Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks

[Matthew]

I have a bit of an outline for the structure of the campaign I want. 
This has driven the initial version and continues to guide me with this 
campaign. Additionally, there are some tweaks that have been in the 
planning for this iteration for the last [couple/several] months. 
Finally, I cover some of the startup variations available, which really 
drive the flavor of the new campaign when compared to the previous one.

*Structure first:*
- No Map
This means borders are an abstraction. Wonder how a Klingon can find a 
border with the Gorn? They must have met in the middle while carving out 
Fed turf or worked around the Feds.

It gives the players alot of flexibility on controlling their borders. 
Don't worry that completely shutting down a border hurts you too. If 
you're dealing from a position of strength, then you'll be opening up 
larger borders on your other sides at the same time. The important thing 
at that time is that you are shutting off a certain player from hitting 
you hard. Don't want to fight against the Jindarians while playing Gorn? 
Close down the Jindo border and make a larger border with the Romulans.

- Simple econ
That means we don't track what your econ is from colonies, we don't 
track supply lines, no supply-tax, no bookkeeping. I know some of you 
really prefer 4X campaigns. I do to. I have one in the works (I've had 
it in the works for a couple years now. Don't hold your breath.) But 
bookkeeping has to be a minimum here. Just point your fleet and shoot.

- Scenario Driven
Some campaigns are simply "Battle Generators". Others are "Chess with 
SFB ships". This is the former. So scenarios drive all of the important 
decisions.

*New Tweaks:*
- Remove the {NO}INCOME rewards:
All of the scenarios will give and take away some amount of EPs. Your 
income won't ever be touched, but your stockpile will roller-coaster.

- Add fleet Limits
While editing the scenarios for their rewards, I'll be introducing fleet 
limits on some scenarios. Particularly the common ones where it's 
unreasonable to see large fleet elements. Since I am planning to keep 
the CR system (I had floated the idea earlier to use the BPV cap system 
and it was unpopular), My original intent was to limit the size class 
(and thus limit the fleet size) allowed at certain scenarios. I might 
instead limit it by Move Cost (which will have the same effect - No ship 
with MC greater than 0.5 at such-and-such scenario) or by move-cost of 
all ships on a side (so limit one to MC 3.0, which would be three 
cruisers of six destroyers.) Other methods exist. Different scenarios 
might have different methods.

*Possible Tweaks:*
- Buy your starting fleet
At the start of the campaign, players might be given a certain stockpile 
and no ships. The first turn is spent buying ships and ignoring the 
scenarios (much to the chagrin of the players who draw the huge-BPV 
scenarios right off). Players who enter mid-stream will probably not be 
able to do this because of the one-sided benefit it gives to the player 
who shares borders with the unprotected new guy.

- Define ending conditions
I wasn't a big fan of this, but I got some push-back at the start of 
last game about this. Basically, we define a set of circumstances where 
someone is declared a winner. A certain income, fleet BPV, or we get to 
a certain turn/year. I prefer the flexibility of saying "Player A is 
unreachable, let's stop this" or "Half our player base is leaving next 
week. Let's call it here and start fresh." If you guys want to set up 
some certain goal (and accept that some people will set up their whole 
tactics on reaching that first, regardless of the "realistic" way to 
handle an empire), then I will go with that.

- Exploration
There is no programmed-in mechanic for setting aside ships and getting 
income or borders for it. But if we can hash out the boundaries of such 
a mechanic, I can manually perform this. By reaching into the player 
settings, I can add/remove either part of the econ, and add/remove 
ships. But it would require players share their orders with me (which 
could be icky if I am also playing) in order to show what ships they are 
deliberately not sending to a battle. It also requires more 
behind-the-scenes administration from me.

- Weapon Status
I'm not married to the WS-Chart. But it was introduced in order to 
increase variation in the scenarios and to provide the possibility for 
reaching WS-III. I can roll things back to a defined-WS for each side in 
each scenario, if you prefer more stability with WS.

*Campaign Startup:*
- Food Groups vs Historical
Traditionally I have been starting empires next to their historical 
neighbors when possible, on the theory that their neighbors are better 
balanced against eachother. This is a possible method to start things, 
where Disruptor races only are in contact with other disruptor races. 
Same with plasma races. "Strangers" (Andro, jindo, Tholian, etc) are in 
their own group. Perhaps a fourth group for "core" empires with strange 
weapons (Fed, Vudar, Hydran, etc). The only way to make contact outside 
of your "Food Group" is to get lucky with a "NEWBORDER" reward.

- Starting Year
There are four main eras to start things in.
General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years.
Late-War era starts at the introduction of PFs: Y180 +/- 2 years. There 
is spotty support in the ship-lists for X-ships. However, this does 
allow more empires to join (as the Selts have ships, the Vudar have 
something besides a few base hulls to pick from, and there is a 
difference between the PF Feds and the 3rd-Way Feds.)
Early Year era (EY): this starts at Y120. I only have module Y1 in the 
DB, though "recently" have gotten Y2 and Y3.
Dawn of Warp era: this starts at Y60 +/- 10 years. As with the EY, 
support for this is currently spotty but will improve in future 
iterations. if we push back the start of the next campaign, I may have 
better support for this.


--Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171010/18b305da/attachment.html>