<div dir="ltr">You pay for the fighters when you buy the carrier. so a Lancer DD costs 117 with stinger 2s Also he has the drone speed upgrades added into the ships as well in the data base. What hurts and helps depending on what side you are on is that in some scenarios you have a max number of movement points. So i would throw in a escort carrier. 1/3 move cost ship... with 6 fighters. Matt has tried to keep the record keeping down in the campaigns. Thus you pay for fighters once and get free replacements. I was thinking making players pay for replacements but not sure how that would work and would be a mess for Matt to program in I am sure. <div><br></div><div>When playing against a race that brings fighters/bombers and now PFs. Then yes i would plan for them being there :) Bring your own. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM TJ Hooker via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="m_5952900806442875737ydp1391b8a8yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
<div>Pat did you play against a race with attrition units? Speaking from experience, they unbalance every scenario that is reasonably playable on the tactical level. I had/ have 2 Hydran borders and I can tell you that the Hydrans are up an FF to a DD's worth (or more) of fighters in every equitable scenario that I came across, that looked playable. You're like thinking ok.. we both have 5 ships, roughly the same force but wait..he has 12 stinger 2's. That is another NCL's worth of firepower, if your opponent is getting those fighters for free and this is more or less a tactical campaign, not a strategic campaign then that is not economically balanced.<br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="m_5952900806442875737yahoo_quoted_4797824906" class="m_5952900806442875737yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div>
On Sunday, December 2, 2018, 12:21:16 PM PST, Pat Hogan <<a href="mailto:hazelnut1968@yahoo.com" target="_blank">hazelnut1968@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948"><div>I think Attrition Units are fine as they are; it mirrors F&E. You want Attrition Units to go away? Sink the carrier/tender.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><div dir="ltr" id="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPhone</div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948yqt2781020616" id="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948yqt62325"><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none">On Dec 2, 2018, at 13:33, TJ Hooker via SFBdrama <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org" target="_blank">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I would like in as.... guess what? Federation pls</div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br clear="none"></div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br clear="none"></div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-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. Attrition units need to be paid for in EP. (maybe they already where, idk). 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 (no or little diplomacy) style of play. My understanding is that most players want to get some battles in. So, the size of battles needs to be reasonable as well. Less Diplomacy from players also seems essential, securing all of your borders except one will in reality generate few battles, from personal experience.<br clear="none"></div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br clear="none"></div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Starting distances for the scenarios, while exciting are too close, why are we not using tac intel or something similar for start ranges? I get that starting at range 50 (scout detection range) leaves alot of options, like mostly disengaging.. but most players if they are taking the time to put it on the map will not disengage. I am not saying every scenario needs to start at range 50 or more based on Tac Intel rules, I am saying in general the starting ranges are simply too close, range 17-22 at turn 0 with large fleets is too crazy and somehow seems unrealistic to me.</div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br clear="none"></div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-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. Simply put, I would like to be able to build ALL units available Per Yis rules and prototype rules if that is possible. As a tangent to this I really like the overall use of CO's and refits we simply enough as well. <br clear="none"></div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br clear="none"></div><div class="m_5952900806442875737yiv3628347948ydp7c589735yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Otherwise I think Matt's and Frank's Campaigns have been a ton of fun. I generated some good battles, there are some interesting scenarios (that is a big deal), and in general the balance of EP vs risk/ reward seem good. I look forward to some good late war battles as the Federation. - Justin<br clear="none"></div></div></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>____________________________________________________</span><br clear="none"><span>Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list</span><br clear="none"><span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org" target="_blank">http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org</a></span><br clear="none"><span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org" target="_blank">SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a></span><br clear="none"><span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org</a></span><br clear="none"></div></blockquote></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div>____________________________________________________<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" target="_blank">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/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>