Federation Commander

There has been discussion on the ACTA-SF sub forum about how to improve that rule set.

I got to thinking that a new rule set, that still plays quick, but has considerable detail, might satisfy some of the people that think ACTA is too generic.

I had an idea about a year ago and stuffed it on a shelf to play ACTA. The idea was an open board miniature game based on SFB/FC. The original concept was that your actions would be dictated by a power play, pre-selected at the beginning of the turn. I just couldn't make that work due to the number of options.

So, I came up with the following:

1. Roll Initiative

2. Power Planning Phase:
a. Base Speed is selected through a Power Plan Lettered A-F in 4" increments. A=0-4" of movement, B=5-8" of movement, up Through F which = 21-24" of movement.
b. You must allocate power at this point to weapons if desired.
c. You may allocate power to shield regeneration if desired.
d. Power is applied in percentage of overall power, in increments of 5%.

3. Action Sequences:
a. The game is broken down into 4 Action Sequences. In each action sequence, you will move, defensive fire, and offensive fire. This is similar to 4 impulses in FC with no sub-pulses.

b. Movement: Each player moves 1/4 of their planned movement. You must move unless you selected power plan A. Which ever power plan was selected, you must move max speed for the plan in the first action sequence, you may vary movement by -1" speed in each of the following three action sequences. This allows Decel, but no Accel.
c. Movement order is by Speed and then initiative. Slower ships move first (all Power Plan A moves, then all Power Plan B, etc.), if two player are moving the same power plan the initiative loser moves first and winner moves second. Turn scores are equal to the FC turn scores, but turns are 45' instead of 60'.
d. Then shuttles move, then fighters, then seeking weapons, and seeking weapons are launched.

e. Defensive Fire: ADD fires 2 per action sequence (since 2 action sequences equals two impulses in FC), then Phasers, then Tractors. Ammo must be tracked for drones and ADD, and both can be reloaded.

f. Offensive Fire: Seeking weapons and other weapons are hit and resolved. The ship chart has hull that is equal to a squadron scale ship chart all internals + frame divided by 2. Based on the frame, the hull has yellow boxes with numbers in the box. When one of the yellow hull boxes is destroyed, you roll d20 = to the number in the box and take the damage indicated on the Damage Location chart. Blow throught the shield is each 6th point of damage.
g. Each ship has a Fore and Aft Shield equa to the 3 front shields averaged x 1.25, and same for rear. Each shield covers either the front half or rear half of the ship. The ship also has a Shield Reinforcement score equal to it's batteries. This can be used for separate attacks, by paying power if it's available.
h. The process above is repeated three times.

4. Damage Control
a. Players can repair damaged system, weapons and re-gen shields, if power is available to do so.

I'm leaving a lot out, but that is it in a nut shell.

We playtested this yesterday, and the game flowed very well. The percentile power allocation was streamlined and worked well. It took a couple of turns to get used to, but have a 10 year old who was able to do his own allocation after the first turn. It's not perfect, but it's not a crap shoot either. No 50/50 rolls, except in the case of maybe a HET after the 1st you must roll for every consecutive HET attempted (breakdown roll). By the way, the first games were single ship match ups (D7C versus CA), and the game worked splendidly with single ships.Next playtest will be a squadron level battle (3 ships versus 3 ships).

Still doing a lot of editing on the rules, but is there anyone out there that would like to give this a shot?

Bob

Hey Bob,

Something like this might be viable over in this thread http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/me ... 1374990734

Just a thought but it might work for fighters and gunboats.

Lincoln Log, have you been reading minds again? I was thinking of something along the same lines as a simplified combat system to be used in a PRIME DIRECTIVE RPG session.

Dal Downing wrote:Hey Bob,

Something like this might be viable over in this thread http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/me ... 1374990734

Just a thought but it might work for fighters and gunboats.

Dal,

I read through that thread, I would like to eventually add fighters but, that is way down the road.

2nd official (third) play test this Friday.

Bob

Sgt_G wrote:Lincoln Log, have you been reading minds again? I was thinking of something along the same lines as a simplified combat system to be used in a PRIME DIRECTIVE RPG session.

Sgt G,

Had the old Carnack (Johnny Carson) turban on.

I liked the way Starship combat worked in the old ST-RPG from FASA, before they developed the SSCS and attempted to turn it into a wargame.

Bob

Okay, I was thinking about this the other night. I'm thinking of a ship-to-ship combat system that can be used in conjunction with Prime Directive. Ergo, it would work best in one-on-one combat, but could be used for three to five ships per side. More than that, it might get messy.


--- EDIT: I CREATED A NEW TOPIC AND MOVED MY POST THERE ---

SGT G,

You forgot to factor the CA's Reactors (REAC). The CA has 36 spendable power.

In working the percentage concept, and fooling around with the SFB and Fed Com rules, a ship can power weapons full, move fairly quickly (12" in SFB) and still have about 25% power left (enough to overload weapons or possibly boost shields).

Also, this is where many ships get short changed in ACTA, Strike Cruisers are more energy efficient hulls. They move 3/4 instead of 1, but produce almost the same power as a CA.

But you came very close to what I came up with. Other than you simplified power allocation to actions. As an RGP system that might work very well. I'm beginning to think that over abstraction in a wargame that is ported from a simulation prevents some units from playing to their strengths.

I would be glad to send you what I have. The materials are much farther along now. Much better that what I initially e-mailed to Mike.

Bob

You forgot to factor the CA's Reactors (REAC). The CA has 36 spendable power.

Nah, not really. In SFB, most of the APR/AWR is used up in "house keeping" costs. Things like life support, activating fire control, and raising shields. You don't have to pay for that in FedCmdr. I figure it's a wash.

As to the Strike Cruisers, these would gain a slight advantage in movement, perhaps gaining back an inch if the reduction for weapons in 3" or more. Likewise, Fast Cruisers would have a 7" base movement.

The big change from SFB / FedCmdr to this system in the damage allocation. As I mentioned, it involves a deck of cards tailored to the ship. These cards could be 2" x 3" printed on heavy bond paper / light card stock and cut out by hand.


--- EDIT: I CREATED A NEW TOPIC AND MOVED MY POST THERE ---

How are you going keep all the player characters involved during combat.

I like the cards by the way!

How are you going keep all the player characters involved during combat?

Players will declare their location and actions to the GM. What they can do depends on their skills list, and what the GM allows.

Example, if a player has the skill, he may be manning one Phaser (or pair of phasers, if the GM allows). He can, before firing, decide whether to give a bonus to the to-hit chart, or to improve shield bypass. For the later, reroll (once) any even-number dice that would normally hit the shield. (I say "he", but obviously it could be a "she".)

A PC manning the helm might be able to shave off 1/2" of turn radius, if they have a high enough skill. An engineer might be able to coax more power out of the engines, giving back a bit of movement while arming weapons.

Player-character might beam over to raid an enemy ship.

Player-character can do pretty much whatever the GM allows them to do.

A player may move from on part of the ship to another. It will take anywhere from one impulse to the end of the following turn to get there (GM will decide, based on the deck plans).

A PC/NPC that is in a system that takes a hit, they may be injured, based on the RPG rules.

We played 3 - one on one fights Friday night. A Klingon C8 versus a Federation DNG; a Klingon D7W versus a Federation CC, and a Klingon C7 versus a Federation BCG.

We played 5 turns, with all three games staying together (turn to turn and sequence to sequence). Everyone likes the way the game flows, and how it provides 4 decision points in the turn. Also, losing initiative is not a death sentence, if you are moving faster than your opponent (since initiative is only a tie breaker). There is still some work to do on this, but it is a perfectly playable game now.

There were some minor tweaks after the first game, but everyone agrees, no other changes should be made until a fleet/squadron action in played.

Bob

lincolnlog wrote:We played 3 - one on one fights Friday night. {snip}

I presume that was with the rules you poste, and not what I was suggesting, yes?

Sgt_G wrote:

lincolnlog wrote:We played 3 - one on one fights Friday night. {snip}

I presume that was with the rules you poste, and not what I was suggesting, yes?

Correct.

Lincoln Log,

I created a new topic under Prime Directive and moved my posts there. This way, you can continue your work and I mine without interfering with each other. Cool?

Cool, however, I would recommend looking at the old FASA ST-RPG Starship Combat system. The system that used the command panels for each bridge station. It is very similar to what you are suggesting, but the command station panels allow for easy record keeping and assist player interaction during combat.

Bob