<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1190985440.476111.1543775613830@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div class="ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;">Some thoughts on WoA.. Traditional
borders matter, big time, much prefer that, seems almost
necessary.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
While I generally set that up (if possible), there is a certain
amount of motion away from that as the game progresses, through
NewBorder rewards. But, that's a feature (it gets people to think
outside their box.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1190985440.476111.1543775613830@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div class="ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;"> Attrition units need to be paid for
in EP. (maybe they already where, idk).</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Already there. (Try playing a Hydran: You'll know those costs are in
there...)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1190985440.476111.1543775613830@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div class="ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;"> It really is up to the players as
to the playstyle they prefer, more of a diplomacy/ strategic
level style, or a more tactical put it on the map... style of
play.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree. Both styles have their places and times. It's a balance of
those that make it fun.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1190985440.476111.1543775613830@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div class="ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;">Starting distances for the
scenarios, while exciting are too close</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is something of a knee-jerk response from the last campaign I
was running, where the complaint was that long start ranges meant
the defenders always drove the tempo of the battles.<br>
<br>
However, I'd like to note that these start ranges do not always lend
themselves to an auto-disengage. It's become the norm that when
someone wants to disengage that sportsmanship requires that they be
let alone. I think that several of the scenarios would allow either
or both sides one or more volleys (albeit at moderately-long ranges)
before one force can disengage (by acceleration, usually.)<br>
<br>
The flip side that I had attempted to push people towards on earlier
iterations, was that everyone start at WS-II and moderately-long
ranges. The concept is that by the time they meet for battle,
they've had a turn to complete all of the arming cycles. Big Plasma
formed a lobby group and began to threaten to redesign the
scenarios.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1190985440.476111.1543775613830@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div class="ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;">Lastly, it seems to me that some
ships I wanted to build were simply not in the drop down though
the YiS was good. I wonder if ALL ships are in the drop down
that are avail for all races in any given year or if it is just
what Matt has been able to get in his database.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Naturally enough, the software can only present to you what it has
in it's database. When that database was formed, I was working off
of the ships from the modules I have (since I didn't have G3 and
besides, there is information present that G3 doesn't track). So
It's missing R11, R7, X, X1R, Y2 and Y3. It's got the other 22
modules.<br>
<br>
Another aspect to it, is that that ships have an obsolete year. This
was introduced to keep the late-years ship lists from being huge.
Otherwise it would start to include every ship that was ever built,
with each kind of refit being another distinct entry. For example,
the Gorn (to pick a modest empire) would have build-a-ship
drop-down-menus of over *530 entries*. Feds, Klinks, and Roms would
have the largest menus.<br>
<br>
So generally, if the section-R note said a ship stopped being built
in a certain year, I set it to obsolete in that year. If it was
refit, then the "old" version would go away in a year or two. If it
was a fighter upgrade, the old version would go away at the time of
the new introduction. If an obvious conversion overtook the ship
(such as the Y-era stuff being made into "local defense" versions)
then the old one went away in a year or two.<br>
<br>
--Matt<br>
</body>
</html>