Dramatic SFB: GWO Turn 7

Fri Aug 20 13:56:30 PDT 2021

yep I remember that one, and that's why I think your format would be better
for encouraging players to fight a few as well. I like to do a bit of both!
Maybe allowing a certain number of encounters to be resolved by diplomacy
but everything else must have at least 1 shop + like your format allocated
to it. It would be fair I think. For myself I have not had any alliances
but have made some logical diplomacy choices depending on the random
encounters where the gain and losses have been mutual.
The only reason why players try for diplomacy is because they do not have
enough ships to cover all borders that need covering and allocating ships
to cover the ones that can be fought will leave them open to overwhelming
encounters. Again your format solves that issue 😀.

Majead

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 20:48, Marcel Trahan <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Majead,
>
> I do understand the need for sporadic diplomacy based on the encounter
> type. But if it gets like the previous campaign, where allies were sharing
> 17 to 24 borders, increasing them every turn and only sending Police ships
> to pre negotiated borders, then it becomes unbalanced. I remember some
> players that had 35-40 total allied borders and enough small ships to cover
> half of them, those players were getting so many EPs every turn that they
> could send 9-10 ships fleets to the few other borders where they did not
> have any alliances.. I think i did not play any scenarios in the last 4 or
> 5 turns of the campaign. And once a few players started that process, other
> players had to do the same to try to keep up with the other alliances. And
> i was guilty as well of doing it and it is why i am not doing it in this
> campaign.
>
> Currently, this campaign is still at the point where you try to outwit
> your opponents, Sending ships where it matters and creating interesting
> scenarios. If we start alliances, then, it becomes only brute force or
> whoever has more allies.
>
>
> Marcel
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:26 PM Michael Helbig <admgrraven at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have lately only allied with players that are almost totally
>> incompatible with my schedule. Since changing jobs my time has gotten more
>> flexible so need fewer allies. Also learning to enjoy the game again.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:48 PM Majead Farsi via SFBdrama <
>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I kind of agree with you Marcel, to a certain degree. I do think that a
>>> certain amount of diplomacy has to be in it. The campaign moves forward by
>>> granting Ep's to the winner of encounters. Some encounters are fair on both
>>> sides and some are not, some have fair EP distribution some don't. This
>>> forces us to use diplomacy wherever possible.
>>> To not use diplomacy you would need to remove the variation in the EP's
>>> granted. All should be equal. All encounters give the same EP advantage. To
>>> remove diplomacy entirely then give every empire a certain amount of EP
>>> each turn, no reduction or increase and measure the campaign by another
>>> means of measuring wins and losses. By Campaign end see who has the best
>>> ratio of wins and losses and claim them as winners.
>>>
>>> I think your format FMJ does not get rid of diplomacy entirely but it
>>> does limit it. I would like to play a later campaign with your format where
>>> we are able to field at least small carrier groups, which would require a
>>> higher initial EP to build with.
>>>
>>> Just my thoughts!
>>>
>>> Majead
>>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 17:11, Marcel Trahan <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with you Majead,
>>>>
>>>> But i do remember the last few campaigns where allies were building
>>>> lots of cheap units, opening borders between themselve, splitting
>>>> scenarios to get the most EPby sending cheap units while massing huge
>>>> fleets to the few enemy borders that were left.
>>>> It ended up that for the last few turns, we did not play any scenarios
>>>> at all. That was my main reason behind FMJ rules.
>>>>
>>>> If it goes that way, it means that alliances are the only way to go and
>>>> we end up not playing any scenarios, which kinda defeats the purpose of the
>>>> game.
>>>>
>>>> As for myself, i don't have any allies and will not get any. I am here
>>>> to play encounters and have fun.
>>>>
>>>> Marcel
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:13 AM Majead Farsi <
>>>> majeadfarsi at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To prevent, that Marcel we need to adopt your encounter format which
>>>>> has advantages and has some disadvantages ( I think the disadvantages can
>>>>> be solved!) but it does create more battles. Diplomacy is part of most
>>>>> campaigns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Majead
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 15:43, Marcel Trahan <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Romulan Star Empire is RTA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Diplomacy kills the spirit of the game. It turns the campaign from a
>>>>>> scenario generation for SFB to a who gets the most allies and builds
>>>>>> impossible fleets to battle against.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this one does not turn into a hoarding game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 8:23 AM Majead Farsi via SFBdrama <
>>>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Federation Horde are RTA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 23:58, Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama <
>>>>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tribunal 13 is ready to advance... unless I get more diplomatic
>>>>>>>> cries
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:28 PM Wayne Power via SFBdrama <
>>>>>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GWO turn 7 Y179 Orion Observer reports,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no Paravian ships at the Tall enough Hydran border area1182
>>>>>>>>> Organian Treaty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> battle group Albatross moving toward the oasis planet "Lighthouse"
>>>>>>>>> to defend from a Gorn planet crusher.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> battle group "Fire" defending one of the last Paravian convoys on
>>>>>>>>> the NERF border.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> battle group "Sword" with a warp signature of 2.0 heading toward
>>>>>>>>> the Romulan border.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> scattered elements of battle group Petrel at the Dino-Mites border.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 20 August 2021, 12:45:13 am AEST, Wayne Power via
>>>>>>>>> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shearwater Albatross Petrel Paravian RTA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Battle Groups,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sword
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Albatross
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Petrel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shearwater
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fire
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 19 August 2021, 02:34:49 pm AEST, Brent Stanton via
>>>>>>>>> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The People's Front of Hydrax is RTA.
>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> 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/20210820/2a6c1302/attachment-0002.html>