Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 12
Gregory Flusche
shagrat1960 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 14 20:08:30 PDT 2017
Josh I should not have closed so fast can not find your E-mail in the
list. Mine is shagrat1960 at gmail.com
On Sat, Oct 14, 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: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 11 (Gregory Flusche)
> 2. Era vote (a88mph at aol.com)
> 3. Early Voting Counts (Matthew)
> 4. Race preference (Daniel Crispin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 18:01:18 -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 11
> Message-ID:
> <CAEoCcB5aRj0sL=pm-a4oXRm1DMgwCsE8qGhGbMyqwThqNaE
> jFg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 18:36:34 -0400
> From: a88mph at aol.com
> To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Era vote
> Message-ID: <15f1d082503-c11-21afd at webjas-vae221.srv.aolmail.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I too wish to try the Early Era. I spent $100 on those 3 modules and would
> hate to see them go to waste.
>
>
> Also, like I said before, I would like to try the Tholian's this time
> around, but if I must have a second choice, make it Hydrans.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20171014/8216ea64/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 21:53:34 -0400
> From: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>
> To: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Early Voting Counts
> Message-ID: <a95600e1-b087-5922-f26f-bc386635a8da at mattnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> So I have these votes:
>
> 2 EY and some secondary-preference votes
>
> 5 mid-war (continue where we left off)
>
> 3 GW era
>
> 1 Abstain
>
>
> And these empire picks, in order of preference
>
> Rob: Tholian, Hydran
>
> Roch:
>
> Greg:
>
> Paul: Gorn
>
> Daniel:
>
> Ken:
>
> Micheal: Carnivon
>
> Steven:
>
> Josh:
>
> Pat: Fed (Fighters? or PFs?), Klingon
>
>
> Voting has not yet closed. People listed have voted. Those with empire
> picks have simply gotten in their picks early. Changes can be made to
> any of the above. If you aren't listed, then I have not tabulated your
> vote and you should remind me to do so. Due to the ratio of
> players-to-available-empires (18 players to 19 empires - some empires
> being unplayable in some eras), we will again allow up to two people to
> play the same empire. Picking an empire to play is not necessary at this
> point, as the era we pick may invalidate some empires.
>
>
> --Matt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 02:12:46 +0000
> From: Daniel Crispin <calendyr at hotmail.com>
> To: "sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org" <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Race preference
> Message-ID:
> <SN1PR0701MB2080A8D4F6701F192A274D46C54E0 at SN1PR0701MB2080.
> namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> My preferences for race selection are as follow:
>
>
> 1. Gorn
> 2. ISC
> 3. Romulan
>
> Daniel
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20171015/84b8aed9/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 12
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171014/48c9892c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the SFBdrama
mailing list