Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 43, Issue 4

Jarod Ikeda jarod.ikeda at gmail.com
Mon Jun 11 22:05:35 PDT 2018 

I'm with Matt.  I've lost count how many campaigns I've played under this
system and thank him profusely for creating the software and running them.
(Thanks to Frank too for starting up the Midshipman's).

I read about hidden mines and whether I like it or not, I accept it.  I've
always contended that mines and tbombs and ship explosions unbalance the
game, but alas....


Now narrow salvo's I didn't realize they were an advanced rule and were
included in this campaign.  But since they are ship specific when dealing
with more than one ship it helps to smooth out the binary nature of it.
(ton of damage or no damage).

Those are my thoughts on it.

Keep up the good work Matt (and Frank).  Without you guys I'd be forced to
play tourney's only. :(


Jarod (sleepy cat)


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:35 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: Hidden mines (Pat Hogan)
>    2. Re: Hidden mines (Matthew)
>    3. Re: Hidden mines (Boyd Steere)
>    4. Re: Hidden mines (Ann Monaghan)
>    5. Re: Hidden mines (Michael Helbig)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:45:54 -0400
> From: Pat Hogan <hazelnut1968 at yahoo.com>
> To: TJ Hooker <metaldog09 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Ben Sh <dragoastro at gmail.com>, Randy Blair
>         <randyblair2 at gmail.com>, Matthew via SFBdrama
>         <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Hidden mines
> Message-ID: <6873831E-82E6-462B-9BA8-9F616A161421 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I agree.  While there are certain options and things I would do slightly
> differently if I was running a campaign; I?m not running this one.  I
> accepted the rules and live and die by them.  ?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 11, 2018, at 17:18, TJ Hooker via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure this is up for a vote, i don't really like hidden mines
> either.. that being said you have entered an established campaign where the
> rules were also established. The game interface does allow for accurate
> tracking and placement of the hidden mines from the shuttle bay and you can
> be sure that your opponent is being literally forced to place them via the
> interface so there is no room for error or "meta-gaming" (aka cheating).
> Your assertion you MUST now track every hex and every impulse is also
> simply untrue, having played and watched several scenarios I can tell you
> it is only relevant at certain times.
> >
> > I personally like narrow salvos.. many do not. You used that rule,
> perhaps all of your opponents should let you know upfront that they wont be
> using it and would strongly prefer that you not use it either Ben? I would
> also lobby for energy balance due to damage... that we include that rule as
> well, as I like it, but then again, I entered an established campaign where
> I agreed, when I joined, to the rules, including the optional rules. I
> think the rules are available on the website the the admins are also
> readily available. Maybe just give it a try instead of walking in the door
> trying to change the campaign rules? Its not that bad.. :)
> >
> > On Monday, June 11, 2018, 1:19:14 PM PDT, Randy Blair via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Every game I've played includes them.
> > SFBOL takes care of them just fine.
> >
> > I vote to keep them.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 3:47 PM Ben Sh via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
> > I was just surprised to find out that the campaign was using hidden mine
> placement.
> >
> > This is an optional rule that I have never seen included in any SFB game
> in the 35 odd years I have played.
> >
> > It is, imho, an absolutely terrible rule. It requires tracking every hex
> every opponent's ship has passed through and the turn/impulse it left that
> hex. Ugggg!!!
> >
> > I propose that this rule be removed from the campaign rules.
> >
> > It adds nothing to the "space combat" game this is supposed to be. The
> game is already extremely complicated, so much so that it is hard to get a
> new player to play. Why make it worse for so little tactical gain?
> >
> > For now, I request that any opponents I play and I refrain from hidden
> mine placement during our games, as, of course, I will.
> >
> > Thanks for reading my rant.
> >
> > Ben Shove
> > Drago Astro
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > 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
> > ____________________________________________________
> > 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/20180611/587b6fe0/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:03:04 -0400
> From: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>
> To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Hidden mines
> Message-ID: <95764e1c-8235-9587-1a51-c72a34a2cacc at mattnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
>
> > I was just surprised to find out that the campaign was using hidden
> > mine placement.
> > I personally like narrow salvos.. many do not.
> > I would also lobby for energy balance due to damage...
>
> Currently, the ship has sailed on these issues. I'd like to direct your
> attention to the SFB Rules of interest
> <http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org/docs/rules.html#sfb%20rules> in the campaign.
>
> tl;dr: Give the campaign a chance and then hit up the mailing list after
> the campaign is over.
>
>
> The Secret placement of mines have been part of the campaign since it's
> first public game, where the Romulan player of the time had successfully
> used his Jedi Mind Tricks on the rest of us, to get us to include it. As
> it's optional, I'm not surprised to see that players might want it out.
> But it's in, it's marked in the campaign rules as in, and so the best
> recourse is to minimize it's effects on you (or maximize it's effects on
> your opponents, in hopes that *they* want it out.)
>
> Narrow Salvos are marked as "Advanced", not "Optional". Therefore the
> game is already balanced with those figured into things (the same way it
> is for self-generated EW.) Personally, it never crossed my mind to
> remove Narrow Salvos; they seem to me to be as much part of the game as
> fancy shuttles and t-bombs.
>
> Energy Balance Due to Damage, Leaky Shields, Critical Hits, Pre-Plotted
> Movement, and so on, also are not part of the game as called out by the
> campaign. If you want to include some certain optional rules or leave
> out some certain non-optional rules, then I'm willing to entertain a
> discussion.
>
> **However**, the middle of ongoing campaigns are not the time to go
> changing the rules. There is usually a short haitus between major
> campaigns (in this case, the Attrition War is a major campaign. The
> other two campaigns are to support it.) That is the time to discuss
> changes to the campaign structure, allowed rules, disallowed rules, and
> the aim of the next campaign(s). We've successfully done that in the
> past: Scenarios used to include rewards and penalties to your income
> stipend, pre-laid minefields have been officially disallowed, Tugs and
> pods have been added to your build lists, changes to the Command-Rating
> format had been discussed and knocked out, and so on.
>
> So let things run their course. See if you can make the current batch of
> rules work for you. And then when we wrap up the current iteration, see
> if you can convince the others to your thinking (and bribe them with
> cookies.)
>
> --Matt
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20180611/da0f3603/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:51:08 -0400
> From: Boyd Steere <boydsteere at gmail.com>
> To: Matthew <matt at mattnet.org>
> Cc: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Hidden mines
> Message-ID:
>         <CALbJnKu+weEaH8EYLEocMvxqNS6TidAi+aA_
> R7wFPgRu5cc0Nw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> As a Kzinti player, I officially hate all T-bombs and other mines,
> particularly those that are secretly placed so I can't route my drones
> around them.  That said, I acknowledge that this rule has been canon for a
> long time and just something that we have to deal with.  If it were up for
> a vote (which it isn't), I'd still vote to keep the rule around.  Sometimes
> you have to recognize the difference between your own interests and the
> interests of the game as a whole.
>
> Now, if it were up for a vote to keep the rule that warp and impulse tacs
> move very last in order, even after drones and shuttles and faster-moving
> ships, then we could have a debate.  :)
>
> -Boyd
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:03 PM Matthew via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > I was just surprised to find out that the campaign was using hidden mine
> > placement.
> >
> > I personally like narrow salvos.. many do not.
> >
> > I would also lobby for energy balance due to damage...
> >
> >
> > Currently, the ship has sailed on these issues. I'd like to direct your
> > attention to the SFB Rules of interest
> > <http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org/docs/rules.html#sfb%20rules> in the
> campaign.
> >
> > tl;dr: Give the campaign a chance and then hit up the mailing list after
> > the campaign is over.
> >
> >
> > The Secret placement of mines have been part of the campaign since it's
> > first public game, where the Romulan player of the time had successfully
> > used his Jedi Mind Tricks on the rest of us, to get us to include it. As
> > it's optional, I'm not surprised to see that players might want it out.
> But
> > it's in, it's marked in the campaign rules as in, and so the best
> recourse
> > is to minimize it's effects on you (or maximize it's effects on your
> > opponents, in hopes that *they* want it out.)
> >
> > Narrow Salvos are marked as "Advanced", not "Optional". Therefore the
> game
> > is already balanced with those figured into things (the same way it is
> for
> > self-generated EW.) Personally, it never crossed my mind to remove Narrow
> > Salvos; they seem to me to be as much part of the game as fancy shuttles
> > and t-bombs.
> >
> > Energy Balance Due to Damage, Leaky Shields, Critical Hits, Pre-Plotted
> > Movement, and so on, also are not part of the game as called out by the
> > campaign. If you want to include some certain optional rules or leave out
> > some certain non-optional rules, then I'm willing to entertain a
> discussion.
> >
> > **However**, the middle of ongoing campaigns are not the time to go
> > changing the rules. There is usually a short haitus between major
> campaigns
> > (in this case, the Attrition War is a major campaign. The other two
> > campaigns are to support it.) That is the time to discuss changes to the
> > campaign structure, allowed rules, disallowed rules, and the aim of the
> > next campaign(s). We've successfully done that in the past: Scenarios
> used
> > to include rewards and penalties to your income stipend, pre-laid
> > minefields have been officially disallowed, Tugs and pods have been added
> > to your build lists, changes to the Command-Rating format had been
> > discussed and knocked out, and so on.
> >
> > So let things run their course. See if you can make the current batch of
> > rules work for you. And then when we wrap up the current iteration, see
> if
> > you can convince the others to your thinking (and bribe them with
> cookies.)
> >
> > --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/20180611/3b99e48c/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:23:52 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Ann Monaghan <lemay.frank at bell.net>
> To: Ben Sh via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>,  Ben Sh
>         <dragoastro at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Hidden mines
> Message-ID:
>         <1407282988.225862.1528766632329.JavaMail.open-xchange at mtlgui01>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.
> org/attachments/20180611/eff1d7cb/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:35:35 -0400
> From: Michael Helbig <admgrraven at gmail.com>
> To: Ann Monaghan <lemay.frank at bell.net>
> Cc: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>, Ben Sh
>         <dragoastro at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Hidden mines
> Message-ID:
>         <CAN5mpkMQECdvCTG8_s0oPiz9DVKLigHVua=UPeP6AZaRv6X
> xWg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I've known about this glitch for quite some time. That's why I try to place
> once I've left the hex. Unfortunately some players actually check the
> information on the counter and cry foul. Also they sometimes show up when
> the person laying the mines loads a saved game. The other player can see
> his control panel and all pieces listed before he loads his save.
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 9:23 PM Ann Monaghan via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
> > Agreed Ben, its a silly little rule !
> >
> > FWIW, I will play against Hidden TBs but I will never use this tactic.
> >
> > When I shove a TB out through the shuttle bay doors, I will be announcing
> > such fact using the IA procedure.
> >
> > Besides, I like to see the sweat on my opponents brow when they realize
> > they will hit the damn thing ............................  ??
> >
> > Note to all Hidden TB users, the SFBOL client does not quite hide it when
> > you first lay it, only when your ships have left the hex of laying is the
> > TB actually hidden. Chuck and I discovered this last night, also I
> remember
> > Matt and I [ Matt more so then me ! ] also had this issue in our Thol vs
> > Pel battle a month or so ago.
> >
> > Also, I noticed last night that if a PoT or PoS counter is in same hex as
> > hidden TB, it can be seen until the counter is moved elsewhere.
> >
> > It seems the TB is only hidden if there is no unit/counter of any kind in
> > same hex.
> >
> > I have informed Paul F. of this fact.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > From: Ben Sh via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
> > Date: June 11, 2018 at 3:47 PM
> >
> > I was just surprised to find out that the campaign was using hidden mine
> > placement.
> >
> > This is an optional rule that I have never seen included in any SFB game
> > in the 35 odd years I have played.
> >
> > It is, imho, an absolutely terrible rule. It requires tracking every hex
> > every opponent's ship has passed through and the turn/impulse it left
> that
> > hex. Ugggg!!!
> >
> > I propose that this rule be removed from the campaign rules.
> >
> > It adds nothing to the "space combat" game this is supposed to be. The
> > game is already extremely complicated, so much so that it is hard to get
> a
> > new player to play. Why make it worse for so little tactical gain?
> >
> > For now, I request that any opponents I play and I refrain from hidden
> > mine placement during our games, as, of course, I will.
> >
> > Thanks for reading my rant.
> >
> > Ben Shove
> > Drago Astro
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > 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/20180611/6bf8d987/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 43, Issue 4
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20180611/a8db9247/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the SFBdrama mailing list