Dramatic SFB: Finishing Fleet Build

[Randy Blair]

It used to be that there were income rewards that carried over from turn to
turn.  So, instead of a base 30EP every turn, for example, it could
increase or decrease depending on the scenarios won or lost.
The "leading empire" was, as I understand it, based on a formula combining
fleet strength, income and cash on hand.  I may be, and probably am, wrong
but it seemed like that was the gist.
The problem was the random element.
When you were a defender, you could lose significant recurring income,
which was totally logical, but if you had 4 scenarios like that, you were
going to lose, period.
I think that's really the best model, and most appropriately represents
what a real campaign would look like.  But the randomizer should be a bit
different, based on previous encounters - specifically those encounters
which involved a fixed asset.
How that's achieved, programatically, I don't know.

On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 5:29 PM Gregory Flusche <shagrat1960 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The problem is in finding a good balance. It is in my opinion not borders
> as in finding a victory condition for the campaign and a way to increase
> battles by not having some one sending huge fleets to each border and
> winning that way?
>
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Marcel Trahan <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I was not saying that all scenarios whould have big negative, but i would
>> replace some ''no border'' scenarios with negative ones.
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:00 AM Randy Blair via SFBdrama <
>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, there would have to be some mechanism by which you could only get
>>> so many of those.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 10:10 AM Don Lavanty via SFBdrama <
>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> No thanks on the negative points you could be unfortunate enough to get
>>>> all 8 missions defence and you are basically just out of the game just
>>>> because of the RNG.
>>>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:00 AM Charles Carroll via SFBdrama <
>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It would work fine like that. But then there is no way to lose border
>>>>> that so not sure if that is a viable answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 5:13 PM Gregory Flusche <shagrat1960 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt could you make a non player race? That when some one attacks a
>>>>>> non border and closes it it would open a border with the non player race.
>>>>>> Giving a player a free border only needing to assign a ship there to gain
>>>>>> the EPs? Are is that not possible with your program?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:43 PM Charles Carroll via SFBdrama <
>>>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lol yeah I over do it at times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok in a nutshell. No Borders are bad bad bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason to try and take a border is if you absolutely need
>>>>>>> to reduce your combat area because it is hurting you too badly to have that
>>>>>>> much area to defend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So no one ever fights a No Border scenario because they gain nothing
>>>>>>> and lose every possible point the could make in the future. It is a
>>>>>>> lose/lose Pyrrhic Victory where winning hurts you as much or more than him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcel's idea of must defend or you lose enough income to be hurt.
>>>>>>> And/or the idea of a negative balance means you must kill a ship of equal
>>>>>>> or lessor value or several ships to pay the cost would work better. As in
>>>>>>> considering that all ships require some upkeep and maintenance and if your
>>>>>>> balance is negative then you cannot support all your ships.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this is why there is an issue with the idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:29 PM Matthew via SFBdrama <
>>>>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sorry Charles, but your email rambled along in a fashion that I
>>>>>>>> wasn't able to follow your line of thinking. Would you please try
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --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/20181226/429c7519/attachment-0002.html>