Dramatic SFB: Alliances and mechanics

[Brent Stanton]

I can assure you all I have no nefarious "game-killing mega-alliance"
intent in reaching out to one of my neighbors to seek a brief truce. I have
infact turned down two perfectly good offers of alliance with great terms
for what are essentially role play reasons. I have also made a habit this
campaign of "leaking" approximate BPV values or ship names for one scenario
each to my neighbors (much after the fashion of Wayne's Warp signature
leaks) so it's not as if I'm depriving my neighbors of battles.

I think there's some really interesting counterplay to be explored if you
discover a pair of players setting up a huge border and farming out EPV
with each other. Forming temporary counter-alliances, trading or selling
ships to players who are engaged against the offending mega-alliance, the
risk of being betrayed, and so much more!

I respect that some of my fellow players are in the campaign to play the
maximum number of battles possible - that's what would give them the most
enjoyment. The campaign exists for more than just battles though, it's the
context For those battles - My PFH is locked in a bitter civil war with
Joseph's Tall Enough Hydrans, and I'm less likely to retreat even when the
odds are long because we'd "rather take those Monarchist Hydrans straight
to hell with us!" Or my defeated RN+ "HPS Tenacity" searching for an
opportunity for redemption after being routed by Matt's Just Colonial
Commission.

I don't think it's any more appropriate to ban diplomacy because it has the
potential to complicate things with an additional dimension of gameplay
than to ban CV's or PFT's for the same reason.

Respectfully,
Brent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210823/5e19b66b/attachment-0002.html>