Talk:Federation Commander

Star Trek Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Board and table games C‑class Low‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The issue of Federation Commander's relative complexity in comparison to SFB has been addressed in the opening paragraphs, as it states:

Unlike its sister publication, Star Fleet Battles, Federation Commander is not intended to be a very in-depth simulation of space combat in the 22-23rd centuries. Rather, it is aimed at providing a balance between tactical nuance and ease of playability, one which makes the game more accessible for newer gamers, or those with limited time constraints, than Star Fleet Battles.

Should the issue regarding SFB's alienation from prospective gamers be addressed in the SFB article itself?

-Nerroth

Good game pages talk a lot about the mechanics, history and consumer reaction to the game. (See Advanced Squad Leader for my idea of a nicely done page.) So, yes, as long as it is NPOV, verifiable, and the rest of it. Rindis 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability template removed[edit]

This page was marked with the Notability: Books template. I have removed the template for two reasons. First, the subject is not a book buy a game system and therefore would not have certain requirements under the book heading like an ISBN number. Second, the subject is the flagship title for a game company that has been in the business for almost 30 years. It is sold in stores across the country, and played by many. There is even an online service to play that game that sees regular traffic. All of this is mentioned in the article and should speak for itself.

Iarann 19:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the website for this online service? I don't see it mentioned in this article. could someone please add it to the article here? thanks. --207.10.186.48 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability template restored[edit]

I've just been through the references on this article and they're mostly primary sources. There is the ref to the Tabletop Game News review of one particular scenario however it is not even used in the subsection about that scenario and is certainly insufficient to support a notability assertion for the entire article. The Further Information section is entirely comprised of links to primary sources. This whole thing reads like a synthesis of press releases. I will maintain the notability tag until the concern is adequately addressed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Federation Commander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error on page[edit]

Klingon Attack is not a direct expansion for Klingon border. Klingon border contains all of the content in Klingon Attack. The packaging for Klingon Attack actually warns potential buyers not to purchase it if they already own Klingon Border. Klingon Attack is meant to be an expansion to Romulan Border in order to supplement that starter set with the Klingon content.

Likewise, Romulan Attack is not an expansion of Romulan Border. It is intended to supplement Klingon Border. 192.69.180.159 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]