Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 28, 2012	25		07/28 10:24pm
	Archive through August 01, 2012	25		08/01 10:28pm
	Archive through June 28, 2016	25		06/28 10:17am
	Oldest Race in SFB, Slowest ships?	8		08/07 11:14am

A ship, base or attrition unit maintenance fee of 1% of the BPV per turn should be paid and a "wear out date" of 20 years should be imposed on these items. Units 20 years old should need a refit (10% of BPV) or suffer from shock, this refit would render the unit good for another 5 game years. 2 refits should be the max as the hull itself does wear out. The Merchant Marine should be responsible for their bases and units.
This is more book keeping but it imposes limits on empire's fleet density (either use them in a war or don't build so much). This would also explain mothballed fleets (units in mothballs would not "age" as they are being somewhat maintained in an inactive status).

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - 08:10 pm: Edit

John- I agree that ideally we'd handle ship age (including accelerated age due to combat damage, distinguishing between the rate that "war" and non-war hulls wear out, crew quality, time out of supply, etc.). In practice this is a huge time investment for the GM, a minor one for players (we'll just throw cash and yard capacity at it unless we invade/get invaded when too many ships need service). [If you really want this effect, try running the Romulans between Y150-Y180 with only Old Series ships- SnS -> SnS+ -> SnA -> SnB. My upgrades drive John and Mike nuts, and I actively try to minimize the number of times a ship gets updated (i.e. few SnS+ are ever built and I never upgrade a SnS to one, and I don't create many SnA's)].

Now if we ever have a computerized version (or at least one that is computer moderated), this may be practical.

By John Burton Steele Sr. (Johnbsteele) on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - 10:17 am: Edit

A G.C. Program is the way of the future... if we ONLY had a computer savvy guru to make it happen... perhaps we can try to call our local Romulan? That would make this game system Explode into the game market.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - 10:49 am: Edit

Each race would need a comprehensive spreadsheet that tracked each ship individually from the time of construction, through conversions and refits, maintenance, wear, etc. This spreadsheet would have to be tied to the main economic spreadsheet to ensure that maintenance costs were included in each turn's costs. How many races are tracking each ship with individual ID's?

This would leave the onus of economic tracking on the players and could be spot checked by the GM. The spreadsheet would be a lot of work but could be done. The problem is over time each player would make little intentional, or unintentional, tweaks which could alter the math.

For the U5 Qixa, with the exception of some bases, I would be surprised if any units are approaching 20 years.

At this time, I would vote against tracking additional information and maintenance fees.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - 11:42 am: Edit

I would be very hesitant about having players make substantial spreadsheet tweaks- at best you have N folks doing nearly duplicate work. At worst you have the formula errors creep in that Kurt has alluded to and which one sees reference to in the press from time to time that cause havoc in other fields.

Now, could I write something? Possibly but keep in mind that while my formal training is as a software engineer, my practical experience is on the IT support side which has very little overlap. We would run into a problem with the market however- ~90% of consumer computers are Windows based (followed by Macs, Linux (multiple distros (think dialects)), and a plethora of UNIX(tm)/UNIX-like OSes). I only write for Linux (which would largely include the UNIX(tm)/UNIX-like crowd due to the high degree of compatibility at the source code level). I haven't owned a Windows computer in a decade, and haven't bought one in more than 20. (I'll spare folks the rant & diatribe version of my answer.)

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Saturday, June 10, 2017 - 09:30 am: Edit

Any chance we could have the SY capacity for ICs increased? ;)

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, June 10, 2017 - 09:58 am: Edit

But you should be a small empires, why would you need all those ships anyway--grin.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Saturday, June 10, 2017 - 11:07 am: Edit

Frigates....Hordes of frigates...Hordes of very cheap frigates.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Thursday, February 28, 2019 - 10:22 am: Edit

Consider changing the aid limits to 200 eps or 25% of the treasury, which ever is higher.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 01:44 pm: Edit

ICR-Escort

Consider ICR-Escort as a new tech. It could only be researched by a race that has ICRI, ICRII and CEFOI. It would allow the construction of an additional SC4 or SC3 conversion; however, it must be a carrier escort. The escort must also have aegis if aegis is available to the race at the time the Escort is constructed.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Legendary Officer Graduate School

Everyone once in awhile, you get an officer from the LOS or combat that just doesn't fit your race or it won't be useful for another 10 years...or its just not going to be very useful (like just about any officer on a Qixa frigate). Consider a new tech - Legendary Officer Graduate School (LOGS).

The technology would allow you to invest EPs in the reeducation of the under performing officer. You would spend ~100 EPs for officer to be retrained and it would take two turns. You would assign the officer to one of two paths.

1) Assigned Ship Size Class improvement. At the end of training a 2d12 die roll would occur. on a 2 the officer decreases SC by 1. On a 2-7, the size class remains the same. On a 8-11, size class increases by 1. On a 12 SC increases by 2.

2) New Role Training. At the end of training, the officer has a chance to obtain a brand new role. This would be a done with a check on the officer table. If the roll would not produce an officer, then the retrained officer would washout and retire to some rim world. However, if an LP were permanently assigned to the LOGS, then each washout would have a 50/50% chance of being re-rolled.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, July 12, 2019 - 01:51 am: Edit

I like both of these

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Friday, July 12, 2019 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Icr escort is approved.

By John Burton Steele Sr. (Johnbsteele) on Wednesday, August 07, 2019 - 03:04 pm: Edit

"Galactic Empire Builders"

1. We should put an upper limit on the numbers of MRR developed systems an empire can develop. With no limits we are playing "Galactic Empire Builders" instead of Galactic Conquest.
2. In future games there should be automatic enemies every empire has to cause a little excitement. This would immediately eliminate the problem of playing "Come on... Lets You and Him fight" instead of Galactic Conquest.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Wednesday, August 07, 2019 - 04:21 pm: Edit

1. Interesting thought...You probably wouldn't want to restrict small races. They are already playing catch up. Instead of max number of MRRs, maybe a maximum number of systems that can be converted to minor/major each turn/year. However, I don't know why you can't build systems/MRRs and still expand your empire.
It should be noted, the Andros seem to have an affinity for MMR units in U7.

2. U7...All the good guys have an enemy...Andros. In U6, some of us have discovered local enemies lately. Tholians have discovered Canadiens and Spiders and so far they act like enemies.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, August 07, 2019 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Ah Hem...

In U6, Roy and My Jindarian MRR abilities have already been restricted.

However, I am sure that both of us would accept a tie for first place in "Galactic Empire Builders"!

That sounds like "assigned targets", a fun scenario in SFB.

Spiders? Do the Seltorians know that a "spider" is coming after them?

Next you will find Helgardians or the dreaded Malarans.

And, "Beware the Borak"!! Bwahahaha.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Wednesday, August 07, 2019 - 06:28 pm: Edit

How so? Do you have too many SRs?

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 11:42 am: Edit

Ahem, perhaps I volunteered too much information. The game is in progress after all. Let me just repeat: that the Jindarian ability to do MRR's was restricted.

By Roy Steele (Emperor) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Mike was right in changing the MRR rules of the Jindarian, I would have already crushed and dwarfed any empire if he had not halved all DDP/FFP special abilities.

Would not want us braking the game now would we;)

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Well, it looks like we were "field testing" this part of the Jindarian QRC. I look at it as "us" finding a "flaw" and "exploiting" it as any Galactic Conquest player would do.

Remember the ole "Hospital Ship"? That was "reduced" during U5 as players liked the ship's abilities and started building them.

If we go way back, my ISC BB production was really humming. That got remedied.

Going further back, in the first Andro war - GP economic aid was fantastic! That got corrected.

What future things will be corrected? Stay tuned!

SMILE

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 08:32 am: Edit

technically the MRR is self limiting as the needed merchant support units have a cap based on your BPV of the MM.

However there does seem to be a point when a empire gets a MM sooo big that cap is muted.

It easily tested by reducing the cap, say from the current 15% to a lower value.

Never had a problem with runaway MRR in U5 or U7.

Perhaps if you see a rival making sooo many new system you should attack lol.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Ok, I'll attack a rival. GRIN

By John Burton Steele Sr. (Johnbsteele) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 07:43 pm: Edit

Nobody ever attacks a "Rival" in Galactic Empire Builders (especially 1 on 1)...

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 12:13 am: Edit

It is time that we go one on one rather than ganging up on someone.

Besides, in addition to creating new systems, I could take someone else's systems and really take the lead in Galactic Empire Builders. SMILE

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 12:24 am: Edit

This is absolutely a game of galactic empire builder. It is who can build the largest empire and hold it together. And, every empire must have cash to thrive. Building an Econ can be through trade, MRR, conquest, or a bit of all three. It takes a lot of cash to build a fleet....a fleet that will be used to crush your enemies and add their systems to yours. I assume every race would build their infrastructure to maximize their Econ, including as many MRRs as possible. Why wouldn’t you use the tools in the toolbox,

By John Burton Steele Sr. (Johnbsteele) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 10:00 am: Edit

Kurt,

Everybody Always builds and builds and builds and hopes that their neighbors attack each other while they play "come on... lets you and him fight". It is RARE that somebody attacks somebody else unless they get an alliance together to monkey pile that player. It has been several Campaigns since I have seen a 1 on 1. Any fight Always turns into a giant Alliance versus Alliance fight. That is why I suggest a campaign with automatic attack rules versus this or that empire (IE: Lyrans/Hydrans or Klingons/Feds).

By Charles "Lucky" Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 12:39 pm: Edit

I donno. I like the game as it is. I've been involved in skirmishes for most of the game. Lost a lot of ships because of it. Diplomacy is part of this game and brings in a cat and mouse type of warfare. These skirmishes will eventually lead to some major offensives and other Empires will have to choose sides that help advance their empire and at the same time limit all their allies and enemies. This will happen until the main general war breaks out, which will normally have 2 or 3 factions against each other. How you position your Empire will have a direct impact on how long you survive during this time. You can have powerful allies, but if you are the front Empire that has 3/4 of your border surrounded by enemies, you probably won't survive.. hence the need for proper diplomacy and positioning. I think the largest problem is with NPC Empires and Empires that lose a player (for whatever reason). These two things change the game in an instant, sometimes catastrophically.

The best fix for "Galactic Builders" is to remove the "building" part of the game. Players have to protect their Economy and will do things that do not jeopardize too much of their ability to build (which would cost them the game). If you remove that part of the game, then they won't care if planet "X" gets taken and conquest will be the norm. Perhaps by having all Empires get x amount of points to spend per turn (regardless of how big or small their empire is). Otherwise, caution and protection are the norm.

And if your goal is one on one fighting. Then find a moderator and put the home worlds 10-15 hexes apart and you and another player go at it. No need to have the other 20 players. I'd be game, just send me an email with the setup rules.

I like the game as it is. Perhaps some small tweaks here and there to assist in balancing large scale alliances, but overall I think the game is right where it needs to be.

U5/U7 Frax
U6 Klingon

By Bill Phillips (Praetor) on Friday, September 25, 2020 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Kurt Byanski (Kurtski)

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you...and hear the lamentations of their women"