VBAM Games Forums

During playtesting we have entered a discussion about what scale of the campaign would actually get played. As we have mentioned, we currently scale the game and ship costs from a large Grand scale game (think Four Powers War sized), Regional scale (think part of the front of the Four Powers War), and then the Local campaign (one sector along the Romulan Border for example).

The Local campaign has some special rules, like objectives (we got an order to intercept a traitor, or deliver grain to Epsilon IV) or cost scaling. The larger campaigns are closer to traditional VBAM and 4x thinking.

What campaign scales interest you, and what would you actually play?

Thank you,
-Jay

I chose local, as that would be the most likely to be played face-to-face here, using FC to resolve the conflicts. For that reason, the regional might be of some interest as well.

Let me just add that this is not an all-or-nothing decision. Even if Federation Admiral is presented only at the local scale, we almost certainly will present higher scales (including something more in line with a regular VBAM game) at some point in the near future.

Also, it will be possible to use the ship lists from FA in a regular VBAM game, as well, as the stat line is in the same format.

There's no wrong answer, we're just trying to figure where best to focus our energies for the flagship.

I think I would play any, but I have always been a Grand campaign kind of player and that is what interests me the most.

I would play any, But I think I would prefer the detail of the local scale

I'll second that,

Local scale most interests me (that's where I've cast my vote), and regional is second best with grand in last place (mostly I suspect because VBAM sort of already covers that).

I voted local, but that really means that local is hte scale that interests me the most; not the only scale that I'd play. I'm looking at FA as mainly being a scenario generator for FC; so the local and regional scales are most likely to fit my wants.

Hmmm... I think Grand would interest a lot of people, although supplement-wise, going regional would allow you to perhaps cover Regional and Local but only cover a couple races (Fed/Klingon) and then release supplements for others.

I would be most interested in Regional then Local but ultimately, Grand is the way to go, if a little unwieldy for VBAM??? I mean, how many systems does the Federation have!?!

MadSeason wrote: I would be most interested in Regional then Local but ultimately, Grand is the way to go, if a little unwieldy for VBAM??? I mean, how many systems does the Federation have!?!

Quite a few, actually. At the highest level we are essentially using the F&E map and every hex has something in it since there could be many, many star systems in a single F&E map hex. At the smallest Local level there is a lot more space between useful star systems.

System Stat wise everything is going to be VBAM consistant, except some costs. At the Local campaign level for example, since the relative size of the economy has changed, ships are going to cost more.

Right now "All of the Above" seems to be the winning choice. The way that will probably work out if we have it all in one product is a slightly larger rule book, with the customizations needed for the Local campaign (which has a few more details) in its own section.

-Jay

If you're using the F&E map, it may make more sense to do what F&E does and simply declare some number of hexes "a province", and kind of abstract it. There's mining, manufacturing and other stuff going on there, but it's all so minor that you just agglomerate it together and say the province generates a fixed income of X economic points. Assigning exploration or development ships to the province might create a new colony world which is significant enough to be treated as a separate system, but as a rule you'd only treat major worlds as separate systems. A hex could have several major worlds in it, e.g. the Federation Primary Member Zone (the capital hex) contains Earth, Mars, Vulcan, Alpha Centauri, Rigel, and Andor.

Currently the problem with the larger scales seems to be that a lot of units that would be useful / needed there have not (yet) been converted into FC.

At the moment our focus is on getting the local scale right so maybe Jay or Charlie can make some progress on that front.

We are trying to find the right balance for the book to a worthwhile buy for anyone interested in a FC campaign, and not overwhelm anyone who just wants to remake the General War.

I think an empire as a whole is much more managable at a large scale because the player would have direct control over the treaties it wants to sign, and its main shipyards. The downside from a FC standpoint is that much of the ships we know to be in the General War, for example, don't exist in FC yet. But that doesn't mean a player won't want their own free form grand campaign or want to play a historic conflict and wait for FC to catch up with more designs later. Heck, a SFB player could use this source with a little adjusting. But at that size battles are likely to be between 20 and 40 ships, and not the typical smaller campaign battle of 1 to 3 per side.

-Jay

I imagine that the most important missing ships in a Grand Campaign would be Tugs, repair ships, fleet oilers etc. To some extent, FC scenarios just get around the problem by using a standard freighter and declaring it to be a base building ship, repair auxiliary, fuel tanker etc. In combat they're pretty much identical, that is, helpless targets.

Scout rules exist, but it's pretty much "Borders of Madness" (optional rules) at the moment. Still in playtest.

What other ships would be missing? Steve Cole often takes player requests for new ships for the Communique newsletter, maybe if we ask nicely he can fast-track the needed ships.

Another big stumbling block to doing the General War in VBAM format is the lack of PFs and general fighter useage in FC. I don't know if they'll ever come in to FC or if they do, when.

That said, we can certainly do a strategic scale VBAM game set in the SFU, but it wouldn't be the General War, but instead a General War. There's also the small matter of no ISDs (In Service Dates) for FC since the ships are optimized versions of each hull - another stumbling block.

That said, I don't know that we have to be able to do the General War. F&E already exists for that. But we can certainly have an Empires Clash kinda thing that gives a player the same kinds of decisions.

All good points, and we don't have to do the General War as it was done traditionally. But if players want that kind of game right out of the box, which it looks like they do, then we should probably include that functionality. That is a traditional VBAM campaign in many ways.

I think the worst missing pieces so far are the FRD and shipyards. You make a good point that these all boil down to those ships that are the backbone of the economy, and those that are warships. The former end up being targets in most scenarios. It would not be hard to proxy some of these ships.

-Jay