Dramatic SFB: WoA

[Marcel Trahan]

A lot of scenarios involve the defender to be at slow speed at start, which
would allow a superior attacker fleet chances to damage, cripple or even
destroy the defender.
One of the option would be to give the ability to the attacker not to
engage and for the defender to disengage only if the attacker allows it
otherwise, the scenario is played and the defender has to save his ships by
disengaging by distance or acceleration.
In other word, only allow disengagement to the attacker automaticaly and to
the defender only if the attacker allows it. This might force some battles
and remove some ships.



On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM Paul Graves via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

> 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
> 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/20181129/30b02721/attachment-0002.html>