<div dir="ltr">If we as a group need to vote on the use of Hidden T-bombs. Then I could vote no for hidden mine. As a old Romulan player who likes my NSMs dropping a T-bomb out the rear hatch is as good as a Hidden NSM as they tend to move around the mine. Influencing there movement. <div><br></div><div>There is also hidden cloak i used to as a Romulan ask for this. Are Fed player wanted no ECM we all explained ECM is a advanced rule. I said give me hidden cloak are WWs are outlawed. We ended up playing with no hidden cloak and ECM. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:29 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sfbdrama-request@lists.mattnet.org" target="_blank">sfbdrama-request@lists.mattnet.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send SFBdrama mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:sfbdrama-request@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama-request@lists.<wbr>mattnet.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:sfbdrama-owner@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama-owner@lists.mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of SFBdrama digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Campaign Tweaks (ken)<br>
2. Re: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 9 (ken)<br>
3. Re: Campaign Situation (Roch Chartrand)<br>
4. Re: Fleet limits (Matthew)<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:46:58 -0400<br>
From: ken <<a href="mailto:kengulnar73@yahoo.com">kengulnar73@yahoo.com</a>><br>
To: Ann Monaghan <<a href="mailto:lemay.frank@bell.net">lemay.frank@bell.net</a>>, Matthew <<a href="mailto:matt@mattnet.org">matt@mattnet.org</a>>,<br>
Matthew via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:2g1cg5735gwos9rvw4sj3di1.1507697218051@email.android.com">2g1cg5735gwos9rvw4sj3di1.<wbr>1507697218051@email.android.<wbr>com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It may be an "optional" rule, but my point is that you can't have a rule enforced only part of the time. Either we all use hidden mines, or nobody does. You can't expect someone to enter a scenario expecting some tool to be in his arsenal,? then at the start of the battle say " oh I don't want you to use that" .<br>
<br>
Admiral Ken?<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? 3<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: Ann Monaghan <<a href="mailto:lemay.frank@bell.net">lemay.frank@bell.net</a>><br>
Date: 10/10/2017 11:40 PM (GMT-05:00)<br>
To: Matthew <<a href="mailto:matt@mattnet.org">matt@mattnet.org</a>>, ken <<a href="mailto:kengulnar73@yahoo.com">kengulnar73@yahoo.com</a>>, Matthew via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ken,<br>
<br>
Hidden TBs is an optional rule while ECM is an advanced rule.<br>
<br>
I'm thinking apples & oranges here........... ?<br>
<br>
Looks like I am 0 for 2, no Y150 start and Hidden TBs is used.<br>
<br>
This is really not a good week for me .? ??<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Original Message ----------<br>
<br>
From: ken <<a href="mailto:kengulnar73@yahoo.com">kengulnar73@yahoo.com</a>><br>
<br>
Date: October 10, 2017 at 7:41 PM<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I really think that this should be an all or none issue. I do not like the idea that a player can choose to not use a rule that they dont like. Next will be the players who feel ecm should be an optional rule and they shouldn't have to play against it cause they dont like it.<br>
<br>
<br>
Hidden mines is especially important for races like the early Romulans, you are not very likely to hit with that juicy nsm if I know where you put it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Admiral Ken?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? 3<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
<br>
From: Ann Monaghan via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
<br>
Date: 10/10/2017 6:54 PM (GMT-05:00)<br>
<br>
To: Matthew <<a href="mailto:matt@mattnet.org">matt@mattnet.org</a>>, Matthew via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
<br>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Looks good Matt !<br>
<br>
My only request is to change up the Hidden TB rule.<br>
<br>
Make it an option where both Admirals must agree to use hidden TBs, if one says no, then hidden TBs is not used.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Original Message ----------<br>
<br>
From: Matthew via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
<br>
Date: October 10, 2017 at 12:59 AM<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have a bit of an outline for the structure of the campaign I want. This has driven the initial version and continues to guide me with this campaign. Additionally, there are some tweaks that have been in the planning for this iteration for the last [couple/several] months. Finally, I cover some of the startup variations available, which really drive the flavor of the new campaign when compared to the previous one.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Structure first:<br>
<br>
- No Map<br>
<br>
This means borders are an abstraction. Wonder how a Klingon can find a border with the Gorn? They must have met in the middle while carving out Fed turf or worked around the Feds.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It gives the players alot of flexibility on controlling their borders. Don't worry that completely shutting down a border hurts you too. If you're dealing from a position of strength, then you'll be opening up larger borders on your other sides at the same time. The important thing at that time is that you are shutting off a certain player from hitting you hard. Don't want to fight against the Jindarians while playing Gorn? Close down the Jindo border and make a larger border with the Romulans.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- Simple econ<br>
<br>
That means we don't track what your econ is from colonies, we don't track supply lines, no supply-tax, no bookkeeping. I know some of you really prefer 4X campaigns. I do to. I have one in the works (I've had it in the works for a couple years now. Don't hold your breath.) But bookkeeping has to be a minimum here. Just point your fleet and shoot.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- Scenario Driven<br>
<br>
Some campaigns are simply "Battle Generators". Others are "Chess with SFB ships". This is the former. So scenarios drive all of the important decisions.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
New Tweaks:<br>
<br>
- Remove the {NO}INCOME rewards:<br>
<br>
All of the scenarios will give and take away some amount of EPs. Your income won't ever be touched, but your stockpile will roller-coaster.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- Add fleet Limits<br>
<br>
While editing the scenarios for their rewards, I'll be introducing fleet limits on some scenarios. Particularly the common ones where it's unreasonable to see large fleet elements. Since I am planning to keep the CR system (I had floated the idea earlier to use the BPV cap system and it was unpopular), My original intent was to limit the size class (and thus limit the fleet size) allowed at certain scenarios. I might instead limit it by Move Cost (which will have the same effect - No ship with MC greater than 0.5 at such-and-such scenario) or by move-cost of all ships on a side (so limit one to MC 3.0, which would be three cruisers of six destroyers.) Other methods exist. Different scenarios might have different methods.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Possible Tweaks:<br>
<br>
- Buy your starting fleet<br>
<br>
At the start of the campaign, players might be given a certain stockpile and no ships. The first turn is spent buying ships and ignoring the scenarios (much to the chagrin of the players who draw the huge-BPV scenarios right off). Players who enter mid-stream will probably not be able to do this because of the one-sided benefit it gives to the player who shares borders with the unprotected new guy.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- Define ending conditions<br>
<br>
I wasn't a big fan of this, but I got some push-back at the start of last game about this. Basically, we define a set of circumstances where someone is declared a winner. A certain income, fleet BPV, or we get to a certain turn/year. I prefer the flexibility of saying "Player A is unreachable, let's stop this" or "Half our player base is leaving next week. Let's call it here and start fresh." If you guys want to set up some certain goal (and accept that some people will set up their whole tactics on reaching that first, regardless of the "realistic" way to handle an empire), then I will go with that.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- Exploration<br>
<br>
There is no programmed-in mechanic for setting aside ships and getting income or borders for it. But if we can hash out the boundaries of such a mechanic, I can manually perform this. By reaching into the player settings, I can add/remove either part of the econ, and add/remove ships. But it would require players share their orders with me (which could be icky if I am also playing) in order to show what ships they are deliberately not sending to a battle. It also requires more behind-the-scenes administration from me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- Weapon Status<br>
<br>
I'm not married to the WS-Chart. But it was introduced in order to increase variation in the scenarios and to provide the possibility for reaching WS-III. I can roll things back to a defined-WS for each side in each scenario, if you prefer more stability with WS.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Campaign Startup:<br>
<br>
- Food Groups vs Historical<br>
<br>
Traditionally I have been starting empires next to their historical neighbors when possible, on the theory that their neighbors are better balanced against eachother. This is a possible method to start things, where Disruptor races only are in contact with other disruptor races. Same with plasma races. "Strangers" (Andro, jindo, Tholian, etc) are in their own group. Perhaps a fourth group for "core" empires with strange weapons (Fed, Vudar, Hydran, etc). The only way to make contact outside of your "Food Group" is to get lucky with a "NEWBORDER" reward.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- Starting Year<br>
<br>
There are four main eras to start things in.<br>
<br>
General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years.<br>
<br>
Late-War era starts at the introduction of PFs: Y180 +/- 2 years. There is spotty support in the ship-lists for X-ships. However, this does allow more empires to join (as the Selts have ships, the Vudar have something besides a few base hulls to pick from, and there is a difference between the PF Feds and the 3rd-Way Feds.)<br>
<br>
Early Year era (EY): this starts at Y120. I only have module Y1 in the DB, though "recently" have gotten Y2 and Y3.<br>
<br>
Dawn of Warp era: this starts at Y60 +/- 10 years. As with the EY, support for this is currently spotty but will improve in future iterations. if we push back the start of the next campaign, I may have better support for this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--Matt<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
?<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>______________________<br>
<br>
Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list<br>
<br>
<a href="http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org</a><br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org">SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
?<br>
<br>
<br>
?<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171011/728b247b/attachment-0003.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org/attachments/20171011/<wbr>728b247b/attachment-0003.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:46:23 -0400<br>
From: ken <<a href="mailto:kengulnar73@yahoo.com">kengulnar73@yahoo.com</a>><br>
To: Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 9<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:6tc0p7j7dpjwy7uhckqfreut.1507931183494@email.android.com">6tc0p7j7dpjwy7uhckqfreut.<wbr>1507931183494@email.android.<wbr>com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Obviously,? yearly progression (turns per year) will depend on the start date.? It might actually be fun to play with a variable timescale, start very early with something like 5 years per turn, then as newer tech starts becoming available shift to one turn per year, then around y160ish shift to 2 per year, then around y175 shift to 4 per year, and finally in the y180s to 10 or 12 per turn.? Realistically I wouldn't expect a campaign to last this long, but it would be a fun change :)<br>
Admiral Ken?<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? 3<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171013/c009c4bb/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org/attachments/20171013/<wbr>c009c4bb/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:52:11 -0400<br>
From: "Roch Chartrand" <<a href="mailto:R.Chartrand@Videotron.qc.ca">R.Chartrand@Videotron.qc.ca</a>><br>
To: "'Matthew'" <<a href="mailto:matt@mattnet.org">matt@mattnet.org</a>><br>
Cc: <<a href="mailto:SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org">SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Situation<br>
Message-ID: <01d901d3446d$86b72570$<wbr>94257050$@<a href="http://Videotron.qc.ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Videotron.qc.ca</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
I like the comment : Start new campaign at year we ended this on!<br>
<br>
Y174<br>
<br>
I'm definitely a General war year player! So any start date around Y172?2 is<br>
good with me.<br>
<br>
Roch C.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: SFBdrama [mailto:<a href="mailto:sfbdrama-bounces@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama-bounces@<wbr>lists.mattnet.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
Matthew via SFBdrama<br>
Sent: 12 octobre 2017 20:41<br>
To: Matthew via SFBdrama<br>
Subject: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Situation<br>
<br>
Thank you all, who have enjoyed the last campaign(s) and said so. I<br>
appreciate your comments.<br>
<br>
<br>
I have not yet officially closed down the last campaign: you can still<br>
log in and see things there. But I will be closing it down anytime in<br>
the next week or two.<br>
<br>
<br>
I have some administrative things to do before I'm ready for the next<br>
campaign to begin. Mostly it's adding tog-pods to the database and<br>
editing the scenarios in the planned ways I've mentioned earlier.<br>
<br>
<br>
That being said, I think I'm willing to begin building the list of<br>
empire picks and build a consensus on the era to play in. Some players<br>
have already done so, but I have thusfar taken it informally. The first<br>
thing I need, which may impact empire choices, is what era we are<br>
playing in. Again, those eras are:<br>
<br>
General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years.<br>
Late-War era starts at the introduction of PFs: Y180 +/- 2 years.<br>
Early Year era (EY): This starts at Y130 +/- 10 years.<br>
Dawn of Warp era: This starts at Y60 +/- 10 years.<br>
<br>
I can vary how many turns are played per technological year and limit<br>
the maximum size-class allowed. Generally there isn't much call to limit<br>
the game to (say) destroyers, so I hadn't on planned on changing it from<br>
where it was last game. The era we decide on will affect the number of<br>
turns per year, as some eras are very slow technologically and others<br>
are much faster.<br>
<br>
Frank had voted for the EY era, but bowed out because of family issues.<br>
I will cast a vote in his favor, thinking he may be ready to come back<br>
by the time we are ready to physically start the campaign.<br>
<br>
<br>
--Matt<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>______________________<br>
Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list<br>
<a href="http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org">SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier ?lectronique a ?t? v?rifi?e par le logiciel antivirus Avast.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/<wbr>antivirus</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:46:35 -0400<br>
From: Matthew <<a href="mailto:matt@mattnet.org">matt@mattnet.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Fleet limits<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:f89d13bc-333d-b135-d727-6e1920538724@mattnet.org">f89d13bc-333d-b135-d727-<wbr>6e1920538724@mattnet.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed<br>
<br>
<br>
> I think it would be handy for me to understand the reasons behind<br>
> fleet limits.<br>
<br>
Primarily, Fleet limitations are to reduce the number of ships to a<br>
level manageable by the players. Some players can't handle any better<br>
than one or two ships, while others prefer squadrons of up to 4 ships,<br>
while others can manage large battles consisting of 15 ships to a side<br>
and an unending amount of seekers and attrition units. Secondarily, SFB<br>
limits fleets to what would be "realistic" for the doctrine that ADB has<br>
decided is correct. There are exceptions and extra requirements around<br>
the margins to deal with game balance of certain systems (Web Casters,<br>
Dis Devs, etc) and to showcase certain situations (the Fed's ability to<br>
field more fighters when doing the 'Third Way', for example.)<br>
<br>
Many campaigns attempt to create a different set of limits, usually to<br>
limit battles to an even smaller amount of units. Occasionally there is<br>
a wish to create a different doctrine of ship assignments. Sometimes<br>
there are follow-on effects along these lines that are unintended.<br>
<br>
> ... having larger scenario limits late in the campaign or by having an<br>
> artificially lower CR limit early.<br>
<br>
This effect is already baked into the SFB system. Very early ships just<br>
don't have the Command Rating values to deal with large fleets.<br>
Additionally, fighters and seeking weapons don't show up with as much<br>
profusion until the middle-160's. The problem is pretty much solved.<br>
<br>
When speaking of limiting ships in scenarios, I intend to create limits<br>
to mirror a "realistic" situation. Case in point would be the Convoy<br>
raids: Nobody would send a dreadnaught to escort a convoy. Similarly,<br>
nobody would send a dreadnaught to attack a convoy (with the exception,<br>
perhaps, of a "light" dreadnaught). Yet a dreadnaught might show up to<br>
attack a colony. Particularly one with an orbital base or several<br>
hard-hitting ground bases (a "PDU" in F&E terms.) So I intend to<br>
selectively limit ships in certain circumstances.<br>
<br>
--Matt<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
<a href='<a href="http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">sfbdrama.mattnet.org</a>'><wbr>Dramatic SFB</a> campaign chatter list<br>
<a href="mailto:SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org">SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 11<br>
******************************<wbr>*********<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>