Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2

Tue Oct 10 15:26:22 PDT 2017

Ok My turn to answer Matts post

I like the no map approch and do not really care how why we meet
unhistorcal races. My only thoughts on this is closing a boarder hurts you
unless you can replace it. Yes as the Jindo i did close a baorder that i
was not happy playing against. That you have no choice other then when you
get a boarder no boarder scenerio.

I am all in favor for simple Econ. I am the Admriral I do not care were the
money comes from just that i get so much and always want more.

I like Scenario driven... :)

Yes only EP rewards i think will be fine. I would however like a small base
Income that every one gets. Note I think if you as defender do not send
ships to a scenerio and neither does the other player there should still be
a negative effect?

I am all for buying my fleet for myself.

ending condtions either or no real issue

Exploration was somthing I suggested to help those who are not getting any
new boarder scenarios. Some replied that everyone would do it and it would
not help. I disagree if my fleet is not big enouph to cover new boarders I
would not make a new boarder. As happened with one of the Jindo this game A
small fleet to many boarders and getting a negative income.

weapon status only hurt me badly once and weapon status 1 with plasma vs a
disrupter and drones. Worse i had to kill the monster, he simply shoved me
so far away from the monster that after my plasma was armed I was to far
away to get to the monster and kill it. I will go with what ever is
decieded.

I like starting vs Histrorcal oppononts. When picking your starting race
you can then say well I really do not want to face Photons so  I will play
Hydran are whatever. After that new boarder is new baorder if you do not
want to fight it make a peace pact,

Starting year,
Any of the races i like to play It really does not matter to me. I really
do not care for X ships however. Some races do have some really good refits
and others really can get real good attrition type units latter

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:36 PM, <sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

> Send SFBdrama mailing list submissions to
>         sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         sfbdrama-owner at lists.mattnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of SFBdrama digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Campaign Tweaks (Matthew)
>    2. Long response (Daniel Crispin)
>    3. Spreadsheet comparing Income and EP rewards (david at jannke.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:59:38 -0400
> From: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>
> To: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks
> Message-ID: <266a3fec-02db-a566-337b-31802abe74b1 at mattnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:47:01 +0000
> From: Daniel Crispin <calendyr at hotmail.com>
> To: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Long response
> Message-ID:
>         <SN1PR0701MB20808C6DDE999E3521EA8E77C5750 at SN1PR0701MB2080.
> namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I wrote a super long answer to Frank?s long message and Outlook crashed on
> me 30 minutes in! ARG!!!!!!
>
> So I will do the same with Matt?s message, this time using Microsoft Word
> to protect my sanity from a potential crash.
>
> I will answer inside each point, to make it clearer to everyone.
>
> 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.
>
> RE: To me it make so sense that two empires at the other end of the galaxy
> can have a border.  Your explanation for a single encounter makes sense,
> but a border means actual contact between the two empire?s territories.
> How about fixed borders set by historical maps and the possibility of
> opening and closing fronts between the empires on your borders?
>
> - 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.
>
> RE: Completelly agree with you on this..  Paperwork for tracking repairs
> and such are boring and make no sense.  In reality a galactic empire would
> have hundreds of ships, several repair docks, several base stations,
> starbases, and fleet construction yards.  We only use a small fraction of
> the empire?s actual navy.  No need to add tedious paperwork.
>
>
> 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.
>
> RE: Good idea!
>
> - 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.
>
> RE: My suggestion would be to simply slash the command rating of ships by
> half or even by three.  Command variant could have a +1 command after the
> slash.  This would make to manageable battle fleets and not restrict
> players in the choice of ships to use.  It would also prevent endless
> battles where a Carrier could be present with 6 or 7 other ships making the
> battle take weeks.
>
> 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.
>
> RE: This is a must!  Getting handed a fleet is no fun.  Each player has
> preferences in ships they like to fly.  Also on a strategic level people
> should be able to decide the kind of fleet they want.
>
> Starting with a fixed amount of BPV and knowledge of what will be your
> initial borders would be ideal in my book.
>
> Also, I think Frax should not be part of the available races.  This is a
> conjectural race designed to test ships.  If each race cannot build the
> conjectural units, why is an overpowered race that never existed be allowed
> in the campaign?
>
>
> - 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.
>
> RE: Great idea.
>
> - 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.
>
> RE: I feek Frank?s proposal to send scouts to do missions adds a lot of
> randomness to a very strategic campaign.  I would personally do without
> exploration.
>
>
> - 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.
>
> RE: WS is something very strange for this kind of campaign.  Question: If
> you are the captain of an attacking fleet headed to a planet, or enemy
> convoy or something.  Why would you not be at red alert and have your ship
> ready for battle before arriving?  This is not Star Wars where you make an
> hyperspace jump and only see conditions when you get there.  Even so, the
> attacking captain would load everything before leaving hyperspace.  In the
> Star Trek universe, all ships have powerful sensors and know that ships are
> approaching long before they enter weapon range.  Only exception would be
> with cloaking ships.  So to me, this is a very stupid game mechanic we
> should do without.  In fact, I think only the defender should roll in the
> case of cloaked ships attacking.  The roll would indicate if the defender
> managed to detect the ships before it?s too late.
>
> - 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.
>
> RE: Only thing I think we should try to avoid are X-Ships.  They are on a
> completely different level of capabilities and make regular ships
> obsolete.  I think the sweet spot is around Y174.  You mentioned the idea
> of having more turns per year.  My suggestion, 12 turns per year, that way
> each turn represents a month (Earth calendar) and it would be easy to track.
>
> Can?t wait to get started!
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20171010/02543753/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:05:11 -0700
> From: david at jannke.com
> To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Spreadsheet comparing Income and EP rewards
> Message-ID:
>         <20171010120511.0376b67e2c14a4d458d0fc4ba9edf8
> c8.736166a340.mailapi at email04.godaddy.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I was curious how INCOME compares with EP awards so I built a spreadsheet
> to compare. Here's a copy to run your own tests on:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LA6mjxj-LzwV8GVZIn66O5iKL6yQ-
> lPgCe9pPtwQXps/edit?usp=sharing
> It's google docs so free. Feel free to change all the stuff that is red.
> If you fiddle with the spreadsheet outside of the red cells (and I
> encourage that) please make your own copy first.
>
> Assumptions: A fleet wins 50% + its %BPV advantage in engagements over a
> generalized opponent. We are not fighting an INCOME empire vs. EP empire,
> we are racing them.
>
> Breakeven given what I saw in my engagements is about turn four. If you
> can wait for nine turns you pick up a free cruiser for your patience. You
> only get to use that for ~4 turns though (assuming a 14 turn game).
>
> It seems to me this might be useful to determine what Income really means
> for setting up campaigns.
>
> Incidentally, I find maintenance can be used as a powerful balancing
> force. If maintenance is 20% then losing a ship means the victorious empire
> has an advantage for only 5 ish turns. Maintenance of 1% means you have the
> same accounting complexity and an advantage for 100 turns, essentially
> forever. It seems to me maintenance of much under 10% is more an accounting
> exercise than a balancing one given the campaign sets the rewards as well
> as the costs.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20171010/626769fe/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> <a href='sfbdrama.mattnet.org'>Dramatic SFB</a> campaign chatter list
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171010/23d62ee5/attachment.html>