Archive through January 16, 2012
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online:
Campaigns:
Empire at War 2:
Archive through January 16, 2012
New Topic
Wishlist time !!
Similar system to EaW but with smaller fleet caps, either no EW (Scout Sensors can still be used for non EW purposes) or a restriction of no more than 1 ship with Scout Sensors per fleet (though this may not even be needed if there are smaller fleets).
Disengagement rule where you can only disengage in the direction you came from - you cant disengage towards an enemy system.
A starting year where everyone gets all their main refits/upgrades/etc. or a starting year where noone gets them.
Im sure I will have more to come !
Fleet size could definatly start smaller than 600.
I don't think forward disengagement is a good idea at all.
I would rather shrink the fleets then play with the EW rules.
I think GSA and CPL make for boring units to control. I would eliminate both from the battles.
Ground based weapons and fighters could be abused and should probably be limited with def sats to make for a funner gaming experience.
I would start by including there combat BPV in the fleet cap which I would cut to 400 in Y165.
Y165 400 cBPV
Y170 Spring 500
Y172 Fall 600
Y175 Spring 650
Y177 Fall 700
Y180 Spring 750
Y185 Spring 800
I would keep the LC's ability to boost fleet cap by 100 cBPV.
I would allow only 1 Aux to be excluded from the fleet cBPV.
Hi gentlebeings.
Races for EaW 2 will be.
Federation
Klingon
Kzinti
Tholian
Romulan
Gorn
Orion Daven
Orion Pharoe
Orion Stardust
Only 6 slots available. I will allow two different orion clans.
I also like the idea of starting Y165 with a fleet cap of 400. I'm thinking about the graduated fleet caps the Josh has proposed. Over all I like the idea but am concerned about the extra book keeping for the Admirals.
Non tournament SFB is fought in an EW environment. Scouts will be allowed with in the confines of the S8 rules.
I also don't like the forward disengagement. I will not be part of EaW2.
Josh made a proposal to me that an invading fleet wouldn't know the warp lanes of a system until it has been explored with a scout. I like the concept but it might be more complicated than we want. I don't want confusion. The map will be hidden from the start. It will also not be uniform. Every empire will have the same amount of systems they can explore but the warp lanes will not be uniform Like EaW is.
Lets get some more ideas out here guys and see if we can make a really good second camp to run side by side EaW1
Grraven
What are the rules around this? Is there a website or a Word doc or anything that explains what an admiral's responsibilities are?
You said similar to EaW, so I checked that section and there's nothing stickied and I don't want to dive through years of accumulated messages looking for info that might not be there.
Troy,
Check your email I sent you a copy of the rules. They are in pdf if you need a different version let me know
Grraven
Michael did you sent me a copy of the rules? Also on fleet sizes a fed CVA group fully loaded is not going to make it in the above limits. I always thought it was not enough in EAW. On the other hand the smaller the fleet sizes then the battles would be quicker and we could also have more of them.
I'm interested in the Rom's but will have to wait on final BPV before I commit.
Plasma does OK small (2 or less ships) or big (12 ships) .. 600 is already pushing it and making it smaller is going to kill BP. The only way the are competitive v. D&D is loads of S torps or PF's/Assault Fighters and 400 ain't going to cut it. Squadrons of F and G torp destroyers doom them to failing.
I'm also confused why we are allowing 3 Orions but not the other two (or three majors), i.e. Hydran, Lyran, and/or ISC.
The big problem I am seeing is at small squadron size the Orions will own everybody. Would suggest only one Orion and added Lyran + Hydran [not going to cry if ISC not around].
As far as sizewise (IMHO) I think folk should be able to field something in the BCS (and carrier equiv, CVE?) range or smaller.
Sounds like the fleets will be too big for me. Good luck with the campaign, guys.
I wanted a central theme centered on the Federation.
I chose the three cartels for flavor and being able to field a wide variety of weapons. I will allow two Orion players of different cartels. They won't be able to trade off weapons from one cartel to another.
Understood on the Fed Center thing. Def going to need to balance BPV though .. make it low and Orions will own everybody and make it too big and people might not want to play.
Personally going to stick to the the goal should be cruiser squadron sized engagements .. basically a standard BCS sized fleet or smaller.
I cant say I like the idea of 2 Orion players out of 6 total.
I don't think any empire should be duplicated, and I don't think the orions make a good player empire.
Picture Orions plowing fields at there lovely GSA colonies, or doing an honest days labors in the mines. Thats work fit for slaves only and alot harder than stealing from merchants.
Balancing the plasma against the drones is hard enough without a third of the galaxy being Orion.
Do we really want to have that many huge pirate battles, I don't really.
So far I've gotten firm commitments from GFB and Devil. I have some others interested but not committed yet.
My thinking was to give choices. However if having 2 cartels would unbalance the camp then I will restrict it to one.
New rule proposal:
In EaW Frank took out the warp point because he didn't like races using it to redeploy back to their FRD. The warp point was intended to be contested in a fleet battle and made it hard to extract yourself from a sticky situation. While that would've still worked he took it away.
What I am thinking is this:
If a fleet stays completely static from spring of the year to the end of winter it will be allowed to redeploy to any system within the empire free of any move cost. This fleet must start on a developed colony and can only move to adjacent systems with in their empire to it's intended destination. Only one fleet per empire per year will be allowed to use this benefit.
Let me know what you guys think. This could be modified or taken out if unworkable, however I'm thinking this is a good rule to implement.
Minor economic change.
EaW started out on a developed mine.
EaW2 will start out on a developed colony with a cpl 12 GSA's and the FRD.
You will gain 20 extra bpv and the free move from the start. Reason I'm doing this is I think it more realistic for a budding empire to start from a life planet than a mine. Don't think humans would've started from Mars or the asteroid belt.
I agree with dropping the Orions or limiting them to one empire. I would also suggest dropping the the Tholians in favor of the Lyrans, Hydrans and ISC. I would caution against big plasma and small combat maps. The disengagement rules are fine in EAW. I think the game initially had a lot of directions but play dictated the common paths and lent itself to cheating the spirit of the game (combat at all costs). Disengagement is a reality as no empire should have to throw capital ships into the bin but you should lose the engagement and VP. The challenge in EaW was the vision Radii was originally 2 systems with a scout which would have headed off a lot of encounters that resulted in disengagement. I would develop something around this.
Agree with the start planet but would make a core of 4 planets in a single warp lane with single access to a large [read LARGE] common area of unexplored planets. It gives a an empire a defendable cubby hole that will generate 400 BPV a year and ensure no one gets knocked out of the game or dog piled. I would drop discovery of Legendary officers and crew quality an would suggest building rules around the VP system to be eligible purchase LO's and crews once a fleet gains a 2000 VP points. Ever flown against a DN with a Legendary Weapons Officer? I can tell you first hand it sucks. I don't like LOs/crews in general, as they tend to unbalance the game quickly and this is about your skill as a captain not die roll modifiers that take a mediocre captain make them god-like. Limit the system fleet limit to two or three in a developed fortified system you own with an FRD present.
If two fleets attack a system then two fleets fight but the second fleet rolls 5d6 to determine what impulse they arrive. If the defender has two fleets there from the previous season then those two fleets will be there at WS-III waiting for the attacker. Attack defended systems at your peril... This will force everyone to explore and colonize free systems first, establish treaties and generally progress the empires to a state where conflict over systems happens when everything has been explored. You can never have more fleet cBPV than than systems and infrastructure to support it + 2000BPV. In other words if you have a colony and three mines with 12 GSA/GMS on each your total empire fleets cannot exceed 2000+(120*4)=2480 this is about 6 400 BPV fleets. Systems must be developed with CPL and GSA/GSA/GMS for any BPV to be gained. In other words discovering a mine doesn't gain you bpv until you have a CPL and GMS doing production. I would also grant VP for exploration
These rules force economic development and slow the over building of large hard to beat fleets and the economic pace so that all empires grow at roughly the same rate. I would also suggest that FRDs must be deployed at developed colonies with a CPL present and not travel with a fleet. For fun sake I would introduce the pantheon of SFB monsters as random yearly events that happen in the common area so that players have more than each other to worry about. Juggernauts and planet eaters oh my... And please only G3 and G3A ships no anarchy, Captains Log, Steller Journal craptastically overpowered hulls. I would also offer a 10% discount on any hulls earlier than Y165.
I'm in and I'll take the Gorns
I'm hoping to get the Kzinti.
I believe you send your top 3 choices to the GM from the final choices he makes available.
I personally would not have any problem with a Lyran player race.
I do not like the 10 percent discout on hulls older than Y165, in a few cases those units are already very low priced and powerful. The D6DB doesn't need to be cheaper and I see little reason to encourage players to keep using the oldest hulls in there inventory.
Im in favor of keeping the cost penalty for units like the Federation DHD.
And I think that you shouldn't be so quick to toss out everthing thats been published in Captains Log.
For example the D6C is a completly reasonable ship and would be unavailable without allowing CL ships. I think Mike is going to allow even the ships which were in legitamate modules but left out of G3 by design or mistake if the Admiral has the module and the client supports the ship.
Unfortunatly I get about as excited about monster scenarios as you do Legendary Officers and crew.
They come at a price in the current rules, Ive gotten used to getting a random roll every year for fleets involved in combat.
My suggestion would be keep the officers and drop crew experience, that can force a good fleet to be broken up because of the fleet cap. I think thats a bit strange and tracking crew experience is alot more inconvienient than the complications of Legendary Officers.
I think that Tugs moving the FRD is an important part of the original EaW and should be kept in this. Shipbuilding is definatly accelerated and I think thats a good thing.
I do like the idea of multiple explored systems, and the possibility that they are fully or partly developed but thing that them being so isolated from the rest of the systems by 1 warp point is too much.
I think it would give players somewhere cozy to hoard there ships.
The totally hidden map Mike plans to use will make it hard to eliminate an empire, so will the Tugs being able to keep the FRD mobile.
I think that how many ground bases and developed mines should not affect your maximum fleet size. That adds a whole new layer of complication and I cant see how its supposed to have any positive impact on the game. Its wartime we want the players to have warships not be limiting them if the players don't have some secret hideout there is no need somebody will run into them eventually.
I think that CL ships that were not conjectural or are your one conjectural unit should be able to be Ok'd with the GM. But I do agree that we should try to stick to real ships, but give CL a bit of credit not everthing published in CL's deserves to be cut.
I would prefer the mines be kept the same as EaW. They encourage exploration because they can begin to generate income with no investment in CPL or ground bases.
GMS are expensive so to boost the production its very hard, I think it would be too big a change to the BPV generation rules.
I think the number of systems could be increased 10 to 20 percent but no more or your going to have years of exploration.
I agree that making VP worth something is a good idea, after all we could be at this for many years.
I would like to know what the size of the battle maps will be.
I liked the quad maps used at first in EaW. But Troy here says his Lizzard's will be the death of me on anything less than 84 x 84.
84 x 60 gives such a widescreen look, its cinematic. 
Can we go back to those or is 60 x 60 going to be the new standard for both EaW and EaW2. I think going back to the 84 x 60 maps would make disengagement a bit less automatic for slow units.
Since people seem to be submitting there empire selections now my choices are; 1) Kzinti, 2) Klingon, 3) Orion Daven Cartel.
I do like Troys idea of starting with a few planets explored and think a few free freighters of each type would make sense in your starting forces if you had 4 developed systems.
I think that economic ground bases shouldnt take part in the battles. That Aux's not counted in the fleet cap should be limited to 1 small or 1 large. I think defense bases should be limited, even a few is more than enough to give us a taste of static defenses.
I think that the cBPV of any bases, def sats and fighters should be included in the fleet cap.
They would then be able to generate movement points if included in a fleet with some ships. If the economic bases stay in the battles I think there cBPV should be included in the fleet cap just like a defensive base. I think even civilian ships cBPV should be included this will make fleet cap calculation easy as everything is included but the 1 free Auxiliary.
Troys suggestion was to tie the bases into the maximum size fleet the empire can maintain. If you let the cBPV of the bases and CPL's be included in the fleets they can help to generate movement points.
A colony with 1 CPL and 12 GSA would count as 132 BPV of the 175 needed to be a movement generating fleet. This way the BPV you put into economic bases will be able to generate extra movement points. If the strategic maps going to be larger why not give us a few more movement points to do all the complicated fleet juggling and other things that eat away at our movement points.
You know, if I get a subscription to the client, I'd be eyeballing the possibility of playing Hydran.
Ok so be it. Lyran and Hydran are now included as race selections.
However you need to realize there is big plasma involved so be careful what you wish for. Also only 1 orion player and I'll keep the same cartel selections available.
The fix for warp point disengagements being used to return to the capital quickly could easily be fixed by keeping the original rule of "return at the end of the year" but also have a 2 season minimum, so you cant disengage and then appear at the start of the next season.
And maybe also have it cost your first movement point for the season in which the fleet returns.
But you can have more fleets appear at the same time than you have movement points, it just means they all get used up.
This makes fleeing from battle VERY expensive and encourages ships to stay in the game longer.
I also agree with Josh that you should drop crew experience. Its a lot of time keeping basically for nothing.
I think you need to be careful with static defences because they can do more to slow down games. And they really dont do much to the flavour of the game either. Its just more stuff that needs to be accounted for. But I do like the idea of counting them towards fleet minimum BPV to generate movement points and towards fleet maximum BPV for combat.
Of course, Im not playing so I can be ignored, but Im still happy to offer advice if it is wanted.
Matthew, check with Troy as he has an offer for a SFBOL subscription if people sign up to play campaigns.
I will commit if I get Rom (and only if I get Rom). Sorry to sound selfish but I rarely play anymore and when I do it's mostly LMC or Triangulum. The only races that draw me in the in the alpha still are Andro and Rom [Well and some of the simulator races].
I like Zin and Klink but I just don't have the the want at this time to play them correctly (i.e. micro-manage the hell out of their drone loads).
Jason,
If you're not playing, then I'm out of a job !
I agree disengagement was always an option, but when the warp point rules were removed the penalty for running was taken out of the game.
If you want to allow repositioning of fleets similar to the old EaW rule I agree with Jason, let there be a few seasons where the fleet cant move.
In my opinion the only thing wrong with disengaging to the FRD was that the wording of the rule released a fleet disengaged in winter for movement in spring. Whatever the penalty is I say it should be the same regardless of the season you disengaged in.
One issue Mike and I always had was drone and expendables resupply. We both understand why it needs to cost a move and be done at a colony or FRD location, we just felt the cost in moves was too much.
Currently to resupply and repair a fleet costs 1 movement point per fleet at a developed colony or FRD location. I would keep that rule but if 2 or 3 fleets were present at the developed colony or FRD location I would let a 2 movment point expendature resupply and repair every fleet in that system. I would also let the fleets exchange units so long as they stayed within fleet cap. If only 2 fleets were present I would let the 2 move resupply and repair order create a new fleet out of units of the two present in the system.
One of the greatest frustrations in EaW is the difficulty in moving a ship from one fleet to anohter, you can have everything you need to attack in system but because its spread around 3 fleets you have to delay attacking for the few seasons it takes to move ships around.
I also welcome Jason to our rules discussion, Admiral or not in EaW2 I think he has good ideas for changes in EaW2. I hope that EaW2 can have less rules updates than the first installment. Mike is giving us several months to hammer out the rules and I suggest we use them and try to get the best ruleset we can.
With empires selling like hot cakes over here it seems there is some strong interest in a second campaign on SFBOL.
I am fully in support of Preator Theonen's bloody grab for power on Romulas. The Romulans are a must have empire for this central themed EaW. Same with Gorn, Federation, Klingon and Kzinti. You can add all the empires you want but if one of them gets left out I feel the game will suffer for the loss.
The fact that our mortal enemies the Kzinti weren't selected in EaW is still a big dissapointment.
With several Admirals in both campaigns I would like to see if we can get the battle captains of EaW interested in helping with farmed out battles from EaW2.
We should also keep at the recruiting, its easy to get burned out on this stuff, and you can never have too many battle captains eager to destroy your enemies.
Frank I am sure you will be in high demand as battle captain, but I think it would be a shame if you didn't take an admirals spot or vice admiral.
We are well on our way to filling up the Admirals spots.
Federation- Devil
Gorn-Jungletoy
Romulan-Eol
Kzinti/Klingon/Orion-GFB
Now that Lyran is an option Jungletoy may change his pick freeing up Gorn for someone else. I know there have to be a few Gorn lovers out there.
I think our best game would be with these 6 empires.
1 Federation
2 Gorn
3 Romulan
4 Kzinti
5 Klingon
6 Lyran
I think all 6 of these empires would be competative and the plasma races with there many phaser 1's shouldn't have as much trouble surviving as the Hydrans would.
I think the Y165 start year and the hulls that the Hydran can produce potientially set the Hydran up for early disaster, and plasma will probably not help the situation. Not to mention the stinger 1's with no chaff before Y168.
Then again I would prefer a Hydran to a Tholian or Orion.
Im ok with whatever empires everyone wants out of the choices Mike's given, and would love to see somebody show me how the Hydran can survive the early years and go on to win the campaign, I do think its possible.
Good luck to Matthew in getting his SFBOL membership and joining the game.