Dramatic SFB: Alliances and mechanics

Mon Aug 23 05:03:27 PDT 2021

Hi Majead,

There is a big difference between resolving battles by diplomacy and making
alliances.

To diplomatically resolve battles is normal and expected. You are outgunned
or you outgun your opponent and offer him to leave is ok, because it can
speed up the campaign. (i still love to blow up a few ships when i am
outgunning my opponent or trying to escape with my ships when i am
outgunned, those can be very fun scenarios to play)

What  i am talking about is more of 2 or more players making alliances,
deciding beforehand how to share the scenarios, and only sending very low
BPV units to reap the EP, and increasing those borders as much as possible.
When a player has 20+ friendly borders and lots of police ships that are
there to cover those friendly borders, this is where the campaign gets
boring.

An example would be you and me having a 12 scenarios border, you build 6-8
FXE at 26 BPV each and i do buy 6-8 SNP at 55 each (smallest ship i can
build) and we do each send ships to the borders that we are defending and
whenever we have a chance to get a BORDER scenario, we take it. This would
end up each making on average 240+ EP per turn without risking any ships
and using useless inexpensive units. After 5-6 turns of doing that, we
soon get to 20 common borders, building another 4 cheap units and reaping
on average 600+ EP each

Once a few players start doing that, the other players will only have the
option to start doing the same thing or they will quickly get relegated and
fall so much behind that they cannot compete in the other scenarios. It
takes 4-5 turns of doing that before the campaign turns into a stalemate
and grind to a stop.

If players want to have a strategic/diplomatic campaign, go that way or
play F&E. If players want a SFB scenario generating campaign, just don't
make alliances, manage your borders (not too many or too little) and send
ships to try to get as many EP as you can and try to remove as many EP's
from your opponent as you can. I love to be the attacker in those Colony
Raid or Convoy Raid (yum yum, minus EP) or i will try to take as many enemy
ships as i can when defending those ones.

I currently have 1 SUB carrier group (I ended up with the SUB because the
SUP-K that i had was deemed to require escorts, so i refitted it into a
SUB) that could probably take any of my opponent fleet and i send it to a
critical scenario and as for the rest, i will send 1 or 2 heavy ships (MC
2/3+) or a few smaller ships to most borders, hoping to outwit my opponents
or have just enough ships to have a minimum chance of winning the scenario,
hoping that my opponent did not send a big fleet.

This turn, i am sending ships to 16 of my 22 borders, 3 of them with 4
ships, 1 with 3 ships, 5 of them with 2 ships and the rest with only 1
ship. I do hope this will end up having a few scenarios to play out. My 3
or 4 ships fleet are spread among 4 opponents and my 2 ships fleet are
spread among the other 3 opponents. Single ships are spread among all of
them.

This is way more fun than making alliances, reaping EP and sending huge
fleets on the few non-allied scenarios that would be left. At least that
way, i get to play scenarios, which is why i join those campaigns.

Matt's last campaign turned out to be an alliance based campaign (and i was
part of that alliance based campaign with my Hydrans and i plead guilty)
and at the end, nobody was playing any scenarios because we where dealing
with 1500+ bpv fleets and who wants to play those huge fleet games that
takes weeks to play.

I do sincerely hope that this campaign will not turn that way and ends up
to whomever as more allies.

Marcel

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 7:03 AM Majead Farsi <majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> I don't think there are alliances ever. Its just talking to resolve some
> battles quickly. Speaking for myself, I can never play all battles as I do
> not have the time. If we did not solve some battle results diplomatically
> the game turn would be too long and I personally would start to loose
> interest. I do not want to have to wait 6 months for all the battles to
> resolve. Some have time to play out their battles but some will not be able
> to. Two things will happen, 1, the campaign turn will take too long to
> complete and 2 due to length of time people will drop out due to holding up
> the campaign or just getting bored.
>
> Campaigns have diplomacy. Individual scenarios where the 2 sides have
> predetermined ships and points get fought out. The format of what we are
> playing is campaign. On the next campaign I suggest we use something like
> FMJ to create more even encounters and battles and also keep some diplomacy.
> Majead
>
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 11:13 Marcel Trahan via SFBdrama, <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> I think for now the best solution is to go with the honor system. Just
>> all agree not to make alliances.
>> Send ships to try to get as much EP's as possible without losing too many.
>>
>> If all players agree to go this way, it will create a lot of scenarios
>> where we will enjoy playing which is the goal of the campaign.
>>
>> As for myself, i am not in any alliance and i will not make any in the
>> future. I don't care if i win or lose the campaign as long as i can
>> have fun playing the scenarios.
>> I will even fight battles where i am outgunned just for the chance of
>> winning the scenario if the conditions allow it.
>>
>> 2 turns ago, i attacked the prospecting raid with 2 SKA against 1
>> Seltorian CA and 2 Seltorian DD defending. I was outgunned and i had lots
>> of fun playing it. I pulled it out but almost lost a SKA doing it. That was
>> way more rewarding then making alliances and trying to build the biggest
>> fleets possible which ends up not playing any scenarios at the end.
>>
>> This turn, i will be sending ships to 16 of my 22 borders, leaving only 6
>> borders unattended. I hope this will generate some interesting scenarios
>> even if it means that i am spreading my forces thin.
>>
>> Let's all agree not to make alliances and see where it leads.
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:13 AM Wayne Power via SFBdrama <
>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210822/6853ec6a/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
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> 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/20210823/3cde26e0/attachment-0002.html>