Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 09, 2002	25		03/09 08:47pm
	Archive through March 12, 2002	25		03/12 01:54pm
	Archive through April 22, 2002	25		04/22 04:22pm
	Archive through December 19, 2002	25		12/19 02:45pm
	Archive through December 26, 2002	25		12/26 01:05pm
	Archive through July 24, 2004	27		07/24 08:50pm
	Archive through December 28, 2004	25		12/28 08:21am
	Archive through December 29, 2004	25		12/29 08:43pm
	Archive through January 04, 2005	25		01/04 11:15am
	Archive through January 11, 2005	25		01/11 10:03am
	Archive through November 08, 2009	25		11/08 03:42pm
	Archive through December 13, 2010	25		12/13 06:23pm
	Archive through January 28, 2011	25		01/28 12:50am
	Archive through February 19, 2011	25		02/19 06:26pm
	Archive through July 01, 2011	25		07/01 05:29pm
	Archive through July 04, 2011	25		07/04 04:07am
	Archive through July 05, 2011	25		07/05 06:20pm
	Archive through July 06, 2011	25		07/06 12:05am
	Archive through January 05, 2012	25		01/05 05:48pm

I assume you're asking about hexagonal "spaces" rather than asking about hexagonal maps (collection of "spaces")?

IMHO, basically, hexagons allow a finer grain when dealing with things that have angles (turning, firing arcs, sight-lines, etc).

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 09:33 pm: Edit

No, he's asking about the hexagonal map Mike and I mentioned a few posts back.
Jason, we've found it's better for multi-side battles, since everyone can start equidistant from the center instead of having certain forces unnaturally close to others at the beginning of combat.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 10:16 pm: Edit

I like the Hexagonal maps also but why cant you make them with the map overlay tool.

In the client library already are several under the names Death By Other Means.

Ive played on a couple of them and they work well but are a bit larger than what you talked about.

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 12:42 am: Edit

Michael,
Thanks for the thought re me playing as an Admiral in EaW2 !
However, I am currently playing in 3 campaigns now and running EaW1 so my involvment in EaW2 will be a Captain for hire only.

Good Luck with EaW2 !!

Cheers
Frank

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 11:38 am: Edit

Jason,

The hexagon map is the relation of a "circle" into space when you're dealing with hexagon squares in the map. This provides an advantage in that there are no "corners" to duck or get caught in.

The "corner dodge" is often a great tactic, but is then followed by generally unrealistic and deadly moves to keep yourself on the fixed map. On a slightly larger hexagonal map, you can do things like exit tracking range of drones without having to corner dodge and when you turn out, you're not trapped into an right-angle area of space, but rather have gentle exits.

It's also better in multi-opponent games in that you can start 2, 3, 4 and 6 players in the map with even footing, something you can't do on a square map (which is good for 2 or 4).

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Frank said: However, I am currently playing in 3 campaigns now and running EaW1 so my involvment in EaW2 will be a Captain for hire only.

In before the rush: consider yourself hired !

By Kirk Carpenter (Los_Acre) on Saturday, January 07, 2012 - 04:57 am: Edit

Troy sez: Hmmmm tempting... No kitties?!?

SFBOL campaign demographic supports about 1.5 campaigns. Currently EaW and Squadron Commander are filling those slots and Squadron Commander is in a death spiral and needs de-fib. Don't forget RAT, NK Andro playtest initiatives as well. What happens is the people getting whipped in one campaign move to the other for a "fresh start" then both campaigns languish slow deaths or fail all together. Witness DboM/TaOS.

As much as I like to play and EaW heating up for constant streams of battles each season, individuals will be hard pressed to get games scheduled blah blah blah blah ad infinitum. I'm all for more campaigns but SFBOL community might be 30 or so people divided into groups: Tourney, Tourney/Campaign, Campaign/Non-tourney patrol, and people who sign up and drop for RL reasons. I'm thinking it might be better to wait for Squadron Commander to tank completely before firing this up.

@Troy- In EaW after three years (Y165-Y168) most empires are managing 9-15 300-600BPV fleets. I use a 6 page spreadsheet to track everything(economics, logistics, hulls, fleets, orders etc) and the GM has similar but different tracking system. Less time than SE0004 for paper work but the research hours are killer. We will be needing Captains and Vice Admirals to fly battles very soon as the empires have reached maximum non-conflict expansion so every year going forward will have multiple battles.

Troy sez think....

By Kirk Carpenter (Los_Acre) on Saturday, January 07, 2012 - 05:34 am: Edit

He's right Grraven train...

Just because you have a whole bunch of hold-overs to play ( GFB and Nomad ) doesn't mean everyone else does...

So where do you figure you have enough players for a campaign...

You're the Burnside opposite....That loser hated D5's and you're all saddled up with them...

Thank god the Mayan calender ends this all because the day a SFB campaign occurs and is played to completion is the day Josh gets a job at Walmart or any job for that matter.....

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Jason,
You sure you want to hire me ?
I can turn a winning postion into a lost cause with very little effort !!

By Fred J. Kreller (Kreller1) on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 04:34 pm: Edit

I also have an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. :-)

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Given any large scale campaign would require battle captains Im sure we would be willing to field any candidate who was willing to turn up.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 06:44 pm: Edit

I know that there are a few campaigns currently running (EaW comes to mind), and there's at least one other campaign starting up (EaW2). But I think I want to toss this one in as a possibility.

The Front Line plays much like EaW does, but holds a little closer to traditional F&E. Each player is in charge of a large section of their race's empire. This campaign format is designed to be less involved than F&E, to start nearly every race immediately (barring various units' Year-In-Service details) and start each race on fairly equal economic and geographic footing. (rules at sfb.mattnet.org/thefrontline.html )

My gaming group has played this campaign format several times. In fact what I'm offering, is to open it up so the SFBOL group can play the campaign with our group. I've secured a campaign moderator and two players (one being myself). All combat is either discussed out (in the case of wildly unbalanced forces) or resolved through (in this case) SFBOL.

Interested parties can post here, or contact me via email.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 08:48 am: Edit

Matt,

Nice front on your web page.

How do you look at the examles in section 600? When I click on them I get a blank screen.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 10:52 am: Edit

:/ I'm not sure what's the problem. Perhaps your browser?

[begin technical discussion]
Those files are base-64 encoded and actually placed in the HTML document. This allows the rules document to be saved to hard drive and be only one file, instead of an HTML, several image files, and several text files.
A couple years ago, I heard a dirty rumor that Internet Exploder was going to stop supporting B64 encoded files (since they are so rarely used). I almost believe it, since only microsloth would want to make their product less useful after putting in the work to support a feature.
[end technical discussion]

I will replace the file with a "normal" HTML document.

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Saturday, April 14, 2012 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Campaign Concept: ISC Pacification Campaign.

Modeled on the ISC War F&E module.

Pros:
Supports every major race but is not a free-for-all thing, as those don't work so well.
Time period has rarely been explored in campaigns. I actually don't know of any campaign ever played using the ISC in something similar to their actual historical battles.
Flexible number of players.
Minimal bookkeeping, no elimination grind.

Cons:
Most battles (85%, probably) would involve the ISC. Is there enough interest in a campaign where one race fights so many battles?
Lot of work for the ISC admiral (could solve with multiple ISC players).

Any thoughts?

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Sunday, April 15, 2012 - 02:43 am: Edit

More details on the campaign concept. I am soliciting comments and tentative expressions of interest (or outright statements of disinterest, I guess). It was either the ISC or the Andros, but I feel that the ISC would work better. Their technology is less nutty, for one, and they seem to be a little better balanced.

This is the largest campaign I am likely to ever design, but it is still probably not any larger than Far Stars, and will probably play faster. It will certainly have less bookkeeping, and will not depend on secret orders and a non-playing, impartial GM. I will probably still act as a non-playing impartial GM though, in case there is a need for rulings, rules changes, and to direct the Andros and Orions.

Until ISC War, little was known about exactly what form the ISC Pacification took. It turns out that the empires were exhausted from the General War, and most of their forces were retired, sold off, repurposed for rebuilding, or mothballed; and the national economies were directed to recovery rather than warfare. The ISC pacification took place in the border regions as the ISC attempted to occupy the national borders and neutral zones, while destroying the bases in the border regions to prevent ships from having the supply and strategic range to attack other nations. The ISC paid for the effort by occupying border planets and taxing trade between other nations.

The ISC did not attempt to destroy or conquer any other nation, and no nation would commit to a full war against the ISC because the ISC was stronger. Nations did, however, attempt to prevent the ISC from occupying too much of their territory.

As applied to SFB:

The campaign is divided into regions (analogous to the "cordons" in ISC War). Each region is a zone of territory which constitutes a national border and its neutral zone, and some national territory on either side. Each region is played separately and may have multiple nations in it. For instance, the Federation/Gorn border might be one (relatively peaceful) region; the Klingon/Lyran/Kzinti/Wyn border area would be another (rather more active) region.

Each region consists of five (or potentially more) zones. The Neutral Zone, and two zones in each bordering nation's territory: the Inner Pacification Zone (an area of national territory adjacent to the border, analogous to ISC War's PEZ), and the Outer Pacification Zone (an area of national territory deeper into the nation, analogous to the CEZ). A Region might have more than five zones if it has more than two nations participating. Each zone is divided into sectors, which are similar in some ways to the battle areas in the Admiral's Game, although fewer in number (within a Region). ISC ships can enter any sector at any time, national ships can only enter sectors which are adjacent to (including in the next zone) sectors they won in the last campaign round. National players also have a large "main territory" area which ISC ships will never enter, and in which they can repair their ships or simply keep them safe. In effect, the core areas of each empire function almost like an off-map area. The ISC, on the other hand, has the ability to rapidly deploy powerful bases, providing them (relatively!) safe zones as well. Because each region operates mostly-independently, even from the ISC standpoint, it's possible for multiple ISC players to participate if needed. Similarly, non-adjacent nations could be controlled by the same player, for instance, the Romulans and Lyrans could be controlled by one human player because there is nothing they can do to affect each other anyway.

The objective of the national players is to drive the ISC out of their territory. Unlike ISC War, player ships can enter the neutral zone or even adjacent national territory. The Romulans and Gorn won't attack the ISC, but successes along their border with the ISC will tie down ISC ships that otherwise would be available for the larger campaign. Essentially, each national player gains (or loses) a certain number of points each turn depending on battle results and territory controlled. ISC victory is determined by whether the national players, as a whole, have a positive or negative score, but each individual national player can win or lose as well. Because it's impossible to get into a hopeless state (even a badly beaten national player can simply retreat into his home area for a few turns to rebuild his fleet; the ISC player hopefully won't lose everywhere at once) there should be no situation where players simply give up, or have to play out the string of a dozen hopeless battles. Base assaults should account for about 10% of battles. Maps will be "soft fixed" - the objective of each battle is either to defend or destroy a fixed or slow target, or to control territory. Ships that run around endlessly are not controlling territory and will be declared to have lost the battle area. However, there is no "wall in space."

Players will not have unlimited control over ship construction; they will have a more or less historical build schedule (but reduced to account for the smaller scale of SFB, of course). However, players will have control over the specific variants of ships they receive, and will be able to perform conversions. Command limits will probably be about half of nominal. There is no need for artificial mechanics such as FCR because 1) The situation with FCR is not really any better than without it and 2) Defined build schedules will take care of the "C7+10D5" fleet problem; there will simply not be that many D5s. The ISC will be encouraged (though not mandated) to use echelon tactics because of limitations on PPD construction rates; losses of PPD-armed ships will hurt, and they really will prefer to sacrifice frigates and destroyers rather than risk larger ships. Loss of heavier ships will matter less to the national players, as they can be expected to have many war cruisers lying around in stardock that could be brought to the front.

Minor races (WYN, LDR, Vudar, Seltorian, Tholian, Andromedan) exist, but will not be player-controlled and will probably produce few, if any, scenarios. The WYN, LDR and Vudar are mostly trading partners. The main effect of the Seltorians is to tie down ships until they are destroyed. Tholians "are there" but never do anything; they are probably the only race in the galaxy that is actually happy about the Pacification. It would, however, be theoretically possible for the Klingons, Romulans, or Federation to raid them. Andromedans, as always, are raiders and nuisances, and probably not that frequent (an unexplained problem with the Desecrator delayed the arrival of the main Andromedan invasion, so if the Nationals don't all want to become ISC subject races, they had better outfight them). Pirates will raid commerce and function as mercenaries, but will only be player-controlled if a lot of players sign up.

The campaign includes diplomacy, although not of the usual form ("Let's all get together and gank the Kzinti"), which would not be possible anyway. The old alliances are gone due to the end of the General War, but old grudges and tensions remain. Each nation will have a "diplomatic status" with their neighbors, which depends on their status in the War. For instance, Klingons and Lyrans are friendly; Feds and Romulans are hostile. Other statuses are possible. Although the initial diplomatic status is based on the situation at the end of the War, it is thereafter controlled by player actions. The diplomatic status will determine the types of missions the players can conduct with or against the other; for instance, friendly nations can trade with each other which provides economic benefits, hostile nations can receive bonuses for raiding or destroying the other national player's ships. Being friendly with your neighbor benefits you a little more, but it also benefits the ISC, making it harder to win against them. Players may not agree on what the most beneficial diplomatic status is.

The most important thing: Making a campaign that generates fun battles and doesn't cause hard feelings for the players. It is, after all, supposed to be entertainment.

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, April 15, 2012 - 10:07 am: Edit

William,
I'm interested in playing.

Could you send me the rules please ?

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Sunday, April 15, 2012 - 02:48 pm: Edit

No rules yet, all I have is what's written here and a couple other ideas I didn't bother to write down yet. Looking for input right now, but will hopefully have preliminary rules drawn up pretty soon (maybe within a day or two, maybe this week, depends on how long I spend on my taxes, heh).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, April 15, 2012 - 11:11 pm: Edit

My biggest concern is that battles would be bloody boring. You have Force XYZ against PDQ of the ISC and that will pretty much be the optimized balance going on.

I don't really see any way to "WIN" and it would seem to be a bunch of only semi connected battles that dont have much future.

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Monday, April 16, 2012 - 01:06 am: Edit

Well, I certainly don't want boring!

But I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is it because you would be facing the ISC most of the time, or because you think the battles themselves would be boring? If it's because you don't want to see the ISC that much, that is unavoidable given the concept, but if you think the battles themselves would not be fun, then why? What is it you're looking for that's missing here?

Assuming that many battles are flown by captains who aren't also admirals, as is typical online, they would be able to pick up battles from either side or from any race. It would also be possible for admirals to fly battles either for or against any non-adjacent nation, as they wouldn't have any regions in common with each other, and thus limited conflict of interest. That is, the Lyran player (for example) could play Federation-ISC or Gorn-ISC battles, as either side, without messing anything up in the overall situation.

So, while most battles do involve the ISC, it's not really true that battles would all look the same from the perspective of the individual captain. It's also likely that there will be some battles not involving the ISC at all, but they would be a minority.

As far as difficulty in winning, it's true that there are not really "hard" victory conditions. There is no outright win possible for the ISC, and national players can win a region outright only by destroying the ISC's sector base, which is intentionally difficult. This reflects the nature of peacekeeping - peacekeepers can never achieve a total victory, and the people being peacekept usually don't have the strength to get rid of the peacekeepers. The expected victory condition currently is an accumulation of points over time based on controlling territory in the border regions. With the current proto-map, every nation would participate in two regions (except the Klingons who would have three due to geography) so even if you are behind in one, you might be ahead in the other.

However, it is a very rare campaign, at least a multi-player campaign, that is actually won by anybody. 2-sided campaigns (like the Admiral's Game that Dale and Jeremy sometimes play) can be won, but large multi-way campaigns rarely are. Here, at least, you would have defined victory rules instead of simply playing to exhaustion as occurs in most multi-way campaigns. (The fact that the campaign does not end on exactly day X with the historical Andro invasion is simply there to prevent players from doing strange things based on knowledge of the impending end of the game, when no one would actually know the Andros are about to attack. It might be that the right thing to do is to end the campaign with the Andro invasion, but not at a predefined time).

I am not sure what you mean about battles being loosely connected or not having a future. In all campaigns with multiple players, many battles are only locally important. A battle occurring on the Lyran/Hydran border does not matter much to the Gorn, and that is true in any multi-sided campaign. But as for battles not having a future, I disagree there. If a ship fights in a battle and is not destroyed, you'll see it again in the next one; if it is destroyed, that player will be down a ship until it can be replaced. The battle areas are somewhat abstract, but each ship is an individually tracked entity. Unless I've misunderstood what you are saying there.

I didn't mention it in the original writeup due to length, but there will be more to each battle area, or at least to some battle areas, than simply "last man standing." Although every area counts at the same base rate for victory point purposes, there are other considerations that will make some battle areas more important than others (temporarily, at least). I am taking suggestions for what sorts of "other considerations" might be valuable - I have ideas, including some of these:

I don't want to go overboard with bases, resulting in siege warfare, but some bases and planets will be in the mix. You'll need to control certain areas in order to open up other areas; winning too few areas means free points for your opponent since they automatically win any areas you can't contest. If you want to try to raid your neighbor (raiding a hostile neighbor means bonus points), you'll need to win enough areas to be able to get ships across the border. Controlling adjacent areas means bonus points as well. Disrupting the ISC's bases doesn't net points directly, but putting the ISC out of supply will reduce their combat effectiveness considerably. In general, the difference in goals between the national player and the ISC player should result in some interesting situations, since neither player is simply trying to wipe the other out.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 08:59 pm: Edit

The Masters are up to their old tricks again. This time, THERE'S TWO OF THEM! They've gobbled up a few colonies from each empire and deposited them in a far away land of narrow travel lanes and broad adventure.

"Another Way to Glory" is a Star Fleet Battles campaign run by Matthew Potter. It is designed as a beginning-war 4X campaign. "Another Way to Glory" begins in Y166.

Josh Driscol is running a sister campaign called "A Better Point of Aim". It is designed as a late-war fleet campaign. "A Better Point of Aim" begins in Y175.

Both are using a common set of rules (found at sfb.mattnet.org/another_glory.html). Both are based on the campaign "Canis Minor", run by Jon Berry, which was based on the successful Farthest Stars campaign that was started by Dale McKee.

AVAILABLE EMPIRES

Federation (R2.0), Klingon (R3.0), Romulan (R4.0), Kzinti (R5.0), Gorn (R6.0), Tholian (R7.0), Hydran (R9.0), Lyran (R11.0), ISC (R13.0), FRAX (R51.0), and Peladine (Module E4)

The campaign "A Better Point of Aim" is using an abbreviated set of races to select from:
Federation (R2.0), Klingon (R3.0), Romulan (R4.0), Kzinti (R5.0), Gorn (R6.0), Tholian (R7.0), Hydran (R9.0), Lyran (R11.0), ISC (R13.0), and Peladine (Module E4)

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, July 28, 2019 - 08:46 am: Edit

Looking for a replacement Admiral in Thunder Dome 4 [TD4].

Currently on T2 so very young campaign set in Y165.
Empires not available are Hydrans, Paravians, Klingons, Kzinti, Federation.

Empire to replace is the Frax but you can select a different empire if you wish. We have a nice little option to allow you to replace existing Frax ships!

If interested, please let me know via email and I will forward the current map, spread sheet and rules.

Thanks.
Cheers
Frank

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Wednesday, February 03, 2021 - 08:47 am: Edit

Above & Beyond has an opening for a Kzinti Admiral.
Currently on T4[Fall Y169] so quite young.
Fleet size based on CBpv to encourage battles.
Fleet build restrictions as well so we do not see leader ships only, followers need to be built.

This is a Fog of War format.

If interested, email me in my profile.
I will send you the details for your consideration & get you up to speed if you decide to join.

Cheers
Frank

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Tuesday, June 29, 2021 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Above & Beyond has an opening for a Hydran Admiral.
Currently on T8[Winter Y171] so quite young.
Fleet size based on CBpv to encourage battles.
Fleet build restrictions as well so we do not see leader ships only, followers need to be built.

This is a Fog of War format.

If interested, email me in my profile.
I will send you the details for your consideration & get you up to speed if you decide to join.

Cheers
Frank

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Wednesday, October 20, 2021 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Above and Beyond [AB] is looking for Captains to hire.

We currently have an abundance of battles and due to RL and such, we are falling a bit behind.

If interested, please email me and I will put you in touch with the Admirals requesting help.

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Above & Beyond East [ABE] and Above and Beyond West [ABW] has a vacancy in each campaign.
ABE needs a Romulan Admiral and ABW needs a Lyran Admiral.

ABE is currently fighting out battles for T12 [Roms have 4 battles to resolve] and ABW just finished T11 and about to submit T12 orders.

Please note AB is a play test campaign. With input from the Admirals and onlookers, the rules are shaping up to be quite nice !!

Once AB has run its course [hoping to get 25-30 turns in !], I will launch the Time Wars campaign applying the AB final rules set.

Both campaigns[ABE and ABW] were started back in Nov of 2020.

Be prepared for a lot of battles as the rules do not allow for an easy escape.
We do have a stable of captains for hire should RL happen.

If interested, please ping me at my email.

Thanks.
Frank

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, May 15, 2022 - 02:09 pm: Edit

We have found 2 Admirals.
Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 12:13 pm: Edit

ABE is once again looking for a Romulan Admiral who had to leave suddenly due to RL.
If interested, please contact me.

If no takers by Sunday June 12th, I will proceed with plan B !! :>)

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank