Dramatic SFB: WoA

Thu Nov 29 11:53:24 PST 2018

One possibility about allies maybe you only get partial credit for the
scenario.  Or one scenario you choose to get the benefit while the others
are dropped.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 1:16 PM Charles Carroll via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org wrote:

> Well conversely, the problem with making it where just sending a small
> holding force, if that becomes a deadly thing to do. Which in reality it
> is. You end up with only having forces sent somewhere that can reasonably
> hold their own but then....in back water sectors, in most space novels,
> since space does not have roads, being attacked comes down to the enemy
> sending out forces that may get around your borders and come in other than
> on a border. So it could certainly happen that an overwhelming force
> arrives and destroys a garrison on an out of the way world.
>
> The way we expand borders may be an issue. In that at first you have very
> few scenarios. Then they start increasing. Then they start increasing a
> lot. And the reason most people want more borders especially with allies or
> someone you have a truce with...is that you get free points. So making it
> where we are often constantly getting borders may be a bad thing. Now if
> being aggressive...as in taking a scenario would give you a border or let
> you keep your border and losing a scenario...removed a border or also some
> other effect that was made something worse then maybe that would be better?
> And if you start losing borders...then you may quickly find yourself out of
> the game. Which is actually not a bad thing. Most of us do not want a
> participation trophy. We want to know how well we are doing and be
> recognized for our skill. Not just...everyone gets a cute little ribbon for
> playing. So winners and losers make for a good competative game.
>
> I know the concept behind this type of combat is not strategic but purely
> local and just where your individual Captains are. But there are often
> entire turns where not a single fight takes place against anyone. Which of
> course is possible that you have peace in a region even if the rest of the
> Universe is at war. But if so...you should be losing some benefit. As
> mentioned you have no way to improve your crew or gain any kind of
> legendary officer. And most Legendary Officers should maybe be tied into
> the battle results. As in you win a battle and destroyed ships or even lost
> you get Weapons officers. You lost or won a battle and ships were destroyed
> or crippled. Maybe you got a Legendary Engineer who got some ships out or
> repaired a ship Scotty style that turned the tide. You take a planet.
> Legendary Marine. Your Fighters were engaged in a battle. During which you
> found a Legendary Ace...which could happen win or lose. Or any officer
> could be created during any battle where some actual possibility of them
> using their abilities happen. Science Officer...Monster scenarios. So forth
> so on. There is an online Dice program that sends out results. It could go
> to a moderator who posts the results.
>
> Anyway, if we only have ship building contests where we get to see our
> ships as they come by in parade order. Than we are missing the point of
> this concept lol.
>
> Chuck
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:32 AM joshua s via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>> Losing ships when withdrawing (usually to an overwhelming force) is
>> likely going to result in players sending only large forces to scenarios.
>> Plus no one wants to fight that outgunned.
>>
>> I’m all for more fighting. A destruction/cripple BPV tally as a winning
>> condition is likely to help that.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 5:03 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> 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/20181129/9e1c4024/attachment-0002.html>