Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3

[Gregory Flusche]

We shall meet to decide.. only the wife corrects my incorect english

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:34 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. Re: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2 (Gregory Flusche)
>    2. I don?t care much, but... (Pat Hogan)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:26:22 -0400
> From: Gregory Flusche <shagrat1960 at gmail.com>
> To: Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2
> Message-ID:
>         <CAEoCcB7F2HtrXTDYu_y0vuP_8eLo254Zzq1=SFm3fNUcM4sH_A@
> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:34:08 -0400
> From: Pat Hogan <hazelnut1968 at yahoo.com>
> To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: I don?t care much, but...
> Message-ID: <79323E26-AADA-42E9-A452-DFFAE3FDEC24 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> ....put me in a position where I can declare Holy War against the half of
> the galaxy who continue to confuse the words ?border? and ?boarder.?  Makes
> for tedious reading.  ?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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 3
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171010/1a0dcbc4/attachment-0001.html>