Hello All.....
Hmmmmmm..... so TFG is coming out with a new minature space combat game based
on SFB. I wonder...could they be trying to make the game simpiler and much
more playable? Granted, it's just speculation, but why would they be coming
out with a new set of rules when they've got one. Has Full Thrust affected the
space wargame market to the point where the overly complex games have been
squeezed out of the market?
We'll just have to see...
Later,
> Mark Andrew Siefert writes:
@:) Hmmmmmm..... so TFG is coming out with a new minature space @:) combat
game based on SFB. I wonder...could they be trying to make @:) the game
simpiler and much more playable?
Hmm... let's see, they'll need to add a new set of rules in the C section to
cover the new stacking limit of one unit per hex, plus some more stuff in
section D to modify weapons that get a special bonus at range 0 since there no
longer is any range 0, plus some ramming rules (in section C again) and some
modifications to the EW, Scout Functions, Tactical Intelligence, Disengagement
by Seperation, Black Hole, Nova and Supernova rules (sections D, G, U?, C or
D, R, R, R) due to the fact that the hexes represent less space. I think they
can pretty much keep all the other rules though. I would guess that the new
rules would only require one module so we're only talking about 50 pages more
than the current ruleset.
@:) Granted, it's just speculation, but why would they be coming out @:) with
a new set of rules when they've got one. Has Full Thrust @:) affected the
space wargame market to the point where the overly @:) complex games have been
squeezed out of the market?
Frankly (sorry Jon) I doubt it. To people like me who come from a strong SFB
background, miniatures are irrelevant and FT is good because it is
customizable, not because it is simple. I don't know
about new players, though - probably if they don't have someone to
help them get into SFB (as I suspect many people on this list did not) they
will have a difficult time of it. The rulebook is daunting to say the least.
And SFB does get very slow in large fleet engagements. But if it's a small,
DETAILED, battle between small numbers of ships you're looking for (say <= 3
per player) it's real hard to beat SFB, IMO.
I think most of the people on this list would consider a game like SFB "overly
complex" but I think it's complexity is what makes it great. I think FT is a
fantastic game in a lot of ways but I think
the two games each have a place. FT is sort of the 20/20 to SFB's
Frontline. Ok so that was a completely incomprehensible analogy but the point
is that I think more people should try SFB, not fewer, and they should realize
that if they don't have nine hours or the inclination to wade through 800
pages of rules (no joke) or if they want a huge fleet battle with pretty
miniatures, then there's FT. Likewise, when people want a fantastic variety of
technology, a
well-written and clear background universe, ships that don't give
advantage to one player or another and enough variety of systems to provide
the kinds of subtle issues that only the loss of two thirds of your batteries
can, they can turn to SFB.
Sorry about this tirade against what was actually a humorous and
doubtless well-intentioned remark. Maybe this has something to do
with the fact that I just shelled out $60 for the SFB basic and
advanced rules. That's only about 200-300 pages.
> Joachim Heck wrote:
Very well said! I like just about all space combat games and have tried
several, each has its own place as you said. Sometimes I like the detail,
sometimes I like the simplicity. At least we have choices.:)