Dramatic SFB: Alliances and mechanics
Wayne Power
wdpower at yahoo.com.au
Sun Aug 22 18:08:23 PDT 2021
best answer I have found for scenario battles to happen is to offer a player to have a scenario battle (give out BPV or number of ship hulls to get battles that are 50/50 or 60/40 balance in BPV) On Monday, 23 August 2021, 10:19:53 am AEST, Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
Boy did my little thing about diplomacy spark this thread? The only time i use diplomacy's like now when i have way to many borders and way to few ships. Then it is a trade off of points. I do not add borders with some one just to get more points. Sooner or latter all them borders will come back to haunt me
There is no easy answer of course... but I still enjoy the game and how to play... :)
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:29 PM David via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
Seems to me you could reduce alliances by just setting the EPV payments to
more negative than positive for both defender and attacker. For example:
Whoever loses or doesn't show up gets -150bpv whoever wins gets +50 instead.
People have a natural tendency to feel losses more than gains and besides
that reflects war's real profits. It isn't a zero sum game, let alone a
positive one. You might have to boost the base income to balance things.
Sure, some will decide 'ok you win 3 and I win 3 so we each get +150 and
-450' plus our base of 450 but doesn't that make dealing sound less
appealing than 'you win 3 and I win 3 so we each get +200 and -50'? The
result is likely fairly close to EPV by kills. I'd probably change over
turns to balance things out given growing fleet sizes too.
I tried doing a 'contest every sector and no alliances' approach and
discovered it worked horribly. Lasted about a turn before I started
concentrating force as much as allowed by the rules.
-----Original Message-----
From: SFBdrama <sfbdrama-bounces at lists.mattnet.org> On Behalf Of
sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 1:11 PM
To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
Subject: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 192, Issue 7
Send SFBdrama mailing list submissions to
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
sfbdrama-owner at lists.mattnet.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of SFBdrama digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: GWO Turn 7 (Wayne Power)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 03:42:02 +0000 (UTC)
From: Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au>
To: Gregory Flusche <shagrat1960 at gmail.com>
Cc: SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>, Majead Farsi
<majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>, Brent Stanton
<brentzkrieg39 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: GWO Turn 7
Message-ID: <1797979472.597435.1629603722309 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Orion Observation (final report turn 7), ..the carrier went to the Gorn
zone, and 2x DW are going to the Hydran space..
On Saturday, 21 August 2021, 08:24:21 pm AEST, Wayne Power via SFBdrama
<sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
I usually try and set up a battle (scenario) or two each turn (using the
Orion Observer giving information, mostly correct).
, and this turn I now may send a force toward tall enough Hydran border if
they want to battle the Paravians? ( Hydrans only have about 12 ships left),
the Paravians can send a carrier group with a warp signature of 2.0 to
scenario 1182.
On Saturday, 21 August 2021, 08:48:43 am AEST, Gregory Flusche
<shagrat1960 at gmail.com> wrote:
I have thought about this for a while now. More on victory conditions and
generating fun interesting?battles. As well as doing as Matt wants.
Generating fun stories as well,?
1 set fleet sizes.. build a legal S8 fleet with the points given. No tugs as
they and other ships like Minesweepers are given in a scenario.?
2 victory conditions are set, Such as adding up EPV/BPV of kills. Using
basic victory conditions, So much for a destroyed/captured or crippled ship.
When one player exceeds three times?or whatever?of other players is the
winner..? Could of course use Matts empire score as well as a way of
winning.
I like the idea of getting points for what you kill. When I played ancients
Miniatures, Tournament battles were judged by enemy units routed destryed?or
broken. You won if you had the higher?kill ratio. This promoted fighting.?
If you do not attack You get no points.?
You can still have allies. So you can mass more ships elsewhere. You would
get?points for killing units added to a scenrio?such as bases and ground
units. This also means getting points for killing fighters/shuttles. .?
3 each player would get so many EPV depending?on the number of borders to
buy replacement ships for those lost in combat.. Then the border/no border
battles can matter as? Size of fleet can be determined by number of borders,
( The government?will give the admiral so much to spend on a fleet )?
4 all this means to win you must fight battles. Fleets dependent on
borders.... as well as everyone having about the same EPV means more even
battles to be fought, Mind You can still send what ships were you want and
well it does happen.?
Just some thoughts guys..?
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 6:01 PM Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
I like the idea of a set amount of EP each turn (the EP each turn could go
up or down at a campaign year end based on how many victory/loss in battle
each player had) Perhaps each empire needs to win certain types of scenarios
to also advance EP.
At present in these types of Campaigns some players make small deals every
now and then, others players have allies from the beginning and have them
for the whole Campaign.
I think also if there could be a limit on the size of each border empire,
and the overall total number of borders. On Saturday, 21 August 2021,
06:56:45 am AEST, Majead Farsi via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
wrote:
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
____________________________________________________
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/2021082
2/6853ec6a/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
<a href='sfbdrama.mattnet.org'>Dramatic SFB</a> campaign chatter list
SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
------------------------------
End of SFBdrama Digest, Vol 192, Issue 7
****************************************
____________________________________________________
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/20210823/7656f6e3/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the SFBdrama
mailing list