Archive through February 01, 2012
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online:
Campaigns:
Empire at War 2:
Archive through February 01, 2012
Geoffrey: I think Troy called Gorn two posts before yours
I think Geoffrey was more interested in helping Troy as a battle captain or vice admiral. He was asking me about playing Gorns in one of the campaigns and I let him know that Troy had already taken the Admirals spot. Good luck to you Chaotic in your quest to join the Gorn. Your enthusiasm for the Gorn and SFB in general will be a real asset to whoever gets you.
As for the UNV warship status I am with Peter and Mike on that issue, those are real ships that for whatever reason didn't get produced but could have.
Im not into the whole picket fleet idea, its interesting and I could use it many ways but I think it takes some of the risk out of the game. You can position your fleets completly wrong to deal with an invastion and the picket fleet is going to make dealing with that threat too easy.
Going back to the warp point is meant to be sub optimal for every admiral to encourage you to stand and fight unless disengagement and its consequences are the lesser of the evil choices you have. I don't think the FRD is a good reapearance point and I don't think loss of the fleet if the FRD is destroyed are needed.
If the FRD is the location where fleets which disengage are released at following there year in limbo, the FRD can still be used the way the Klingons in EaW did.
While the fleets are in limbo you simply move the FRD closer to the front lines timed to reach the front when the fleet is released. No it should be that the disengaged fleets are in limbo in transit to your starting system, and even loss of that system shouldn't prevent the fleet from arriving at the starting system in a year.
I like the 84 x 60 maps so have no problem going back to them.
Jungletoy wrote, "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."
EaW 29 reads
If a player disappears or drops out of the campaign, then a replacement may be found to take over the former
player’s holdings. The new player receives no bonuses for entering a campaign “midstream,” and is subject to
all rules of the campaign. If a new player cannot be found, then the former player’s FRD, fleets, colonies,
mines, fortifications, and any other assets may be permanently removed so that campaign play may continue.
These locations will then have to be “re-discovered” by remaining players.
So even with the loss of players and empires the game goes on, but I agree when players don't feel they can be competative they will start to quit. But its a wargame and elimination of empires is one way to work toward winning the campaign, its hardly the games death spiral.
Im hoping for a Hydran to step in and help keep the Hydrans in EaW going but the rules definatly can handle the loss of a player or several. New worlds to explore and put infrastructure on if thats what your into. As an Admiral its your right to persue whatever hairbrained economic scheme you can cook up, but if your not able to feel competative in the tactical battles you will probably lose interest and eventually quit.
The "willy-nilly" invasions of empires will continue as long as I am an Admiral in EaW2, its not like there is anything wrong with a military based strategy, conquest is just part of the game, but so are alliances and diplomacy and I expect Mike will have ideas on how to handle both alliances and diplomacy in his universe.
I look forward to seeing the rules take shape and the hidden map, and I am willing to give Mike's new ideas a try.
Admiral Baltar
Kzinti High Command
I'm looking through G3 and I'm def ok with starting around 400 BPV
I have no problem with that either I would prefer 600 but am willing to compromise if thats what Mike decides he wants in EaW2, but I would like to see the increase to 600 cBPV no later than Y168-Y170.
By then we all get some new hulls and will have been in contact with other races for a year or more if Mike's right about average seperation between empires.
If we start at 400 Peter do you want all 400 to be SC 3, or keep the 1/4 of the cap have to be SC 4 limitation from EaW.
As Josh so aptly stated, I am interested in a Vice Admiralty or a Battle Captainship with the Gorn. I do not think i am experienced enough to start as an Admiral (this would be my first Campaign) Also I lack the optimal schedule (completely random!)to be an Admiral. Also if someone would walk me throught the Jargon sometime Cause i am lost half the time...
and Josh Thank you for the vote of confidence!
-Captain Cobalt (Triple C!)
Captain Cobalt I would be happy to help with any jargon we may be using just email me the questions.
Y# is a year, example Y165 the year the game begins.
Fleet cap- the maximum size of a fleet in combat basic point value (cBPV)
SC- size class
G3 is the Master Annexes module for SFB ADB product 5423, and G3A is the Supplemantary Annexes product number 5424.
FRD is Fleet Repair Dock where ships are constructed in EaW.
Legendary Officers- are often abbreviated LC for legendary captain, LE for engineer, LWO for weapons officer.
Josh: I want the SC4 thing dropped regardless. The game (IMHO) has always been about SC3's with SC2/4 adding flavor but that's it. Just not a SC4 guy, especially with BP
The SC4 restriction will only be for the initial fleet builds. After that it is totally up to you if you want SC4 in your fleets.
New rule proposal.
In EaW there is a restriction on larger SC4/SC3 units. SC4 after the first 2 of 100 BPV or greater and 160 of SC3 there is a 30% surcharge on additional hulls.
I will revise this to this:
If a unit is a RPW rated warship you can build as many as you wish without penalty irregardless of the cost. Any other types i.e. LPW,UNV,UNQ will have the 30% surcharge after the first two above the 100/160 threshold.
My reasoning for this rule is the plasma races have larger bpv ships later on and they are RPW and I don't think it fair for them to be penalized for a standard hull type.
Michael
This only really helps the Gorns with two hulls (CCH SC3) and (BDL SC4) but these limited by S8.0. None of the Gorn hulls fall above the limits in EaW except ones with which are leader class. But, in a completely and non-coincidental way, significantly benefits all drone using races and the Hydrans. Hmmmm. I think the downside may out weigh the intent you're going for unless it is to give the Hydrans Klinks and Kzinti a sizable advantage by Y175. The Roms and Gorns really catch up in Y170 but if the droners are building munchkin fleets with mediums and the Hydrans are stacking undersized STII squadrons in their cruiser hulls then the the game can become slightly unbalanced.
On a historical note, the one thing that hasn't changed with this campaign variant over the years is the BPV rule and the size class restriction which is why EaW shows up every couple of years with new twists like WPs, disengagement etc. All the empires hulls were designed along chronological lines of history that's why every race doesn't have the same type and number of hulls. It is also why some races own adjacent neighbors but fail miserably against non-neighboring (SFU sense). This puts the onus on the GM to balance the scenario by limits on participating races and the dominance of say BP vs. D&D.
[Begin tongue-in-cheek rant]
Since we've gotten rid of the SC4 restriction I vote we lose the SC2 restriction. We might as well add the tourney EW rule so we don't have to clog up our super fleets with scouts. And get rid of Aux hulls and DDGs and let our super CAs colonize/mine/fortify/capture structures in tact. Of course we might want to change the name to "Super Munchkin Cruiser Fleets at War". Better yet why struggle with all these silly rule changes and just use tourney rules and cruisers at 150 BPV per hull. They are already play tested and balanced against each other. Yeah that's the ticket...
[End tongue-in-cheek rant]
In all seriousness, my point is most campaign variants were death marched through by groups of FtF players in the SFB pinnacle of the 90s. What we have now is late adopters attempting to reinvent the wheel with no mind to lessons learned. In other words, lets not death march where others have death marched before.
Troy, you're forgetting the pre-war BC (160 BPV without sabot) and GW-era CM & CS (161). Heck, once you add sabot, even the BDD goes over the 100-pt sc4 "limit" (102 BPV)
Not to mention the Romulan Skyhawk starts above the 100 bpv limit.
If you read really close in EaW there is no SC4 restriction. However to maximize a fleet you will have to add SC4 due to the SC2/3 limit. That hasn't changed. The only restriction Frank put in was at start you had to include a SC4 in your fleet.
What ships does this help for the D&D empires, I think its mostly to allow the plasma empires to use RPW units over those limits in EaW.
I have no problem with this, to get Troy ranting on some ligitamate beef for a change I suggest making it only apply to the Gorns and Romulans.
Specifically not to the Klingons, Feds, Lyrans, Hydrans, and Kzinti.
We're not going to be changing the current EaW rules to the extent Jungletoy suggests with EW are we.
I think that totally defeats the purpose if he wants more tourney action its readily available on SFBOL. Regular SFB fleet battles are much less common, the idea is to get another campaign generating battles so players that don't want to play tournament rules every day can get a battle now and then.
Just to drive this thread off the rails and interrrupt, mostly because I'm too lazy to look these things up myself and because I have been following this thread since it started but my memory is shoddy nowdays.
What is the state of this campaign? I don't think we've started the first turn.
So who's playing what races?
Are we still really just arguing about how to change this from the base EaW rules?
Even if that's so, what is the current state of the changes?
Let's summarize things up and see where we stand.
(I say "we", because I'm having a fit of insanity and think I want to play this one as an admiral)
SFB is based on SC3 v. SC3 .. I'm just not a fan of SC4 period as I like things like PF's and fighters and they don't get a proper platform until at least a CL size ship. SC2 is limited by S8. I agree their are munchkins but they exist in any ruleset and you just have to live with it (or just rage quit because they beat you).
I agree with not reinventing the wheel which is why I think folk should just stick to S8 with a BPV limit instead of a command limit.
BTW I'm also fine if the true intent is to make a SC4 campaign with the rare SC3 functioning as a SC2 equiv. In that case just make the rules so you have all SC4's, no POL, aux, equiv, and max 1 SC3 per fleet. I'm not being tongue in cheek here, I think many people would actually enjoy that campaign. I don't think that has been done yet on SFBOL and it might work plus will play fast.
Matt: I don't think anybody has thought about starting tomorrow .. no rush on these things 
Matt you should take an Admirals spot, we need them to get started.
Its going to be awhile before the map, rules and players for EaW2 come together. So far there have been no concrete changes, Mike is tossing out ideas and looking for others input.
Its going to take several months minimum, most of these things do take alot of time in pre planning and the GM needs time to get organized.
I am running stuff through my mind while I work at night then come home and put it out for discussion. I think EaW1 is working well but do want to make a few changes and add a few races into the mix.
Currently I have 4 admirals and we need 6 to start.
Races are being requested but I WILL have a draft for race selection. I don't think it fair to have races spoken for before the campaign even gets started.
If you wish to add your $.02 please feel free to as I want all the advice and idea's people can crank out.
Also I am leaning towards taking AUX's completely out and adhering to S8 rules.
@Troy- You are assuming we get to or you survive till Y180 also the CS is LPW. Until then there is no benefit and depending on your strategy in Y180, and x-tech around the corner, will the BDD get the sabot or your DN? It would be nice to have a fleet of CSs but they can't play even under this rule and it would be severely broken.
@Josh- Take a breath. Reread my post with constructive mindset. Simply put on your munchkin hat take any RPW cruiser from any drone using race or the Hydrans and break it using this rule. You'll reach the same conclusion that the D&D/Hydrans get the advantage while the races the rule is intended to help don't.
@Michael- Yes but all the kick-azz nicely appointed DW hulls are over 100 BPV as well. With no SC4 control, almost everyone will build SC3 hulls and use COs as filler anyway.
I shouldn't need to point this out but is was the munchkinizing of the Gorn BT 160 BPV (RPW) that resulted in a lot campaign hoopla and bannings. Under this rule and 600 BPV fleet cap I get 3 of these (9x Plas-S 6x Plas-F, 24x Phaser-1s). You won't have enough shuttles to weasel your way to victory and did I mention tractors? It's not fair and I wouldn't want to engage this fleet unless I had a 2-1 advantage...
Fair enough about the sabot, but you still have the CM in Y173 and BC in Y175.
I agree with taking the "Free Aux's out of the game, any time you create a rule that makes any ship a no brainer for every empire its asking for abuse.
I would say the Aux voted most likely to see widespread abuse is the LAS, and SAS. But there are certainly others I will be urging the abuse of in EaW to my fearless leader.
Mike there are civilian ships, non combat AUX's that should be allowed somewhere in the rules.
My feeling is if its not one of the units needed to do development, or repair you should use your empires military hulls only.
The problem with the current rule is that it lets you slide that LAS into the Fleet, or keep it as a free AUX. But despite Jungletoys confidence in the BPV system I believe the LAS contributes far more than 33 cBPV to a fleet.
Its entirely possible that Klingons and Kzinti may enjoy an EW advantage, the LAS makes that advantage much easier to get. If the Klingons had to rely on only military scouts we would never be able to cram so many combat hulls into the fleets.
I am happy to do the lottery for empire selection, but do understand how people may want there favorite empire and given the long term commitment we need in an Admiral we will be better off if all the Admirals are satisfied with there selections.
Troy
None of the D&D empires cruisers are over the point value RPW or not so it completly does not affect them.
Lets use Klingons as an example.
The C7 is LPW, its not affected by Mikes rule.
The D7W is 155 BPV so is below the 160 pt mark, and drones do not count in that calculation.
I really don't see how it benifits the Klingons at all.
Even the F6 isn't RPW so wouldn't be affected.
The F5WK and FWC are over the 100 pt mark and are RPW, but big deal there not going to unbalance the game.
Also the Gorn BT, pardon my ignorance but when both the Gorn Tug, and Gorn Battle pods are LPW how does the Gorn BT become RPW. G3 has no listing for the Gorn BT, just the pieces and there all LPW. So it seems like all those other campaigns would have done just fine if they had read the warship status of the BT's component parts.
Troy S8.46 says "TUGS: No more than one tug (including LTTs) can be included." There are exceptions but not for battle tugs, so how do you expect to get 3 of them in any fleet.
I just don't see in my G3 where it lists the Gorn BT as RPW. It only lists the parts and they are all LPW.
I think all empires will find SC 4 ships that will not be restricted by the 30 percent cost increase for units over 2. The plasma empires do have some SC 3 ships that are RPW and over the 160 pt level so they will get to use them more. That doesn't bother me.
I don't think there is a battle tug in the game thats not LPW.
Suggested rule for Mike enforce S8.46 with regards to battle tugs and carrier tugs and there will be no problems.
Oh wait we were already playing with S8.46 so the 3 BT fleet was already impossible.
With there limited speed and an 84 x 60 map Im not too afraid of the big bad Gorn BT's yet, sabot may change that but you have to want to get anchored by ships that slow.
Now the Kzinti.
Troy says, "take any RPW cruiser from any drone using race . . . and break it using this rule."
Lets look at the Kzinti Cruisers.
CS RPW and under 160 cBPV
CA RPW and under 160 cBPV
BC RPW and under 160 cBPV
CC RPW and under 160 cBPV
CD LPW but under 160 cBPV
BF LPW but under 160 cBPV
NCA RPW and under 160 cBPV
NCC RPU and under 160 cBPV
The light cruisers are not even close and the refits for the larger cruisers still leave them below 160 cBPV.
I think perhaps you must think that drone speed cost is part of the 160 cBPV calculation, but it never has been. If it was there would be some truth to what your saying.
My understanding is that its the base ship cost plus any refits, but not including drone speed cost.
If this was not the case the Klingon F5DB would be limited by the rule as written and we have been told its not. With drones the F5DB is over 100 cBPV.
But according to EaW 17f, "Penalty applies to each Size Class and based on the EBpv of the ship."
Thats somthing I had missed, its not combat BPV but economic, which is often but not always the same.
I really want to see these munchkin Kzinti cruisers can anyone please point me to one that would be affected in any way by this change to EaW 17f.
I want this to be a constructive debate but when I don't see the ships you say will be made too common in my annex I cant just nod my head and go uh huh Admiral Jungletoy you are so right. I think something about this rule must be misunderstood for you to think what you do.
So are all battle tugs LPW? And does S8.46 limit you to one BT in a fleet?
@ Troy- My bad, I thought the EaW rule was 165 BPV. The BC is 160 BPV and CM is 161 BPV. I build my 2x CMs and use BCs and BTs to offset and abuse the rule. I would rather build lots of BTs instead of CMs (more Ss and phasers). Basically a rule change that may be affecting game balance. I'm thinking neither the Gorns or the Romulans will need any assistance in this target rich environment.
To Peters point, you could do SC3 only version of EaW and not allow SC2 or SC4 but there may be challenges getting SC3 scouts early enough. Starting in Y170 may alleviate this...
Just to jump in here folks,
EaW rule 17f does include drone speed costs.
The cost of the drones brings up the CBpv of the ship but also the EBpv of the ship.
Cheers
Frank