Rules Proposal 1

(EaW2 2a) INITIAL RESOURCES
Each player begins with one FRD located at a life planet. The life planet has a colony developed with 12 GSA and 1 CPL in orbit. 2 large and 2 small freighters are included in the starting forces, and must be assigned to a fleet in EaW2 2c.
Each player receives 2000 BPV to build units and to supply those units with drone upgrades
and or commanders options. Unused BPV is added to the Empire’s treasury at campaign start.

Rules Proposal 2

(EaW2 2c) FLEET CONSTRUCTION
Each player must initially build exactly six fleets. Each fleet must contain at least one Size Class 4 ship (see
EaW2 17.0) and the Fleet Combat BPV (cBPV) no greater then 600 cBPV, See (EaW2 17.0) and no less then 175
cBPV. The minimum 175 cBPV restriction, the 6 Fleet limits and the SC 4 ship requirement apply only at start
of campaign. Each fleet must obey the rules provided in (S8.0), which provides a wide assortment of
restrictions on what units may appear in a fleet. Each ship in each fleet is purchased using that ship’s economic BPV. Any drone and Plasma speed upgrades and ship CO increases above 10 percent must be purchased with the innitial 2000 BPV. All units will have normal crew quality.
The requirement to have six fleets is only imposed during initial setup. Civilian ships and bases must be included in the 6 starting fleets at combat BPV and may be armed out of the innitial 2000 BPV.

EaW2 17 rule would have to be changed to always include the BPV of civilian ships and bases in the fleet cap. I would reduce the number of free auxiliaries to 1 per fleet max. I would keep random LO discovery. The crew quality rules in EaW 17 would have to be removed but I think most of it could remain the same.

Since economic bases would be included in fleets cBPV it would be nice if warships could split from a fleets stationary bases for no movement cost to move to a new system. If civilian or Auxiliary ships are involved the split should cost a move if they are moving to the new fleet.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Dangit, Jungletoy! You took my empire! };-)>
If you need a vice admiral or a captain, I'm submitting my character references now.

By Troy Williams (Jungletoy) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 03:39 pm: Edit

No worries Troy, you take the Gorns, I'll be happy to take the Lyrans.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Actually I don't know if I can commit the time to completely manage an empire. I couldn't even make time this weekend to read the rules Mike sent me. Thus the winky-face when I was berating you.
I was serious about helping the Gorns achieve supremacy, though. Just let me know if/how I can help.

By Peter Thoenen (Eol) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Can we drop the at least one SC4 thing .. never understood that in any campaign

By Peter Thoenen (Eol) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Especially as it doesn't end up doing what it is meant to do .. folk just take POL's

By Michael Helbig (Admgrraven) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 05:46 pm: Edit

That was only for the set up Peter. There is no restriction on having at least one SC4 in a fleet after the set up.

However with the SC3 limit being below the fleet cap in order to get up to the cap you will have to take some SC4.

By Troy Williams (Jungletoy) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 08:00 pm: Edit

I will say this more as a warning than anything else, lower the fleet cap to 350 and have it reach 700 by Y185. I think Jasons message got lost in the shuffle but I agree with this point, particularly because I like to play. EaW is hitting the point in the campaign where battles will take weeks or months to complete as 600bpv fleets meet. Imagine the Kzinti or even Klingon drone battle groups and moving 100s of drones? You will be lucky to get a few impulses in each session let alone complete games in a timely manner. This coupled with RL complications = FAIL. You either have a mechanism to ensure games get played within a set time frame (which can piss people off) or keep the fleet cap low. Everyone has RL challenges but with multiple empires, players and large fleets this issue gets amplified and people leave. There has to be some accountability to the campaign and players regardless of RL challenges. I would suggest you run seasonal cycles on 2 weeks +2 day periods starting on a Friday. This gives everyone 2 full weeks and 3 weekends to get there battles completed. On the last Sunday of the season period the GM adjudicates the unfinished battles. Now your RL challenges could affect your empire as well.

The week following the deadline is for next season orders to be processed. Rinse, repeat, simple. Everyone is actively engaged and happy and the game proceeds systematically on a predictable schedule. All this is moot if you can't finish the battles because the fleets are huge. I would also point out that if you build your supercalifragilisticexpialidcious munchkin fleet like say a fully equipped Fed CVA with Aegis/gatling escorts and SWACs, nobody is going to be stupid enough to fight you and you'll piss them off to boot. G3/G3A, production codes and the S rules were designed to keep these type shenanigans in check. If you want to see how long a 700+ BPV battle takes find a victim, err naive player, err opponent, set the battle up and let me know the outcome...next year sometime. The first Kzin/Klink battle will be the swan song of the campaign as everyone waits and then quits because seasons are taking months to complete. The fleet BPV dynamic has been tested extensively over the 30+ years of the game. No one has succeeded in defeating it. Lot of failed campaigns in the archive failed for just this reason. If you want BBs, DNs and CVAs with all the trimmings do your campaign Squadron Leader style, otherwise the new car smell will fade immediately after everyone outfits their super fleets...

By Peter Thoenen (Eol) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 04:57 am: Edit

I disagree completely Troy. Having watched and participated in various SFBOL large fleet campaigns (Farthest Stars, Void War1 thru 3, and Thunderdome) they work fine and at a reasonable pace (one turn every month or two). The challenge is to make the strategic map the correct size so these turns are meaningful.

We all understand RL but if a player is having RL problems more than once or twice a year (and they extend past a week or two) then they need to not join, auto-retreat with penalty (i.e. loss of 10% of ships) or get booted. Emergencies are one thing, your wife wanting to go to dinner all of a sudden isn't that. We all understand this in our RL league commitments (softball, squash, fishing, bridge, etc etc) and we plan / families accommodate, not sure why some folk have difficulties making the same allowance online.

That being said I'm fine w/ lowering it to around 400 or 450 start if we drop the SC4 requirement and if by the time we reach carriers the BPV allowance will allow for the earliest carrier (or all being equal, the CL sized carrier) + flexible escorts and then ditto for interceptors and PF's. Yes I am biased here because I have the 15% cloak penalty, BP sucks in small squadrons, and I need (to be competitive really) the ability to be able to field 3 Sparrowhawks (and ditto with the Gorn and CL's)

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 02:55 pm: Edit

I don't see the problem with 600, I could see the SC4 requirement being removed, it really only restricted your starting units.

One problem I see is that the carriers are introduced in different years for every empire.

The Kzinti for example have there CV, CVL, and CVE all available in Y166. And I don't really like the idea of carrier escorts being more flexible than the G3A annex would have them. Often G3A gives you several escort group choices, I think they are enough.

I too think 1 to 2 months isn't unreasonable if you've got a 60-100 hour battle to play.

3 weeks doesn't even seem to be enough to get a tournament game done sometimes.

If your not getting enough battles in EaW to satisfy you just play a few 350 BPV squadron battles on the side to pass the time. Or maybe attack more often so you have EaW battles to play.

I think with more movemnt points players will be able to be more agressive, with a few more systems and a hidden map both the campaign game and tactical battles will be challanging and fun.

Im willing to start at 500 possibly as low as 450 no lower. And thats only if I know it will be going to 600 in only a few years. If I have to stick to 350 point squadrons, I think I will just pass on this game its going to be way too different from EaW.

I don't think that having no SC 4 units in our fleets is a good thing really, when the cap goes up I think the last 25 percent should be from destroyer and frigate classes or smaller.

Peter what do you think would be a good number of systems for 6 player races in your experience?

When there is a delay you think is becoming a problem I suggest talking to the GM.

Hopefully we stay at 600 I think everyone can be competative with that much BPV in a fleet.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 03:03 pm: Edit

The problem is some empires don't work with that kind of force composition. Once you add refits, Gorn fleets get very heavy very quickly, and finding small units to fill BPV holes gets very hard.
Especially because their "FF" (the DD) turns into a DD (the DDF) and you don't have any real small units until PFs come along.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Yeah I know refitted Gorn SC 3 ships don't grow on tree's and will fill up your fleets cap quickly.

I want my opponents to all be able to field fleets they think have the proper force composition. If that means no SC 4 units for them thats ok with me and I wouldn't have a problem with it Klingons may have cheap SC 4 ships but there hardly awe inspiring.

I can see players wanting to drop any requirement that you use SC 4 units. I wouldn't really have a problem with that but I do think that having other ship classes makes the games more interesting and probably more realistic.

Ive never played a campaign BP empire so my understanding of the problems you face is limited. What do you suggest Saaur?

I think the idea now is to give Mike as much feedback as possible so that when April rolls around we have ironed out most of the issues and only infrequent rules updates would be needed.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 03:59 pm: Edit

As a Gorn, give me a BPV cap and a year. Those are enough limitations hat I'll have trouble fielding an effective force every time, especially if I'm managaing my empire's economy at the same time. I'll also use sc4 vessels almost every time. I like them. But then, I'm a role-player, so I probably don't do "pure" wargaming.

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Josh,
As much as I would love to play in EaW2, it just would not be fair to Roch and Ted in my other 2 campaigns and all the Admirals in EaW2 as that would really stretch my play time !

If I have some down time and there happens to be a battle at the time that I could fly, I will offer my services but until then, I will lurk in the shadows reading battle reports !!


Cheers
Frank

By Troy Williams (Jungletoy) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 04:49 pm: Edit

"The challenge is to make the strategic map the correct size so these turns are meaningful."

That is the rub and why I agree with you. It is also reason I suggested a LARGE area for exploration and a requirement for diplomacy. But EaW's flavor is to force combat early and often with limited diplomacy. Hence, without controls to drive proper pace, 700+ bpv fleets will slow the game and it will end up in the place Taos and DboM are resting.

The SC4 rule prevents munchkin fleets comprised solely of war cruisers, maulers, SFGs etc and forces players to build realistic fleet compositions. Otherwise it devolves to a game of button-mashers in BC's. The SFB timeline builds to your point about SC4 hulls just fine why muck with it. It's clear by 175 Frigates and DD are moth-balled or relegated to system defense support. Then you get PFs,x-ships and by 180 even war destroyers are obsolete. Let's wait till Y180 to start with that silliness.

Most of things I see getting shoved into this candidate are removing game balance and smack of wanting to exercise some SFB demons rather than create a quality campaign. Satisfaction is born out of overcoming challenges not operating under the delusion of removing a rule that might seemingly help you turns out to be tremendous advantage to another race. This is also known as the law of unintended consequences and could hurt you more than help.

Anyway none of this is constructive and the proof will be in the pudding. Let's get to the part where we build our awesome but improbable fleets. I suspect the joy will last for some until actual combat where the awesome paper tiger meets the real tiger. Then we can add rules like "If one fleet has scouts and the other did not have the intelligence to include scout support then no scouts are allowed in the battle." Or the awkwardness of "Gee, sorry about that, the outstanding crew on BB with a Legendary Weapons, Navigator, Engineer and Science Officers pretty much ensure I automatically cripple a cruiser every turn. Despite it's size it has a TM of C and generates 4 points of ECM naturally and I can double warp output for bricks, tractor and EW. Wanna play again? No? ok..."

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Troy you can have that BB, and I will have 60 St-3 with WBP.

Sound fair?

By Michael Helbig (Admgrraven) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Thanks guys for the suggestions. I've not got the time tonight to respond but will tomorrow morning after I get off work.

I will say that I'm a traditionalist and favor SC4 ships. Why build them if they weren't intended to be used?

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Uh no Troy cant have that BB.

I think all conjecturals are not going to be allowed, your Lyran BB won't be stocked at your local Mini Pet Mart. You will have to dredge the ranks SFB players to get your game but Im sure its possible if your persistent enough.

Nobody has proposed any nonesense like that, the proposal was to take outstanding crews and poor crews and experience tracking out of the game.

New proposal no SC 2 unit or Battle Tug can ever have even 1 legendary officer and no ship may have more than 1 ever. And no fleet can have more than 2. That should cut down on your fears of Kzinti domination Admiral Jungletoy.

It was called TAoC, and I don't remember it ever starting or you being a part of it, the guy running it quit in both cases otherwise the guys were having fun in DBoM.

This is the EaW2 topic, if you have proposals for the rules please keep them coming.

The proof will be in the pudding as you say Troy, and Mike hasn't even started working on his rules so now is the time for suggestions to limit the things your so concerned about.

Troy seems all upset but nobody has proposed the things your suggesting and you seem more into telling us why the campaign will fail.

Lets see what changes if any Mike makes in the end, can you be more specific when you have an issue with a particular rule being unbalanced for some reason.

And remember Mike doesn't want to reinvent the wheel here with the rules I think most of them will be the same, but he's going to be finding some compromise between our very different takes on whats needed and what will just cause trouble down the line. Now is the time for suggestions and alternatives, and I do understand your concenrns Troy. I just don't think you were very specific about what changes have been proposed that are going to cause the unintended consequences your worried about.

Im ok with a Large galaxy, but again think you should define LARGE in terms of number of systems total. I would like to see more systems than in the first EaW, but I don't want hundreds I think we should ask the players and GM's in those campaigns that Eol mentioned what they think about increasing the number of systems.

By Troy Williams (Jungletoy) on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 - 12:20 am: Edit

I have selected my empire (Gorn). Play on...

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 - 03:40 pm: Edit

I'd say if you want a balanced game, just include all regular, commander's level, and advanced rules (including (S8), at least for builds, though not necessarily for deployment), disallow all optional rules, and move on.
That's how the game is DESIGNED to be played. Why mess with it?

By Peter Thoenen (Eol) on Thursday, January 19, 2012 - 01:47 am: Edit

I would actually prefer that for the most part. Given a max BPV, make sure it complies with S8, and figure out the campaign strategic stuff (economies, exploration, movement, repair, resupply, fixed map sizes, etc etc).

I also think a smaller map is better .. big maps go like Void War and turtling wins ... plus the game becomes all about spreadsheets and logistics.

As for ships, I'm ok with no-CONJ (though I do love some of the CONJ ships) but ask the UNV be allowed as most of my mid/late game Kestrels are UNV and ships like the kestrel D5 and BCH are among my favorite ships in the game. Other races also benefit from UNV though not as much maybe.

By Geoffrey Nokes (Chaotic_Cobalt) on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 01:07 am: Edit

Hi i would like to request a spot on the Gorn empire! Call sign is Chaotic_Cobalt on SFBOL

By Michael Helbig (Admgrraven) on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 10:02 am: Edit

I'm thinking of a Moderate size map. Enough room for some expansion but also small enough that you have to worry about incursions with in 4-6 turns. The starting system will be a life vs a mineral and there will be a little more free stuff at start so you can concentrate most of the bpv to warships.

One rule I'm thinking about is allowing 1 conj hull per race. You can decide which you want but after that hull is built your done. You can build more of that type only. UNV will be allowed as they were feasible ships that for one reason or another weren't built by their empires.

I will start hammering out the rules and hopefully with in the next week or so can start building the campaign map.

Tactical maps will be 84x60.

On the tactical map I'm leaning towards using the warp point that Frank started with. You would be allowed to disengage from there without having to open it up with phasers but you will all have the same spot to run from. If you disengage I'm also thinking about re-instituting the hyperspace rule for disengagement. This is how it would work: What ever season you disengage from battle your fleet will be in hyperspace for an entire year. That fleet would be available for moves 4 seasons later at your FRD. If you have multiple FRD's fleets would be assigned to specific FRD's. Also, if your FRD is destroyed before the fleet arrives you have until the fleet is scheduled to arrive to reassign or build another FRD. If you haven't replaced the FRD before the fleet comes out it would be destroyed. Also fleets in hyperspace wouldn't be counted for campaign move purposes.

Give me some feed back on this gents.

Michael

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 10:08 am: Edit

Hyperspace might be needed from a game-balance standpoint, but from a role-playing perspective it's just silly. Trek uses warp, not hyper. You can still interact with the universe when warping.

By Troy Williams (Jungletoy) on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Keep it simple. Disengaging for a year or to the nearest FRD isn't optimal if you're looking at 4-6 turns before conflict and a slower economic development model. The rules setup a condition where an attacker could continue through two or three systems before a defense could be mounted. I suggest disengage to the next friendly system or be destroyed.

If the infrastructure doesn't keep up with fleet production you will get huge gaps between the edges and core which enable this. Perhaps a 600BPV fleet that you can designate as 'Picket fleet' status. This is a fleet that is everywhere and nowhere. It is only invoked as a defender fleet anywhere in the empire anytime for some move points. This should help deter the strategically challenged empires that invest solely in combat hulls and think it's easier to willy-nilly invade empires instead of building and investing their own infrastructure and exploration.

This also fixes a fundamental flaw in EaW where the discrepancy between economy biased strategies and combat biased strategies causes the campaign to self-destruct. Basically when people don't feel competitive or that they don't stand a chance they quit, ergo your campaign goes into a death spiral.