Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 9

[Gregory Flusche]

I would prefer  General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years
or Early Year era (EY): This starts at Y130 +/- 10 years. Some races of
course may not have all of there refits are best ships available. I have my
Race picks in mind. Yet the thought of using sub light Roms against yearly
Warp powered Gorns  and Feds does sound very very much a  tactical
challenge.

No more then 4 turns per year. Any more then that and it would take forever
to get any tech increases. I liked  the two turns per year.

everything I have already talked about

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:12 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: Campaign Tweaks (Roch Chartrand)
>    2. Campaign Situation (Matthew)
>    3. Re: Campaign Situation (Steven Pow)
>    4. Re: Campaign Situation (Michael Helbig)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:38:40 -0400
> From: "Roch Chartrand" <R.Chartrand at Videotron.qc.ca>
> To: "'Matthew'" <matt at mattnet.org>
> Cc: <SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks
> Message-ID: <010b01d343a2$790f38c0$6b2daa40$@Videotron.qc.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Matt,
>
>
>
> Oh boy! Your email did generate a lot of comment!  First let me compliment
> you on you awesome campaign, when I heard about it I was skeptical on the
> format of a scenario driven campaign, now I like this format and I would
> play again with the exact same setup!  I understand that it is a work in
> progress and people want to see or balance thing up differently.
>
>
>
> About the structure:
>
> No map, I?m 100% converted, I like the scenario driven encounter.  Would
> probably add some new scenario, but the one I have seen up to now were
> giving me plenty of diversity and challenge.
>
>
>
>
>
> New Tweaks:
>
> Not sure I would remove the Income scenario, but I would drastically reduce
> the value gain in them.  If we remove the Income aspect in the scenario it
> should be replace by a fix Income for everyone.  My reasoning behind this
> is
> that a player not fortunate in his EP encounter could rely on this to
> survive a few turn!
>
>
>
> Fleet restriction, it a very hard issue in any type of campaign, I would go
> with the command rating divided by 2, that would keep us more in line with
> the SFB rule in the S section, so the biggest fleet available would 7
> ships!
>
>
>
> I?m not a big fan of a lot of campaign admin, so all the pay here, pay
> there, kept track of ? etc.. don?t like, I like the current format.  If we
> go into a multiple turn per year, we could then apply more than 1 turn for
> ships repair according to the amount of damages or SC.
>
>
>
> Possible Tweaks:
>
> Buying your on fleet at start, I kind of like this ideal, we would need a
> turn 0 than would generate no scenario, just to record our buy.
>
>
>
> End condition:
>
> I would like to have a no end condition and play forever!  This current
> campaign king of ended at a point where I was getting momentum!  Kind of
> disappointed of the ending.
>
>
>
> Exploration scenario could be added randomly just like the current
> scenario,
> but it would be a solo scenario and depending on the type and SC ship sent
> to this scenario player would gain: EP, borders,  Income or even a ship.
>
>
>
> Weapon status: should never be at 1 at any point in any scenario.  By
> specified in scenario or roll between 2 to 4 have no difference for me, You
> adopt the tactic according to it!
>
>
>
> Campaign startup:
>
> I prefer the historical border for start for sure, after that anything is
> good!
>
>
>
> Start date, I?m definitely a General War player starting the campaign
> between Y172 ? 3 year is my preference, if it last long enough it could
> lead
> us into the later War period with the X-ships.
>
>
>
> Someone suggested a 12 turns Year set for each month of the year, I think
> it
> would overkill this year set and we would never be able to progress in the
> time line.  I would be ok with quarter turn (4) per year set, for the
> seasons! J
>
>
>
> 2 thing I would like to see added/fixed:
>
> -be able to unselect a ship from the scenario, went you are in the assign
> order page.
>
> -be able to transfer EP, just like we are able to transfer ships.
>
>
>
> I will remain available if you have question about some of my suggestion,
> and looking forward to start the next campaign.
>
>
>
> Roch C.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: SFBdrama [mailto:sfbdrama-bounces at lists.mattnet.org] On Behalf Of
> Matthew via SFBdrama
> Sent: 10 octobre 2017 01:00
> To: Matthew via SFBdrama
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ---
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier ?lectronique a ?t? v?rifi?e par le
> logiciel antivirus Avast.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20171012/caace795/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:40:50 -0400
> From: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>
> To: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Situation
> Message-ID: <cc9a0331-cb28-8cc0-cbd4-a277cf9c6f17 at mattnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Thank you all, who have enjoyed the last campaign(s) and said so. I
> appreciate your comments.
>
>
> I have not yet officially closed down the last campaign: you can still
> log in and see things there. But I will be closing it down anytime in
> the next week or two.
>
>
> I have some administrative things to do before I'm ready for the next
> campaign to begin. Mostly it's adding tog-pods to the database and
> editing the scenarios in the planned ways I've mentioned earlier.
>
>
> That being said, I think I'm willing to begin building the list of
> empire picks and build a consensus on the era to play in. Some players
> have already done so, but I have thusfar taken it informally. The first
> thing I need, which may impact empire choices, is what era we are
> playing in. Again, those eras are:
>
> General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years.
> Late-War era starts at the introduction of PFs: Y180 +/- 2 years.
> Early Year era (EY): This starts at Y130 +/- 10 years.
> Dawn of Warp era: This starts at Y60 +/- 10 years.
>
> I can vary how many turns are played per technological year and limit
> the maximum size-class allowed. Generally there isn't much call to limit
> the game to (say) destroyers, so I hadn't on planned on changing it from
> where it was last game. The era we decide on will affect the number of
> turns per year, as some eras are very slow technologically and others
> are much faster.
>
> Frank had voted for the EY era, but bowed out because of family issues.
> I will cast a vote in his favor, thinking he may be ready to come back
> by the time we are ready to physically start the campaign.
>
>
> --Matt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:27:36 -0400
> From: Steven Pow <steven.pow at gmail.com>
> To: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>
> Cc: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Situation
> Message-ID:
>         <CAH+-Tfrvm3mjdmn+cHE+gU6hsLQprhrzsHnd9gg2b-
> kcU2oJwg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Any era would be fine with me- they all have unique, interesting things
> going on that would make them good experiences.
>
> Steve
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Matthew via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
> > Thank you all, who have enjoyed the last campaign(s) and said so. I
> > appreciate your comments.
> >
> >
> > I have not yet officially closed down the last campaign: you can still
> log
> > in and see things there. But I will be closing it down anytime in the
> next
> > week or two.
> >
> >
> > I have some administrative things to do before I'm ready for the next
> > campaign to begin. Mostly it's adding tog-pods to the database and
> editing
> > the scenarios in the planned ways I've mentioned earlier.
> >
> >
> > That being said, I think I'm willing to begin building the list of empire
> > picks and build a consensus on the era to play in. Some players have
> > already done so, but I have thusfar taken it informally. The first thing
> I
> > need, which may impact empire choices, is what era we are playing in.
> > Again, those eras are:
> >
> > General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years.
> > Late-War era starts at the introduction of PFs: Y180 +/- 2 years.
> > Early Year era (EY): This starts at Y130 +/- 10 years.
> > Dawn of Warp era: This starts at Y60 +/- 10 years.
> >
> > I can vary how many turns are played per technological year and limit the
> > maximum size-class allowed. Generally there isn't much call to limit the
> > game to (say) destroyers, so I hadn't on planned on changing it from
> where
> > it was last game. The era we decide on will affect the number of turns
> per
> > year, as some eras are very slow technologically and others are much
> faster.
> >
> > Frank had voted for the EY era, but bowed out because of family issues. I
> > will cast a vote in his favor, thinking he may be ready to come back by
> the
> > time we are ready to physically start the campaign.
> >
> >
> > --Matt
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> > http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> > SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> > http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20171012/605e8c66/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:12:39 -0400
> From: Michael Helbig <admgrraven at gmail.com>
> To: Steven Pow <steven.pow at gmail.com>
> Cc: Matthew Potter <matt at mattnet.org>, Matthew via SFBdrama
>         <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Situation
> Message-ID:
>         <CAN5mpkMoFc=QOewtY5QkDwSjegUGhWv2Xw8Xp69kFVFJ+FYpbA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I vote for starting in the year this one ended. I have no Early war
> material so if that is chosen I will have to bow out.
>
> On Oct 12, 2017 9:27 PM, "Steven Pow via SFBdrama" <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
> > Any era would be fine with me- they all have unique, interesting things
> > going on that would make them good experiences.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Matthew via SFBdrama <
> > sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you all, who have enjoyed the last campaign(s) and said so. I
> >> appreciate your comments.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have not yet officially closed down the last campaign: you can still
> >> log in and see things there. But I will be closing it down anytime in
> the
> >> next week or two.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have some administrative things to do before I'm ready for the next
> >> campaign to begin. Mostly it's adding tog-pods to the database and
> editing
> >> the scenarios in the planned ways I've mentioned earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> That being said, I think I'm willing to begin building the list of
> empire
> >> picks and build a consensus on the era to play in. Some players have
> >> already done so, but I have thusfar taken it informally. The first
> thing I
> >> need, which may impact empire choices, is what era we are playing in.
> >> Again, those eras are:
> >>
> >> General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years.
> >> Late-War era starts at the introduction of PFs: Y180 +/- 2 years.
> >> Early Year era (EY): This starts at Y130 +/- 10 years.
> >> Dawn of Warp era: This starts at Y60 +/- 10 years.
> >>
> >> I can vary how many turns are played per technological year and limit
> the
> >> maximum size-class allowed. Generally there isn't much call to limit the
> >> game to (say) destroyers, so I hadn't on planned on changing it from
> where
> >> it was last game. The era we decide on will affect the number of turns
> per
> >> year, as some eras are very slow technologically and others are much
> faster.
> >>
> >> Frank had voted for the EY era, but bowed out because of family issues.
> I
> >> will cast a vote in his favor, thinking he may be ready to come back by
> the
> >> time we are ready to physically start the campaign.
> >>
> >>
> >> --Matt
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________
> >> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> >> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> >> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> >> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> > http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> > SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> > http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20171012/aa0f4113/attachment.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 9
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171013/8b432644/attachment-0001.html>