It doesn't need fixing, but you call it a Nightmare in the very same sentance and have spent over two weeks arguing about how it needed fixing because it violated all the other rules, will greatly diminish the capabilities of some weapons to the point of "as things stand, we have a totally unbalancing rule that totally ruins most if not all Seekers," said it's a serious problem you have and it's a cheat and so forth - and all that in just the first day or so from when you first posted about it on 2/11!

You never brought it up as "Hey, this just happened to me, is this actually legit?" It was about how you lost to it, and it's this massive thing that was going to be unbalancing the game any time now and anyone who disagreed with you was bad at the game and math.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Charles wrote:
>>But then this is a game where I listen to Tournament players talking about the exact percentages and averages and various things I have not really cared about. They obviously researched all these things and base their game on when they get the most likely result and how that makes firing at such a such range on a specific shield the best answer and so forth so on.>>

Sure. But all those things in tournament play are *streamlined*, and don't make the game take a long time. Knowing all the stuff in tournament play (exact percentages, averages, whatever) is helpful, but doesn't slow the game down. If you know odds, or percentages of outcomes, you know those things, and act accordingly. But generally speaking, it doesn't impact the actual play situations.

The tractor shenanigans is, if it is problematic, problematic mostly 'cause of the amount of time it is likely to take up; doing the complicated calculations to make sure all the right ships with the right move costs are moving the right speeds at the right times to maximize movement on the movement chart or whatever, is likely to make the EA phase take hours, if not days. I mean, I know y'all are playing on SFBOL, and I suspect you generally play, like, a turn per sitting, so folks have a week between turns to figure out their EA plans.

But in, like, actual FtF play (or play on SFBOL with reasonable time limits), I suspect that the tractor shenanigans phase is less likely to occur, as folks don't really have the time to figure out all the math. As their opponents are all like "Duuuuuude. I have been done with EA for 15 minutes already. Doooooooo something."

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Hey, so this probably isn't the place for it. But I haven't played anything but tournament games for years. All this talk has me thinking about multi ship battles.

If anyone has an opening in a campaign game and can let me know what's involved or wants to play a bigger game send me an email.

Dana

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Car Wars (back in the 80s) used to have a proportional impulse movement system like SFB, but that led to the weird effect of slower cars being able to ram faster cars from behind. So SJG changed it (Compendium 2e) to a system essentially like Doug Lambert mentions upthread, and I'm not aware of any real problems. But CW is a lot simpler than SFB so I'm not sure what other weird effects might occur here.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Yeah a lot of SFB's richness is tied to the movement of starships being a hex at a time at most spread over the turn, whereas with Car War's 5 "impulse" turn, anything moving over 50mph is not just moving every impulse but more than 1" at a time in some of them. There's also a car only gets one or two actions in the turn, whereas an SFB ship can be doing all kinds of stuff all during the turn.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 08:17 pm: Edit

That alternative impulse chart is interesting. It does look like it would be easier to use.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 10:15 pm: Edit

I'd be interested in hearing a report of how it works in play.

I tried to stay roughly proportional, all powers of 2 move at the same times as with the current chart and a ship moving twice as fast will always move exactly once between moves of the slower ship.

As I said, I suspect the wonkiness would simply be moved to a different part of the game. Closing would be changed because you'd almost always move simultaneously.

But I'd be interested in how it works purely as a game design exercise.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 10:44 pm: Edit

But also like speed 3 doesn't move for the first half of the turn.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 27, 2021 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Speed 5 Moves on Impulses #8, #16, #24, #28 and #32

Speed 10 has two periods where it has four impulses between moves (early in the turn, and in the early part of the second half of the turn) and two periods where it moves every second impulse (near the end of the first half and near the end of the second half).

15 and 16 move every other impulse (16 starts doing so on Impulse #2 and continues from that point, 15 starts Impulse #4 and continues for the rest of the turn).

But if you are doing three warp tacs, not being able to execute the second tac until Impulse #16 is rough.

Given the layout, I can see player's trying to exploit mid-turn speed changes .

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Saturday, February 27, 2021 - 07:51 pm: Edit

Speeds one more than a power of 2 (3, 5, 9, and 17) will all have concentrated moves near the end of the turn with this chart, because one lower speed (2, 4, 8, 16) goes as in the current chart, which means that wherever you squeeze in the added move, it will be a bunch in a row and I put the added moves near the end.

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 01:42 am: Edit

Peter

As to your points. Yes most Tourney players have it streamlines. I remember Seth and his lists and charts and what happens when and where that he has laid out to be sure he does things in the right order. I see people who make lots of notes. Have spreadsheets. And can tell you that you are definitely using more power than you have. So a speed change is coming.

All those things at one time took a lot of time. Now we are seeing almost instant use as we just punch a number in a spreadsheet and there ya go. Up pops the impulses and when you need to do the trick.

All I am really saying...and this is to Alex, is that from what I am seeing. It is becoming something a lot of people are doing. 6 months ago 3 did it. Now most people either can do it, are doing it or have a fair understanding of it at least in some areas of usage.

Others like me are taking it a step or two further than simply outrunning torps, or speeding up as you turn quicker or avoiding mines or even double sideslipping and coming around 180 in half the time.

Is this going to kill the game? Obviously not. But it does change the dynamics a great deal. And whether Alex likes it or not with how I phrase it. It is in the way the rules are laid out, stepping outside those rules in an obvious way the rules did not intend.

Did the tractor rules expect you to be able to move a slow ship faster than it could move. Well obviously. But it expected it at a cost where you paid for your ship and the other ship to move.

Did it expect you to be able to turn quicker? (Probably one of the main concepts expected.) So without doubt. But why was that an expected concept? Because using a tractor slows you down. And the game tells you how to calculate how much you were slowed down to gauge your new turn mode.

But...the way it is being used, all of that is trash. You do not in anyway slow down. You gain extra hexes. So according to the basic concept of the tractor rules, your pseudo speed should be higher when you tractor someone using this trick. But no one saw it coming. So no one figured out how to make the game rule say since you actually increased speed your turn mode is worse.

Anyway...this is what I am seeing. Is it going to be horrible? Game changing? And end of everything as we know it? Well no. But because I like order. And want things to work in a reasonable way. I made the points here. (Well in questions since I had never been in this part.)

So Peter...I think the amount of time you feel will be required as with anything, will disappear as spreadsheets do the work for people. Sitting across a table? Maybe not or maybe since computers are becoming a large part of many things with phones as well as laptops.

Alex I even understand your issues with how I say things. But I am making specific points. Most of which do not address your points. Nor am I the one who would make the new rule. Though I did come up with an answer that in almost all cases took care of the speed gain without paying movement energy for it which is easy, instant, and stops it from happening.

This has been a fun discussion though.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 02:45 am: Edit

"Though I did come up with an answer that in almost all cases took care of the speed gain without paying movement energy for it which is easy, instant, and stops it from happening."

An answer that had somehow escaped everyone for 40 years.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 08:34 am: Edit

Charles wrote:
>>All those things at one time took a lot of time. Now we are seeing almost instant use as we just punch a number in a spreadsheet and there ya go. Up pops the impulses and when you need to do the trick.>>

As someone who has been seriously playing SFB tournament play for 25+ years now, I have never experienced anyone with a spreadsheet (digital or otherwise) to access during tournament play.

>>So Peter...I think the amount of time you feel will be required as with anything, will disappear as spreadsheets do the work for people.>>

Maybe it will. But I suspect that largely, the effort and time it takes to make this sort of thing work successfully is outside of the realm that most folks are going to go through.

And even if it is, this is *still* a really fringe situation. It is only going to have an impact on scenarios with multiple ships, a large map to work on, and numerous other factors to make "being able to really benefit from tractor shenanigans" attractive. Is this is all a problem from where you are sitting, play scenarios where this is all less attractive. Use single ships. Play in an asteroid field or a nebula or during sunspot activity. Play on a closed map around a base.

Games that are "my fleet and your fleet meet on a big/open map, and shoot until someone gives up" have *lots* of inherent issues, and this sort of thing is just one of them. There are ways to address this without changing the rules to do so.

Like, I'm not fundamentally opposed to fixing the rules; I'd *still* like the sequence of TACing changed (to before ships move, rather than after) to make moving speed 0 less attractive, for example. And again, I largely agree with your basic point (that the gains made from complicated tractor shenanigans are silly and the game would probably be better overall if they were less beneficial). But still, I think the cost/benefit trade off of this is not unreasonable, and as such, probably about a wash.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 01:56 pm: Edit

A group I used to play with considered (though so far as I can recall, never actually followed through) implementing strict time limits for energy allocation. The specific time limits would vary with the scenario, of course. A single-ship duel would have much tighter limits than a fight between two fleets led by CVAs or SCSs, especially if one or both of the empires was a drone-user. But the intent was to prevent people from taking all day for energy allocation and to encourage players to develop sound - if not perfect - plans quickly.

“A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later.” - General George S. Patton

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 05:48 pm: Edit

On time limits, I would think there would be in a Tournament game (time limits for EA and time limits each impulse of a turn, to make decisions)?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Wayne wrote:
>>I would think there would be in a Tournament game (time limits for EA and time limits each impulse of a turn)?>>

In FtF tournaments, there were generally strict time limits (well, in theory at least). Often they were just "the game has a 3 hour time limit" and at the end of 3 hours, the game was either finished or adjudicated. In practice, however, tournament games played for as long as they needed to, unless there was a specific reason to end on time. I think the tournament rules in Module T say, about the EA phase something along the lines of "You get 1 minute past the time at which your opponent finishes EA to finish your EA". Which is reasonable, but also not anything I have ever seen enforced, and only very rarely have I seen situations where it *needed* to be enforced.

On SFBOL, there tends to be no time limits, as the games can be saved and continued as needed. And most folks play reasonably swiftly. I have only had serious issues with slow play from opponents a small number of times in decades of tournament play online and FtF.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Wouldn't a house rule that says a tractor link between two friendly ships must be maintained for a minimum number of impulses greatly reduce the ability for these tractor rules to be "abused"? That would also mean no rules would need to be re-written or other interactions investigated, since tractor links can already be voluntarily maintained until whenever.

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Monday, March 01, 2021 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Dennis a lot of house rules can fix anything sure.

Peter...see one of the things I feel? You are just not seeing is this has absolutely never been done on an open map. All of this is being done in closed maps. Open maps are not in anyway a factor for this to be totally effective.

You do not out run a plasma when you are at range 3 4 or 5 because you have an open map. You just need about 10 to 15 hexes of movement. Which most closed maps have unless you are in a corner. But this is being done just because it can be done. Easily and without much effort. You are just trying to make yourself run constant movement for 10 or so impulses, getting beyond the Plasmas main damage range and into severely reduced damage where it falls off to 5 or less.

You have said just do a speed change. Sure. But when doing so means you now cannot turn away and move more hexes of movement toward a torp. That is a really bad idea usually. And to gain constant movement you would have to up your speed by 10 or more often. THis way you never up your speed. Still get max movement as if running 30+ and can turn in half the time. And then for a point of power can still do a speed increase to add even more distance you move totally out running the torp.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, March 01, 2021 - 05:52 pm: Edit

"You are just not seeing is this has absolutely never been done on an open map."

Citation needed.

"You do not out run a plasma when you are at range 3 4 or 5 because you have an open map. You just need about 10 to 15 hexes of movement."

If the single, larger plasma ship is launching that close and is just allowing the enemy ships to tractor-trick their way away with impunity (which, again, they could also do just by running more easily and efficiently) then the plasma player has far greater tactical problems than getting tractor-tricked.

I also note that you talk about what a huge impact this is and we've already had what two, if not three, other players from the campaign you are in show up and go "Uh yeah, I don't know what the big deal is cause it's just a thing that if you know your opponent knows about, you're ready for" like every other tricksy thing in the game.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 01, 2021 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Charles wrote:
>>All of this is being done in closed maps. Open maps are not in anyway a factor for this to be totally effective.>>

If you are on a closed map, the plasma force can 100% close and score plasma hits, even if the opponent is moving speed 31. As the edge of the map makes it impossible to avoid plasmas. It takes some doing. And possibly getting shot getting the situation set up. But on a closed map? You can score plasma hits. Even with someone moving speed 31. Even if that is the result of tractor beams.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Friday, March 05, 2021 - 10:54 pm: Edit

On the Tholians, it's mentioned that Tholian suitable worlds are pretty rare. So are most tholian "colonies" in the setting considered hostile environment colonies?

Which gets into another question--Building A Dyson sphere took a huge amount of resources, but if the Tholians only had a few worlds suitable to live on, how did they accumlate those resources? Was there an "intermediate" stage, say big ships or habitats to let them spread out from thier homeworld that were eventually abandoned as Dyson Sphere's became more common. (Clearly, the Tholians, even ignoring the dyson sphere's aren't worreid about big projects--not the size of the seltorian cargo ships).

As another note, is there a place to ask "lore" questoins like this, since this particular forum is focused more on "general rules" questions? If not, should there be?

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, March 06, 2021 - 11:49 am: Edit

The Tholian Sphere was built in their home galaxy and brought over when they fled from the Selts.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Saturday, March 06, 2021 - 01:09 pm: Edit

I think Charles is talking about the Old Galaxy, not the Holdfast.

It's a good question. According to the Draco background, Tholiax was "the first Tholian open-air colony since Tholians entered space".

Given that open air colonies (class M planets) appear commonplace for other spacefaring species, this leaves the Tholians at a significant disadvantage when they first expanded into space. Hostile enviroment colonies must be expensive and I would imagine that it would take much longer for such a colony to develop into a major or minor industrial world.

I can only assume that the Tholians developed web technology very early in their spacefaring history and this gave them an advantage in colony set-up and resource exploitation that other empires lacked.

The "early" Tholians might have lived in a manner similar to the Jindarians, mining and creating habitats in asteroids which eventually led to the building of the first "megastructures" (large scale, semi-mobile habitats reinforced by web) which would later become the prototypes for the 1st Dyson Spheres.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, March 06, 2021 - 01:18 pm: Edit

The interesting question is what exactly about Tholian physiology and such that worlds suitable for them are notably rarer than Class M planets are for most other species featured in the SFU.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, March 06, 2021 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Charles Gray:

The Tholian Holdfast has always had a Dyson Sphere, though it has evolved over time. At one point it was a provincial capital and moved here by "means unknown" as a point from which its evolution began.

In any case. The Tholians made it into space, then began empire building (one planet). They somehow got a significant jump on technology and built a small empire. They then, having not found any locally habitable planets, set about building the first Dyson sphere.

Over time, they encounter other space going empires, and many non-space going empires. They were conquered and added to the empire, and as (Tholian) population grew, a new sphere was built. Until the Tholians conquered their whole galaxy (M81). At which point, sphere building continued (as the protected Tholian population continued to grow).

Each sphere become the center of a"province" which provided the materials to keep the sphere in business (and the Tholians in comfort).