Loren Knight:

The problem, in simple, is that I was not able to explain to Richard and Chris clearly enough what was going on so that they could simply post messages about the contact, the action, and move on.

There is no way I can "play a game" with all of you. I thought I could set up situations, let you react, explain the consequences of your actions so that you could go on to further actions, make die rolls when needed and let you know the results, and when the action gets large I need to imagine details as a game master.

You were going to issue orders, and the guys in the phaser bunkers were going to have their people fire, the fighter guys were going to maneuver, the Klingons were going to act on their "mission orders", but I was going to roll the die here and let you all know results and actions by the opposing side.

Apparently, that was totally unworkable as a concept and apparently impossible to explain.

Consequently, recognizing my failure to communicate adequately and . . . well lets just say "my failures" and leave it at that, I have decided that it is best to just give up on the idea.

If I could not handle a small action involving one gunboat, six fighters, a stack of drones, and two players, can you imagine the havoc when I actually tried to move the action onto the map?

I can.

I do not want to go there.

I again apologize for wasting everyone's time.

I had hoped to do this, and then when the action was over have a discussion of what happened, why, what could be done better (by both sides) "in the bar" with everyone having had an opportunity to observe the situation and the chaos and look at what happened and see why.

It is just not going to happen.

Richard Sherman, Chris Fant, and Jeff Wile have all tried to convince me otherwise, but I have come to the conclusion that:

this is broken,

I am completely unqualified to fix it,

and worse,

I was completely unqualified to have even tried to start it.

I apologize once more to all of you for the above.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 07:42 pm: Edit

DavidCrew, you have Vorlon's mapgenerating program and what platform does it run on (PC/Mac/Linux)?

It's a PBEM SFB mapmaking utility they use for PBEM and makes a JPG/GIF/PNP. If the only thing SPP has to do is to list the hexes of drones/fighters/etc and email the picture to those involved it would solve the problem SPP seems to be running into.

IE. SPP sets up the board, emails the map to those involved, then they get the "snapshot" of what is happening for the time SPP says its for (IE "what are you going to do in the next 4-8 imp"), and then he gets their response.

SPP, the utility makes this kind of picture:
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/fog4/map-black.htm

By apparently using the locations of the "objects" in the input file. Would that solve any of the problems?

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Deleted.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Whoops. Thought I could post the last "role-plays" I had ready in the hopes of keeping it going.

Just got SPP's e-mial pulling the plug.

I'm sorry guys, but I can't help feeling that is my fault.

Again, sorry to all...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Richard Sherman:

My command (the Topic) my responsibility. No one else has any right to blame or fault.

Scott Tenhoff:

More complex that wanted for operations prior to the actual "assault" of the planet. Something that complex was just not something I envisioned.

In any case, it no longer matters.

By Raymond Ford (Raymond) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Just an observation: I think that there might be something worthwhile for Prime Directive in all of this.

A player character group would likely be smaller and have more narrowly defined roles than those here. They could be a group of fighter pilots, ground forces troops, or command team officers, but not all of them at once. This would avoid the issue of a GM having to come up with the amount of detailed information that SPP has been providing.

SPP has presented some fresh ideas on just what a planetary defense force would have to deal with. A G1G fly over would provide fodder for several gaming sessions (the actual fly over, the ground search, dealing with demands from the civilian government to do something, concerns over security, etc). The drone attack and its aftermath offers similar possibilities. And these barely scratch the surface.

If this topic has been any indicator, the adventures of a planetary defense force might make an interesting G:PD campaign concept.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Sounds like this 'project' would have been better to handle in realtime.

Sort of using a glorified chat interface. A lot like 'SFB Online', but for roleplaying. Maybe with a whiteboard or something. And built-in-die-rolling ability.

Something like....ohhh....the Gametable beta?

Just a thought. (From one who has always been interested in doing an RPG, but has never met one who didn't think RPGers...well, let's just say I don't know many gamers to BEGIN with, and RPGers occupy a very special niche in that realm)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 08:29 pm: Edit

SPP: I will accept your explaination of things but you aren't out of this quite that easy.

SO, what WAS the situation? Come on, lets see your hand Buddy.

While I'mn pretty sure there was a mass of drones coming in I wasn't totaly sure. What was the mission?

And ya, there has been, as a result of this thread, some very interesting questions raised and I think it would be valuable to talk about those.

OK, so we won't be playing the game but you could pose the situation, let people present idea on that and then discuss the possible consequences.

That is, let's just cut to the bar topic session.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Let me move along these lines a bit then. Basically, if there were incoming drones reported by Banshee flight and there were a lot then I would focus on saving two planetary sides as best I can. What I wanted to know was how many in Vector-A and if Banshee flight was going to be enough to handle that directions incoming drones (at least enough that planetary defenses could handle the rest).

I then was considering that I would send out Ghost flight as far as I could and still have them able to jump back into EW support from the GWS. I was going to send them in Vector-D.

Shatter Pack use would have been maximized, being careful not to launch them too early nor too late. GAS shuttles were going to remain in the atmosphere as P-3 platforms.

Ph-4 would open fire as early as possible at best ranges for the turn until the drones got close then I would reasess thier timing.

If the drones were to be escorted by G1's then I would have to keep Ghost flight closer in.

Destroying G1's would have been a goal because I believe that the Klingon mission was to terrorize at little cost and so increasing that cost would be of benefit to future missions.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

It is my belief that the discussion would have had merit AFTER THE EVENT, but has little merit without it.

My opinion.

I know what was going on. I actually had it integrated into a larger picture (not in writing, in my mind), and that in turn was going to lead to other adventures. Things that had been discussed in passing.

John Trauger (LT Trauger) was going to have a task come up, but it would have required some of you to adopt additional "enlisted personas" for that mission.

Even now, even in the ashes of my failure, I am loathe to go into details of anything simply because at some point some more talented person might pick up the pieces of this shattered skein and carry on.

It just clearly, after the fiasco I have made of this, will not be me.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

Two things.

A "Ground Warning Station" can provide EW support to ONE fighter, not a squadron of fighters (G24.217). The Fighter Ground bases are "Carriers" (V in the notes column), but lack the power to generate EW points (which is one of those reasons you want power stations and power grids).

GAS Shuttles in atmosphere: BAD idea. A phaser-3 fired in the atmosphere has an automatic plus one (P2.541), and has the ECM of the atmosphere to contend with even at range zero (P2.511), which means at range one the phaser has a 67% chance of not killing a drone instead of a 67% chance of killing it, and its 83% chance of killing a drone at range zero drops to 50%. The GAS shuttles, to be effective at all, had to clear atmosphere.

However, I do not really want to talk about this anymore, that nascent teacher/mentor in me just could not let those two items pass.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 09:30 pm: Edit

I had power grids and my mistake about the GWS. I do know that it's the FGB-S that is the Carrier and the GWS would support in other ways like OEW on the G1 if there is one.

I was thinking about three things at once, my bad, but I swear that I knew that.

It was you teacher side I was apealing to. You are a rare source of tactical insite in the SFU. First there is you RL experience and then there is your unsurpassed familiarity with all things SFU (It's your job for gosh sakes).

I wasn't going to try an go beyond this mission just the one at hand; The drone bombardment threat.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 09:33 pm: Edit

GAS could have popped up any time, especially when someone said, "Those GAS should pop up out of the atmosphere for a better shot ya know."

Hay, I did have a team of the brightest gamers in gamedom, after all.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:02 pm: Edit

This episode does illustrate severl things that I would like to see explored.

1. Scott Tenhoffs Planetary mine station (PMS) (and I hate those initials...I just know someone will get offended by it or have a girlfriend/wife/significant other object to it...)
2. the issue of recon for PDU's with out garrison ship or PF support. I admit my suggestion of a shuttle or utility fighter has problems but the lack of information was a anchor around Lorens neck while trying to figure oout what was happening.
3. PDU design and usage. I think we have barely scratched the surface of the topic... and I'm sure there are ways to improve it.
4. the problem that SPP encountered will happen to anyone attempting the same type of task. before starting another of this kind of exercise, we should agree to a procedure to resolving tactical situations...

IMO we should have people agree to a set time and date for this exercise and a 1 to 3 hour duration for the exercise... the goal to have it finished in that time instead of spread out over aperiod of 2 years.

at least we would have closure.

rant mode off.
thank you for listening.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 01:25 am: Edit

One other possibility would be to create a series of scenarios which will be opposed by a planetary defense of some set BPV. Not a mini-campaign where each scenario builds on the previous one, but rather one plays each scenario seperately and tries to get the best possible result out of all the scenarios. One problem with planetary defense force organization is that the design tends to focus on one type of attacker, not the much wider gamut of potential attackers.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 01:51 am: Edit

Jeff: The solution to some of your desired goals already exists. The unit is the SAMS with long range special sensors and mine laying ability. Weakness is the vulnerability to distant fire, but the SAMS is cheap.

Mine laying may seem impressive against drone clumps sent in over great distances. But against a traditional fleet planning on killing bases from range 5, the handful of mines scattered around the planet won't even be a nuisance.

The dedicated base for minelaying would cost at least 8 (cheapest harmless base) plus the 4 per mine. A couple of BPV more would provide for a Ground Missile Base with Type-III drones. The Ground Missile Base would kill similar numbers of drones but also provide greater flexibility. Neither would do as well as tanks in the event of a popular uprising triggered by Klingon agents.

By Paul Stovell (Pauls) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 05:26 am: Edit

SPP,

Sorry to see you abandon this topic I thought for all our squabbling it was still brilliant.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 08:55 am: Edit

Concur

Easily the most interesting thread on the site. It was wonderful to see tacintel in action properly.

By David Crew (Catwholeaps) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 09:19 am: Edit

Scott Tenhoff: Vorlon's map widget is written in javascript - so runs on any web browser on any platform (PC and Mac is confirmed, Linux is assumed).

The trick is you need do up all the little gifs of the ships, fighters and drones etc if you don't already want to use the FOG1-4 'Stock' widgets.

The trick with this topic? Not to do it tactically. Only broad brush tactics could really be laid out (Banshee flight takes off in direction A (as Loren orders): SPP decides what happens: Chris and Richard then might write up some roleplaying colour text but would have NO actual input into the outcome). Only Loren would have any tactical ability - and only in broad brush outlines (like he did with his 'defense from the drone bombardment outline' post).

If you allow the infinite variety of SFB tactics to be explored, you are down to impulse by impulse resolution on a map - via a discussion board. May as well do it PBEM, which isn't really the point, and far too slow anyway.

Personally - even such a broad brush tactical analysis might be valuable.

Cat (who has more experience at this sort of thing than most).

Moderator
FOG1 and FOG2 Fleet Battle PBEMs.

P.S. Perhaps a better way: Take all tactical control from the players - they can simply add colour text expressing the human side to a PDU defense. Treat it as a Y186 academy exercise (which includes interviews with people who were THERE) reviewing some PDU's actions during the general war. That way SPP can throw in whatever creative elements he likes, and the 'bar' topic aspect still works.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:57 am: Edit

A question can be asked: Just how popular was this topic. While several of you have succeeded in making me feel guilty for giving up. I cannot see trying to pick up the pieces for just three of four people. Sorry.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:23 pm: Edit

SPP: Please don't feel guilty but maybe giving up is not the only choice. Perhaps just changing the approach will work for you. Perhaps the full role play thing isn't the best approach.

I can tell you that a good many of us are more interested in the tactical aspect of all this than the character dialog.

Truth is, we all want to learn something or at least expand our SFB knowledge. This is something this topic has already accompleshed.

By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Loren Knight has a good point. In every thread I post, I reference the rulebook to make sure what I've posted is accurate. Other than this thread, I really haven't had an interest in checking out the planetary defense angle (we mostly play with ships in space). I've learned quite a bit and I'm sure others have realized aspects they never thought of.

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:50 pm: Edit

SPP,

I for one enjoyed reading the topic. I was looking for a position where I could join in as an inexperienced member but hadn't found one yet (or talked to Loren about where he needed another SFB neophyte).

As people have pointed out, if nothing else, this topic has gotten thinking about PDUs, the types of enemy missions they have to defend against, and items that may need to be changed/added (i.e. TB allocation to force dispersal of enemy drones/fighters).

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:52 pm: Edit

This thread has had me looking at several parts of the rules that I have not read in years! I have been enjoying it and would like to see it stay. I would even be glad to participate it the command structure would like some assistance.

By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:57 pm: Edit

SPP: The entire topic intrigued me enough to pick it out of the chaff of the proposals topic and create a character to join in with. I've spent more time here the last week or two than I have in he Politics thread, which ought to tell you something.