Recommend
12 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Star Trek: Attack Wing» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Attack Wing: From a Star Fleet Battles / Federation Commander Perspective rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was 12 when I got my hands on "Star Fleet Battles", and it has been love ever since.

My heart broke when my entire collection of it went up in smoke, until a new project, "Federation Commander", brought back that love to me, in a cleaner, faster upgraded way. Call SFB all of the Old Series, and FC the Original Series movies.

Attack Wing is a new animal. This is isn't TNG, it's really a HoloSimulator of TNG. In SFB/FC, while you can field more than one ship, being the Captain of a Vessel, and knowing how to get the absolute MOST of each system, anticipating the limits of your opponent, and maneuvering them into the kill, is the best part of the game. Yes, it can be a bit Rules-lawyery at times, but it builds the tension of tactical awareness, in the middle of shouting orders to your crew for MORE POWER TO PORT SHIELDS! COME ABOUT HARD, 290 MARK 00, LOCK PHASERS ON LEAD KLINGON FORWARD FACE AND FIRE ON OPPORTUNITY! WATCH FOR DRONES, MR. JONES...EMERGENCY POWER TO IMPULSE, ...DROP REAR SHIELDS...wait for it...NOW! DEPLOY ANTIMATTER MINES, FULL IMPULSE-EXECUTE!

All exactly executable in SFB/FC. However, AW is an abstraction for all of this. The best analogy beyond the Holodeck is...well...AW is the Fleet Admiral's view of a TNG engagement. You have ships under your command, as a Task Force, you assign a Captain to your ships, specialized crew, and of course, special upgrades from your shipyards if you can.

Let me be clear, I like this game, enough to sink $10/ship for $0.20 worth of plastic, but for very different reasons. SFB/FC is a seriously detailed Simulation Wargame. You have to KNOW your ship. Know why your opponent may do, or not do, certain things. Figure out how to bend the (game)rules of Physics to get more out of your ship than usual. In AW, it's all about the Theme and the Combos. I will never have the chance to play the bridge of Battleship Enterprize-E, because of 1970's licensing issues...but I can field a task force comprising of a captured Klingon Bird of Prey, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy on the Duty Roster, backed up with General Martok's Rutaran, with The Son and Grandson of Mogh as bridge officers, with General Kira helping Gul Dukat on his captured Bird of Prey, all doing an attack run against the Founder's representatives in the Alpha Quadrant, the Jem'Hadar, in a flotilla of 2 Patrol ships, and a Battleship, with Omet'etklan as the Commander.

There is no translation between the two game experiences...in SFB/FC, Maneuverability might call for you coming to a dead stop in space, or shutting down key operational areas to bolster others, where those options do not even exist in AW, whereas, in AW, the shear number of ships one player can control easily, would bog down a game of SFB/FC to a halt. SFB/FC is a game of inches...AW is one of the "Big Picture".

So why would a Hardcore SFB/FC player like this game? For exactly that difference, the 'Big Picture'. Being able to play Starships like chesspieces, and force your opponent(s) to make that ONE mistake in their play to bring them to ruin...within a playable 45 minutes. That, and being able to corrupt new players into gaming with you. whistle


I highly recommend this as a "palate cleanser" for the Starship Commanders out there, always nice to wear 5 pips on the collar sometimes.
19 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Abramowitz
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I consider more of a minis player, but I also played a lot of SFB in the 80's, but dumped it in the 90's when more streamlined rulesets came out that allowed quicker games with larger fleets. I had hoped that when Federation Commander came out it would be quicker-playing, and while it plays faster than SFB, it's still too slow and ponderous when compared to modern games. Attack Wing is the "SFB Lite" that should have been put out 10 years ago.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
[q="Lawn Dart"]I consider more of a minis player, but I also played a lot of SFB in the 80's, but dumped it in the 90's when more streamlined rulesets came out that allowed quicker games with larger fleets. I had hoped that when Federation Commander it would be comparable, and while it plays faster than SFB, it's still too slow and ponderous when compared to modern games. Attack Wing is the "SFB Lite" that should have been put out 10 years ago.[/

I agree. I wish someone other then wizkid did it because we would have more complete fleets on the roll out and more campaign and scn driven. IMHO.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hadrian132 wrote:
Lawn Dart wrote:
I consider more of a minis player, but I also played a lot of SFB in the 80's, but dumped it in the 90's when more streamlined rulesets came out that allowed quicker games with larger fleets. I had hoped that when Federation Commander it would be comparable, and while it plays faster than SFB, it's still too slow and ponderous when compared to modern games. Attack Wing is the "SFB Lite" that should have been put out 10 years ago.


I agree. I wish someone other then wizkid did it because we would have more complete fleets on the roll out and more campaign and scn driven. IMHO.


Well, for a "SFB-Lite" Miniatures experience, I would suggest A Call to Arms: Star Fleet, Quicker than the usual SFB/FC session, but much more detailed, and with more options, than AW. Still not in the TNG era, but nice.

If only I could get Next Gen ships, prepainted sculpts, easy play, with SFB level control! cry
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Tonge
United Kingdom
Rotherham
South Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Ooooh.. absolutely I would *not* suggest anyone even consider picking up anything to do with ACTA:SF until the (currently underway) rules re-write has been done.

The games only a year or so old and has had a very troubled entry to the market. Hopefully reversible in future but time will tell..
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Abramowitz
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had already picked up ACTA:SF. Big mistake, game was not yet ready for prime time. Seemed to me like it had little feel of either Star Trek or SFB (and to me, those two are two very different animals).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Tonge
United Kingdom
Rotherham
South Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
I have no doubt that it will be fixed in the fullness of time by ADB.
The unhappy fact is that Mongoose just did a poor job in their conversion of trek to ACTA.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Compton
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that ACTA: SF was a big disappointment. The book is a beaut, though.
In addition to the original poster's comments about how many more ships can be run in STAW, I would like to add that you can also play more games of STAW than anything else. Even Full Thrust, which is my preferred "lite" sci-fi wargame, would not play as quickly as STAW.
Another benefit of STAW is that pays homage to Star Trek more than Mongoose, ADB or even FASA ever did. Licensing, I know, but there it is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
stuuk wrote:
Ooooh.. absolutely I would *not* suggest anyone even consider picking up anything to do with ACTA:SF until the (currently underway) rules re-write has been done.

The games only a year or so old and has had a very troubled entry to the market. Hopefully reversible in future but time will tell..


Yeah i agree picked it up as soon as it came out and even with a cusory read i was getting that quesy feeling. Now I see mongoose gave up on it already and i see i was right. oh well anybody want a cheap copy my loss your gain.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael H
msg tools
Black Omega wrote:

There is no translation between the two game experiences...in SFB/FC, Maneuverability might call for you coming to a dead stop in space, or shutting down key operational areas to bolster others, where those options do not even exist in AW, whereas, in AW, the shear number of ships one player can control easily, would bog down a game of SFB/FC to a halt. SFB/FC is a game of inches...AW is one of the "Big Picture".



I will start off by saying that I have not played SFB, but I think you are wrong about the "system deployment" aspect of AW, but it does look different in AW.

For example, look at Scotty's card - he transfers shield power to the phaser banks or phaser power to the shields. It's not called that, but every time I use that ability I think that in my head. And it's true for many cards across factions.

Kyle: "warp power to shields, Mr. Kyle"

Valdore: "Transfer warp power to the disrupters" after a green (impulse) move.

Defiant O'Brian: Sisko yells, "Chief, put all phaser power to shields!"

At least, that's how I imagine it. I do wish there was a "full stop"command, but that might not be a good idea when three Cardassian ships are shooting at you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Sanchez
United States
Clermont
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
please don't ressurect dead threads.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Percival
Canada
Ottawa
ON
flag msg tools
badge
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
delta_angelfire wrote:
please don't ressurect dead threads.


Huh?

He posted something relevant to the thread. Please don't try to police the forum. This isn't your angelfire site from 1997 written in crappy html and full of clipart images.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
headache62 wrote:
Black Omega wrote:

There is no translation between the two game experiences...in SFB/FC, Maneuverability might call for you coming to a dead stop in space, or shutting down key operational areas to bolster others, where those options do not even exist in AW, whereas, in AW, the shear number of ships one player can control easily, would bog down a game of SFB/FC to a halt. SFB/FC is a game of inches...AW is one of the "Big Picture".



I will start off by saying that I have not played SFB, but I think you are wrong about the "system deployment" aspect of AW, but it does look different in AW.

For example, look at Scotty's card - he transfers shield power to the phaser banks or phaser power to the shields. It's not called that, but every time I use that ability I think that in my head. And it's true for many cards across factions.

Kyle: "warp power to shields, Mr. Kyle"

Valdore: "Transfer warp power to the disrupters" after a green (impulse) move.

Defiant O'Brian: Sisko yells, "Chief, put all phaser power to shields!"

At least, that's how I imagine it. I do wish there was a "full stop"command, but that might not be a good idea when three Cardassian ships are shooting at you.


Ive played both game systems and there is no comparison between the two games,running three ships in SFB could give you a headache and with over a 100 pages in rules, supplements, addedums and like a dozen choices of what your multiple shuttles can do during a battle it can take a long time to finish a game. Not complaining I enjoy both game systems but the system deployment used in SFB is light years more intense and involved then in STAW. Which is one of the reasons I like playing STAW.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
delta_angelfire wrote:
please don't ressurect dead threads.


Who are you to decide if a thread is dead or not? Maybe I take a long time to answer back.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael H
msg tools
hadrian132 wrote:
Not complaining I enjoy both game systems but the system deployment used in SFB is light years more intense and involved then in STAW. Which is one of the reasons I like playing STAW.


I'm not saying you were complaining, I just wanted to give you another perspective on the idea of system distribution in AW. I prefer the system distribution in AW, but to each his own, of course.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Smith
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb










Sorry, but sometimes bringing the dead back to life is just so fun.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey, Jackholes.

1) It's my thread...wait...it's not a "Thread", it's a review, with an open invitation for discussion. As long as someone has something cogent to say, Write on!

2) To those who agree, thank you.

3) To those who don't, yet got something out of this, thank you.

4) To those who don't, and added nothing to this, well...there isn't an Emoticon for my answer.

This is not a one-size-fits-all. From MY perspective (Hopefully given in my tastes and views in the setup of the review), I liked, and did not like, the things about this game. I still recommend it, for the reasons I stated, for me, it's a lightweight abstraction, and really a pasted on theme (as it was Flightpath[tm]) that still worked for me.

Got it? Good. Don't? Good.

Whatever works for you.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
headache62 wrote:
Black Omega wrote:

There is no translation between the two game experiences...in SFB/FC, Maneuverability might call for you coming to a dead stop in space, or shutting down key operational areas to bolster others, where those options do not even exist in AW, whereas, in AW, the shear number of ships one player can control easily, would bog down a game of SFB/FC to a halt. SFB/FC is a game of inches...AW is one of the "Big Picture".



I will start off by saying that I have not played SFB, but I think you are wrong about the "system deployment" aspect of AW, but it does look different in AW.

For example, look at Scotty's card - he transfers shield power to the phaser banks or phaser power to the shields. It's not called that, but every time I use that ability I think that in my head. And it's true for many cards across factions.

Kyle: "warp power to shields, Mr. Kyle"

Valdore: "Transfer warp power to the disrupters" after a green (impulse) move.

Defiant O'Brian: Sisko yells, "Chief, put all phaser power to shields!"

At least, that's how I imagine it. I do wish there was a "full stop"command, but that might not be a good idea when three Cardassian ships are shooting at you.


1) Play SFB or FC first. Then get back to me.

2) "System Deployment" by a card is much different than actually working out the systems you need to send power to, facings you need to be at, impulse you think those drones/missiles/seekers will get into what firing arc you hope to be at, etc. etc. See point #1

3) As I stated, there should be a Speed 0, but that would break the way THIS game's engine works. And you know what? If I had 3 Cardassians firing at me at close range, while I was at High Impulse, and could not make it to Warp...dam right I'm going to go Speed 0, dump extra power to emergency batteries, drop rear shields, do emergency come-about to forward arc shields, drop mines out the back, Qtorps at ready, push emergency power to Phasers, ride out the incoming wave, then have initiative to go to emergency warp after.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hadrian132 wrote:
headache62 wrote:
Black Omega wrote:

There is no translation between the two game experiences...in SFB/FC, Maneuverability might call for you coming to a dead stop in space, or shutting down key operational areas to bolster others, where those options do not even exist in AW, whereas, in AW, the shear number of ships one player can control easily, would bog down a game of SFB/FC to a halt. SFB/FC is a game of inches...AW is one of the "Big Picture".



I will start off by saying that I have not played SFB, but I think you are wrong about the "system deployment" aspect of AW, but it does look different in AW.

For example, look at Scotty's card - he transfers shield power to the phaser banks or phaser power to the shields. It's not called that, but every time I use that ability I think that in my head. And it's true for many cards across factions.

Kyle: "warp power to shields, Mr. Kyle"

Valdore: "Transfer warp power to the disrupters" after a green (impulse) move.

Defiant O'Brian: Sisko yells, "Chief, put all phaser power to shields!"

At least, that's how I imagine it. I do wish there was a "full stop"command, but that might not be a good idea when three Cardassian ships are shooting at you.


Ive played both game systems and there is no comparison between the two games,running three ships in SFB could give you a headache and with over a 100 pages in rules, supplements, addedums and like a dozen choices of what your multiple shuttles can do during a battle it can take a long time to finish a game. Not complaining I enjoy both game systems but the system deployment used in SFB is light years more intense and involved then in STAW. Which is one of the reasons I like playing STAW.


Indeed so. Sometimes, I want to be in control of a starship, so I play SFB/FC. Sometimes, I want to go "Pew Pew Pew!", and I play AW.

Each game experience is unique, both are fun, for what they are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
headache62 wrote:
hadrian132 wrote:
Not complaining I enjoy both game systems but the system deployment used in SFB is light years more intense and involved then in STAW. Which is one of the reasons I like playing STAW.


I'm not saying you were complaining, I just wanted to give you another perspective on the idea of system distribution in AW. I prefer the system distribution in AW, but to each his own, of course.


You want to give your perspective on the System Distribution mechanic of AW...but I compared and contrasted that to a game you say you have never played.

Ok.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Apfel
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for this review. As a long time SFB player, this is the sort of thing I needed to read. I've been on the fence for ST: Attack Wing for months now. On the one hand I'm a huge fan of SFB and have played for years, starting when the game was considered a "pocket" game with just a few small rulebooks. I've played through the Commander and Captain editions, and at one point could proudly boast I was familiar with at least 90% of all the rules.

I've moved around a bit since those days and lost my playgroup, so though I was excited to jump into Federation Commander when it came out, I never did because the game was just too complicated for my new gaming friends. Sadly I've been looking for a good Star Trek game since then that still allowed me to immerse myself in the theme while being fast and easy enough for my other friends to find enjoyable.

I was thinking this game might be the answer, but wasn't sure if it was a bit too simple or not. (I also looked into Wizkids's other game, Star Trek: Tactics, and that game didn't feel like a starship combat simulator at all!) Your review has given me the small push I needed to go ahead and try the starter set. The price point of $10 for a single ship seems a bit steep to me, but at least I'm getting a pre-painted starship out of it. (I'm used to the days of spending $10 for a SFB expansion and getting DOZENS of ships!)

Hopefully my friends and I find equal enjoyment out of this game to last! (And I love the Next Generation ships, so that's a plus for this game. Though I'm a bit disappointed that my favorite ship, the Nebula class, is only available on auction sites at the cost of a small island.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Tonge
United Kingdom
Rotherham
South Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Eric, if you don't mind a bit of bodging get yourself a tactics nebula (exact same model) and make the stand, cards & a wheel (or just a dry wipe card with the maneuvers on it). It'll take you an hour tops.

I like FedCom but it is still slow. I wanted to like the mongoose ACTA that has since gone to ADB - we will see how that plays out. For this reason I've only bought the next gen / voyager stuff for 'trek.
It's a simplistic game but exactly for that reason its easy to play and its quite a lot of fun, even if the balance is not perfect.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Griffin
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I played SFB till I just could't handle the volume of rules anymore. I then switched to FASA Starship combat simulator and we played for years and had a lot of fun. Not perfect but not bad. I haven't gotten FC on the table yet but tried ACTA SF and I agree the rules are really too immature to play. Also they really like the Klingons because almost all the ships are agile and I don't think any of the Feds are. As a Fed player that was miserable.

I like Attack wing so far, but not the collector mentality. I especially despise the special ships only given out as awards in organized play that you can only buy at inflated prices on ebay. Not quite enough to put me off though. There are a bewildering number of build options but I would like to get more of my old minis on the table. Between the customized wheels and the no proxy rules though, that is pretty difficult.

So far I'm still losing to the Klingons, but this time cloaked next generation ones. I would like more scenario play with ship designs appropriate to the factions. That isn't going to happen though very often in organized play because cross faction builds are too powerful. I've seen some wacky combos and I've only been playing a week. You can do pretty big battles though but the ships can be one-shotted by the right combos.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Tonge
United Kingdom
Rotherham
South Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Personally, I would have preferred if the named ships didn't have special abilities - but they do, so I generally either ignore all ships' special abilities or ignore the unique rule. So you can have two ent-d if you like. I don't see why any named ship should differ from the rest of the class barring something like voyager.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry DeStefano
United States
Bloomingburg
New York
flag msg tools
stuuk wrote:
Personally, I would have preferred if the named ships didn't have special abilities - but they do, so I generally either ignore all ships' special abilities or ignore the unique rule. So you can have two ent-d if you like. I don't see why any named ship should differ from the rest of the class barring something like voyager.


I agree, but thats because the wizkid business model is all about organized play events and the exclusive buy in models. I dont think attack wing has the legs for that type of system. I think it will die out pretty soon. Maybe after the Borg collective. Now I like STAW and I hope it doesnt happen but I think it might. I would have perfered an approach where the base game was Feds vs Klingons maybe 12 ships total 6/6 per side. With the ofter fleets being offered in expansions, but didnt happen.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.