Very nice. I would echo the suggestion that the list be sorted by Year. I'd estimate more people look for a scenario by year then anything other the then what empires are in it.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 12:31 pm: Edit

I'll second a request for scenario sorted by year instead of by rule number.

It should be just as easy to add new scenarios in G4A, just to add to the spreadsheet and sort by Year, instead of alphabatizing the rule number.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Looks good to me.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Interesting.


For charts showing empires from more than one setting, could, or should, there be some kind of designator before the names?

These might help avoid confusion when two empires from different settings, which would use the same initial, might encounter each other, or a faction from another neck of the woods.


Example - the scenario (MSH9.0) I mentioned before could be A, (M)E, K, for Andromedan, (Magellanic)Eneen and Klingon.

Other examples could be (Ω)M for Mæsron, (M)M for Maghadim, (T)M for Mallaran, (B)T for M81 Tholians, or something.

(The T is for Triangulum and the B is for Bode's Galaxy.)


As a further example, there's another scenario out there, (SL253.0) which has the Maghadim encounter the Souldra. That could be listed as (M)M, (Ω)S.

By Robert McCartney (Rob62) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 12:47 pm: Edit

I am just curious. Will Module G3A include the Vudar fighters that were accidentally left out of G3?

By Todd Warnken (Toddw) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Nice but not too useful unless an electronic version was available. That would allow users to filter data to select appropriate scenarios they want to play.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:13 pm: Edit

E-version: And would make the entire project non-profitable.
It will still be very handy.


One way to look at sorting it by year is to think of it as an adjunct to the timeline. Maybe even call it a scenario timeline.

Alternatively, it would make finding a particular scenario by scenario number practically impossible. People would have to get into the habit of listing the year next to scenarios they mention. It would also be impractical for looking up referenced scenarios in the rule (which means listing by year won't work for the rule, but only for SFU historians).

Anyway, if there is only goig to be one version of this, it really seems that it will have to accomodate the game system and be listed by scenario number.

Maybe SVC can offer a side product (no cover) with the scenario list by year? PLEASE???

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:26 pm: Edit

We haven't decided how to sort the list. Excel can sort it any way we want after we finish creating it. I don't really care, so you guys can vote.

I already answered the "setting" question. Omega scenarios will be in a separate chart, so there won't be any need to un-confusion T(holian) and T(robrin).

We do not plan to make an electronic version available, nor do we see any value such a thing would have for you guys.

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:28 pm: Edit

I suggest you publish the full table by scenario #, and add an additional table that only has year and scenario #s sorted by year.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Jean will not consider "Cluster" jargon. I, personally, love the idea of having it in order by scenario number. The master timeline could be annotated easily later with just scenario numbers if that were desired. I see the scenario index as an index, not a timeline. It also handles nicely those scenarios that might be "timeless". (I could see something like this being useful for FC as well.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Well, here is my official proposal after thinking on it a bit.

Scenario by number is pretty important and listing by year would make looking up a particular senario number all but impossible (and I think a great many of us need the hair we still have).

So how about a G3A and a G3A+. G3A would have the standard list with scenarios by number. G3A+ would have an additional historical scenario list by year (and maybe something else like the new basic set counter sheet with the nice new art??).
Additionally, the historical scenario by year product would be sold separately.

As for just putting in scenario number into the Time Line, that would be nice, but I've always wanted all the preamble/historical outcomes to be incorporated (and all fiction events mentioned too).
[ducks and runs again!]

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 02:12 pm: Edit

SVC, you are much stronger than I -- would you like to borrow the Griswold cast-iron waffle iron with base? ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124369007@N01/61399819)
You may whang Loren with it, if you would like to do so.

I have a feeling that G3A+ would be more work than it is worth. As I really would like to see G3A (it has an annex in it that I use heavily), I suggest we keep it simple.

I see the historical sorting to be more of a product to accompany the Master Scenario Book.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Jean, not a bad idea, but only if we see the Master Scenario Book actually happen.

Of course, it is we historical buffs and writers who really need the historical sort. I freely admit it is less useful for the game system (although not unuseful. Indeed, in regular gaming and in campaigns, the historical sort would be used quite often.)

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Historical sort for historical scenarios could be useful; for the others, not so much. Size and number of players would be more useful there.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Consider a slightly different format for empire in a way that defines the sides more clearly. For example a Klingon, Fed battle could be listed as F/K. A three side battle between Roms, Gorns, ISC would be R/G/I. A Romulan, Klingon, Fed, Gorn battle could be FG/KR. Notice I removed the commas on purpose in multi empire scenarios.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 12:05 am: Edit

Could you use two letter designators for some of the empires. Most people seem to use Kl for Klingon and Kz for Kzinti.

I like the slash between sides so it is easy to determine the alliances.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 12:08 am: Edit

Most people I know use K for Klingon and Z for Kzinti.

By Sean O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 02:34 am: Edit

---

Quote:

(I could see something like this being useful for FC as well.)

---

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 05:44 pm: Edit

One thing that MIGHT be used.

The SFB Rules Cross Index from CL#14. Its one of the most useful items I have. I even included it in my MRB.

The only reason NOT to include it is the needed updating might take to much time. Mostly it would be the newer rules that would have to be inserted.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:26 pm: Edit

The scenario index is done, and it's 20 pages long. No biggie if we only print it once.

We could print it in scenario number order, or in date order. The problem is that if you print it in date order, it's pretty much worthless for anything OTHER than that. There's no way to use the index for anything else.

So the current plan is to print it in NUMBER order and use "fragmentary indexes" (with only a few columns) to refer back to the main number order document.

We could print, either on-line or in the book, other indexes which would have only some of the columns.

A date-order index including only the scenario number and the empires column would take 7 pages and might be worth putting into the book.

An alphabetical index listing only the title and scenario number would take 7 pages and might be done on line.

While we're doing stuff on line, we could in theory do a 7-page "number of players index" listing just rule number, year, and empires.

Module G4 (G4A, G4B) might include more breakdowns, such as a list of scenarios with X-ships, a list of scenarios by the number of ships involved, and so forth)

Thoughts?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Would it still be seven pages if just two columns of data were used (Date & Number) using multiple columns?

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Wouldn't online make this easier to update?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 11:20 am: Edit

It's 7 pages instead of 20 pages because it's in three columns as it only has some of the columns.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 06:55 pm: Edit

LET’S FINISH G3A
===========================================
Here is what we have in it:
------------------------------------------------------------
Publisher’s Information (one page)
------------------------------------------------------------
The master table of contents of the whole SFB system (finished, 7 pages)
------------------------------------------------------------
Annex 5 (bumped from G3 by megafighters) (finished, 24 pages)
------------------------------------------------------------
The carrier escort chart (Finished, 55 pages)
------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario index excel table in scenario number order (20 pages)
------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario index extract in date order listing only date, scenario number, and empire column. (7 pages)
------------------------------------------------------------
Total of the above: 114 pages.
===========================================
Here is what we MIGHT add if a LOT of you want it:
------------------------------------------------------------
Some kind of drone construction cost chart (the ones submitted are so confusing and full of mistakes that you'd have to ask Petrick == nicely == to start with a blank sheet of paper and make one that actually works) (two pages?)
------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabetic listing of scenario names, fragmentary index listing only name and scenario number. (Seven pages)
------------------------------------------------------------
the Vudar fighters that were accidentally left out of G3 (one page)
------------------------------------------------------------
Which might expand the above to 122-124 pages.
===========================================
Here is what we will NOT put in G3A.
------------------------------------------------------------
CL14 Cross Index (it’s in Module A+ already)
Combined charts page: already in G3
Master Weapons Chart: already in G3
Turning D17.3/4 into annex: not possible.
Tug pod chart: already in G3.
Ship Name Registry: going elsewhere.
===========================================

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 07:00 pm: Edit

I would like to also see the Alphabetic listing.

Also the missing Vudar fighters.