Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 11

[Gregory Flusche]

If we as a group need to vote on the use of Hidden T-bombs. Then I could
vote no for hidden mine. As a old Romulan player who likes my NSMs dropping
a T-bomb out the rear hatch is as good as a Hidden NSM as they tend to move
around the mine. Influencing there movement.

There is also hidden cloak i used to as a Romulan ask for this. Are Fed
player wanted no ECM we all explained ECM is a advanced rule. I said give
me hidden cloak are WWs are outlawed. We ended up playing with no hidden
cloak and ECM.



On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:29 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 (ken)
>    2. Re: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 9 (ken)
>    3. Re: Campaign Situation (Roch Chartrand)
>    4. Re: Fleet limits (Matthew)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:46:58 -0400
> From: ken <kengulnar73 at yahoo.com>
> To: Ann Monaghan <lemay.frank at bell.net>, Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>,
>         Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks
> Message-ID: <2g1cg5735gwos9rvw4sj3di1.1507697218051 at email.android.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> It may be an "optional" rule, but my point is that you can't have a rule
> enforced only part of the time. Either we all use hidden mines, or nobody
> does. You can't expect someone to enter a scenario expecting some tool to
> be in his arsenal,? then at the start of the battle say " oh I don't want
> you to use that" .
>
> Admiral Ken?
>
>
> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? 3
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Ann Monaghan <lemay.frank at bell.net>
> Date: 10/10/2017  11:40 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> To: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>, ken <kengulnar73 at yahoo.com>, Matthew via
> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks
>
>
>
>   Ken,
>
>   Hidden TBs is an optional rule while ECM is an advanced rule.
>
>   I'm thinking apples & oranges here........... ?
>
>   Looks like I am 0 for 2, no Y150 start and Hidden TBs is used.
>
>   This is really not a good week for me .? ??
>
>   Cheers
>
>   Frank
>
>
>    ---------- Original Message ----------
>
> From: ken <kengulnar73 at yahoo.com>
>
> Date: October 10, 2017 at 7:41 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>     I really think that this should be an all or none issue. I do not like
> the idea that a player can choose to not use a rule that they dont like.
> Next will be the players who feel ecm should be an optional rule and they
> shouldn't have to play against it cause they dont like it.
>
>
>     Hidden mines is especially important for races like the early
> Romulans, you are not very likely to hit with that juicy nsm if I know
> where you put it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Admiral Ken?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? 3
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: Ann Monaghan via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
>
> Date: 10/10/2017 6:54 PM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>, Matthew via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks
>
>
>
>
>    Looks good Matt !
>
>    My only request is to change up the Hidden TB rule.
>
>    Make it an option where both Admirals must agree to use hidden TBs, if
> one says no, then hidden TBs is not used.
>
>    Thanks.
>
>    Cheers
>
>    Frank
>
>
>
>
>     ---------- Original Message ----------
>
> From: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
>
> Date: October 10, 2017 at 12:59 AM
>
>
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
> ?
>
>     ____________________________________________________
>
> 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/20171011/728b247b/attachment-0003.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:46:23 -0400
> From: ken <kengulnar73 at yahoo.com>
> To: Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 9
> Message-ID: <6tc0p7j7dpjwy7uhckqfreut.1507931183494 at email.android.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> Obviously,? yearly progression (turns per year) will depend on the start
> date.? It might actually be fun to play with a variable timescale, start
> very early with something like 5 years per turn, then as newer tech starts
> becoming available shift to one turn per year, then around y160ish shift to
> 2 per year, then around y175 shift to 4 per year, and finally in the y180s
> to 10 or 12 per turn.? Realistically I wouldn't expect a campaign to last
> this long, but it would be a fun change :)
> Admiral Ken?
>
>
> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? 3
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20171013/c009c4bb/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:52:11 -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 Situation
> Message-ID: <01d901d3446d$86b72570$94257050$@Videotron.qc.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I like the comment : Start new campaign at year we ended this on!
>
> Y174
>
> I'm definitely a General war year player! So any start date around Y172?2
> is
> good with me.
>
> Roch C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SFBdrama [mailto:sfbdrama-bounces at lists.mattnet.org] On Behalf Of
> Matthew via SFBdrama
> Sent: 12 octobre 2017 20:41
> To: Matthew via SFBdrama
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Situation
>
> 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
>
>
> ---
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier ?lectronique a ?t? v?rifi?e par le
> logiciel antivirus Avast.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:46:35 -0400
> From: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>
> To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Fleet limits
> Message-ID: <f89d13bc-333d-b135-d727-6e1920538724 at mattnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
>
> > I think it would be handy for me to understand the reasons behind
> > fleet limits.
>
> Primarily, Fleet limitations are to reduce the number of ships to a
> level manageable by the players. Some players can't handle any better
> than one or two ships, while others prefer squadrons of up to 4 ships,
> while others can manage large battles consisting of 15 ships to a side
> and an unending amount of seekers and attrition units. Secondarily, SFB
> limits fleets to what would be "realistic" for the doctrine that ADB has
> decided is correct. There are exceptions and extra requirements around
> the margins to deal with game balance of certain systems (Web Casters,
> Dis Devs, etc) and to showcase certain situations (the Fed's ability to
> field more fighters when doing the 'Third Way', for example.)
>
> Many campaigns attempt to create a different set of limits, usually to
> limit battles to an even smaller amount of units. Occasionally there is
> a wish to create a different doctrine of ship assignments. Sometimes
> there are follow-on effects along these lines that are unintended.
>
> > ... having larger scenario limits late in the campaign or by having an
> > artificially lower CR limit early.
>
> This effect is already baked into the SFB system. Very early ships just
> don't have the Command Rating values to deal with large fleets.
> Additionally, fighters and seeking weapons don't show up with as much
> profusion until the middle-160's. The problem is pretty much solved.
>
> When speaking of limiting ships in scenarios, I intend to create limits
> to mirror a "realistic" situation. Case in point would be the Convoy
> raids: Nobody would send a dreadnaught to escort a convoy. Similarly,
> nobody would send a dreadnaught to attack a convoy (with the exception,
> perhaps, of a "light" dreadnaught). Yet a dreadnaught might show up to
> attack a colony. Particularly one with an orbital base or several
> hard-hitting ground bases (a "PDU" in F&E terms.) So I intend to
> selectively limit ships in certain circumstances.
>
> --Matt
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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 11
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171014/75baa5b6/attachment.html>