Federation Commander

Starfire was cool with the first version (in the end of the seventies). It became 'ugly' later, with loads of systems (and thus complexity) and enormous scenarios. I wonder if those from Imperial Starfire could be done easily...

Marc

The damage allocation system is great-- no die rolls, just left-to-right marking off letters.
Great, but terribly unrealistic (how come you have to kill all the armor before damaging the meaningful systems? How come you can destroy almost all the ships but allways leave the engine intact? Etc ...

csragamemaster wrote:One Answer to the "Bloodiness" of KA vs SFB is to double or triple the number of ships in a given scenario. More ships mean a longer game!

No, you'll just have twice or thrice (or more...) ships killed in turn.

Marc

csragamemaster wrote: Use a 12 or 16 impulse chart instead of the monster 31.

How so?
There is no real speed limit in Starmada, although I've learned that moving more than your speed is an invitation to leave the board unvoluntarily.

Marc

I have considered bringing the impulse system from SFB directly into Starmada and seeing what effect it might have.

I wonder how to implement such a thing, as starmada ships move about 3-6 hexes per turn compared to max 31 for FC ships.
If an impulse equals 1 hex, it could slow down the game, no ...

Here are my modifications:

For weapons:
Ph 1: Remove range based rof and increase ACC to 3+
Ph 2: Remove range based rof and increase ACC to 4+
Disruptors: Reduce range to 15 (they fire at the same range as photons), reduce IMP to 1 and add range based IMP
Photon: Reduce DMG to 2 and add piercing ...

Steve Cole wrote:Exactly. You're no longer talking about simpler F&E. You're talking about another game that (if you keep up with memos) I have been working on for several years.

I'm earger too to hear more about that. Any hint?

Marc

The non-leak shields vs. very leaky shields.
I suspect this is the difference that most causes SFB/FC players to perceive Starmada as "too bloody".
I feel it's a combination of the faceted shield (less efficient than regular shield, especially after some shots where a shield could be entirely ...

jmt wrote:I agree that there may be a market for such a game, but it wouldn't be a simpler FnE. It would be different game all together. It would be analogous to the relationship between Star Fleet Battle Force and SFB.

Sure, a boardgame with SFU feeling and materials.

Marc

I mean, if I were to design such a game, I might limit it to just Feds, Klingons, Roms and Gorns for recognition, build a system in the style of "Fortress America" and "Axis and Allied." Then I would team up with a mainstream fame maker, like Fantasy Flight, Z-Man, or even GMT and get them out ...

I agree with Eric, math is bad. I like non-math non CRT combat resolution. For example, look at what Games Workshop did. I only play one game from this company and combat is resolved easily, without complicated math (roll a number of dice according to your combat value) and without CRT (eah die ...

How combat is resolved between two fleets?

Marc

I have to say that I support Eric point of view. Worse, today's games are usually simple to play. For example, about space battles, I began with SFB (some 23 years ago, when it was published in ziplock) and it was OK. I followed it many years then let it down. I tried FC three years ago but to no ...

Steve Cole wrote:Leave out fighters, scouts, maulers, admirals, marine generals, diplomacy, and you're about there.

I don't want to lose chrome (although I wonder why there are fighters in a strategic game), but I remember game turns tend to drag a lot due to an overall complexity.

Marc

I've played 1st edition a lot of time ago. It was fun and quick.
I tried to play the new edition some times ago, and when I recall my game, I remember it was much more complicated and lenghty.
So I wonder if the current version of F&E couldn't be payed with a simpler version of the rules?

Marc