least john forget both PF and INT should be alble to use a simular concept

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, August 02, 2012 - 08:43 am: Edit

Rob, I brought this up already. As John pointed out to me, PF/INT have strategic movement capability already.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, August 02, 2012 - 04:12 pm: Edit

OK For the record...this tech is now open. It may have some tweak here and there but anyone can start work on it.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Monday, August 20, 2012 - 07:36 pm: Edit

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Monday, August 20, 2012 - 01:31 pm: Edit

prposed: the burning of planets is reserved only for the andros and only after 180.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, August 20, 2012 - 07:49 pm: Edit

I think this could take a valid tactic out of the repertoire. It hurts both sides, but may be considered the only option in some cases.

By johnbsteele (Johnbsteele) on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Battleship Construction should take 5 years as has been documented in the SFB universe with the Klingon B10. They should also have to be R&D'd. This would alleviate the stop gap G.C. fix of having to make each successive ship more expensive. It would also still limit the number of these units being built while keeping in the historical flavor of SFB.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 05:01 pm: Edit

John the B10 is a monster it a yamamoto/Bismark class ship that why it took 5 years. and a BB by your time scle would take 10 turns to complete.
adding 1 turn might work since a DN takes 2

By johnbsteele (Johnbsteele) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 04:50 pm: Edit

I was thinking about the flavor of the SFB history.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Uh guys, I want my Battleship in two turns.

This message brought to you by a dissenting ISC Emperor.

By johnbsteele (Johnbsteele) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 12:04 pm: Edit

I will recommend that when I get my BBXco!

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Well I think we should see if the GC adjustment to the BB rules is enough before we try and change it again.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, August 12, 2013 - 03:04 pm: Edit

The rules committee has been pondering how to handle prepaid builds for CW/DW class hulls. In particular, if I have multiple shipyards (I'll stick with CW from now on for conciseness, but this should be assumed to apply to both CW and DW class hulls) that are co-located. Consider the common case of having 6xCWSY at your homeworld. Most players just buy 6xCW each turn (about 500-600EPs). One could, depending upon how you read the rules, treat those 6 shipyards as being independent and buy six sets of 6xCW every 6 turns. This would set you back 3000-3600EPs, which for an empire with 15 majors is quite doable, and with 5 turns in the middle to recover, possible to do indefinitely.

On the down side, this is a big chunk of change, albeit manageable. It also means a great deal of preplanning to handle variants, and reduced flexibility (if you need a type Z but didn't pay for one, you may have to wait several turns for it to become available).

On the plus side, this allows some very creative games with crew units- if you are on RB, you get about 1 1/3 ships with an outstanding crew for "free"; if your PCU % is trending upward, you've locked in 5 extra turns of crew units at the current rate (assuming typical rolls, an average about a 2% overall ((0.7+1.4+2.1+2.8+3.5)/5), which means about 10-25 PCU that you won't generate).

I as a player do not have a strong position on which way to go, but as an empire at 12 majors and trending to 15, I am looking at the possibilities. A few other empires are in or nearing a similar decision point.

Here is a specific example. The Romulan economy (at 15 majors) is going to be around 3000EPs on Full War/CAN-3, and 36xSPA (not SPA+) is only 3420EPs. Clearly that is very much doable without outside help/minimal planning ahead, and with 5 turns to reload the coffers and deal with EE totals, is probably repeatable indefinitely.

Obviously if co-located ones are restricted to a "buy up to 6" restriction (vs. buy up to 6 for the single SY) nothing stops me from having them in 6 different hexes and getting the 6/36 plan anyway. The later just means I have a headache for getting all the ships formed up into squadrons.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Perhaps it was the recent Romulan trade zone message that caused me to propose one.


The Trading Hub

In essence, the Trading Hub allows Trade Routes to be crossed.

After a successful R&D program, a Trading Hub (a CB or larger) may be built. With the permission of the existing trading partner, the Trading Hub is built at the TR hex where the desired Trade Route would cross. Once construction has been completed, this allows a Trade Route to cross an existing Trade Route. The Trading Hub counts as a Trade Route hex for any Galactic power given permission to use the Trading Hub.

The trading partner that gave the permission owns the hex. The builder of the Trading Hub provides the open space base freighter support.

A Galactic Power that has the Trading Hub tech is allowed to build its own Trading Hub in its own Trade Route for another Galactic Power that desires to cross the Trade Route with their own Trade Route.

Further, if one is really ambitious, multiple Trade Route crossings at the Trading Hub are allowed if a TCB is built instead of a CB. Both the owner of the hex and the owner of the Trading Hub must give permission for each Trade Route crossing.

Lastly, the owner of the hex that the Trading Hub is in may withdraw permission causing the specified Trade Route activity to cease. If this permission is withdrawn from the owner of the Trading Hub, all "crossing" Trade Route activity ceases and the Trading Hub would be out of supply.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, April 25, 2015 - 07:55 pm: Edit

I dont Understand the benefits

By Charles "Lucky" Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Saturday, April 25, 2015 - 10:28 pm: Edit

would this allow an ally to connect an isolated system though an allies territory by the use of a trade hub?

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 12:36 pm: Edit

The benefit:

A trade pact would be allowed between non-adjacent Galactic Powers.

An example:

Suppose the ISC wanted to establish a trade pact with the Romulans but the Gorn and Canadiens have an existing trade pact. It is impossible under the current rules for the ISC and Romulans to establish a trade pact as the Gorn Canadien trade pact blocks a connection from the ISC to the Romulans.

An example (multiple crossing):

Suppose the Gorn, ISC, Canadiens, Romulans, Vari, and Jindarians desired to form trade pacts with each other. They would agree to a strategically located hex and each build trade routes to there. One of the Galactic Powers would build the TCB trading hub, allowing multiple trade route crossings and thereby multiple trade pacts.

Isolated system:

In theory, under the current proposal, yes. While intended to cross a trade route, I see a way to "connect" thru an allies territory (as opposed thru open space).

The ally would have to cede hexes for the desired trade route or multiple trading hubs would be built to accomplish the same thing or a combination of both could be used. As the trading hub hex is considered "home territory", any "home territory" on the other side of the trading hub is still connected and in supply.

Think of this situation as allowing an allied "river" thru your territory with the "bridge" as the trading hub.

By John Coleman (Aligato) on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 03:29 pm: Edit

What advantage does the host empire get for building a trading hub (the TCB in his territory)?
I would think that there should be some sort of advantage here. Extra EP or something......

By Charles "Lucky" Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 03:38 pm: Edit

That sounds interesting JS. I can see a lot of benefits, both economically and politically.

It would also make for a very lucrative target.

I wonder what you could get if you raided it? You could raid it as a normal convoy raid. And, if you have TP raiding, you could raid it that way as well if it was used for TPs.

If you were able to capture it, or destroy it. You can knock out multiple trade pacts at one time.

Gives a whole new meaning to open space bases and defenses too.

I would even be tempted to send a large attack squadron deep into enemy territory, raiding colonies along the way for fuel, just to attack it.

This sounds like a lot of fun! I'm all for it.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, April 30, 2015 - 12:45 pm: Edit

The host country would have multiple trade pacts - an advantage.

Yes - this would be a lucrative target for attack. Perhaps one would incur the wrath of those trading partners?

Raiding a Trading Hub would be the same as raiding a trade route.

By John Coleman (Aligato) on Thursday, April 30, 2015 - 03:15 pm: Edit

The hub itself should get a % of the trade through it besides multiple TPs

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Friday, May 01, 2015 - 11:14 am: Edit

Perhaps. Though I'm philosophically opposed to a "tax". SMILE

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, May 01, 2015 - 11:54 am: Edit

It is not a tax, it is a negative income bonus.

By John Coleman (Aligato) on Friday, May 01, 2015 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Just call it a stipends for putting up with all the riffraff that comes through.....grin

By John Burton Steele Sr. (Johnbsteele) on Friday, June 24, 2016 - 04:54 pm: Edit

How about a Legendary Diplomatic Officer? It gives a bonus to:
1. NPC interactions
2. Empire governments (Federation/I.S.C. councils)
3. Requires a Diplomatic Cruiser to be built (ship design based on the standard Heavy Cruiser comes with Officer)
4. Comes with twin brother-the legendary Evil Overlord.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - 10:17 am: Edit

grin