Star Fleet Battles vs Federation Commander

[MarianLH]

This is a continuation of an off-topic tangent from this thread.

...oh, and what is it about SFB you like more than FC?

Simply put, I like the tactical complexity of SFB. FC is supposed to be a stripped down, simplified version of SFB, but in my experience, only the tactical aspect of the game got simplified. The game mechanics aren't all that much less complex. In other words, almost as much number crunching for less fun.

This review is what originally sold me on SFB, particularly this passage near the end:

SFB isn’t about flying around and blowing each other up, it’s about separating the master tacticians from the dead. You will know exactly why you should sometimes lower your shields in the face of oncoming missiles. You will berate yourself for ending the game with an undamaged shield and an unused HET. You will know how a tractor beam can be your deadliest weapon. You will revel in peeling the weapons off your opponent’s ship like a banana peel with a well-executed “Mizia”.

Since picking up BattleTech in my teens, I've played a lot of SF wargames. Over the years, as I've learned more about tactics, I've become increasingly dissatisfied with all of them. The combination of "you go/I go" game mechanics and the ability to see what your opponent is doing in real time makes most games into attritional bashfests, where tactical choices are limited to picking the right army list and deployment, and then hoping your dice are luckier.

As that review promised, SFB is an exception to the rule. The 32-impulse turn was a little awkward at first, but it means you have to actually outthink and outmaneuver your opponent, not just fly over and shoot until something gives. It may sound funny, since it's a Star Trek game, but SFB makes me feel like I'm in an Honor Harrington novel. Victory goes to the better shiphandler, not the luckier dice or cheesier army list.

After only a few games, most of the "intimidating" rules come pretty naturally. The only part I still find frustrating is the DAC, what with having to make a die roll for every single point of damage.

FC is kind of a step backward in this respect. By letting you allocate power on the fly, it weakens the maneuvering aspect of SFB, moving back toward the attritional bashfest end of the scale, while not actually being all that much simpler in terms of game mechanics.


Marian

 

[MANT!]

As a player of SFB from way back..the SFB series of games is the closest the gaming community has to the realistic feel of strategy and tactics..the Starfleet Command series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Starfleet_Command (with the PC doing a lot off the crunching for you) has simplified things a bit but it does lack that Beer and Pretzels feeling that I used to have with SFB..the thing Federation Commander is supposed to have is speed..in the modern world, many folks just don't have the time for 8 or more hours of play with esp some of those multiplayer SFB games just taking up the better part of a weekend... but as I now live away from most of my SFB buddies, the SFC series on the PC has become my primary gaming outlet...

 

[Robert Simmons]

Haven't played Federation Commander. Seen it and looked at the sample game forms and purrused some of the sample literature last year. My main concern in abbreviating the game to make it easier and quicker, you loose the nuances of ship management in an engagement. Granted SFB is cumbersome to play out of the gate and neccesitates knowing or being shown the rules by an experienced player. Star Fleet Battles was ratehr hard when I first played back in 1982. But I did have a large group of experienced players who were kind to invite me into their fleet games. So I learned by playing in the middle of seasoned veterans of the game at that time. My real big complaint was that when i just forked over the money in 1982 for the basic set, expansion #1, #2, #3....Task FOrce Games up and released a nnew revised COmmander's Edition of the Rules. So I had alot to relearn with limited time to bone up on the new rules with few local players availbe when the local game ship we all played at closed in 1984. ( The Armchair General. ) And then having the rules revised again in 1990 in the new "Captain's Edition" sets really made for more frustration having to revise my understanding of what was allowed and what wesn't allowed in the game. So I hope this new incanration ...albiet promoted as easier...will not suffer repeated revisions that confused the snot out of me. I will admit my bias in favor of SFB. But I wish this new venture well if it helps draw in more people interested in playing TOS Trek starship combat.

 

[Nerroth]

I think that some of you might be a little harsh on Fed Commander - though I will say that there are some areas where FC is intended to show its worth in comparison to its older sister.


Firstly, I would say that when it comes to one-on-one duels, FC isn't overly simplistic - it still rewards players who know how to make the most out of their ships' capabilities, and make sure that the flow of the game suits these while negating those of an opponent's (plasma ballet with Gorns or Romulans, sabre dance with Klingons, make the most of hit-and-run opportunities with Seltorian shield crackers and transporters, balance the use of ESGs in offence and defence with Lyrans/LDR, an so forth) and by limiting the opportunities to fire, while keeping the same amount of moves per turn as in SFB, a FC captain has to be more careful about when to time one's strikes, or set up one's passes, or what have you.

Granted, Fleet Scale is perhaps less useful for duels - but it's not supposed to be (Squadron Scale does just fine) - whih leads me to my next point.


Away from duels, one thing that FC allows players to do realtively handily that SFB can struggle with is playing scenarios involving squadrons or fleets. (Indeed, FC is so good at this, in terms of cutting down on the time and hassle needed to engage in large-scale combat, that the Borders of Madness project has been ticking along and finding ways in which gamers can use SFB-derived units and systems, such as special sensors and carriers, with the Fed Commander engine to play such large scenarios out!)

Starbase assaults, fleet combats or larger monster scenarios are well suited for FC - and still retains enough flavour to make it a tactical challenge (as not all fleets fly alike, and not all bases defend thsmelves in the same way either) in my humble opinion at least.


I first got into the SFU through SFC - and started collecting ADB books and supplements in '03 (with Captain's Log 25 and a copy of Fed and Empire I have never had the chance to actually play...) - and I waited a long time for a game like FC to be released, because while I love the setting, and happily gobble up all of the Alpha, Omega, Magellanic and other background data I can get my hands on, SFB is too much for me game-wise, not least because even if I wanted to, no-one I've met here (in Ireland, or where I was living in Canada for that matter) plays it.

FC, however, people will be more likely to try, and possibly even get into - which is good for me!


(That said, I haven't had the chance to play FC in a long time either, sadly.)


Although, I will say that the kind of game I really want to play someday is an equivalent of Fed and Empire, given the FC treatment...

 

[Robert Simmons]

From what I am hearing is that FC is basically a middle ground between Fed and Empire ( Federation Space...) and SFB. This does offer dynamic flexability tween ground between the two in being able to step off into either direction in gaming either duel or fleet campaigns. The trade off IF.... I understand this right, is that you loose some of the complexity / tediousness of SFB in duels / fleets....while adding to the complexity of campaigns via engagments while streamlining the process of the economic allocating of the nation /empire fleets. By taking this game straight down the middle it offers a middle ground balance of offering boths sides while not to the exclusion of the other. Middle between SFB and F&E is a mix of both while so to be flexible in offering campaign fleets or single duels without the specific complexity unique to each game system.

A middle ground spread sounds like a interesting ability to offer "The best of both worlds". ( Forgive the pun..)

I have yet to play FC, but am becoming more curious to give it a try after reading some of the posts here. But I'm married now and can't drop the cash on the material like I did when I was single. ( sigh...)

 

[MarianLH]

I'd offer you my copy, but I already sold it.


Marian

 

[Nerroth]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a middle ground between SFB and F&E - there has been talk of games which would do such, however (as in, be scaled somewhere between the two systems).


Oh, and you could try the First Missions pdf if you like - plus, there is now a cheaper Academy set for new players.

 

[Solariabsg25]

I actually enjoy both games, playing either depending on the time I have and the size of the forces I want to use.

With large fleet games you really need to have one player per ship in SFB, cos the energy allocation alone takes a large amount of time.

Both games may have almost identical rules, but the nuances are completely different. Tactics that could gain you victory in SFB could well get you killed in FC, from the different Impulse Proceedures alone.

 

[EEE]

As a retired since the mid 80's SFB player, I can honestly say that FC is prettier. So much so that I did a vassal module to play it online for free but never got a response from Cole to even beta test it... so it remains unpunched and unplayed here.

 

[Nerroth]

Well, there is FCOL - which you have to subscribe to - so I don't know how responsive they would be to a free alternative to it...