I liked watching B5 on TV, so I've looked at Babylon 5 Wars, Earth Force
Sourcebook, and now Fleet Action as games both as competition to Full Thrust
and as sources of ideas.
Sadly, Fleet Action is the least professional or polished of these products.
The book suffers from a number of significant flaws such as:
Poor organization and complicated topics being discussed well in advance of
key concepts like movement and fire. Key concepts like how to read the
maneuvering characteristics of your ships are peppered through out the 45
pages of rules. Notions like relative vs. absolute movement are poorly
explained or ambiguous. Three dimensional diagrams explain things less
effectively than simple 2 dimensional overhead views (and an over done
graphical design really hinders rather than helps this product).
Many charts, like the command style chart or range modifiers chart, not only
strain the eyes by being printed in yellow on bright green, but have
significant omissions. Missing charts include a turn sequence list and a
squadron control sheet (of which you'll need one or more copies per squadron).
Many times, the background text refers to ship classes or weapons systems
which are not among the ships published in the book.
Areas of the book obviously underwent rewrites, like page 24 which refers to
pulses 4 and 5, though only 3 pulses exist in the current rules, or the twin
array example on page 51.
Key systems like the Earth Alliance interceptor systems are missing.
There are numerous typos through out the book, as well.
After all that, the author has some interesting ideas about what constitutes a
good game and he does a good job of creating tactical choices in deployment
and simulating fighter missions. Unfortunately, it's hard work to get at them.
When I read Full Thrust, I felt I could play a game immediately and without
reference to the rule book. With Fleet Action, after two reads through, I
should only have to refer to the rule book for, say, every shot of every
weapon for the first game, and soon diminishing to a few times a game.
For those who want to play the game, I can recommend the Agents of Gaming web
page which has the errata (which answered many of my questions) and some
missing (critical) charts. Still, it takes a lot of paper to play a fleet
action, and the fleet building process is complicated.
Perhaps Matt Seidl or Mike Llaneza can explain when your 'Come About' rating
is reduced and relative vs. absolute movement to me sometin\me ?
> --- "Tom.McCarthy" <Tom.McCarthy@cbu.xwavesolutions.com> wrote:
You shoulda seen the first draft.
> For those who want to play the game, I can recommend the Agents of
and some
> missing (critical) charts. Still, it takes a lot of paper to play a
on the FA mailing list Rob Glass has officially apologized for the terrible
editing and quality control.
> Perhaps Matt Seidl or Mike Llaneza can explain when your 'Come About'
rating
> is reduced and relative vs. absolute movement to me sometin\me ?
I haven't gotten a copy of FA yet, but based on the last playtest draft I saw
(the one with the final graphics and layout) I'm not in any hurry. Try my
B5FB1 conversions:
http://imperialdispatches.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$28
I'm particularly interested in feedback on my energy mines and laser rules.
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:07:13 -0400 , "Tom.McCarthy" writes:
rating
> is reduced and relative vs. absolute movement to me sometin\me ?
Not sure how I became the expert all of a sudden.:)
I have yet to see a copy of the released rules, so I can't comment (but if I
get a copy soon, I'll try to look this up). I didn't get as envolved in the
play test as I would have liked, having lots of issues about finding a job and
finishing up my Ph.D. thesis.
So, I was a little quick to pick on Mike Llaneza and Matt Seidl. They both
happen to be mentioned as playtesters, and they're both players who I've seen
as active on this group and others for many years. Of course they're not
responsible for the problems I identified, but I thought they might have seen
some of the material that the author was obviously thinking about and
obviously didn't write down.
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:56:27 -0400 , "Tom.McCarthy" writes:
No problem. I probably still have my playtest copy around here somewhere, and
when I see the real rules I'll take a shot at answering your question. The
best bet would be to send it direct to AoG though, or post it to the b5fa
mailing list.
> --- "Tom.McCarthy" <Tom.McCarthy@cbu.xwavesolutions.com> wrote:
Mentioned as playtesters.... in the rulebook?
On p. 88, a few lines below "Desinged and written by: Robert Glass" you'll
find the following:
"We would like to thank the following playtesters and any whom we may have
missed for their contributions to producing the game:" and then a list which
includes Michael Llaneza in the second column and Matthew Seidl in the fifth
column.
I really wasn't taking a shot at these guys, just expressing ( in an oblique
fashion) my belief that you two could explain things much better than the
author, Robert Glass, did.
I have been through some playtest experiences (B5Wars and Fleet Books I & II
most directly), so I know a bit about how errors slip through. Still, I find
it hard to believe that many errors could slip through unless the playtesters
were either flooded with info or ignored when the final draft was produced
(and I know B5Wars was improved by playtest, so I have to assume Fleet Action
was, too).
re: the poor quality of the rules
robert said on last night's digest that everything will be corrected and
included in the first B5FA supplement: Earth/Minbari. i'm sure he will
also continue updating the FAQ on their web site.
i have B5FA on order and i'm tempted to cancel the rules (but keep the minis).
i definitely don't like the idea of purchasing another product to correct the
first one!
dave
> --- "Tom.McCarthy" <Tom.McCarthy@cbu.xwavesolutions.com> wrote:
They both
> happen to be mentioned as playtesters, and they're both players who
Yep! You, Matt and Roger Gerrish (with his name spelt wrong!) were the names
in the B5FA playtest credits that I recognised. I picked up a copy of the
rules on Sunday (would have been 20 UKP if I'd had to pay for it... <grin>),
and was not impressed. I was thinking of penning a quick review to the list
myself, but thought it might not seem
right to appear to be "knocking" a competitor's product - but seeing as
Tom's said most of the things I was going to comment on anyway, I don't feel
so guilty! What Tom only mentioned in passing is that the use of full colour
throughout would have been nice if the printing wasn't very poor in places and
the graphic layout wasn't so messy; bits are hard to follow, with basic
mistakes like not separating the text far enough from the dark coloured page
surrounds. The 3D diagrams are a clever idea but very badly executed, making
them horribly confusing when their whole purpose is to clarify things! I've
read through the movement rules about three times and I'm STILL not sure I've
grasped exactly how they work. The end result is that the whole book (writing,
layout and printing) gives the impression of having been thrown together in
one heck of a hurry. Now, I know from bitter personal experience that 1) you
NEVER have enough time
in ANY schedule - it always runs out at the end, and it is always the
proofreading that gets rushed or skipped entirely, and 2) even if you DID have
enough time you STILL wouldn't spot everything. But, I have to say that B5FA
suffers worse than almost any other professional gaming product I've seen in
recent years.
It's a shame. It could have been so good.....
Maybe I should have offered them the EFSB system instead....? ;-)
> I have been through some playtest experiences (B5Wars and Fleet
FA chaged greatly from its initial playtest pack to what was finally released.
The problem was, as Robert Glass just mentioned on the FA mailing list, that
they rushed it into production and it only went by 1 editor instead of the
usual 3 editors. The B5 list had repeaadedly said to delay products to get
them right the first time but they pushed it on this and Robert says it won't
happen again and all the corrections will be in the first supplement of all of
the Earth and Minbari ships.
AoG messed up and this will hurt them.
FYI, anyone else read that Wizards of the Coast is now buying Last Unicorn
Games?
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:35:06 -0400 , "Tom.McCarthy" writes:
you'll
> find the following:
> From everything I've heard a LOT of changes happened between the
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:49:51 -0500, "Dean Gundberg" writes:
I'm hoping they come up with something better than "buy the first supplement
and all will be clear". Not really a good decision I think. But AoG has to
figure out how to be a business, just like everyone else.
> FYI, anyone else read that Wizards of the Coast is now buying Last
Yep. Now seen this from 3 sources, so I think its true. I wonder is Seattle
just has this effect on companies? Maybe something in the water.
> At 8:35 AM -0400 6/6/00, Tom.McCarthy wrote:
you'll
> find the following:
Cool, my name in lights again.
> I really wasn't taking a shot at these guys, just expressing ( in an
I'm in tech support. Fixing things is the unusual part of my job; my primary
function is to meet Miss Finland, er... helping people use their computers
better. Which is a task that comes with a lot of explaining.
That, and the editorial experience (an editors job is to turn what the writer
said into what the writer meant).
I'm happy for the credit, but I'd rather Rob took more of my suggestions.
> I have been through some playtest experiences (B5Wars and Fleet Books I
Rob has issued another apology in response to the clamour on the FA list. I'm
waiting for the revised printing.
> At 2:43 PM +0100 6/6/00, Ground Zero Games wrote:
They both
> happen to be mentioned as playtesters, and they're both players who
gives
> the impression of having been thrown together in one heck of a hurry.
Now,
> I know from bitter personal experience that 1) you NEVER have enough
For fancy graphics, they could take a page from DP9. For attractive and
utilitarian SSDs, either of the fleetbooks would do nicely. For
skipping testing, they took a page from Microsoft :-)
Then again, there was a completed draft of the final layout in early February,
they had plaenty of time to work on the details.
> It's a shame. It could have been so good.....
I'll use it anyway.
I certainly agree that there's some interesting concepts buried in Fleet
Action. I intend to work at getting some of them out of there and onto paper
before September.
And yeah, I don't think I like the idea of buying two books before I know the
rules, then a third to round out the Centauri and Narn and maybe a
fourth for Shadows and Vorlons. Would Non-Aligned Worlds make it 5
books?
Off the top of my head, the things I liked: Fighters on escort, strike or
superiority missions. Concepts for squadron movement and squadron command and
control. Fleet command and control. Squadron and fleet morale (though
I'd tweak it). An actual game mechanic for EW/ESM screening within a
squadron. ELINT ships.
Of course, my gut says I can work all of these into FT without overwhelming or
unbalancing the game, and probably have a first cut (which could be very
wrong) in under two or three hours, then play them and find out what works in
less than a week. Now, do I have the time to do that?
> Tom wrote:
Currently the 4th book is planned as Vorlons/Shadows/League but it was
noted that this may change. All of the variants for ships currently published
for B5 Wars will show up in these FA books, and their probably won't be many
variants for the Vorlons and the Shadows so that will leave room for the
League ships, in theory anyway.
> Off the top of my head, the things I liked: Fighters on escort, strike
One thing I liked (at least in the playtest version, haven't seen the
published version yet) was for any point battle game, you could designate some
ships as 'reinforcements' and a turn they were due to appear and get bonus
points to use for more ships. The later they were scheduled to appear, the
larger bonus you got (a percentage of your reinforcement's points). On the
turn the reinforcements were to appear, you would roll a die to see if they
actually showed up or were delayed. A neat tradeoff that could result in some
interesting battles.
[quoted original message omitted]