Dramatic SFB: WoA

Sat Dec 1 15:28:03 PST 2018

My SFBOL account is up and running. I can play monday night -wendsday night
not sure about other times

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:40 PM Charles Carroll via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

> Yeah Michael,
>
> Realistically why would you get credit for defending somewhere that
> nothing happened nor would happen? Everyone is on leave and partying.
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:53 PM Michael Helbig <admgrraven at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________
> 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/20181201/78ecc7f6/attachment-0002.html>