SFB, they wouldn't seem
> to mind much if it was similar.
>
I think they would if you go down the hex-map road. Why create a simplified
version of SFB using the same game principles (hex map, SSDs, etc.) when you
already have SFB. There is an SFB Academy trainer isn't there?
Like I've stated before, I believe you need to start from scratch and pretend
there is no SFB.
Ken
Glen E. Bailey Jr.
try to get
closer before firing. You do get closer, but fire at the end of every move.
Sometimes you can end up passing each other and firing at the target with only
rear facing weapons (this is harder to describe that I thought). I liked FASA's
game
of 3 "impulses" and you can shoot in any one of them (I think I remember it
right).
You might move 0 - 4 hexes in an "impulse", depending on your speed. It keeps
the old "do I shoot now or wait a little longer" of SFB. I think it should have
a little
bit of SFB in it or else I can play any of those other games.
Glen
Stephen V. Cole
> Like I've stated before, I believe you need to start from scratch
and pretend
> there is no SFB.
We did that. and we still came around to hexes, six shields, and impulses
because that's a good way to handle combat between moving ships. If there
was no SFB, we'd still end up here.
Of course, that's just for one of the 17 possible games. Others might work
other ways (e.g., card games).
Stephen V. Cole
> When I get an SSD book - one of the first things I do is rip out the SSDs and
> put them into my 'fleet' folders. So having a permission to photocopy on the
> cover of every SSD *book* doesnt help me here.
Sure it does. On the back of every cover is an SSD, and since you file the
SSDs you have the covers in the same place. Show Kinkos the cover and a
page with a footer showing the same product title, and you're all set.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Tim Fitzmaurice wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 RedD...@aol.com wrote:
> > > $15, goes into a small ziplock, etc., you could conceivably
> > > market it to SFB players for something to take along when SFB
> > > isn't feasible. something they could put in their backpack or
> > > even shirt pocket. Just an
> >
> > Not a bad Idea....
>
> into the hobby. However, if it is ADB's view that a simplified SFB is
> mearly an introduction to the regular SFB then a ziplock might make
> sense but I think that that view is too limiting and is little different
Yes but that is what the original poster was proposing...agreed its a
change from the main thread.
Michael T. Richter
news:design-0102...@pm3-11-222.ama.arn.net...
> Sure it does. On the back of every cover is an SSD, and since you file the
> SSDs you have the covers in the same place. Show Kinkos the cover and a
> page with a footer showing the same product title, and you're all set.
<sigh>
Wouldn't it be easier to add a permission to photocopy to the bottom of your
SSD template in whatever software you use to design them?
Let's analyze and take a look. You would have to add the line once to one
template and then it magically appears everywhere. No arguments, not muss,
no fuss and no bother outside of the little bit of bother for you.
We would have to keep track of which cover goes with which ships, would have
to argue with Kinko clerks (not necessarily the brightest candles in the
pack) and would have to do this over and over and over again each and every
time we need to get SSDs copied.
There's less total effort if you do it once than if we do it repeatedly,
methinks.
David Damerell
>David Damerell wrote:
>>the idea that SFB is more a game of skill than of luck; clearly, the small
>>ship must need exceptional tactics (and the large one exceptional
>>stupidity) to reproduce that.
>SFB may be a game of skill, but Star Fleet Action doesn't have to be. :)
>It is a game of -action- isn't it?!
It depends if SFA is meant to entice people into SFB.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| Time for some bonking. I likes a bit of bonking! |___|
| | | (Trapdoor - British children's TV) | | |
Ken McElhaney
"Stephen V. Cole" wrote:
> Ken McElhaney <mcel...@cherokee.nsuok.edu> wrote:
> > Like I've stated before, I believe you need to start from scratch
> and pretend
> > there is no SFB.
>
> We did that. and we still came around to hexes, six shields, and impulses
> because that's a good way to handle combat between moving ships. If there
> was no SFB, we'd still end up here.
>
> Of course, that's just for one of the 17 possible games. Others might work
> other ways (e.g., card games).
>
>
I think the card game approach may be the way to go. Similar to Wrasslin',
each ship is represented by a single card (4 x 6, 5 x 7, whatever). Besides
the nice art work of the ship, it also contains four shield areas (front,
rear, port, starboard) represented by a strength marker (a simple square
counter with numbers on each edge or a six sided die), each hit taken on the
shield reduces the number. If the die or counter is reduced past one, it is
removed and damage is take on the ship. Their is a single damage track (also
similar to Wrasslin') which has a marker. When reduced, you lose more
functions (phasers, power, tractors, etc.). If reduced to zero, the ship is
lost.
Firing weopons, power, and manauver are handled by either a single card
deck which all players can draw from. Or a custom deck for each race (I'm not
going the collectable route). Each player will have a pre-determined number
of cards in their hand (6 to 8) The types of cards would be:
Power: Reenforce shields, power tractors, etc.
Weapons: Fire phasers or heavy weapons
Repair: Repair damage.
Maneuver: Close Range, Flank Target, etc.
Response Cards: To counter the actions of other players.
For example: Your opponent plays a flank card to get at your weak starboard
shield, you counter (during his turn) with a sideslip card. This prevents his
action, just like in Wrasslin'.
Special Cards: Unique to each race, again as in Wrasslin'
Again, all the pertinant info should be on the cards.
Well, what do you think.
Ken
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Firing weopons, power, and manauver are handled by either a single card
> deck which all players can draw from. Or a custom deck for each race (I'm not
> going the collectable route). Each player will have a pre-determined number
So how about including a Rise of the Luftwaffe type maneuvering system?
Come to think of it, its an excellent model for the card based idea.
And then ships instantly become expansion packs.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> If moving once per turn rather than using an impulse system, IMO
> simultaneous plotted movement would be best. Moving one at a time and then
Simultaneous plotted movement will still have the disadvantages you see in
one move per turn, in that two ships can start off facing each other at
range 4, and yet got no chance to use their front weapons etc. The
weirdness of a whole turn.
The mid turn firing and action is really what the impulse system is all
about. And in that we eant somehow to avoid 'me-too' reaction. How about
this idea. Once you know what speed everyone is doing. Each person moves
their ship one hex in a given order (random, fastest first, slowest first
etc can be debated). After you move you ship one hex, you then get to
shoot etc., once you reach your speed, you stop and sit n wait, able to
fire any remaining weapons anytime the turn comes past you. Turn ends,
once the lasst person moves and everyone has had a final chance in order
to do stuff.
No horrible 32 impulse chart to confuse people, simple order, maintains
the hex stepping and reactive moving/firing. If you wanted to you could
add a weapon speed, that simply requires someone to have moved X hexes or
more in that turn (or end of turn reached at slow speeds) before the thing
can be fired. Fast charge weapons (1 hex) eg Phasers, med charge weapons
(2 hex) eg 1 turn reload Hvy weaps and slow charge (3 hex) eg
multi turn hvys like Photons. No me too firing either, as each person
steps through. If you go with the cards idea, you can have a "Get the
Jump" card which allows you to do a 'me-too' action.
This to my mind keeps the complexity of tactical maneuvring and firing,
maintains most of the step wise advantages of impulse play (it does lose
simultaneous damage so a balance has to be done), has the capacity for
keeping the impulse delay (so no 2 alpha strikes at beginning and end of
turn options) if you wish. The mechanic controlling it is simple and
sequential.
Stephen V. Cole
> So how about including a Rise of the Luftwaffe type maneuvering system?
> Come to think of it, its an excellent model for the card based idea.
Stephen V. Cole
> Simultaneous plotted movement will still have the disadvantages you see in
> one move per turn, in that two ships can start off facing each other at
> range 4, and yet got no chance to use their front weapons etc. The
> weirdness of a whole turn.
> The mid turn firing and action is really what the impulse system is all
> about. And in that we eant somehow to avoid 'me-too' reaction.
Probably a card for each weapon and a few dummies; you lay down what
you're firing. Should work if we don't have zillions of drones and
shuttles running around to confuse the question of what you're firing at.
(See previous post, re: no seeking weapons, no fighters)
Stephen V. Cole
> I think the card game approach may be the way to go. Similar to Wrasslin',
I think it's one of 17 ways it could be done. We'd have to develope
several prototypes on different concepts and try them all.
Stephen V. Cole
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote:
> >David Damerell wrote:
> >>the idea that SFB is more a game of skill than of luck; clearly, the small
> >>ship must need exceptional tactics (and the large one exceptional
> >>stupidity) to reproduce that.
> >SFB may be a game of skill, but Star Fleet Action doesn't have to be. :)
> >It is a game of -action- isn't it?!
>
> It depends if SFA is meant to entice people into SFB.
Two things.
1st. Not intended to entice people into SFB. It's intended to get the
people who would never play SFB.
2nd. "Star Fleet Action" is both a proposed title and a proposed concept
(I think by the same guy). There are many concepts and we haven't picked
one yet. While we have had a devil of a time finding a good title, I'm not
sure "Star Fleet Action" is it, not least because the initials SFA are
already used for two other things.
Michael T. Richter
>> So how about including a Rise of the Luftwaffe type maneuvering
>> system? Come to think of it, its an excellent model for the card
>> based idea.
> Not familiar with this game. Will have to look into it.
Wouldn't one of the fundamental principles of good design be looking at
existing solutions and analyzing them for their weaknesses and strengths?
Every time somebody has suggested a game you could model yours after, your
response has been "will have to look into it". Don't you do domain research
before jumping into design?
Stephen V. Cole
> Wouldn't it be easier to add a permission to photocopy to the bottom of your
> SSD template in whatever software you use to design them?
[we know this to be true from surveys, it's why we quit hole punching the
SSD books] and just photocopy what they want, so only a small subset has
the problem you are citing. However, adding that permission statement to
every SSD is:
1. messy
2. takes up a quarter inch that on way too many SSDs just is not available.
dog...@u.washington.edu
>> >It is a game of -action- isn't it?!
>>
>> It depends if SFA is meant to entice people into SFB.
>
>people who would never play SFB.
>STAR FLEET BATTLES and all the rest of the universe:
>www.starfleetgames.com
Okay, now I am getting confused. What is the point of this simplified system?
Is it meant as SFB for people who won't play SFB? Is it meant to be SFBlite?
Is it meant as an all new game system unrelated to SFB? Is it meant to be
ground breaking in concept or just a remake of existing concepts?
And what is the target market anyway?
Personally, I would love to play SFB. But I am one of those people who won't
play it because the rules are more than 12 pages long (and the components are
less than beautiful). The SFB system sounds wonderful but unnecesarily
complicated. This is the same problem I have with ASL. It is a wonderful
system but the rules are 5 times longer than is needed to capture the essence
of the system. Of course I play ASL.....
Mark
PS. Try looking at Mustangs by AH. Very simple system that uses impulses,
hexes, and damage.
David Damerell
>>response has been "will have to look into it". Don't you do domain research
>>before jumping into design?
And, um, what I meant to say; you only have to have seen a given mechanism
once to be familiar with it and able to consider it, but that doesn't mean
you've played every other game. As an SFB player, if someone says 'What
about an impulse movement system', I know where I am; if someone says
'What about movement like in Car Wars', I might not have any idea...
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
It moves between us, for one moment, like opium in your heart, with remedies
from the ancient gods, to heal the morals of our shadows. Devil, come to me,
open up the door, lead me ciahra to the centre of it all...(FotN:Submission)
David Damerell
>"Stephen V. Cole" <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote in message
>>Not familiar with this game. Will have to look into it.
>Every time somebody has suggested a game you could model yours after, your
>response has been "will have to look into it". Don't you do domain research
>before jumping into design?
There are a _lot_ of games.
Michael T. Richter
news:Gne*Ag...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>> Not familiar with this game. Will have to look into it.
>> Every time somebody has suggested a game you could model yours
>> after, your response has been "will have to look into it".
>> Don't you do domain research before jumping into design?
> There are a _lot_ of games.
Which is why I bit my tongue for this long. But it does seem that the ADB's
chief has no experience outside of the limited sphere of board wargames. I
just find that really weird. It would be like me, technical lead on one of
my employer's products and senior designer on another, not having evaluated
differing designs from other products to see different ways things could be
done.
Darr...@aol.com
I think the key element you should focus on is that you want a
"simplified" system. To this end, you might want to take a look at some
of the more fast-paced wargames - particularly card games, such as
Modern Naval Battles. MNB does manage to make ships unique, and
presents the players with the tough decisions about which cards
(ordnance) to keep, and which to toss. Dan Verssen's sequel (Starforce
Terra, or some such) puts the same system in a space-bound, ship-to-ship
environment.
I've done some preliminary work of my own on a card-based combat
system, for interstellar combat, but in a different "universe", if you
will - something with a strategic map covering empires, so the battles
actually have a context.
I think trying to keep shield aspects separate for a ship might be a
step down the wrong path; rather, overall shield strength should be the
focus, as this greatly simplifies things.
Darrell
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
gary_ha...@hotmail.com
Darr...@aol.com wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> I think the key element you should focus on is that you want a
> "simplified" system.
>
different from what has been suggested. My suggestion has two primary
parts.
1. Movement is resolved using books that show your view of the enemy
ship from your bridge. This is like the Ace of Aces Handy Rotary Series
from Nova Logic. Nova logic did a western shout out game based on this
also. This concept was used in the Lost Worlds series by Nova Logic
and the Warrior books now for sale by Games Workshop. This is similar
to the Start Trek dice game from Five Rings.
This requires a number of relative positions taking into account
facings, and distance. Keep the number of facing and distances small.
2. Predetermine combinations of allocation. Reduce the number of
options for movement, speed, turning, shields and weapons. Them create
a matrix and determine if the player can make the combinations. If they
can make the combinations then what weapons.
Here is a matrix I created using
Shields on/off
Speed 0, med, fast
Turn 0, 60 ,180 degrees
Weapons P-phasers, PT photon torpedos, nw-no weapons, x-cant make this
combination so don't even tell them about it.
Shields Off
Speed 0 med Fast
Turn 0 P and PT P ot PT P
60 P or PT P nw
180 P nw x
Shields On
Speed 0 med Fast
Turn 0 Pand PT P nw
60 P nw x
180 nw x x
Sorry, I forgot if you can use photons with shields up.
The game would be easy to teach. It is fast moving and depends on
strategy. You can probably play the second or third game in 10-15
minutes. You seem to have access to the art. Your material costs are
low, two books with optional reference sheets. No dice are needed.
I have not covered the damage allocation. It should be simple also,
Damage to drives reduces speed and or turning. Weapons can disable
phasers or photons. Hits take out shield on a facing (books shows which
shield).
Optional advanced rules would add more weapons options and damage
options if you feel they are needed.
This targets a different group from the SFB bunch. There may be some
overlap.
I think you are going to have a rough battle for a popular board game.
Hasbro is BIG!
Good luck
Gary Hackathorn
Michael T. Richter
news:vohwvon...@yuban.berkeley.edu...
>>> Not familiar with this game. Will have to look into it.
>> Don't you do domain research before jumping into design?
> That sounds like exactly what he is doing. Isn't that what
> "look into it" is all about?
The problem is that he's been supposedly doing game design work for the
past... what? Twenty years or so?
Board games aren't even close to the top of my list of recreational things
to do. (Or, rather, more precisely, until recently board games were nowhere
near the top. Now they're about second or third place.) And yet, in that
time, I somehow managed to learn about a whole bunch of board games that Mr.
Cole is going to "look into". I just find it really peculiar that a game
design professional has less domain knowledge than a game-playing dabbler.
> Is it just that there are a bunch of people who hate Stephen Cole
> and will jump on anything he says?
For the record, I have absolutely nothing against Mr. Cole. I even was once
quite the fan of the earlier editions of SFB. (I now find SFB unplayable,
but that's obviously just a matter of taste.)
But I do find it really damned peculiar that Mr. Cole has "come around to
hexes, six shields and impulses" when he shows very little knowledge
whatsoever of the alternatives. It sounds like he hasn't taken the first
step of design: domain analysis.
Stephen V. Cole
> I don't really get this particular flame war. Is it just that there are
> a bunch of people who hate Stephen Cole and will jump on anything he
Dave: Thanks for the defense, but I don't think it was a flame war or a
bunch of people, just someone I managed to confuse over what we're doing
here. (Which is, for the record, spitballing a few ideas about several
different concepts for "simple" games, one or more of which might or might
not be done.
--
Stephen V. Cole
> before jumping into design?
Well, first, that's not true. Many games have been suggested, some of
which I already have, some of which I said I would look into, and some of
which I didn't think offered much and kinda ignored.
Now, there seem to be three choices here.
1. Ask for suggestions. (This is the one we picked.)
2. Ignore any suggestions. (Surely you cannot be suggesting this one.)
3. Go out and buy 50 games and study them intensely, finding out that 45
of them are irrelevant to the issue. (I don't have that kind of time and
don't care to waste that kind of money.)
As for doing domain research before design, of course we do, and that's
what I've been doing. We're not INTO design yet, although we have
spitballed some ideas. Remember that I'm not designing a game in front of
your very eyes; I'm having a nice chat with some fellow gamers about
several different kinds of products that might be looked into.
I have, several times in fact, said that we're not even going to start
working on this until the fall since we're booked solid in the design shop
through September. Having said that, the idea that anyone "jumped into
design" is non-sequiter.
Stephen V. Cole
> past... what? Twenty years or so?
Awards.
> But I do find it really damned peculiar that Mr. Cole has "come around to
> hexes, six shields and impulses" when he shows very little knowledge
> whatsoever of the alternatives. It sounds like he hasn't taken the first
> step of design: domain analysis.
As noted, that is one of several different design concepts I have
mentioned. I have mentioned several others, and the conversation is kinda
muddled since we're discussing at least three different products for three
different markets, and I tend to slide from one to the other without
missing a beat.
I have studied a lot of games recently looking for concepts, and have
commented on several of them. I've also thanked people for suggesting two
or three that I haven't previously considered (or heard of), some of which
(e.g., Catan) have no relationship to space combat and I would never have
considered as a place to get ideas had someone not suggested that it has
some concepts worth considering (and is worth buying just to play). From
the pre-order catalogs our wholesalers put it, there seem to be 75-100 new
products PER MONTH in the game business. If I missed a couple of those,
you'll just have to forgive me. Remember that ADB Inc is still a startup
and I haven't had time for recreational gaming in over a year.
Stephen V. Cole
>But it does seem that the ADB's
> chief has no experience outside of the limited sphere of board wargames.
Gee, it doesn't seem that way to me, since (until the last year when I
haven't played anything but a couple of old computer games, and those 15
minutes a week) I have been a gamer for something like 38 years and have
played a lot of games and a lot of different kinds of games, and I have
designed many different kinds of games (non-boardgames included). The fact
that I don't play every new game that comes out every month wouldn't seem
to be much of a surprise; the fact that of 10 games mentioned here (at
least) I've indicated unfamiliarity with three or four shouldn't really
seem to be a crime. You've seen a few snapshots and have leapt to a
unsupported guess.
Michael T. Richter
> [...] the conversation is kinda muddled since we're discussing
> at least three different products for three different markets,
> and I tend to slide from one to the other without missing a beat.
That could be the source of the perception problem, yes.
Stephen V. Cole
> Stephen,
> I think the key element you should focus on is that you want a
> of the more fast-paced wargames - particularly card games, such as
> Modern Naval Battles.
have of SFB, and we actually did an SFB version of MNB once. (It was never
printed since TFG thought it would not sell. Now that they're gone, it
could be reconsidered at some point. I hope it will be as I miss playing
MNB, which I haven't had a good game of since Allen Eldridge moved to
Dallas.)
> I think trying to keep shield aspects separate for a ship might be a
> step down the wrong path; rather, overall shield strength should be the
> focus, as this greatly simplifies things.
Well, trying to keep separate shields in an MNB-based system (one of the
three main concepts and 17 assorted other concepts we've discussed) would
be dumb, and we wouldn't even try. Heck, there isn't a map or a maneuver
involved! Doesn't mean it's not a good game.
But remember where we started this conversation, when someone said "I'd
play SFB again if it were simpler". Doing an MNB system would not satisfy
that player's requirement. An MNB system might find a huge market, but
that guy won't be in it. Doesn't mean that we might not do both games, or
that we will do either one.
Stephen V. Cole
> Okay, now I am getting confused. What is the point of this simplified system?
1. A simplified SFB. This isn't that hard. You get a copy of SFB Basic
Set, leave out the Romulans, Gorns, Orions, Tholians, cloaks, webs, plasma
torpedoes, boarding parties, and electronic warfare. The result is about
70 pages of rules and three races.
2. A simple game in the style of SFB. This might use the "cadet" ships and
some kind of card-based energy allocation or combat system to avoid all of
those charts and records. It would have six shields and a hex map. Rules
might be 24-48 pages? I don't know; there are plenty of options for bigger
or smaller rules sets.
3. A spaceship combat game in the SFB universe which isn't related to SFB
mechanically, perhaps along the lines of Modern Naval Battles. In such a
system, you would have a squadron of several ships. You would have cards
in your hand. If you have a Photon card and a ship armed with photons, you
can hurt someone. Various other cards (shield reinforcement! quick
maneuver! electronic warfare!) might affect the impact of various attack
cards.
> And what is the target market anyway?
Each of the three ideas above (and 14 others) has a separate target
market. To decide that we'd do a particular game (next year or the year
after) we would consider the cost of production, the certain and the
potential market, the distribution channels, the support requirements, and
other factors.
> PS. Try looking at Mustangs by AH. Very simple system that uses impulses,
> hexes, and damage.
Got a copy of that, or something like that, WWII airplanes? Could have
some ideas, but of course we don't want to directly model any product on
anything else.
Ken McElhaney
>
> But remember where we started this conversation, when someone said "I'd
> play SFB again if it were simpler". Doing an MNB system would not satisfy
> that player's requirement. An MNB system might find a huge market, but
> that guy won't be in it. Doesn't mean that we might not do both games, or
> that we will do either one.
>
Well, if the choice is between a big market & that guy, I think I'd chose
the big market.
All kidding aside, I'm sure there's lot's of folks who wish for a simpler
version of SFB. And you could do that with very little investment. I know in
an older version, there was a page with "getting started" rules. I.E. a list
of rules (with page locations) that new players use. I suggest a similar
proceedure for a "simpler" game. Suggest that everyone (who hasn't already)
purchase the latest version of SFB basic. Then mearly post a page of rules
that can be used for "SFB-lite" (fewer impuses, reduced EA chart, and so
forth) Will there be those that complain? You bet. Because you will get
hundreds, if not more complaints from gamers who wish to use other rules or
not use "those" rules, etc.
But, that's going to happen anyway if you spend thousands to create a
SFB-lite game. So save yourself some grief and use that money on a new game
format. And if someone complains, hey, it's a new system! We're not getting
rid of the old one, just making a another one for gamers who aren't as
"dedicated" as you.
My two cents and asbestos at the ready
Ken
Randy Cox
> 1. A simplified SFB. This isn't that hard. You get a copy of SFB Basic
> Set, leave out the Romulans, Gorns, Orions, Tholians, cloaks, webs, plasma
> torpedoes, boarding parties, and electronic warfare. The result is about
> 70 pages of rules and three races.
>
> 2. A simple game in the style of SFB. This might use the "cadet" ships and
> some kind of card-based energy allocation or combat system to avoid all of
> those charts and records. It would have six shields and a hex map. Rules
> might be 24-48 pages?
I'm confused. How can the word 'simplified' be used with any game
whose number of rules pages is in double digits. I was thinking a
simple SFB would have 4-6 (preferrably 4 or less) pages of rules.
Otherwise, what new market would jump into the fray?