Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks

Tue Oct 10 16:41:05 PDT 2017

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/20171010/cb1ee0d8/attachment-0002.html>