Dramatic SFB: the new late war campaign

[TJ Hooker]

 Matt,
     Per traditional borders, I like the idea of the ISC, Orion, Tholians, and even Wyn, oh and of course the Andros as non-traditional border races, more of a classic setting. 

    On Sunday, December 2, 2018, 5:05:28 PM PST, Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:  
 
  
 
 Some thoughts on WoA.. Traditional borders matter, big time, much prefer that, seems almost necessary. 
 
 While I generally set that up (if possible), there is a certain amount of motion away from that as the game progresses, through NewBorder rewards. But, that's a feature (it gets people to think outside their box.)
 
 
  Attrition units need to be paid for in EP.  (maybe they already where, idk). 
 
 Already there. (Try playing a Hydran: You'll know those costs are in there...)
 
 
  It really is up to the players as to the playstyle they prefer, more of a diplomacy/ strategic level style, or a more tactical put it on the map... style of  play. 
 
 I agree. Both styles have their places and times. It's a balance of those that make it fun.
 
 
 Starting distances for the scenarios, while exciting are too close 
 
 That is something of a knee-jerk response from the last campaign I was running, where the complaint was that long start ranges meant the defenders always drove the tempo of the battles.
 
 However, I'd like to note that these start ranges do not always lend themselves to an auto-disengage. It's become the norm that when someone wants to disengage that sportsmanship requires that they be let alone. I think that several of the scenarios would allow either or both sides one or more volleys (albeit at moderately-long ranges)  before one force can disengage (by acceleration, usually.)
 
 The flip side that I had attempted to push people towards on earlier iterations, was that everyone start at WS-II and moderately-long ranges. The concept is that by the time they meet for battle, they've had a turn to complete all of the arming cycles. Big Plasma formed a lobby group and began to threaten to redesign the scenarios.
 
 
 Lastly, it seems to me that some ships I wanted to build were simply not in the drop down though the YiS was good. I wonder if ALL ships are in the drop down  that are avail for all races in any given year or if it is just what Matt has been able to get in his database.
  
 
 Naturally enough, the software can only present to you what it has in it's database. When that database was formed, I was working off of the ships from the modules I have (since I didn't have G3 and besides, there is information present that G3 doesn't track). So It's missing R11, R7, X, X1R, Y2 and Y3. It's got the other 22 modules.
 
 Another aspect to it, is that that ships have an obsolete year. This was introduced to keep the late-years ship lists from being huge. Otherwise it would start to include every ship that was ever built, with each kind of refit being another distinct entry. For example, the Gorn (to pick a modest empire) would have build-a-ship drop-down-menus of over *530 entries*. Feds, Klinks, and Roms would have the largest menus.
 
 So generally, if the section-R note said a ship stopped being built in a certain year, I set it to obsolete in that year. If it was refit, then the "old" version would go away in a year or two. If it was a fighter upgrade, the old version would go away at the time of the new introduction. If an obvious conversion overtook the ship (such as the Y-era stuff being made into "local defense" versions) then the old one went away in a year or two.
 
 --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/20181204/3bec4222/attachment-0002.html>