Dramatic SFB: WoA

[Paul Meyer]

I agree with the idea of crew experience. The more battles your crew participates in, the more experience they should get. I know this means more book-keeping, but I do think it will encourage more battles.

I also think there has to be some kind of boundaries set around what 'participation' means. If you commit a ship and then cut and run on the first turn, I don't think that would qualify for crew experience...


Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>

________________________________
From: SFBdrama <sfbdrama-bounces at lists.mattnet.org> on behalf of Paul Graves via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 8:03 AM
To: Matthew; sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: WoA

Hey guys,

I think restarting is a good idea, but only if we change how we do things.  I strongly agree with others that suggest encouraging more fighting and less withdrawing.  As I proposed a while ago players should be forced to engage somewhat if they send ships or lose a portion of what they sent maybe as much as 50%.  This seems realistic to me since many times the scenario in theory might represent a valuable resource or protecting the empire's citizens and as such would not just cut and run if moderately outgunned.  Also as I suggested have more caps on what is allowed to be sent to scenarios, either in terms of BPV allowed, number of ships, or total movement cost like some of the Convoy scenarios so it's more likely reasonably balanced forces on each side arrive.

I also think we might come up with a more well defined overall win condition as some have suggested.  This too might encourage aggression especially if it involves how many opponent ships you've crippled or destroyed.  One way or another we need to prevent such massive buildups of everyone's fleets and that means either reducing build amounts or increasing destroyed ships.  I think the latter is clearly more fun and if one can reasonably replace them there's less fear of losing ships.  If people are reluctant to be too draconian in forcing battles perhaps limit fleet sizes in some way so you literally can't make new ships without replacing older ones.  So you might as well use them and lose them in battle vs just being replaced.

Perhaps also if you also had some form of additional rewards for fighting, such as allowing legendary officers to be created in ships that participate in increasing numbers of battles.

I otherwise don't feel strongly about the year we start but would prefer not going backwards in time.  So anywhere Y178+ would be great.

Regards,
Paul G.




________________________________
From: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: WoA


> Even though at that level...everyone ends up with X ships.
>
> Maybe start a bit lower and in 5 years...or so get there? I dont know.

I have no problem if we'd like to end the current game and begin afresh.
There's another player who might be starting the game this next turn
again, anyways.

Starting too late does introduce issues. Particularly, that the database
does not support X ships very well: Module X and X1R are not in the
system. Knowing that, I can start in Y180 (probably with 4-6 turns per
year.) That gives PFs to most players (except the plasma-types) and fast
seekers all around.

So let's see a show of hands: Who does *not* want the WoA to stop?


--Matt
____________________________________________________
Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org<http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org/>
SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org<mailto: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/20181129/53602e66/attachment-0002.html>