Star Fleet Battles Lite
Stephen V Cole
who designed and owns and publishes SFB, I commented that what was being
called for by some already existed by simply buying BASIC SET and
stopping at the basic rules. (I did not mention at the time, but it is
true, that at the GAMA show every year I hear a hundred stores saying
"go back to the pocket game SFB and we'll sell a ton of them!" and I
never really believed them since the players could buy basic set and
leave out half of the rules.)
Some in that conversation in this topic a week ago wanted to go farther
and have fewer impulses, easily energy allocation, and simplified
damage allocation, three key SFB elements that eat up a lot of time
(mostly as players agonize over every possible decision). This reminded
me of the Star Fleet Action prototype we worked up a couple of years
ago, which largely followed these lines.
A few days ago, we were having a Board of Directors meeting to decide
which of several projects to announce at the GAMA show (16 March) for
the summer releases. The conversation wandered to a Christmas product
and I recounted the above stories. Soon enough, we had the prototype out
of the file and were puttering around.
A few days later, we have the memo below which more or less defines the
core concepts of a game that might be called Star Fleet Action, Star
Fleet Commander, Federation Captain, or something else. I thought I
would show you guys the memo and see if anybody had a question or
comment. Note that the memo defines a game that is significantly
different from SFB and when it was shown to SFB players they immediately
started proposing modifications that would bring it closer to SFB (more
complicated, longer to play). Anyway, here's the memo. No decision has
been made on whether to print this in Nov 04, June 05, some other date,
or never.
STAR FLEET COMMANDER (Basic Rules)
A simpler form of Star Fleet Battles which retains the excitement of the
original with less clutter, faster play. Possibly retain ability to use
SFB SSDs (ship diagrams) inside the new game system.
Sequence of play streamlined by leaving out many rules.
There would be no historical timeline in the sense of progressing
technology (slow drones, medium drones, fast drones, refits, etc.) but
we might introduce this in one of the more advanced modules. For the
base game, everything would be a single time and level of technology.
Energy Allocation (a key element of SFB) would remain but would be
handled by tokens rather than written records. You’d have a token for
each point of power and just spend them as you want to do stuff. At the
start of the turn, you’d have to pay for heavy weapons, but other than
that, the warp engines become a huge pool of reserve power. There would
be some limits on how much of that power you could use in one of the
eight impulses.
Movement system: Similar to SFB but with 8 impulses instead of 32. We
will use "impulse power to move and warp power to fight" to be
compatible with what modern trekkers expect to see. Use 0.5 points of
impulse power per hex adjusted by move cost (i.e., dreadnoughts pay 0.75
points and destroyers pay 0.25 points). To reduce the ugliness of
fractions, a simple chart on each ship diagram would show you how fast
you can go with the number of engines you have. Disengagement (leaving
the battle and going home) would be possible by blowing a lot of warp
points.
Combat system: Weapons would work the same as SFB (power cost, range,
damage, die rolls, charts). We shall have a leaky shield rule (every
10th point?) which might vary with larger ships having more leaks. Need
to simplify damage resolution, perhaps with a modified Damage Allocation
Chart that allocates five or ten damage points to various systems with a
single die roll. Firing arcs, damage repair, and shields would work as
per SFB.
Note: we are fully aware that this means a radical change from SFB with
slower ship speeds compared to weapons ranges. We don’t see a problem
with a new dynamic. If playtesting says this isn’t working, we can cut
weapon ranges down, but preliminary work says that this will better
recreate what happened in TNG.
We’d still have to check boxes on an SSD for damage. Might handle that
with counters on a larger SSD but that would be an advanced option.
Might put the SSDs (the whole game system would have only about 50
ships) on a web site so you can print them off as you want them. We
could include a book of cheap newsprint SSDs in each box.
Counters: megahex type, 1" with full color starships.
Races: Feds, Klingons, freighters, monsters.
There is second half of the memo about this which I will put in a
separate message since it would make this one too long.
Stephen V Cole
STAR FLEET CAPTAIN (Advanced Rules): Seeking weapons, drones (only standard
type-1 of constant speed 8), plasma torpedoes (envelopers?), cloaks,
sideslips, critical hits, simple mines (no T-bombs!). Races: Romulans,
Gorns, Kzintis, Orions.
===============================
STAR FLEET COMMODORE (Extreme Rules): Terrain (much simplified, fewer
types), tractor beams, transporters, boarding parties, high energy turns,
warp micro-jumps, tactical maneuvers, docking (simplified),
self-destruction, very simple ground combat, very simple tactical
intelligence (you can tell he is loading weapons or you can’t), hidden
deployment (maybe as a scenario rule), anti-drones?, crew units, ship
separation, tugs and pods (cargo pods only), Legendary officers (two or
three of them), prime teams,
===============================
STAR FLEET CHALLENGER (New Races and their rules): Tholians, Lyrans,
Hydrans (hellbore, no fighters?), ISC, (Seltorians?)
===============================
STAR FLEET CHAOS (Rules it is probably best to leave out, or maybe put on
the web site): Electronic warfare, scout sensors, Andromedans (power
absorbers, TR beams, displacement devices), WYN, Jindarians, maulers,
whacky drones, advanced plasma torpedoes, erratic maneuvers, fighters, PFs,
Interceptors, bombers, MRS shuttles, SWACS, Wild Weasels, positron
flywheel, nimble ships, aegis, chain reactions, chaff, surprise, passive
fire control, catastrophic damage, energy balance, shock, crew quality,
cloak decoy, mid-turn speed changes.
Aaron
>
> There would be no historical timeline in the sense of progressing
> technology (slow drones, medium drones, fast drones, refits, etc.) but
> we might introduce this in one of the more advanced modules. For the
> base game, everything would be a single time and level of technology.
Yeah. No refits!
> Energy Allocation (a key element of SFB) would remain but would be
> handled by tokens rather than written records. You’d have a token for
> each point of power and just spend them as you want to do stuff. At the
> start of the turn, you’d have to pay for heavy weapons, but other than
> that, the warp engines become a huge pool of reserve power. There would
> be some limits on how much of that power you could use in one of the
> eight impulses.
I like tokens for power (only if the Enterprise has, say less than 15).
If the SSD boxes were big enough, you could handle allocation by placing
the token directly on the SSD. The plastic tokens from Mini Formula De
is what I have in mind. Make them blue so they can by "dilithium" units.
Print on the weapon itself the power required to use it. This has always
bugged me agout SFB SSDs.
Why even bother with the Warp/Impusle distinction?
> Movement system: Similar to SFB but with 8 impulses instead of 32. We
> will use "impulse power to move and warp power to fight" to be
> compatible with what modern trekkers expect to see.
I'd make movement to energy 1:1 just to make it simple. You could have a
simple row of Boxes with numbers. Filling in the boxes from left to
right with dilithium tokens will show what your ship's speed is.
> Combat system: Weapons would work the same as SFB (power cost, range,
> damage, die rolls, charts). We shall have a leaky shield rule (every
> 10th point?) which might vary with larger ships having more leaks. Need
> to simplify damage resolution, perhaps with a modified Damage Allocation
> Chart that allocates five or ten damage points to various systems with a
> single die roll. Firing arcs, damage repair, and shields would work as
> per SFB.
I kinda like the DAC. If ships have fewer SSD boxes and weapons do less
damage then damage allocation will automatically be faster. I stick with
my feeling that a Fed CA has about twice the number of boxes it should have.
> Note: we are fully aware that this means a radical change from SFB with
> slower ship speeds compared to weapons ranges. We don’t see a problem
> with a new dynamic. If playtesting says this isn’t working, we can cut
> weapon ranges down, but preliminary work says that this will better
> recreate what happened in TNG.
Redo all the weapon tables.
> We’d still have to check boxes on an SSD for damage.
I say make the SSD boxes bigger and use damage tokens to place on them.
> Races: Feds, Klingons, freighters, monsters.
I'd skip monsters and freighters. Esp. freighters. They are pretty
boring and meaningless.
Aaron
Keith Anderson
Challenger, Chaos versions just sound like movement toward SFB with the
accompanying difficulties.
The Commander/Captain versions would be almost sure purchases for me. But I
am a sucker for space combat games.
Thanks
"Stephen V Cole" <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote in message
news:403D2442...@starfleetgames.com...
David Damerell
>Some in that conversation in this topic a week ago wanted to go farther
>and have fewer impulses, easily energy allocation, and simplified
>damage allocation, three key SFB elements that eat up a lot of time
>(mostly as players agonize over every possible decision).
Another thing is secret and simultaneous declaration of this and that. I
suggest replacing that with an explicit me-too mechanic. Each impulse
where there are serious decisions to be made, each player in turn can
declare fire (for example) or pass (starting with a different player each
impulse, which in a 2-player game is as simple as being the odd-impulse
guy and the even-impulse guy), but fire declaration continues until all
but one player passes consecutively.
["All but one" so you can't just string out your fire one phaser at a
time. If you want to fire no matter what anyone else does, you've got to
declare it right away.]
This ordering on players should be used in reverse when SFB would demand a
secret and simultaneous movement choice. If I will be disadvantaged one
impulse by declaring fire first, I will also be advantaged by moving units
with like turn modes and speeds last.
This also lets a lot of impulse activity, movement aside, be rolled into
a very small number of decision points - perhaps even one. Of course this
loses some SFB subtleties - for example, I can fire seeking weapons in
response to your declared firing of DF weapons - but we already knew that
was going to happen. The SFB ordering could be preserved to some degree by
establishing, for instance, that seeking weapons could be targeted by
me-too fire of DF weapons on the impulse of launch, but not by me-too seeking
weapons - but personally I wouldn't bother.
Me, I'd have two decision points; one for "systems", like tractors and
transporters, and one for weapons. Then the Gorn Anchor still works -
probably with a proviso that a ship that's tractored in a given impulse
can cancel any systems activity it declared.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Aaron
> Star Fleet Commander/Captain sound VERY promising. The Commodore,
> Challenger, Chaos versions just sound like movement toward SFB with the
> accompanying difficulties.
I would prefer that their be only one set of rules without a bunch of
optional and advanced rules gumming up the works. That's the problem
with just buying the SFB Basic Set and using that. It seems that about
2/3 of the text just goes on and on about optional rules we don't use or
advanced rules we don't have. Pick one set and stick with it. This game
isn't for SFB players (I think) so it doesn't have to include everything
SFB does.
Aaron
Aaron
>
> Another thing is secret and simultaneous declaration of this and that. I
> suggest replacing that with an explicit me-too mechanic. Each impulse
> where there are serious decisions to be made, each player in turn can
> declare fire (for example) or pass (starting with a different player each
> impulse, which in a 2-player game is as simple as being the odd-impulse
> guy and the even-impulse guy), but fire declaration continues until all
> but one player passes consecutively.
While the simultaneous declaration and movement system is the best thing
going for SFB (at least in terms of tactical depth), it seems silly to
have a long drawn out procedure just to decide that no one does anything.
What other games have simultanteous movement? How do they handle it?
Aaron
Stephen V Cole
> I would prefer that their be only one set of rules without a bunch of
> optional and advanced rules gumming up the works. That's the problem
> with just buying the SFB Basic Set and using that. It seems that about
> 2/3 of the text just goes on and on about optional rules we don't use or
> advanced rules we don't have. Pick one set and stick with it. This game
> isn't for SFB players (I think) so it doesn't have to include everything
> SFB does.
But, it DOES have to include everything television does (cloaks,
transporters, tractor beams, shuttles) which is why it is structured the way
it is. Note that the "chaos" rules are marked that we won't actually publish
them, just give them to any SFB player who feels bored.
Stephen V Cole
> I like tokens for power (only if the Enterprise has, say less than 15).
Well, total power on an SFB cruiser is about 36, but then, you won't have
access to the ones allocated to movement, shields, fire control, life support,
or heavy weapons, so that should leave about 18.
> If the SSD boxes were big enough, you could handle allocation by placing
> the token directly on the SSD.
That is one option, but it has serious drawbacks. It takes up table space
meaning you could not play several ships. It also has a tendency to get bumped
and stuff slides around. We'll probably offer two or three damage marking
systems so that players can use whatever they think is handy. One system we
have tested basically gives you a little card (like, half a business card) for
everything on your ship and you "discard" the ones that have been destroyed.
That actually works better when you have several ships, and it has the
advantage that one sheet of "cards" covers ANY ship, while an SSD big enough to
put tokens on would be fairly big and expensive and you couldn't have very
many. With the "card" damage tracking system, you could "build" a ship of your
own design, as well. As noted, we may well provide "mark on the SSD" and one or
both of the other systems.
> Print on the weapon itself the power required to use it.
Now, there is an idea.
> Why even bother with the Warp/Impusle distinction?
Because TNG fans are convinced that even if Kirk did it, Picard could not be in
combat at warp power. The "distinction" is one used only (or mostly) for
movement. You set up speed (not much reason not to move at full speed) and then
use the "power that just happens to come from warp engines" (which is different
from the SFB system where certain things can only be done with power from
certain sources) for combat.
> I'd make movement to energy 1:1 just to make it simple.
Doesn't work. Frigates and destroyers have less power than cruisers and
dreadnoughts, and being smaller, need less power to move. A phaser on any of
the ships takes the same electricity but moving a 70,000 ton frigate and a
170,000 ton battlecruiser are not going to use the same electricity.
> I kinda like the DAC. If ships have fewer SSD boxes and weapons do less
> damage then damage allocation will automatically be faster. I stick with
> my feeling that a Fed CA has about twice the number of boxes it should have.
grouping things into fewer bigger boxes makes it hard to make the game work. It
gets "jaggies" and people want to use half of this with half of that. The whole
concept of rolling a die (or two) for every point of power is pretty much the
problem and "roll one die and use one of six lists of ten damage points" proves
to be incredibly fast and just about as "accurate".
> Redo all the weapon tables.
Almost certainly won't. They work fine and the tests show this to be the
solution. We may have to fiddle with ranges but we don't want to since we'd be
happy to sell Module R7 to a Star Fleet Commander player who can (with one page
of extra charts from the SFC rulebook) use any SSD in any SFB product.
> I'd skip monsters and freighters. Esp. freighters.
Players love monsters. Trekkers love monsters. Monsters were on TV. We will
have monsters.
Freighters will probably be limited to the type seen in the Iridima scenario
from Cadet training handbook. You have a counter that says "I am a convoy"
which moves at a fairly slow speed in a straight line. The Klingon/Orion/badguy
cruiser tries to score XXX damage points on it while the Fed/Goodguy cruiser
tries to shoo him away.
Stephen V Cole
> Another thing is secret and simultaneous declaration of this and that. I
> suggest replacing that with an explicit me-too mechanic.
I was going to use command cards (see Module A Plus) but that works too.
Stephen V Cole
1. SFB: multitude of rules. SFC Solution, fewer rules.
2. SFB: 32 impulses of agonizing decisions. SFC Solution, eliminate 75% of the
impulses. 8 will do nicely.
3. Energy allocation. SFB: agonizing decisions, hard to add up, hard to check,
easy to goof or cheat. SFC Solution, give them a "roll of nickels" and let them
spend them as they go
along. (Basically, a fed CA has 36 power. It sets aside 8 for photons, 2 for
shields, 2 for life support, 1 for fire control, 4 for movement, leaving 19 for
phasers, shield
reinforcement, tactical intelligence, labs, tractors, transporters. Pay as you
go.)
4. Damage allocation. SFB = roll 2 dies and consult full-page art for each
point. SFC solution, roll one die and consult quarter-page chart for 10 damage
points. (Might be a different
chart for each race.)
5. SFB Lot of things to keep records of. SFC eliminate anything we can and
record much of the rest with chips and tokens.
6. Recording damage. SFB mark on copies of SSD you photocopy yourself. SFC
Solution: several might be included. (1) Mark on SSDs. Game includes cheap
newsprint copies of SSDs,
or print copies from website pdfs. (2) a fairly big SSD with damage tokens of
some kind to mark damage (like we did on SFBF), disadvantage is table space and
"bumping the table".
Then again (3) include a sheet of perforated cards. Each card is one box on the
SSD. You select the cards that match your SSD (or design your own ship by
selecting so many cards)
and when you take a hit you lose the card, disadvantage, lots of fiddely bits
get easily lost, might not notice you did have a reactor card left.
Aaron
>
> One system we
> have tested basically gives you a little card (like, half a business card) for
> everything on your ship and you "discard" the ones that have been destroyed.
> That actually works better when you have several ships, and it has the
> advantage that one sheet of "cards" covers ANY ship, while an SSD big enough to
> put tokens on would be fairly big and expensive and you couldn't have very
> many. With the "card" damage tracking system, you could "build" a ship of your
> own design, as well. As noted, we may well provide "mark on the SSD" and one or
> both of the other systems.
I like this idea. Do you get 1 HULL card or 1 card with 12 HULL boxes?
>
>>I'd make movement to energy 1:1 just to make it simple.
>
> Doesn't work. Frigates and destroyers have less power than cruisers and
> dreadnoughts, and being smaller, need less power to move.
I mean make 1:1 the base cost for cruisers, adjusting stuff up and down
from there (just like SFB)
>
>>Redo all the weapon tables.
>
> Almost certainly won't. They work fine and the tests show this to be the
> solution. We may have to fiddle with ranges but we don't want to since we'd be
> happy to sell Module R7 to a Star Fleet Commander player who can (with one page
> of extra charts from the SFC rulebook) use any SSD in any SFB product.
Hmm. What I was thinking that if you only had 8 impulses, divide all the
weapon ranges by 4 so that the weapon ranges change proportionaly to the
max 8 move limit.
>>I'd skip monsters and freighters. Esp. freighters.
>
> Players love monsters. Trekkers love monsters. Monsters were on TV. We will
> have monsters.
Well, put all the special monster rules in the monster scenario rather
than refering to them constantly throughout the main rules. Like in the
ol' days.
Aaron
Jasper Phillips
>
>> I like tokens for power (only if the Enterprise has, say less than 15).
>
>Well, total power on an SFB cruiser is about 36, but then, you won't have
>access to the ones allocated to movement, shields, fire control, life support,
>or heavy weapons, so that should leave about 18.
Why not just cut out pointless things like Fire Control, Life Support, and
Shield Activation? These kinds of "nearly always done the same" details add
nothing interesting, yet still clutter the game.
IMHO it'd be much cleaner to handle them implicitly, for example by assuming
that these systems contain their own power supply.
>> If the SSD boxes were big enough, you could handle allocation by placing
>> the token directly on the SSD.
>That is one option, but it has serious drawbacks. It takes up table space
>meaning you could not play several ships. It also has a tendency to get
>bumped and stuff slides around.
This method works better for games with fewer boxes (Man O' War comes to
mind).
[snip description of card based system]
The card system sounds cool, although it makes setup a bit more of a pain;
but then you don't have to hunt down SSDs or worry about bumping the table.
Some other ideas are: plastic overlays and grease pens, or moving the boxes
towards the edges and using paperclips ala Deadlands.
>> Print on the weapon itself the power required to use it.
>
>Now, there is an idea.
Yes. Ideally the damage chart too, although that could be a pain.
>> Why even bother with the Warp/Impusle distinction?
>
>Because TNG fans are convinced that even if Kirk did it, Picard could not
>be in combat at warp power. The "distinction" is one used only (or mostly)
>for movement. You set up speed (not much reason not to move at full speed)
>and then use the "power that just happens to come from warp engines" (which
>is different from the SFB system where certain things can only be done with
>power from certain sources) for combat.
Hopefully you're keeping this as flavor text, as the warp/impulse/apr
distinction never added much IMHO.
>> I'd make movement to energy 1:1 just to make it simple.
>
>Doesn't work. Frigates and destroyers have less power than cruisers...
[snip]
I agree. Having one point of energy yield 2 points of movement for smaller
ships is pretty simple, IMHO.
>> I kinda like the DAC. If ships have fewer SSD boxes and weapons do less
>> damage then damage allocation will automatically be faster. I stick with
>> my feeling that a Fed CA has about twice the number of boxes it should
>> have.
>
>grouping things into fewer bigger boxes makes it hard to make the game
>work. It gets "jaggies" and people want to use half of this with half of
>that. The whole concept of rolling a die (or two) for every point of power
>is pretty much the problem and "roll one die and use one of six lists of
>ten damage points" proves to be incredibly fast and just about as
>"accurate".
This is still slow, as you need to seek and mark off each point. It's
definitely an improvement though. Do you plan to try to keep the Mizia
effect?
I always like the damage templates that Centurion, Interceptor, and Crimson
skies used for this. Probably too much effort to make work for SFB though.
>> Redo all the weapon tables.
>
>Almost certainly won't. They work fine and the tests show this to be the
>solution. We may have to fiddle with ranges but we don't want to since we'd
>be happy to sell Module R7 to a Star Fleet Commander player who can (with
>one page of extra charts from the SFC rulebook) use any SSD in any SFB
>product.
Having ships move further in one impulse would have a similar effect to
reducing ranges.
-Jasper
Christopher Dearlove
<jas...@a.shell.peak.org> writes
>In article <403E3B7C...@starfleetgames.com>,
>Stephen V Cole <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote:
>>Aaron wrote:
>>Well, total power on an SFB cruiser is about 36, but then, you won't have
>>access to the ones allocated to movement, shields, fire control, life support,
>>or heavy weapons, so that should leave about 18.
>
>Why not just cut out pointless things like Fire Control, Life Support, and
>Shield Activation? These kinds of "nearly always done the same" details add
>nothing interesting, yet still clutter the game.
I read Stephen Cole's comments as indicating that that's exactly what he
planned. It definitely seems the way to go.
In general I think that evolution (in design) towards simplicity is the
way
to go. If this means evolution away from SFB, so be it. (I appreciate
retaining the background is essential.) The one thing I'd have a strong
opinion on if I were consulted would be that if drones ever got
introduced they should only have two states: working or destroyed.
Damaged drones, and the bookkeeping they imply, is something
I wish SFB didn't have. SFA (or whatever) definitely not - IMO of
course.
I think if ADB could get it right they'd have an interesting product.
Get
it wrong (overcomplicated or unbalanced or whatever) and it would
disappear quickly. But I'm sure no one knows that better than they do.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Andrew B. Gross
"Christopher Dearlove" <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jyaWpkBe...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk...
> The one thing I'd have a strong
> opinion on if I were consulted would be that if drones ever got
IIRC, the reason for introducing drones to the SFB universe in the first
place had to do with the old technical manual schematics, which showed a
huge number of phasers in the rear arc of the Klingon ship. What were they
for? Must be point defense. Therefore, the Kzinti, a drone using race.
I am by no means a trekkie, I have not seen all of the TNG episodes, but at
one time or another I've probably seen all of the original series, and I
don't ever recall a battle in which missiles or drones were used.
If I had my druthers, they'd just be left out of a new, simplified product
altogether. They don't "feel" like Star Trek to me. I think they have very
little justification for inclusion in the game, and they slow things down to
boot.
And don't even get me started about fighters. They should have renamed the
game Battlestar Galactica when they introduced the first fighter into the
game-- it certainly didn't resemble the Star Trek franchise anymore at that
point.
Erich Schneider
> I am by no means a trekkie, I have not seen all of the TNG episodes, but at
> one time or another I've probably seen all of the original series, and I
> don't ever recall a battle in which missiles or drones were used.
The Enterprise NX-01 in the current series is armed with missles,
isn't it?
--
Erich Schneider er...@caltech.edu Caltech Information Technology Services
Erich Schneider
> What other games have simultanteous movement? How do they handle it?
Many wargames have had simultaneous movement, usually by writing down
movement plots. "Diplomacy" is probably the most widespread - everyone
writes down what all of their units will do (mostly "move to here" or
"support another unit's move to here"), then a resolution mechanic
handles units doing incompatible things.
In SPI's StarSoldier your units had a certain number of action points,
and you plotted what you wanted to do with them, including both
movement and firing.
Morgan Vening
wrote:
>Aaron <akk...@XXcyberramp.net> writes:
>
>> What other games have simultanteous movement? How do they handle it?
>
>Many wargames have had simultaneous movement, usually by writing down
>movement plots. "Diplomacy" is probably the most widespread - everyone
>writes down what all of their units will do (mostly "move to here" or
>"support another unit's move to here"), then a resolution mechanic
>handles units doing incompatible things.
>
>In SPI's StarSoldier your units had a certain number of action points,
>and you plotted what you wanted to do with them, including both
>movement and firing.
Just a suggestion from my aborted attempt at making a SFB-esque game,
was for simultaneous movement to use cards. Depending on the
complexity needed, you have a certain amount of cards for movement,
and a certain amount for fire.
Simplistic Version - 1 set per ship
1 Move Forward
1 Turn Left
1 Turn Right
2 Fire Nothing
1 Fire Light
1 Fire Heavy
For each ship, play face down 1 Movement card, and 2 Fire cards. After
'declarations', reveal and play as appropriate. Obviously, this can be
increased to the desired level of complication.
Morgan Vening
David Damerell
>will use "impulse power to move and warp power to fight" to be
>compatible with what modern trekkers expect to see.
I don't like this. Firstly, modern Trek isn't even consistent about it.
Secondly, the set of people who both know and care is much, much smaller
than the set of people who recognise Federation ships and might buy games
with them on the cover. Thirdly, this _isn't_ Trek's model - although
maneuvering is done under impulse, power is generated by the "warp core"
whichever set of engines is being used, which does not often degrade
gradually in performance - ie, the modern Trek model just _can't_ be like
SFB, and probably isn't good for a game where power is vital and damage
allocation gradually degrades capabilities.
I'd stick with the regular system; it also means that more of SFB's
balance can be kept.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Aaron
>
> Simplistic Version - 1 set per ship
> 1 Move Forward
> 1 Turn Left
> 1 Turn Right
> 2 Fire Nothing
> 1 Fire Light
> 1 Fire Heavy
>
> For each ship, play face down 1 Movement card, and 2 Fire cards. After
> 'declarations', reveal and play as appropriate. Obviously, this can be
> increased to the desired level of complication.
Doesn't the new Crimson Skies do something similar although you can move
more than one hex per movement? I'm remembering Blue Max which is kinda
pre-plotted. I always thought that Blue Max would work well with
movement cards to eliminate the bookkeeping. In that game movement is up
to about 4 hexes per turn.
Aaron
Stephen V Cole
> IIRC, the reason for introducing drones to the SFB universe in the first
> place had to do with the old technical manual schematics, which showed a
> huge number of phasers in the rear arc of the Klingon ship. What were they
> for? Must be point defense. Therefore, the Kzinti, a drone using race.
Actually, the "official" Klingon blueprints had missile launchers and described
the use of "drone missiles" for the delivery of nuclear warheads. It was never
on the screen, but as a GAME we found that seeking weapons were the one and
only way to influence enemy movement and I doubt SFB would have been a 24-year
success story without seeking weapons to create that dynamic.
> And don't even get me started about fighters. it certainly didn't resemble
> the Star Trek franchise anymore at that point.
Funny thing is, after we did it, Paramount starting putting fighters into the
novels.
Stephen V Cole
> I don't like this. Firstly, modern Trek isn't even consistent about it.
TNG was, but then TOS said you fight at warp.
> Secondly, the set of people who both know and care is much, much smaller
> than the set of people who recognise Federation ships and might buy games
> with them on the cover.
Sadly, that's not the case, and we've had no end of grief trying to recruit
TNG fans, any of them, due to the warp-vs-impulse argument.
> Thirdly, this _isn't_ Trek's model - although
> maneuvering is done under impulse, power is generated by the "warp core"
> whichever set of engines is being used,
Well, actually, the warp core is just the central drive of the warp engines,
which is where 30 of the 36 points of power comes from. And it has been
noted as degrading in combat when the nacelles are damaged, so we are indeed
using trek's model (well, one of them, the most recent).
David Damerell
[drones]
>If I had my druthers, they'd just be left out of a new, simplified product
>altogether. They don't "feel" like Star Trek to me. I think they have very
>little justification for inclusion in the game,
Alas, gameplay is their justification. "Artificial terrain" is very
important in space wargames that usually have little real terrain.
David Damerell
>>I don't like this. Firstly, modern Trek isn't even consistent about it.
>TNG was, but then TOS said you fight at warp.
TNG isn't; they've engaged the Borg cube in a straight warp race.
[They ought to have turned around and used the Kaufmann Retrograde.]
I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't watch that much Trek.
>>Secondly, the set of people who both know and care is much, much smaller
>>than the set of people who recognise Federation ships and might buy games
>>with them on the cover.
>Sadly, that's not the case, and we've had no end of grief trying to recruit
>TNG fans, any of them, due to the warp-vs-impulse argument.
I guess you know better than me, although it seems remarkable.
>>Thirdly, this _isn't_ Trek's model - although
>>maneuvering is done under impulse, power is generated by the "warp core"
>>whichever set of engines is being used,
>Well, actually, the warp core is just the central drive of the warp engines,
>which is where 30 of the 36 points of power comes from. And it has been
>noted as degrading in combat when the nacelles are damaged, so we are indeed
>using trek's model (well, one of them, the most recent).
We can only wonder why starships are so badly engineered, then, given that
a ship that drops its engines (in SFB) loses all the power even though (by
this reasoning) it still has the warp core. :-)
Eric the Seehawk
"Stephen V Cole" <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote ...
> A week or so ago, there was a discussion of this concept. As I'm the guy
> who designed and owns and publishes SFB, I commented that what was being
> called for by some already existed by simply buying BASIC SET and
> stopping at the basic rules.
As the guy that started that thread (really, go look!) I guess I should
chime in here too.
> (I did not mention at the time, but it is
> true, that at the GAMA show every year I hear a hundred stores saying
> "go back to the pocket game SFB and we'll sell a ton of them!" and I
> never really believed them since the players could buy basic set and
> leave out half of the rules.)
>
I don't doubt that for a moment. I was the manager of a game store in south
florida for several years in the late 80s/early 90s and I know that sales
dropped every time the game was expanded. I doubt that's true on a larger
scale or you would have stopped doing it :-) but it's true from my selling
and playing experiance.
>
> STAR FLEET COMMANDER (Basic Rules)
>
I'll refrain from a point-by-point commentary because it would be almost
universally to say "perfect!". Instead I'll play the ugly american and
comment on only what I don't like. Unfortunately that means my post may
come off as negative but honestly its not intended to be. What you describe
is nearly EXACTLY what I was hoping for when I started the conversation last
week.
>
> Energy Allocation (a key element of SFB) would remain but would be
> handled by tokens rather than written records.
Quick comment to say this is a great idea. This alone will shave an hour
off each game.
>
> Combat system: Weapons would work the same as SFB (power cost, range,
> damage, die rolls, charts). We shall have a leaky shield rule (every
> 10th point?) which might vary with larger ships having more leaks. Need
> to simplify damage resolution, perhaps with a modified Damage Allocation
> Chart that allocates five or ten damage points to various systems with a
> single die roll. Firing arcs, damage repair, and shields would work as
> per SFB.
>
My comment, actually my suggestion, has to do with shields.
I think you should get away from the "big mess o' check boxes" representing
shields and go to a more elegant and dynamic system that would actually be
related to the energy allocation system you suggest.
Each ship would have a shield rating, probably in the range of 1-10. That
rating is the maximum amount of power you can put to shields. Players would
literally take energy tokens and place them in a shield box (or pile). Any
weapon attack that does less damage than the current shield power does no
damage (wasn't strong enough to get through the shields). Any attack that
does damage greater than current shield strength does damage to the ship
equal to the weapon's damage less the current shield strength.
Note that this is for each individual weapon. If a ship's current shield
strength is 3 and it's hit with two phasers in a single impluse, one for
5pts and the other for 2, the 2 damage hit is completely blocked. The 5
damage hit causes 2 damage to the ship.
Wait, here's the good part; any hit that does damage equal to at least HALF
the current shield strength decreases the shield by 1 point. This makes it
possible to "wear down" a ship's defenses over the course of a turn, but
allows the ship to divert power back to the shields after each turn (an
alternate idea is that ANY hit degrades the strength by 1 which would make
for a more deadly, but less math oriented, engagement).
The pros of this system (IMHO) is that it models shield reinforcement by
allowing players to put as little or as much energy into them with one
calculation. No more general vs specific reinforcement. It also allows for
damage to be done to a ship right from turn 1 (ala leaky shields) without
completely stripping a ship's defense in the later portions of the game. I
think it achieves exactly what this new game sets out to do; model SFB
without getting bogged down in too much record keeping.
I'm unsure of the ratio of ship's power to systems so the simple 1-for-1
energy token for shield strength may need to be adjusted. It could be as
simple as having each point of shield strength costing more, or less,
energy. It could even be different for different ships (since shielding a
CC would take more energy then shielding a FF). You already scale movement
energy to ship size so scaling shield energy shouldn't be too difficult
(heck, maybe they could be the same number).
Note that the above works on the assumption that directional shielding
wouldn't be used. There would be 1 shield rating for all 6 sides. But if
directional shielding is preferred it would be as simple as having 6 boxes,
1 for each facing. If you wanted to keep the concepts of general and
specific reinforcment you could have 7 boxes...6 facings and a general
shield.
Anyway, I think you see where I'm going with this. Dynamic shield ratings
that can fluctuate each turn and is directly linked to the proposed energy
token system. Heck, you could even make it dynamic within a turn allowing
players to add unallocated energy to shields during the turn, provided the
strength doesn't go above the maximum shield rating.
Overall the proposed game sounds VERY promising and is exactly what I was
looking for when I opened up this whole can of worms last week. I'd be very
interested to see where this goes....
Eric
The Seehawk
Chris Camfield
>"Andrew B. Gross" <andr...@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>> I am by no means a trekkie, I have not seen all of the TNG episodes, but at
>> one time or another I've probably seen all of the original series, and I
>> don't ever recall a battle in which missiles or drones were used.
>
>The Enterprise NX-01 in the current series is armed with missles,
>isn't it?
Nope. "Phase cannons" and photon torpedos, as I recall.
Chris
Scott Hedrick
"Chris Camfield" <ccam...@DELETEMEemail.com> wrote in message
news:oedv30hli263s6o24...@4ax.com...
Check first season- torpedoes were missiles. It looks as if they are still
aboard as a backup to the photon torpedoes.
Stephen V Cole
> We can only wonder why starships are so badly engineered, then, given that
> a ship that drops its engines (in SFB) loses all the power even though (by
> this reasoning) it still has the warp core. :-)
Well, first, it doesn't lose all its power just all the warp power, and
secondly, it takes both the warp core and warp nacelles to produce power.
Scott Hedrick
Haven't played SFB for a few years. Used to be a playtester. Got my butt
waxed thoroughly by a rated player using what was supposed to a thoroughly
inadequate ship.
I'd welcome Star Fleet Battles Lite.
Keith Anderson
"Stephen V Cole" <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote in message
news:403E3879...@starfleetgames.com...
Its great to include them if you can do so without violating your stated
goal of Star Fleet Battles Lite. But if each rule and book keeps adding
complexity you could loose what you are trying to achieve.
I would also "prefer that their be only one set of rules without a bunch of
optional and advanced rules gumming up the works". Some drawbacks to
multiple rulebooks/optional rules/advanced rules:
1) Playing without all of the rules in all of the books feels like you're
missing out on portions of the game. However, to include all rules requires
either that all players have acquired and learned all of the rules from all
of the books or MUCH extra teaching time.
2) If rules from later books modify rules from earlier books players get
into that discussion of:
Player A "no you're wrong that rule was modified in book 2"
Player B "only if using those optional rules"
Player C "that rule is deleted book 3":.
3) I like to purchase complete games. Multiple rule books with add-on rules
and options feels to much like a CCG. But then again, I guess that from a
marketing/financial perspective CCGs are quite attractive.
Please note that I am VERY interested in the game that you describe.
Jason E. Schaff
SFB lite:
1. Overall this sound like a really neat set of ideas, and something I
would definitely be interested in purchasing. Please keep this in mind
as you read the comments below: my overall reaction is extremely positive.
Now for the necessary "yes, but" comments:
2. The proposed product line still sounds like too many pieces to buy
if you want something that will draw a significantly higher sales volume
than standard SFB. I would recommend limiting the game to two parts:
The first would be a combination of "Star Fleet Commander" and "Star
Fleet Captain" minus freighters, sideslips, critical hits, Orions, and
perhaps mines. This product would focus strictly on basic one ship vs
one ship combat (move dreadnoughts and specialist ships to the 2nd
half). The second product would combine "Star Fleet Commodore" with the
excised rules above, and add bases and, possibly, the Tholians. This
would be aimed at expanding the system to cover small squadron-level
actions.
3. I would strongly recommend dropping the Lyrans, Hydrans, and ISC
from the proposed product. I have very serious doubts that the Hydrans
could be made to work without fighters and still remain the Hydrans we
know and love. Without the Hydrans, the Lyrans seriously unbalance the
strategic situation on the "West" side of the galaxy. Also, I suspect
the hard-core Trekkers you seem to be aiming the product towards might
be turned off by the inclusion of these "ahistorical" powers.
4. The impulse for movement, warp for fight power dynamic sounds like a
good idea, but You will need to be VERY careful in terms of how the DAC
is constructed. It would be very easy to end up with a damage system
that results in a bunch of immobile "pillboxes" with significant combat
power slugging it out: not a very fun gaming experience.
5. Based on (4), I would recommend keeping a 2d6, rather than 1d6,
based DAC. The roll once, read across for a group of ten hits idea
sounds good, and would significantly reduce the die rolls necessary to
allocate damage. I think you will find a DAC with unequal distributions
for the different rows necessary in order to protect key systems from
being destroyed too easily. (especially the now critical impulse engines)
And a few "Keep it as you suggested: don't listen to those other
voices." :-) comments:
6. Please keep the traditional SSDs. The "coin" or "deck of cards"
systems proposed by others in this thread would, IMHO, simply come
across as kludgey. Personally, I would favor web-printable SSD's over
newsprint folios, as a solution to the one-use SSD "problem".
7. Please keep monsters and (in the 2nd half of the product)
freighters. Monsters provide a basis for some of the classic SFB
scenarios and are a key component of most scenarios designed for
solitaire play. Freighters are a key "raison d'etre" for the Orions,
and create scenarios where players are pretty much forced to go in close
for the kill.
8. Don't allow "me-too" move and fire decisions. Your idea for using
the battle / command cards system sounds to me like the best way to
avoid this well maintaining speed of play.
9. I would recommend pretty much leaving shield as they are now (minus
damage control, and with the possible inclusion of "leaky" shields).
Some of the proposals in this thread would so radically alter shields as
to severely divorce the game from its SFB roots.
Again, your basic concept sounds like a great idea, and the basis for a
very fun game that is still a "true" SFB product. Best of luck in the
development.
As ever, just my $0.02.
--
Jason E. Schaff
"You can wash a pig as often as you like, but it will still wallow in
the mud."
--Russian Proverb
Stephen V Cole
> my overall reaction is extremely positive.
> necessary "yes, but" comments:
>
> 2. The proposed product line still sounds like too many pieces to buy
> if you want something that will draw a significantly higher sales volume
> than standard SFB.
Well, yes, and no. first, the list given is rules levels, not specific
products. Not sure if it would be two, or four, or what number of products.
> 3. I would strongly recommend dropping the Lyrans, Hydrans, and ISC
> from the proposed product.
Probably cannot do that as we need to maintain interest for the SFB crowd. It
is, however, fairly easy to shuffle these into an expansion that pure-trekkers
can ignore. Hydran hellbore ships work fine without fighters and we do have a
rule to handle fighters for the Hydrans that might or might not survive
playtesting.
> 4. The impulse for movement, warp for fight power dynamic sounds like a
> good idea, but You will need to be VERY careful in terms of how the DAC
> is constructed.
This is good advice, although we did already think of it.
> 5. Based on (4), I would recommend keeping a 2d6, rather than 1d6,
> based DAC.
It really doesn't matter whether we use 1d6 or 2d6; #4 will work either way.
The point is to correctly allocate power, weapon, and other hits within the
overall groups. A 2d6 system could actually be worse as it would have (on the
2 and 12 row) a fairly wierd set of possibilities and if you got those twice
in a row you'd be toast.
> 6. Please keep the traditional SSDs. The "coin" or "deck of cards"
> systems proposed by others in this thread would, IMHO, simply come
> across as kludgey.
As I said, the traditional SSD thing will be the primary system. The other
systems will be available for those who want them. Indeed, the "chit" system
could be marketed as a "design your own ship" system.
> 7. Please keep monsters and (in the 2nd half of the product)
> freighters. Monsters provide a basis for some of the classic SFB
> scenarios and are a key component of most scenarios designed for
> solitaire play. Freighters are a key "raison d'etre" for the Orions,
> and create scenarios where players are pretty much forced to go in close
> for the kill.
Concur, and of course as you noted, I already said we'd do this and for the
reasons you gave.
> 8. Don't allow "me-too" move and fire decisions. Your idea for using
> the battle / command cards system sounds to me like the best way to
> avoid this well maintaining speed of play.
I would suppose if somebody wanted to use "me too" he could, and I wouldn't be
any the wiser.
> 9. I would recommend pretty much leaving shield as they are now (minus
> damage control, and with the possible inclusion of "leaky" shields).
That is the plan.
If I can just finish everything scheduled for March, April, and May, there is
a good chance I could work on this thing.
Dave Butler
>"Jason E. Schaff" wrote:
>> 5. Based on (4), I would recommend keeping a 2d6, rather than 1d6,
>> based DAC.
>It really doesn't matter whether we use 1d6 or 2d6; #4 will work either
>way. The point is to correctly allocate power, weapon, and other hits
>within the overall groups. A 2d6 system could actually be worse as it
>would have (on the 2 and 12 row) a fairly wierd set of possibilities
>and if you got those twice in a row you'd be toast.
How about using 1d6 for the row (as per proposal) and 2d6 for the
depth (instead of the proposed five or ten)?
The weak shots (>6 points) would generally still be resolved by one
roll, but you'd be able to hide the "more protected" systems deeper
in the chart. I'm not certain whether people will like the removal
of the "lucky ont point bridge hit", but you're talking about some
significant changes *anyway*....
I suppose the subtraction is slightly more difficult, not involving
a constant and all, but is that going to be a problem for the target
market?
(I've seen no discussion on how destroyed systems interact with the
proposed new DAC. What happens when the first listed system of the
five or ten no longer exists?)
--
--DcB
Scott Hedrick
"Stephen V Cole" <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote in message
news:40424C15...@starfleetgames.com...
>we do have a
> rule to handle fighters for the Hydrans that might or might not survive
> playtesting.
Have you considered treating them like smart drones?
Erich Schneider
> 8. Don't allow "me-too" move and fire decisions. Your idea for using
> the battle / command cards system sounds to me like the best way to
> avoid this well maintaining speed of play.
Why not do what many other games do and have a roll for "initiative"
to determine which side gets the right to say "me too" at each
decision point that turn. In fact, you could modify this by the number
of surviving lab boxes on each side, which would create another useful
role for labs.
Erich Schneider
The canonical explanation of how this works is roughly as follows: the
matter-antimatter reaction occurs in the warp core, and power is then
fed to the warp field generators, which are in the nacelles, producing
FTL travel.
In the TOS Enterprise, the antimatter was stored in the nacelles as
well, so that in case of some kind of containment failure the
antimatter could be gotten rid of easily (by getting rid of the
nacelles). However, the reaction itself happened in the "engine room",
where Mr. Scott is always seen hanging out. Power was then piped back
to the nacelles for warp field generation.
The refit that produced the TOS movies Enterprise moved the antimatter
storage into the secondary hull and left the nacelles as strictly
propulsion field elements. The explanation is that this was more
efficient in terms of providing power to shipboard systems, and that a
method of "warp core ejection" was developed that still allowed the
safety margin. The TNG Enterprise has this arrangement as well, which
is why they talk about "warp core ejection" and not dropping the
nacelles.
David Damerell
>Check first season- torpedoes were missiles. It looks as if they are still
>aboard as a backup to the photon torpedoes.
Indeed in the sixth movie photon torpedoes are obviously seeking weapons,
albeit very high-speed ones. This fits in with the general submarine
ambience, I guess.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
David Damerell
>Why not do what many other games do and have a roll for "initiative"
>to determine which side gets the right to say "me too" at each
>decision point that turn.
Remember that my proposed me-too system gives both sides that right if the
other one fires, so it's not quite as uneven as you might think. If I only
will want to fire if the other side fires, I can say "no fire" if it's me
to declare first, giving me the same ability as the side that declares
second.
David Damerell
>"Jason E. Schaff" wrote:
>>8. Don't allow "me-too" move and fire decisions. Your idea for using
>>the battle / command cards system sounds to me like the best way to
>>avoid this well maintaining speed of play.
>I would suppose if somebody wanted to use "me too" he could,
>and I wouldn't be any the wiser.
You will if we tell you. We used it in hidden-objective "who is my ally"
diplomatic scenarios, because otherwise ships open up on each other just
out of sheer paranoia (which is good in moderation, but of course even
with me-too fire ships still have to maneuver paranoidly) and the scenario
is lost in a melee.
I'd _seriously_ consider it for movement; there are few occasions where
movement is secret and simultaneous, but when it is it otherwise will be
S&S on every impulse in a given turn (especially since I presume SFBLite
will have no mid-turn speed changes).
>>9. I would recommend pretty much leaving shield as they are now (minus
>>damage control, and with the possible inclusion of "leaky" shields).
>That is the plan.
I love crossing off those shield boxes, so I won't complain.
Stephen V Cole
Scott Hedrick wrote:
Not really, since they don't operate that way, or work that way. Current
theory is to put all of the fighters into one counter and just check off
damage on a little chart thingie.
Stephen V Cole
Dave Butler wrote:
> How about using 1d6 for the row (as per proposal) and 2d6 for the
> depth (instead of the proposed five or ten)?
Seems overly complicated.
> I suppose the subtraction is slightly more difficult, not involving
> a constant and all, but is that going to be a problem for the target
> market?
Well, what is the target market? SFB players, ex-SFB players, Trekkers who
play games, Trekkers who don't play games, All of the above. Certainly,
"slightly more difficult" starts cutting out the last two groups and they
have 10 and 100 times the size of the first two.
> (I've seen no discussion on how destroyed systems interact with the
> proposed new DAC. What happens when the first listed system of the
> five or ten no longer exists?)
I have answered this before. You just skip it. If you don't have tractors,
then that "list of ten" only resolves 9 of those 43 internals from the last
volley, leaving 34 to resolve.
Stephen V Cole
> "me-too" move and fire decisions.
>
> Why not do what many other games do and have a roll for "initiative"
> to determine which side gets the right to say "me too" at each
> decision point that turn. In fact, you could modify this by the number
> of surviving lab boxes on each side, which would create another useful
> role for labs.
I guess it's just me, but I really hate initiative die rolls and drawing
swords with numbers on them and that sort of thing. But beyond that, it has a
place in certain broad-theater games where a turn reflects a month and
somebody might steal a march, but in a game where a turn is a minute and an
impulse is a few seconds, it's iffy and tends to turn the game into a
crapshoot. In some cases, once you decide who has initiative, you decided who
won. Even so, I guess it could be done as an optional rule.
Richard Bell
Stephen V Cole <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote:
>Aaron wrote:
>
>> Why even bother with the Warp/Impusle distinction?
>
>Because TNG fans are convinced that even if Kirk did it, Picard could not be in
>combat at warp power. The "distinction" is one used only (or mostly) for
>movement. You set up speed (not much reason not to move at full speed) and then
>use the "power that just happens to come from warp engines" (which is different
>from the SFB system where certain things can only be done with power from
>certain sources) for combat.
This is a prime example of how the "technology" in a science fiction TV show
is limited by the available effects. Combat in Star Trek took place at
very long ranges and very high speeds to provide an excuse to not have both
combatants in the same shot. the only time we ever see multiple ships in a
single shot of TOS is when they are not moving in relation to each other, or
only at very slow speeds. Computer generated eye-candy allowed TNG to put
as many ships in a shot as desired, so combat went from long range sabre dances
to barroom brawls.
Richard Bell
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Scott Hedrick <din...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Check first season- torpedoes were missiles. It looks as if they are still
>>aboard as a backup to the photon torpedoes.
>
>Indeed in the sixth movie photon torpedoes are obviously seeking weapons,
>albeit very high-speed ones. This fits in with the general submarine
>ambience, I guess.
In ST:TOS, all we ever learn about photon torpedoes is that they are not
phasers. We learn that they are self powered projectiles in "Wrath of Khan",
when Spock's corpse is delivered to the Genesis planet in a modified torpedo
casing.
Richard Bell
Jasper Phillips <jas...@a.shell.peak.org> wrote:
>In article <403E3B7C...@starfleetgames.com>,
>Stephen V Cole <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote:
>
>towards the edges and using paperclips ala Deadlands.
My copy of the "Designer's Edition" of SFB includes two page protectors and
two grease pencils.
>
>>
>>grouping things into fewer bigger boxes makes it hard to make the game
>>work. It gets "jaggies" and people want to use half of this with half of
>>that. The whole concept of rolling a die (or two) for every point of power
>>is pretty much the problem and "roll one die and use one of six lists of
>>ten damage points" proves to be incredibly fast and just about as
>>"accurate".
>
>This is still slow, as you need to seek and mark off each point. It's
>definitely an improvement though. Do you plan to try to keep the Mizia
>effect?
The Mizia effect was the worst example of unintended consequences in the
entire SFB system. It may only be my opinion, but I *thought* that the
whole point of bold entries of the DAC were to reduce the potential for a
ship to rendered a toothless, powerless target; unless, it had been pounded
most of the way to oblivion. The Mizia effect can sandblast the weapons off
a smaller combatant with almost as little violence as NVC, but with far
greater reliability.
>
>I always like the damage templates that Centurion, Interceptor, and Crimson
>skies used for this. Probably too much effort to make work for SFB though.
The templates seemed to work best for FASA's RL:CENTURION, where different
weapons had significantly different effects. Porting this to SFBlite would
lose the ability to migrate between lite and Doomsday, as there would be
no parallels between the SSD's.
Richard Bell
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Stephen V Cole <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote:
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>I don't like this. Firstly, modern Trek isn't even consistent about it.
>>TNG was, but then TOS said you fight at warp.
>
>TNG isn't; they've engaged the Borg cube in a straight warp race.
The writers of ST:TNG have never let their muse be fettered by such
limiting constraints as the "canonical tech guide", or whatever the
collected tech notes given to the writers is called.
The tech notes delineate many things that are not allowed (like sending
anti-matter through the transporter), but it is routinely overruled, if
the writer's storyline needs a particular deus ex machina [Or why the
technology of B5 is so less grating, it always does the same thing, in any
episode where it shows up].
>
>[They ought to have turned around and used the Kaufmann Retrograde.]
>
>I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't watch that much Trek.
>
>>>Secondly, the set of people who both know and care is much, much smaller
>>>than the set of people who recognise Federation ships and might buy games
>>>with them on the cover.
>>Sadly, that's not the case, and we've had no end of grief trying to recruit
>>TNG fans, any of them, due to the warp-vs-impulse argument.
>
>I guess you know better than me, although it seems remarkable.
>
>>>Thirdly, this _isn't_ Trek's model - although
>>>maneuvering is done under impulse, power is generated by the "warp core"
>>>whichever set of engines is being used,
>>Well, actually, the warp core is just the central drive of the warp engines,
>>which is where 30 of the 36 points of power comes from. And it has been
>>noted as degrading in combat when the nacelles are damaged, so we are indeed
>>using trek's model (well, one of them, the most recent).
>
>We can only wonder why starships are so badly engineered, then, given that
>a ship that drops its engines (in SFB) loses all the power even though (by
>this reasoning) it still has the warp core. :-)
I suspect that the warp engines and the warp drives are two seperate entities.
The warp engines supply the power necessary to operate the warp drive. The
SSD's put the boxes for the warp engines in the warp drive nacelles to reduce
the number of DAC entries, and that there is 'room' for warp engine boxes
in the warp nacelles. If you really felt like it, you could seperate the two
systems. The warp engine hits could be allocated to the nacelles, and the
actual warp engines are hit on the APR entry (or you could redesign the DAC
to hit both). Warp drive hits reduce maximum speed and warp engine hits
reduce maximum power. However, combining both entities into one simplifies
things, and SFB is a GAME, not a SIMULATION.
Erich Schneider
> The Mizia effect was the worst example of unintended consequences in the
> entire SFB system.
So IYHO how do the consequences of the changes due to the widespread
adoption of free movement rate?
Jasper Phillips
Richard Bell <rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <c1lkh9$ia$1...@a.shell.peak.org>,
>Jasper Phillips <jas...@a.shell.peak.org> wrote:
>>In article <403E3B7C...@starfleetgames.com>,
>>Stephen V Cole <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote:
>>
>>Some other ideas are: plastic overlays and grease pens, or moving the boxes
>>towards the edges and using paperclips ala Deadlands.
>
>My copy of the "Designer's Edition" of SFB includes two page protectors and
>two grease pencils.
Definitely the way to go!
>>This is still slow, as you need to seek and mark off each point. It's
>>definitely an improvement though. Do you plan to try to keep the Mizia
>>effect?
>
>The Mizia effect was the worst example of unintended consequences in the
>entire SFB system. It may only be my opinion, but I *thought* that the
>whole point of bold entries of the DAC were to reduce the potential for a
>ship to rendered a toothless, powerless target; unless, it had been pounded
>most of the way to oblivion. The Mizia effect can sandblast the weapons off
>a smaller combatant with almost as little violence as NVC, but with far
>greater reliability.
Good to hear! I always thought the Mizia effect was too "gamey", making
the bold systems more vulnerable when they should be less vulnerable.
>>I always like the damage templates that Centurion, Interceptor, and Crimson
>>skies used for this. Probably too much effort to make work for SFB though.
>
>The templates seemed to work best for FASA's RL:CENTURION, where different
>weapons had significantly different effects. Porting this to SFBlite would
>lose the ability to migrate between lite and Doomsday, as there would be
>no parallels between the SSD's.
True, and it's probably not a good idea. Porting between the different
versions is of no interest to me, although I can see why it's important to
you! I'd consider a faster playing SFB with most of the features to be
superior to the original, and would never go back.
-Jasper
Dweeb
>
> In ST:TOS, all we ever learn about photon torpedoes is that they are
> not phasers. We learn that they are self powered projectiles in
> "Wrath of Khan", when Spock's corpse is delivered to the Genesis
> planet in a modified torpedo casing.
>
And then in TNG we learn that they are made purely of energy...sometimes.
Richard Bell
Erich Schneider <er...@caltech.edu> wrote:
>rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) writes:
>
>> The Mizia effect was the worst example of unintended consequences in the
>> entire SFB system.
>
>So IYHO how do the consequences of the changes due to the widespread
>adoption of free movement rate?
>
faster. The mizia effect makes three p-3's at range one to be more effective
than a p-4 (once sheilds are down). A quick fix against the Mizia is to add
another row to the DAC before the first one, but with fewer weapons, and all
bold. A small volley still can cause the "golden BB" effect of a lone hit
damaging something vital, but it no longer dominates tactical doctrine.
For better or for worse, plotted movement simply felt wrong.
Scott Hedrick
"Richard Bell" <rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:c1vrav$p6n$4...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> The writers of ST:TNG have never let their muse be fettered by such
> limiting constraints as the "canonical tech guide", or whatever the
> collected tech notes given to the writers is called.
As I recall, there's even a footnote in the TNG Tech Manual that *says*
this.
Changing the rules for dramatic effect pisses me off.
Erich Schneider
> In article <swp65do...@caltech.edu>,
> Erich Schneider <er...@caltech.edu> wrote:
> >rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) writes:
> >
> >> The Mizia effect was the worst example of unintended consequences in the
> >> entire SFB system.
> >
> >So IYHO how do the consequences of the changes due to the widespread
> >adoption of free movement rate?
> >
> If I recall correctly, free movement was intended to make play easier, not
> faster.
It's my understanding that the switch from plotted to free movement
caused most high-level players to almost completely abandon shield
reinforcement in favor of moving faster (i.e. "speed is life").
Everyone moving faster causes other effects (e.g. speed 8 drones
become far less useful).
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Problems and solutions
>
> 1. SFB: multitude of rules. SFC Solution, fewer rules.
Two sorts of rules to consider here - the complexity rules be they ECM,
scenery, mid turn speed changes, plotted vs unplotted movement and so on
against the variety rules which essentially are race specific tech.
Lose too much of the second type and you lose the flavour of the races.
Decide carefully what is required to make each race unique and pare down
carefully and you can lose a lot of rules - make all disruptors the same
by removing DERFACS and refit changes for instance works, you still have a
heavy weapon that fire rapidly compared to others.
> 2. SFB: 32 impulses of agonizing decisions. SFC Solution, eliminate 75% of the
> impulses. 8 will do nicely.
Cards for the decisions....once someone lays a card others tend to trip
into position - we did this and included a 'do nothing' card. It was
amazing how quickly people made decisions then. But cutting the impulse
per turn count will make things useful...how will you do movement -
multiple hexes per impulse a la high speed car wars or cut speeds back?
> 3. Energy allocation. SFB: agonizing decisions, hard to add up, hard to check,
> easy to goof or cheat. SFC Solution, give them a "roll of nickels" and let them
A fistful of things here can go - I can remember on one hand the number of
games where FC, Life Support, shields raise etc made a difference. You
could ditch reserve power and give minimal lab capacity tac intel as
random rolls if you wanted and assume these things into damage rolls as
well for basic energy management.
A pool for deciding what else to do would work....ie overload or
reinforce, accelerate or manoeuvre etc etc.
> 4. Damage allocation. SFB = roll 2 dies and consult full-page art for each
> point. SFC solution, roll one die and consult quarter-page chart for 10 damage
> points. (Might be a different
> chart for each race.)
Could you use a different dice...a D12 perhaps, lose the once per volley
hits and just make such hit locations rare on the chart.....work down a
column could still work here.
> 5. SFB Lot of things to keep records of. SFC eliminate anything we can and
> record much of the rest with chips and tokens.
This might get crowded - Ive seen others say it and I tend to agree. Some
form of reuseable greasepen/dry wipe etc seems better.
> 6. Recording damage. SFB mark on copies of SSD you photocopy yourself. SFC
> Solution: several might be included. (1) Mark on SSDs. Game includes cheap
> newsprint copies of SSDs,
Plastic pockets - ideally a standard size and design so they can trot to
stationers to buy replacements. Fit SSDs inside. Give em half a dozen to
play with - the mention of something similar in the Designers Edition
rings up lights for me....that way you keep the SSD.
Try and cut down SFB rather than use new systems, simply so as SFB looks
less dauting if the player wish to move up. The Cadet Handbook already
does the creep up to full SFB training system so a game that is self
contained at one rule level is best IMO....if people want to move in then
advertise the Cadet handbook in the SFC and let them drift in, if they
don;t give them a full game to play.
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Some thoughts after spending a couple days thinking about this proposed
> SFB lite:
> 5. Based on (4), I would recommend keeping a 2d6, rather than 1d6,
> based DAC. The roll once, read across for a group of ten hits idea
> sounds good, and would significantly reduce the die rolls necessary to
Is sticking to D6 strictly necessary here.....a wider range and flatter
distriubtion may allow you to protect system by making them rare hits.
> 9. I would recommend pretty much leaving shield as they are now (minus
> damage control, and with the possible inclusion of "leaky" shields).
> Some of the proposals in this thread would so radically alter shields as
> to severely divorce the game from its SFB roots.
If you use the leaky shield premise could you have a shield value system
which reduces damage, and shield hits on the DAC lower this
reduction....or is that still stepping too far away....
David Damerell
>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Stephen V Cole wrote:
>>1. SFB: multitude of rules. SFC Solution, fewer rules.
>Two sorts of rules to consider here - the complexity rules be they ECM,
>scenery, mid turn speed changes, plotted vs unplotted movement and so on
>against the variety rules which essentially are race specific tech.
As well as what Tim mentions, of course race-specific rules are less
painful because you are only playing with a subset of the races at any
given time.
>>SFC Solution, give them a "roll of nickels" and let them
>A fistful of things here can go - I can remember on one hand the number of
>games where FC, Life Support, shields raise etc made a difference.
A single "housekeeping" cost could implicitly include all these, with a
lower "standby alert" status that doesn't include shields or fire control
(the effect of no FC would have to be much simpler than in SFB); I'd
simply then say that a ship that can't meet the lower standby alert
requirement is a drifting hulk (even if it's a ship with a LS cost > 1 and
some power left). Some other things could conceivably be rolled into
housekeeping for some ships, for instance if the cost of transporters was
abstracted away.
>You could ditch reserve power
Actually the implication is the opposite; almost all power is reserve power.
[SVC: I'd increase the capacity of battery boxes, then, to make burning
the batteries a meaningful decision.]
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Susan Davis
>
> 4. Damage allocation. SFB = roll 2 dies and consult full-page art for each
> point. SFC solution, roll one die and consult quarter-page chart for 10 damage
> points. (Might be a different
> chart for each race.)
Possible land mine: can this be done without screwing up the
Mizia Concept, and thereby changing the tactical properties of
just about everything in the universe? Or would the first
ten-point result in a volley have more severe and Mizia-ish
consequences?
> Then again (3) include a sheet of perforated cards. Each card is one box on the
> SSD. You select the cards that match your SSD
I like this. SSDs are, frankly, a bit of a pain -- you either have
to remember to photocopy the right ones, or fiddle with grease
pencils. I like the energy allocation by tokens, too.
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net>
Susan Davis
>
>> Why even bother with the Warp/Impusle distinction?
>
> Because TNG fans are convinced that even if Kirk did it, Picard could not be in
> combat at warp power. The "distinction" is one used only (or mostly) for
> movement. You set up speed (not much reason not to move at full speed) and then
> use the "power that just happens to come from warp engines" (which is different
> from the SFB system where certain things can only be done with power from
> certain sources) for combat.
I actually like this better than I did the original SFB concept
that there was some magic barrier just above warp 3 that made
weapons and sensors somehow not work, that was never mentioned
on film... and that high-speed warp chases that *did* happen on
film were impossible. Disengagement by acceleration meaning that
the ship jumped to warp speed makes a lot more sense to me, from
a quote realism endquote perspective....
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net>
Susan Davis
>
> (I did not mention at the time, but it is
> true, that at the GAMA show every year I hear a hundred stores saying
> "go back to the pocket game SFB and we'll sell a ton of them!" and I
> never really believed them since the players could buy basic set and
> leave out half of the rules.)
Buying a pocket game is not the same thing as buying a boxed game
and ignoring half of it. I buy pocket games as an impulse item;
boxed games are major purchases that I ration carefully.
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net>
Susan Davis
>
> STAR FLEET CAPTAIN (Advanced Rules): Seeking weapons, drones (only standard
> type-1 of constant speed 8)
As our group's resident Kzinti (please, no jokes about Kzinti
females), I have to ask: why not type-I drones of speed 20,
rather than 8? I'm a much better player for having flown the
old CS with speed-8 drones and no reloads 20+ years ago, but
that was before everyone understood the need to keep their
speed up.
> STAR FLEET CHAOS (Rules it is probably best to leave out, or maybe put on
> the web site): Electronic warfare, scout sensors, Andromedans (power
> absorbers, TR beams, displacement devices), WYN, Jindarians, maulers,
> whacky drones, advanced plasma torpedoes, erratic maneuvers, fighters, PFs,
> Interceptors, bombers, MRS shuttles, SWACS, Wild Weasels, positron
> flywheel, nimble ships, aegis, chain reactions, chaff, surprise, passive
> fire control, catastrophic damage, energy balance, shock, crew quality,
> cloak decoy, mid-turn speed changes.
This seems like a hugely mixed bag. A few of these are quite simple
and really ought to go in other expansions (Weasels, for example --
plasma is *far* too powerful if they don't exist). OTOH, I'm giggling
hysterically at the thought of including unplotted mid-turn speed
changes in the "simplified" product....
More seriously, I'd love to see an expansion (or collection of
expansions) for this come out at some point with at least enough
rules to let us use it as the combat system for F&E.
-- Sue --
(unexpanded F&E, that is -- I'm not asking for support for the
stuff that got shunted off to the F&E expansions)
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net>
Susan Davis
>
> It's my understanding that the switch from plotted to free movement
> caused most high-level players to almost completely abandon shield
> reinforcement in favor of moving faster (i.e. "speed is life").
It wasn't the plotted-to-free switch that did that, at least not
for us. My group actually went backwards, and played with free
movement at first, then switched to plotted movement when the
Commander's Edition came out, eventually settling on 1/4 turn
plotting 8 impulses in advance. We used mostly slow speeds and
heavy shield reinforcement when we first started playing, then
gradually got faster and faster. Even with 32-impulse plotting,
it still makes sense to stay above speed 15.
> Everyone moving faster causes other effects (e.g. speed 8 drones
> become far less useful).
Amen to that. Flying the Kzinti CS with slow drones, launches
restricted to the start of the turn, no reloads, and a max speed
of 28 got very, um, interesting once the group caught on to faster
speeds. We finally adopted drone/plasma fire in any impulse due
to my (and our local Romulan player's) whining. It's still
possible to hit things with slow drones if you either anchor
or time it just right (especially if the other player gets too
greedy), but speed-20 drones were an absolute godsend.
-- Sue --
(I'm not sure that I could hit a genuinely good (rated?) player
with a solid mastery of unplotted speed changes, though)
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net>
Christopher Dearlove
<s...@sue.net> writes
>Possible land mine: can this be done without screwing up the
>Mizia Concept, and thereby changing the tactical properties of
>just about everything in the universe?
First, I suspect that over-close adherence to SFB would be the
kiss of death for this game (whatever it's called - I still like SFA).
There is precedent for this: are maulers as effective, relative to
other ships, in SFB as they are in F&E? I'd be radical in my
downsizing, for example transporters (mentioned earlier) would
be an automatic candidate for completely being discarded.
But that's just me. (Or maybe not?)
However let's address your point without my prejudices. Now
if SFA has 8 impulses, then each is 4 SFB impulses. We can
reasonably average the Mizia effect over these 4 impulses. So
how often can/have you maintained a Mizia effect over more than
4 impulses? My guess is pretty close to never. (No. I'm not an
SFB expert, I can claim first play a long time ago, but not much
more. But 4 impulses is, coincidentally, a PPD wave lock period
IIRC.) So if we assume, in usual wargame style, that your staff
take care of Mizia-ing for you, then we can average out and discard
the actual Mizia mechanism of one-use hits. But it does mean we
need a weapons hit biased DAC. (But can I be the first in this
thread to strongly advocate abandoning the directional phaser
hits rule in SFA? I suspect only because no one would suggest
it.)
Yes, I'm aware of one massive hole in the above argument, but
it will be left as an exercise to the reader. Think of it not as an
argument why Mizia is irrelevant, but rather why Mizia would
be reduced - and then take the leap to just dropping it for
convenience.
Can I add one more prejudice: no mines please. Apart from
all their other problems, a minelayer running across a map
laying a string of mines (or maybe mines) is the worst thing
in reminding you of the artificiality of two dimensions. That or
laying web. While I'm at it, no web laying during play either.
Pre-layed web, and even allowing reinforcement to increase
its strength, can leave me the illusion of a web rather than a
string anyone could avoid. (I said prejudices, didn't I?)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Richard Bell
The Pocket Game had some interesting twists. All the ships were cruisers,
except the Fed DN, and all of the movement costs were one, so kzinti CL
was bog slow, the fed and gorn CL's could not keep up with CA's, and Fed DN
was a typical mid-'70's land yacht: lots of speed, but poor handling.
In Designer's Edition, the Fed DN went from an overpowered cruiser to an
undergunned DN.
Christopher Dearlove
<s...@sue.net> writes
>Weasels, for example --
>plasma is *far* too powerful if they don't exist
But maybe you can simplify weasels to a mechanism something like
- You put an appropriate number of energy tokens on one side
to represent weasel preparation/holding.
- You may recover those tokens at a later time to represent
"going under weasel" if you satisfy certain conditions. At
this time you cross off a shuttle. (I'd try to make all shuttle
usage like this, never any shuttle counters.)
- If you perform certain actions (offensive firing, moving too fast)
you emerge from under the weasel ("voiding" it).
- While under the weasel you gain certain advantages. These
could be abstracted as simply a reduction in seeking weapon
warhead strength to represent remote detonation. (This might
not be exactly SFB, but you can play with the reduction
proportion to balance seeking weapons.)
Just in case SVC sees this, and on the remote possibility he
likes it, he can consider it as a usual submission with rights
waived as standard. But that's probably over-valuing it. That
or it's already been suggested multiple times already.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Dweeb
> First, I suspect that over-close adherence to SFB would be the
> kiss of death for this game
----------------------------snip
> Think of it not as an
> argument why Mizia is irrelevant, but rather why Mizia would
> be reduced - and then take the leap to just dropping it for
> convenience.
To take Christopher's argument (as I see it) further :
Can "The Mizia Effect" really be thought of as anything but manipulation of
the SFB damage allocation system? It certainly never appeared in the
"source material". And I can't really imagine a situation in "reality"
where it would make much difference if you hit your enemy with everything
at once or spread it out a little. In fact, probably the shock and
destruction would be much GREATER if the weapons all hit simultaneously.
That is the whole purpose of artillery time-on-target coordination and
such, after all. Good riddence to Mizia, I say.
There seems to be a lot of support for the IDEA of having a "simpler" SFB,
but a lot of resistance to making any actual CHANGES to the game. I hate to
say this, but I don't think anybody's suggesting doing away with the old
SFB.
Greg Aleknevicus
>There seems to be a lot of support for the IDEA of having a "simpler" SFB,
>but a lot of resistance to making any actual CHANGES to the game. I hate to
>say this, but I don't think anybody's suggesting doing away with the old
>SFB.
Might I ask who the target audience is for "SFB Lite"?
I ask because I used to be an SFB player, a LONG time ago. (The
original capsule game version.) I stopped playing for a number of
reasons but chief among them was the increasing complexity of the game
(and the inherent rules arguments that ensued). I was intrigued by the
prospect of a product that would address these concerns.
However, the subsequent discussion here seems to me that it would
actually be a product for people that currently play SFB in its
present form. I'm especially distressed when I hear talk about "future
expansions" for the Lite version! It was the expansions upon
expansions that drove me away in the first place!
Greg Aleknevicus
Editor, The Games Journal
http://www.thegamesjournal.com
David Damerell
>I'm especially distressed when I hear talk about "future
>expansions" for the Lite version! It was the expansions upon
>expansions that drove me away in the first place!
Almost any game will have "future expansions", for the simple reason that
they're less work per buck on average than new games, no?
Re the Mizia; absolutely let's not have it in SFB-lite - porting
misfeatures over from SFB is surely not the way to go. The balance will be
different anyway.
[In SFB games without special-Mizia-weapons, like the PPD, it is seriously
worth considering making once-only hits once per _turn_ or per shield
facing taken damage through.]
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Greg Aleknevicus
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Greg Aleknevicus <gr...@pacificcoast.net> wrote:
>>I'm especially distressed when I hear talk about "future
>>expansions" for the Lite version! It was the expansions upon
>>expansions that drove me away in the first place!
>
>Almost any game will have "future expansions", for the simple reason that
>they're less work per buck on average than new games, no?
I agree that it's less work to release an expansion than a brand new
product but the vast majority of games DON'T have expansions. There
are many people that enjoy and appreciate expansions but there are
also many that do not and will actually avoid games that have too
many. Since there already exists a product ("regular" SFB) that has
lots and lots of expansions, it might be a good idea to release a
product for those that prefer a single stand alone game.
What struck me as odd was that it seemed to me (and I'm likely wrong
about this) that SFB Lite was intended for those people who did not
like the complexity and involvement of the "regular" game but liked
many of its concepts. If this is the case then it seems
counter-productive to start talking about expansions, optional rules,
advanced rules and so on before the product is even released. These
people are likely to be discouraged by the prospect of having to learn
a "system" (as opposed to a "game") and then buy product after product
"keeping up".
Now, it may be that this is NOT the audience for the Lite version and
that it's really meant for people who already play SFB and also want a
simpler version. I thought that such products had already been tried
but I'm not too knowledgeable about the various released versions.
(Something about a Cadet's game, Commanders Game,???)
Now, I have various ideas about what *I* think the product should be
and they differ quite a bit from those offered in this thread. (It
appears that most of the thread participants so far are experienced
and current players.) I asked who the product is intended for as it
makes a lot of difference as to who should respond. If it's meant for
SFB newbies then the advice of veterans is less useful. If it is
intended for current SFB players then the advice of newbies is less
useful.
Stephen V Cole
> > 1. SFB: multitude of rules. SFC Solution, fewer rules.
> Two sorts of rules to consider here - the complexity rules be they ECM,
> scenery, mid turn speed changes, plotted vs unplotted movement and so on
> against the variety rules which essentially are race specific tech.
Of course. That much is obvious. We'll probably eliminate maulers and SFGs and
things like DERFACS, but of course we keep each race using the weapons it uses in
SFB since the ship part of SSDs will be the same.
> >agonizing decisions.
> Cards for the decisions....once someone lays a card others tend to trip
> into position - we did this and included a 'do nothing' card. It was
> amazing how quickly people made decisions then.
SFB Module A+ does just this and includes a "dummy" card.
> But cutting the impulse
> per turn count will make things useful...how will you do movement -
> multiple hexes per impulse a la high speed car wars or cut speeds back?
One hex per impulse, eight impulses per turn, max speed 8. Big question remaining is
weapons ranges. We're testing this with the existing weapons ranges and with shorter
weapon ranges and we'll see which works better.
> > 3. Energy allocation.
>
> A fistful of things here can go -
> FC, Life Support, shields
The only problem with those five "housekeeping" points is that the SSD says the ship
has 32 power (plus impulse, which is busy) and to not deduct those five points warps
the game more than you'd think.
> > 4. Damage allocation.
> Could you use a different dice...a D12 perhaps, lose the once per volley
I really really really really do not want to use anything but D6 dice. We've got a
chart that works nicely with the distribution we have. We've tested it with and
without "once per volley" bold hits and it works differently but well either way.
Decision later.
> > 5. SFB Lot of things to keep records of. SFC eliminate anything we can and
> > record much of the rest with chips and tokens.
> Some
> form of reuseable greasepen/dry wipe etc seems better.
The problem is that it's almost certainly going to be impossible to include such
items in the box due to cost. We have to buy them at nearly retail (wholesale on
those things means hundred thousand protectors at a time, we won't need that many)
and then sell them at wholesale. Including a page protector you can buy for 15 cents
ups the price of the product by a buck.
> > 6. Recording damage.
> Plastic pockets -
See above. Feel free to do that (many SFB players do) but the mechanics of
wholesaler discounts make it almost impossible for us to include them. I'll look
into it more after Origins but the last two times I looked into it, it wasn't
possible.
> The Cadet Handbook already
> does the creep up to full SFB training system so a game that is self
> contained at one rule level is best IMO
Well, the Cadet Handbook is almost out of stock (I think we have 14 copies) and
probably won't be reprinted, although we do plan to put it on the web site.
Stephen V Cole
> >reserve power
>
> Actually the implication is the opposite; almost all power is reserve power.
>
> [SVC: I'd increase the capacity of battery boxes, then, to make burning
> the batteries a meaningful decision.]
That, however, drifts us away from SFB further, although X1P (a rules subset of
SFB which includes partial X refits) does actually work that way. It's a
thought, but adding that much more power already makes the situation very
different. A given ship has 36 power. Four impulse points buy your eight points
of movement, so that leaves 32. Pre-loading the heavy weapons takes eight
points, leaving 26, and housekeeping drops that to 21 points of effective
reserve power. Assuming four batteries on a typical cruiser you could
effectively Email four points of this turn's power to next turn, giving you 25.
Increasing the battery from 4 points to 12 means 33, which is a pretty high
game design cost for the theory that using the batteries should be
"meaningful".
Stephen V Cole
> > Then again (3) include a sheet of perforated cards. Each card is one box on the
> > SSD. You select the cards that match your SSD
>
> I like this. SSDs are, frankly, a bit of a pain -- you either have
> to remember to photocopy the right ones, or fiddle with grease
> pencils.
>
We will probably include this concept in a separate add-on product in which you get
to "design your own starship".
Stephen V Cole
Susan Davis wrote:
Well, the full story from the retailers is they want the pocket game in a
box for $20 with megahex counters.
Stephen V Cole
> if SFA has 8 impulses, then each is 4 SFB impulses. We can
> reasonably average the Mizia effect over these 4 impulses.
An astute observation.
> Can I add one more prejudice: no mines please. Apart from
> all their other problems, a minelayer running across a map
> laying a string of mines (or maybe mines) is the worst thing
> in reminding you of the artificiality of two dimensions.
Good point.
Stephen V Cole
> Can "The Mizia Effect" really be thought of as anything but manipulation of
> the SFB damage allocation system?
Well, yes, it can. The theory of damage in SFB is this. There is this "big
electrical system". Damage overloads the system and something somewhere burns
out. (Think of lightning striking your house. It expends its energy burning
out the computer but does not get to the microwave.) Multiple hits gives
multiple chances of things burning out. Each thing that burns out pulls power
to a given area burning out many things in that area, not other things that
were equally vulnerable.
Stephen V Cole
> Might I ask who the target audience is for "SFB Lite"?
I answered this before. The target audience includes four groups: Trekkers who
play games, Trekker who don't play games but might if they were simple enough,
Ex-SFB players (the subset of those who quit when the rulebook exceeded their
comfort zone), Ex-SFB players (the other subset, who didn't have a regular
opponent but might find one more easily with a smaller rulebook), and to some
minor extent current SFB players. Frankly, the current SFB players are the
last, smallest, and least interesting target. I can collect their money by
publishing SFB Module R14 Ships From The Deep End Of Space. I want to find a
bigger market.
> I'm especially distressed when I hear talk about "future
> expansions" for the Lite version!
If you go back to the original memo I posted, there were three products:
Volume I, aka Star Fleet Commander, aka Klingon Commander with Fed-vs-Klingons
with the basic rules
Volume II, aka Star Fleet Captain, aka Romulan Commander with Roms, Gorns, and
Kzintis with seeking weapons,
Volume III, aka Star Fleet Commodore, aka Federation Commander some scenarios
and a few moderate rules (tractors, transporters).
To the extent that I have talked of expansions, this has been a matter of the
ship design packet and some scenario books. And of course, you could buy any
SFB R module and, with a one-page conversion chart, use most of its SSDs.
For those who pine for SFB, there might be a document on the web site with "all
the rest of that SFB junk". If I don't do this (due to being busy or bored) you
can bet money that a dozen SFB players will do their own on their own web
sites.
Stephen V Cole
> Almost any game will have "future expansions", for the simple reason that
> they're less work per buck on average than new games, no?
The point of expansions is that the company gets no money from every time you
play the game you bought two years ago. We get money only if you buy a pack
of new ships or new scenarios or play aides or maybe a coffee mug or
something.
Richard Bell
Making the bold hits once per turn, per facing requires too much bookkeeping.
Just add an extra row to the DAC that goes [this is a suggestion]:
2 Drone
3 Phaser
4 Right Warp
5 Forward Hull
6 Forward Hull (need not be bold)
7 Cargo (need not be bold)
8 Aft Hull (need not be bold)
9 Aft Hull
10 Left Warp
11 Phaser
12 Torp
This extra column will reduce the mizia by reducing weapon hits in the first
row by forty percent. It does, on average, double the number of torp and
drone hits in large volleys (the average 36 internal spread trades two
control spaces for a drone and a torp)
This extra column makes rendering a ship out of control (before it allocates
'any weapon' hits to control spaces) practically impossible without hit-and-
run attacks, but I have never actually seen a ship stripped of control; even
though, two 36+ volleys of internals should accomplish this. Among the
group that I used to play with, we never realized the mizia effect, and any
ship not crippled by the first concentration of incoming fire was destroyed
by the next incoming volley.
David Damerell
>I answered this before. The target audience includes four groups: Trekkers who
>play games, Trekker who don't play games but might if they were simple enough,
I wonder if group two is served well by Star Fleet Battle Force (which,
BTW, I eagerly await the expansion for)?
David Damerell
>>Almost any game will have "future expansions", for the simple reason that
>>they're less work per buck on average than new games, no?
>The point of expansions is that the company gets no money from every time you
>play the game you bought two years ago.
This I know, which is why I bring it up.
SFBOL's a steady income stream from continued play, though, although I
guess you are not quite having money fights in Amarillo yet. :-)
Stephen V Cole
David Damerell wrote:
> Stephen V Cole <des...@starfleetgames.com> wrote:
> >The point of expansions is that the company gets no money from every time you
> >play the game you bought two years ago.
>
> SFBOL's a steady income stream from continued play
You'd think I would remember that angle, although since I'm not the one who
cashes the SFBOL checks (Leanna does that) it never crosses my mind. Hm... ways
to enhance participation in Klingon Commander On Line. I gotta Email Paul Franz
about this one. Good point.
Susan Davis
>
> So how often can/have you maintained a Mizia effect over more than
> 4 impulses?
More than four volleys in a turn? Routinely. More than four all
at once from consecutive impulses, though, is another matter, and
your point is well-taken.
> Can I add one more prejudice: no mines please.
Does *anyone* actually enjoy mine warfare?
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net>
Sebastian Bleasdale
Minesweeper just wouldn't be the same without the mines.
--
Sebastian Under Capitalism, man exploits man.
Under Communism, the reverse is true.
David Damerell
At the moment an old-Rommie's opponent steamrollers the NSM they're
probably smiling... and if we ever _do_ get the conjectural B10 mauler
"IKV Firepower Magnet" it'll make a fine minesweeper.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Stephen V Cole
David Damerell wrote:
> and if we ever _do_ get the conjectural B10 mauler
> "IKV Firepower Magnet" it'll make a fine minesweeper.
It will be in CL28 in about a month.
Seehawk
I know Stephen still looks over this board and as the guy who started
this thread last year I was wondering if there was any update on this
Star Fleet Action, Star Fleet Commander, Federation Captain or whatever
it ends up getting called game....
Eric
The Seehawk
Stephen V Cole wrote:
> A week or so ago, there was a discussion of this concept. As I'm the
guy
> who designed and owns and publishes SFB, I commented that what was
being
> called for by some already existed by simply buying BASIC SET and
> stopping at the basic rules. (I did not mention at the time, but it
is
> true, that at the GAMA show every year I hear a hundred stores saying
> "go back to the pocket game SFB and we'll sell a ton of them!" and I
> never really believed them since the players could buy basic set and
> leave out half of the rules.)
>
> Some in that conversation in this topic a week ago wanted to go
farther
> and have fewer impulses, easily energy allocation, and simplified
> damage allocation, three key SFB elements that eat up a lot of time
> (mostly as players agonize over every possible decision). This
reminded
> me of the Star Fleet Action prototype we worked up a couple of years
> ago, which largely followed these lines.
>
> A few days ago, we were having a Board of Directors meeting to decide
> which of several projects to announce at the GAMA show (16 March) for
> the summer releases. The conversation wandered to a Christmas product
> and I recounted the above stories. Soon enough, we had the prototype
out
> of the file and were puttering around.
>
> A few days later, we have the memo below which more or less defines
the
> core concepts of a game that might be called Star Fleet Action, Star
> Fleet Commander, Federation Captain, or something else. I thought I
> would show you guys the memo and see if anybody had a question or
> comment. Note that the memo defines a game that is significantly
> different from SFB and when it was shown to SFB players they
immediately
> started proposing modifications that would bring it closer to SFB
(more
> complicated, longer to play). Anyway, here's the memo. No decision
has
> been made on whether to print this in Nov 04, June 05, some other
date,
> or never.
>
> STAR FLEET COMMANDER (Basic Rules)
>
> A simpler form of Star Fleet Battles which retains the excitement of
the
> original with less clutter, faster play. Possibly retain ability to
use
> SFB SSDs (ship diagrams) inside the new game system.
>
> Sequence of play streamlined by leaving out many rules.
>
> There would be no historical timeline in the sense of progressing
> technology (slow drones, medium drones, fast drones, refits, etc.)
but
> we might introduce this in one of the more advanced modules. For the
> base game, everything would be a single time and level of technology.
>
> Energy Allocation (a key element of SFB) would remain but would be
> handled by tokens rather than written records. You'd have a token
for
> each point of power and just spend them as you want to do stuff. At
the
> start of the turn, you'd have to pay for heavy weapons, but other
than
> that, the warp engines become a huge pool of reserve power. There
would
> be some limits on how much of that power you could use in one of the
> eight impulses.
>
> Movement system: Similar to SFB but with 8 impulses instead of 32. We
> will use "impulse power to move and warp power to fight" to be
> compatible with what modern trekkers expect to see. Use 0.5 points of
> impulse power per hex adjusted by move cost (i.e., dreadnoughts pay
0.75
> points and destroyers pay 0.25 points). To reduce the ugliness of
> fractions, a simple chart on each ship diagram would show you how
fast
> you can go with the number of engines you have. Disengagement
(leaving
> the battle and going home) would be possible by blowing a lot of warp
> points.
>
> Combat system: Weapons would work the same as SFB (power cost, range,
> damage, die rolls, charts). We shall have a leaky shield rule (every
> 10th point?) which might vary with larger ships having more leaks.
Need
> to simplify damage resolution, perhaps with a modified Damage
Allocation
> Chart that allocates five or ten damage points to various systems
with a
> single die roll. Firing arcs, damage repair, and shields would work
as
> per SFB.
>
> Note: we are fully aware that this means a radical change from SFB
with
> slower ship speeds compared to weapons ranges. We don't see a
problem
> with a new dynamic. If playtesting says this isn't working, we can
cut
> weapon ranges down, but preliminary work says that this will better
> recreate what happened in TNG.
>
> We'd still have to check boxes on an SSD for damage. Might handle
that
> with counters on a larger SSD but that would be an advanced option.
> Might put the SSDs (the whole game system would have only about 50
> ships) on a web site so you can print them off as you want them. We
> could include a book of cheap newsprint SSDs in each box.
>
> Counters: megahex type, 1" with full color starships.
>
> Races: Feds, Klingons, freighters, monsters.
>
> There is second half of the memo about this which I will put in a
> separate message since it would make this one too long.
Eric the Seehawk
in June of 2004 referring to the mysterious "Star Fleet Lite" game by name -
"Federation Commander".
Poked around the star fleet web site and can find no mention of the
game.....
Eric
The Seehawk
Erich Schneider
There's discussion of it in the www.starfleetgames.com discussion
forums. "New Product Development -> CURRENT SCHEDULE -> Federation Commander".
--
Erich Schneider er...@caltech.edu
Eric the Seehawk
"Erich Schneider" <er...@caltech.edu> wrote
>
> There's discussion of it in the www.starfleetgames.com discussion
> forums. "New Product Development -> CURRENT SCHEDULE -> Federation
> Commander".
>
> --
Yeah, I found that forum shortly after my intial post. Unfortunately it's
lacking in the single most important piece of information...just WHEN this
game might be released. It was supposed to be a November / Xmas release but
then it apparently got pushed into 2005. The impression (to some on the
forum) was that it was going to be released at GAMA in March but then
Stephen posted that it's release date would be released in March. Then if
you go to the homepage and look at the current Product Schedule it's not
listed in March or anywhere else for 2005. It's not listed at all.
I also find it interesting that the discussion board contains over 300+
archived posts dating back to 2/24 yet the basic format of the rules -as
described in the most recent posts there- seems remarkably similar to what
Stephen posted here back in February. Kind of begs the question of what's
taking so long ;-)
Eric
The Seehwk
Erich Schneider
> I also find it interesting that the discussion board contains over 300+
> archived posts dating back to 2/24 yet the basic format of the rules -as
> described in the most recent posts there- seems remarkably similar to what
> Stephen posted here back in February. Kind of begs the question of what's
> taking so long ;-)
I get the impression that Amarillo Design Bureau largely consists of
three people: Steven Cole, his wife Leanna, and Steven Petrick. There's
only so fast you can move with so few bodies, and they're mostly
dedicated towards maintaining their existing SFB product pipeline.
--
Erich Schneider er...@caltech.edu
Greg Aleknevicus
wrote:
True enough.
I must admit that I'm intrigued by the possibility of a "lite" version
of Star Fleet Battles. However, my recollection of the discussion was
that there was already talk about all sorts of expansions and add-ons
that it could support. This abruptly evaporated any interest I had in
the project at that point. The reason I *stopped* playing SFB so many
years ago was that the never ending expansions and alterations made it
too much work to keep up. I have zero interest in getting sucked into
a similar situation again.
Eric the Seehawk
"Greg Aleknevicus" <gr...@pacificcoast.net> wrote
>
> I must admit that I'm intrigued by the possibility of a "lite" version
> of Star Fleet Battles. However, my recollection of the discussion was
> that there was already talk about all sorts of expansions and add-ons
> that it could support. This abruptly evaporated any interest I had in
> the project at that point. The reason I *stopped* playing SFB so many
> years ago was that the never ending expansions and alterations made it
> too much work to keep up. I have zero interest in getting sucked into
> a similar situation again.
>
Man ain't that the truth.
I've read through the entire archive on the star fleet site about this game
and my heart sinks with each successive post.
The hope(s) expressed here last year were for a scaled down version of the
game that would allow multi-ship engagements to be played in a single 2 hour
sitting. At least that's what I hoped for when I first posted here in
January of 2004....a full month before there even WAS a board at the star
fleet site concerning this game.
As the discussion unfolded it became apparent that either that vision wasn't
shared by Stephen Cole or was quickly lost. It appears to me that part of
the problem is the insulated group of SFB fans and how they just don't
understand how many gamers are turned off by the system they've helped
create. I know I can only speak from personal experience but everytime I do
it seems to get a chorus of echoes, as Greg does above. There are a lot of
people that either played SFB and stopped, or wanted to play the game but
didn't, because of the enormous size, scale and fluid nature of the game
system. Now, to be fair, most of the current players of SFB play for the
exact opposite reason. They ENJOY the size, scale and fluid nature of the
game and there's definitely something to be said about supporting your
current fan base and making them happy.
I think the thing I found most disheartening is that I had hoped this new
game would NOT be a gateway into the larger SFB game. Just as Fed & Empire
is a scaled up strategic level game based in the star fleet universe I had
hoped this game would be a scaled down tactical game based in the same
universe (and btw, I think Star Fleet Tactical would have been a good name).
SFB gives the ship's captain (the player) control of every aspect of a ship
from labs to batteries guarding specific systems and performing boarding
operations. And it's a great game if you desire that kind of fine control
over a ship. But lots of people don't want to muck around with Electronic
Counter Measures and 25 different types of drones and 6 different ways to
use your shuttle craft. They want a ship with weapons, power and a handful
of keys systems and the ability to easily control it and a few others for an
interesting engagement.
I believe this game would have been better served if it was
designed/discussed/playtested outside of the usual group that populate the
starfleet boards and/or the small group that make up the ADB. If this game
was supposed to be an answer to all the disenfranchised fans who are put off
by the current state of SFB, how the heck can you have it created by the
very people that brought SFB to it's current state?
Eric
The Seehawk
David Damerell
>I must admit that I'm intrigued by the possibility of a "lite" version
>of Star Fleet Battles. However, my recollection of the discussion was
>that there was already talk about all sorts of expansions and add-ons
>that it could support.
That's how the games industry is; supplements make most of the money. If
you're doing small (ie, not German boardgame scale) RPGs or wargames, you
need to release supplements.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Leicesterday, January.
Erich Schneider
> There are a lot of people that either played SFB and stopped, or
> wanted to play the game but didn't, because of the enormous size,
> scale and fluid nature of the game system.
Size and scale I'll grant you, but SFB has not had a "fluid game
system" since the about 1992, when the Captain's Edition was released.
This is assuming that by "fluid game system" you mean "game system
that is constantly being tweaked with errata and addenda".
Say what you will about ADB, but when they created the Captain's
Edition and promised "no more rules tweaking", they seem to have kept
their promise.
--
Erich Schneider er...@caltech.edu
Greg Aleknevicus
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>begin quoting Greg Aleknevicus <gr...@pacificcoast.net>:
>>I must admit that I'm intrigued by the possibility of a "lite" version
>>of Star Fleet Battles. However, my recollection of the discussion was
>>that there was already talk about all sorts of expansions and add-ons
>>that it could support.
>
>That's how the games industry is; supplements make most of the money. If
>you're doing small (ie, not German boardgame scale) RPGs or wargames, you
>need to release supplements.
Aside: I think people grossly overestimate the numbers that German
boardgames sell. Very often, the numbers sold are in the low
thousands, even with multiple editions in several countries.
Back on topic: Well, from the point of view of the publisher of SFB,
the "light" version could itself be considered a supplement.
Presumably there will be people who play the light version and then
desire added complexity. These players could then graduate to the full
version of the game.
If you start adding rules to the light version you create problems:
1) The players who want a truly simple system decline to try the
product at all.
2) Players who want a more complex system become confused and divided
-- should they play SFB Light plus all its expansions or just start
with the full version?
Now the reason why supplements "make most of the money" is not because
they sell more but because they're easier to produce than are complete
games. However, there is one HUGE potential advantage that SFB Light
would have over any supplement: it is far more likely to grow the
audience for the game. A supplement is, by its very nature, limited to
people who already own the game. A light "introductory" version is
much more likely to attract a new audience.
Now, I'm not suggesting that creating SFB Light is a guaranteed
success. Because it IS much more work to create a stand-alone game, it
may be more profitable to produce supplements for the main game
instead. My point is that if you ARE going to produce a light version,
then it's a poor decision to also add complexity and confusion via
supplements and expansions.
Erich Schneider
> If you start adding rules to the light version you create problems:
AIUI Federation Commander is not going to be divided along "basic
rules", "more complex rules", "even more complex rules" lines, but by
play situation, i.e. "Federation vs. Klingons", "Federation vs.
Romulans", "Federation vs. Pirates", "this group of folks in another
part of the galaxy all fighting each other", etc. Each one being at a
similar complexity level (a quantum level below SFB).
If you look at the starfleetgames.com forum on Federation Commander
you'll see there's quite a bit of Steve Cole saying "guys, please stop
trying to add needless complexity into this product".
--
Erich Schneider er...@caltech.edu
Cubicle Morlock
Erich Schneider <er...@caltech.edu> wrote:
>This is assuming that by "fluid game system" you mean "game system
>that is constantly being tweaked with errata and addenda".
>
>Say what you will about ADB, but when they created the Captain's
>Edition and promised "no more rules tweaking", they seem to have kept
>their promise.
Thats funny, my original Captain's Edition rulebook came in the
box with a page of errata. Within 6 months, there were several others
compiled across various Starletters.
A decade down the line, you can now buy the Captain's Edition rules
free of errata (as far as I remember), but it certainly wasn't
created sans rules tweaking.
I've pretty much long since given up on the game. I sometimes drop
a few bucks on the latest expansion just to look them over (SSDs are
a bit like centerfolds to a gamer), but even those are getting tiresome.
I've yet to see an expansion since the Captains versions of the PF /
Fighter modules that provided anything I'd consider worth "flying",
even if I still played the game. Given the ADB's insistence on avoiding
truly specialized role ships (ever wondered why the Klingons didn't
field a frigate packing nothing but ADDs and phaser IIIs for anti-drone
and anti-fighter fleet operations?), I think its clear all the juice
has been wrung from that orange. Anyone who thinks they need to buy
new products to "keep up" is grossly overestimating the worth of the
new products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Robert "I heard of you. I heard you were dead." Stetler, k...@rawbw.com -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Any trouble, boy ?" "No, old man. Thought I was having trouble with my -
- adding. Its all right now." -For A Few Dollars More- -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric the Seehawk
"Erich Schneider" <er...@caltech.edu> wrote
>
> AIUI Federation Commander is not going to be divided along "basic
> rules", "more complex rules", "even more complex rules" lines, but by
> play situation, i.e. "Federation vs. Klingons", "Federation vs.
> Romulans", "Federation vs. Pirates", "this group of folks in another
> part of the galaxy all fighting each other", etc. Each one being at a
> similar complexity level (a quantum level below SFB).
>
> If you look at the starfleetgames.com forum on Federation Commander
> you'll see there's quite a bit of Steve Cole saying "guys, please stop
> trying to add needless complexity into this product".
>
> --
From what little info has been forthcoming about the game it appears that
you're correct that they're avoiding the "basic rules" - "advanced rules" -
"expert rules" mire but that doesn't mean they're avoiding the problem of
escalating complexity...the very problem this game was (supposedly) supposed
to address.
The plan right now is to start the series (series....it's already a series!)
with Fed Commander: Klingon Border which, will contain the basics of
phasers, disrupters and photons. Then they plan to do Fed Commander:
Romulan Border which will introduce plasmas and other new systems expanding
on the previous rules base. Stephen has gone on to mention Tholian Border,
Piracy Patrol and Forgotten Enemies as other titles in the series. Each one
presumably adding more and more rules to what was supposed to be a stripped
down game.
While the "core rules" of FC may start off simpler than the "core rules" of
SFB the plan of slow and steady addition of races, ships and technologies is
exactly how SFB unfolded. The problem appears to be (to me at least) that
while the game will start lower on the complexity meter than SFB it will
also show the same steady rise up that meter until it reaches the point of
diminishing returns like SFB did with so many of its players.
Eric
The Seehawk
Stephen V Cole
> I must admit that I'm intrigued by the possibility of a "lite" version
> of Star Fleet Battles. However, my recollection of the discussion was
> that there was already talk about all sorts of expansions and add-ons
> that it could support. This abruptly evaporated any interest I had in
> the project at that point.
Not really true, or fair. What got SFB out of control was an endless bunch of
ships and rules. Federation Commander is designed to be broad but "thin crust"
rather than "deep dish".
We will certainly do more than one product (Klingon border, Romulan border,
orion pirates, etc.) but the RULES will be kept down to a workable level and the
number of ships won't inflate. We don't need to portray every SFB ship in FC,
and not even every special type. We don't need minesweepers built on five
different hulls (assuming we even need minesweepers at all, it was just the
first variant that popped into my head).
Eric the Seehawk
"Erich Schneider" <er...@caltech.edu> wrote
>
> Size and scale I'll grant you, but SFB has not had a "fluid game
> system" since the about 1992, when the Captain's Edition was released.
> This is assuming that by "fluid game system" you mean "game system
> that is constantly being tweaked with errata and addenda".
>
> Say what you will about ADB, but when they created the Captain's
> Edition and promised "no more rules tweaking", they seem to have kept
> their promise.
>
When I said fluid I meant "ever changing".
Where you and I (apparently) differ is that I consider constant rules
ADDITION as just another form of "tweaking". A new rule changes a system
just as much as an errata'd rule does. Every new race, ship, weapon, system
they introduce through a captain's log or new module changes the rules.
In that respect I'd have to say that SFB is one of the most fluid/changing
(non-rpg) rules sets I've ever dealt with.
Eric
The Seehawk
Stephen V Cole
> I get the impression that Amarillo Design Bureau largely consists of
> three people: Steven Cole, his wife Leanna, and Steven Petrick. There's
> only so fast you can move with so few bodies, and they're mostly
> dedicated towards maintaining their existing SFB product pipeline.
1. entirely consists of the three of us in the office. We used to have a fourth
person but he hasn't shown up for work since just before he died.
2. We're in the middle of hiring one and then a second new people to give me
more design time and less warehouse time. When you own the company it's easy to
be "noble" and put in your time in the warehouse until you finally figure out
you can hire somebody from the game store around the corner to do the warehouse
work and let me sit down and design games.
3. Actually, I've done a lot more work on GURPS and other new non-SFB products
than on maintaining the SFB product line.
4. yes, there are only so many hours in the day. I work over 60 hours a week
and it's still not enough.
Stephen V Cole
> Unfortunately it's
> lacking in the single most important piece of information...just WHEN this
> game might be released.
This is more a marketing decision than a production one. Last time the boss
talked to me about it she was thinking Origins. Announce at GTS and release at
Origins. At least that's the theory.
> Kind of begs the question of what's
> taking so long ;-)
Other things to do. For example, I haven't even looked at the FC:KB files in
six weeks due to working constantly on the three major GURPS projects being
released in Jan-Feb. Given nothing else to do (ha!), no other deadlines, no
other projects, no strange people whose first name is colonel calling up to
inform me that I'm going to be somewhere for a week or two wearing a funny
green-brown-black-tan suit, given no warehouse work to do (we're in the middle
of hiring someone), given no "large scale F&E maps" to roll up and put into
mailing tubes, given nothing else, I could probably turn around the last set of
reports and get draft 4 out to the playtesters in a week. Figure a month to
confirm that works, a week for the final version, another month for final
checks, then two weeks of pre-press work, and two weeks of production. Origins
sounds like a better bet.
Sorry for the confusion over dates. Last fall was a mess with a lot of projects
getting half done and then pushed back. (an example is C5, which consumed an
entire month of my time trying to fix it before we reached the concusion that
it was not fixable and had to be redesigned before it could start six-twelve
months of testing all over again.) I wanted to do FC:KB for Christmas but other
things got in the way (like that guy named colonel who took a month out of my
life). Having not done that, I was quick to say "GTS!" but the boss said I had
to do the GURPS stuff before I could work on Fed Commander.