Rather than pick 1,2, or 3 . . . lemme say this -

We would need something small and manageable. Think small, start small, get it done. Want to put bells and whistles in? Save it for Campaign 2.0. Find and create something that can start and play to completion in less than a year. Before it ends you should have enough data to start a more robust campaign.

Anyone here ever get into a failed campaign? Of course you have.

Having said that, something like "Lone Gray Wolf" doesn't need an established organization. Geoff and Paul decide they want to play it. Geoff takes the Kang, Paul gets the Kzinti. Maybe Paul recruits another player, maybe not. Either way it doens't require a debate here. Same thing with the Captains Game. That only requires that a handful of players contact each other privately and set up times/dates. Again, that doesn't require this forum.

By L.LeBlanc (Lessss) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:21 pm: Edit

2) A strategic campaign where the object is to gain as much teritory as possible.

Nearest and dearest to my heart but the most difficult and complicated. I don't want anything that generates anywhere near the number of ships of F'n E though.... say a DD a turn with a turn consisting of lots of chances for combat.

At first I'd expect to see a small section of border as the setting later building in successive campaigns to include whole empires and exploration and setting up colonies etc...

I would not want to see this as "one player" only but in teams with designated chain of command and assumption of the reins so that it is executed in a timely manner and collapsed campaigns don't happen. Some ideas can be pilfered freely from Campaign My own sort of hyper linkd CDH.

3) A fixed set of scenarios like "The Captain's Game" or "Lone Gray Wolf"

This is what I'd expect to see first with the appropriate modifications to what V3.0 and or 2.5 can currently handle... like no carriers or escorts of PF's or PFT's etc.. UNTIL the interface can handle it.

1) Abstracted campaign (no map, a set of randomly selected/generated scenarios)

This should be Cyber Baron. change the scenario every quarter.

****
4) dynaverse... ala SFC.. Pesonally I don't really think that will work. To ME it just seems like alot of window dressing hiding option 1) under it's skirts with some minimal parameter tweaking.

I think the intention of 4 however is to let Captains come and go freely with no obligation to continue on.

That can be accomplished by the teams for any of the setups...

Admiralties should only be given to those OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE FANATICALLY PUNCTUAL DEPENDABLE people who are willing to become obligated to running the empire and assuming captaincy of ships to fight battles if need be. Captaincy should be drawn from a set list of players, perhaps broken into sections/quadrants of operation. these players may come and go evn play for differing sides pehaps. Lose X times and you can no longer play for Klingon but other races are still open .. that sort of thing.

By L.LeBlanc (Lessss) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:22 pm: Edit

We could even set up some courts marshal topics.. hehee.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Anyone here ever get into a failed campaign? Of course you have.
Having said that, something like "Lone Gray Wolf" doesn't need an established organization.

I agree on both counts. Too many full on campaigns, with economcis, map exploration, and all the fun other rules take absolutely FOREVER to play, and rarelly get anywhere. I don't even see why we are discussing this, because SFBOL is not SFBCampaign OL. But SFBattlesOL.

And mini-campaigns can be done easily as noted, but will still require an organizer.

Which really leaves option #1. Which can aproximate the fleet battles of the campaign with a campaign background without all the fuss and muss of a full campaign. The complexity of the campaign with the simplicity of a mini-campaign. How could we lose?

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:58 pm: Edit

1) Abstracted campaign (no map, a set of randomly selected/generated scenarios)

This should be Cyber Baron. change the scenario every quarter.

No, Cyberbaron should be Netkill-like for no history/no future build your own bpv games. No sequence from game to game. Unless doing the Captains game or some other mini-campaign.

An abstracted campaign is a full campaign, as only the map and to some degree colonization and economics is abstracted. Essentially, such a campaign lets you get to the BATTLES right away, while still fielding a 'fleet' and invading/defending against an enemy 'empire'. The 'set of scenarios' is a bit of a misquote in a way, as you and your opponent decide what you are playing in a 'challenge'; a duel, skirmish, fleet action, convoy raid, colony raid, base assualt, or deep/capitol assault. For the most part there is no set order (although obviouslly some border bases need to fall before you can do a deep/capitol assault).

It's hard to explain more without posting the rules I have, but after many bloated campaigns I have run and been in, I highly recomend trying this route.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Paul S., if you are not taking losses and still involved in a draw, then neither is the enemy, and neither of you is gaining.

If you insist on doing this for some reason, I doubt you would get many challengers after a very short time.

By Matthew Galer (Idiot) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 05:48 pm: Edit

3,1,2

in order of preference

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Another possibility for a quick & dirty team event is to play an "Economy of Force" set of scenarios.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 10:41 pm: Edit

In order of preference, 1, 2, 3. But any might be fun.

I just realized that the Admiral's Game (Campaign?) (U3? U4?) might work very well. Each palyer is assigned to a side and any players around when it comes time come to an agreement on how to divide the forces for the next round...

As far as point speed/economy, this is only really relevant in system 2. It will depend on the size of the map (I'm not worried about anything physical here, just playability--thus area in "hexes"). I'd say that half a player's forces should expect to engage at least once between economic phases.

I'm thinking of a map where players start out 8 to 15 hexes apart. Maybe something like 3 moves per turn. Allow simple conditionals (either codify it or make it flexible--the former is simpler for the moderator, the latter is simpler for the players). Have a maximum of one battle per turn per ship/fleet. Accept that there will occasionally be movement oddities (ie if two fleets try to force combat with one ship, one of the fleets will end up being delayed). Have economics happen every other (or perhaps every third) turn (at least the acquisition of BPV--different dynamics are created depending on whether they can be spent each turn or only at intervals--the latter makes for questions like: do I spend my T-bomb now or do I save it for next turn? Can I afford to use all my reload drones in my scatterpack?).

As far as BPV, I'd suggest a minimum of 25 BPV/per turn, but only something like 5 per hex controlled (ie it will take a while to reach territory for the minimum). I can see starting with either 100 BPV (destroyer or 2 police ships) or something around 250--300.

Another concern is that in a campaign where ships are bought by BPV, there should be some incentive to buy smaller/older ones, otherwise we'll see the unfun C7, 10xD5 force as a goal (increasing the BPV of the D5, before refits and drones to 120 BPV would help here). One possibility would be that a maximum of, say, 25 BPV per turn can be spent on any given ship. If more complexity is desired, allow players to build larger shipyards at a cost (eg spend 25 BPV for 3 turns and have one slot that can take 50 BPV/turn). Note that shipbuilding applies even if there isn't a "map."

By Jeremy B. Williams (Epee9) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 11:34 pm: Edit

David,
The "anti-cheese" factor has many solutions. There are two easy, natural ones:
1)Set a year that prevents the kind of cheese you want to avoid.
2)Give a set starting fleet (the new administration can't control what previous governments bought, after all). Make it much easier/cheaper to repair a ship than to build one. Make expected repairs a significant fraction of typical income. Make the starting force considerably larger than the income, so that construction choices are a minor perturbation on overall fleet levels.

By Jeremy B. Williams (Epee9) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Note that my preferred year is about Y164. Many people think I'm nuts. They're probably right.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Its difficult to avoid the cheese by selecting the year. In any year, its usually better to buy cruisers and larger than anything smaller (assuming one is playing with EW). Pre GW it can be lessened (since hot-warp doesn't exist), but not removed.

The disadvantage of making ship construction a small part of the game is that this is what draws many players. I'd have fun in such a campaign, but I know many players (not on the BBS) who wouldn't...

Any particular reason for Y164? I'd have to look over the various races, but that does sound like a fun starting point (unless one wants to be Kzinti:-)

By Jeremy B. Williams (Epee9) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 01:07 am: Edit

David,
1)What pre-GW ship is cheesy? The Tiger?
2)The ship-size tradeoff is a problem; less so without EW, but still there. There are three simple ways to deal with it:
a)Construction cost = BPV*Movement cost (Disadvantage: this really helps the Feds and Kzintis, and it kills one of the greatest character ships in the game, the Fed CL.)
b)Use the HR "BPV limit" gimmick, where a random BPV maximum is generated for a battle force -- the favors having a lot of different ships available, as well as smaller ships.
c)Write your own BPV table. Update it each campaign until you get it right for the campaign style you're using.

I'm sure there are more subtle/complicated methods.

The more you want ship-building to be a factor, the more careful you have to be to avoid cheese. Of course, it would be strange if the primary Klingon cheese ship was the E4 (after all, you can get 5 E4s for the price of 3 F5s or a D7, right? And when you start the turn under EM, the opponent has to close into your disruptor range to hit you with anything anyway. . .)

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 02:46 am: Edit

Sorry, by cheese pre-GW, I was just referring to the large vs small ships (particularly under EW rules--I certainly hope the campaing uses them, otherwise we can't use any Commander's level rules and there are way too many of those I like).

I wouldn't call c) simple. I don't know what you mean by HR?, otherwise, b) feels artificial, but probably no more so than most other solutions.

I'll admit that I haven't found a solution I really like. My two preferred are 1) forcing players to put ships in every space on the map (thus either have their force spread out equally or have small ships) and/or 2) adding an upfront cost to simulate building larger shipyards (something along the lines of F&E build schedules, but the player can expand them at a high cost).

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 03:30 am: Edit

There are two solutions to 'cheese'.

1)Require the pre-campaign bpv fleet buy to be spent on;
50% pre Y150
25% Y150-168
25% Y168+
or some such similiar ratio based on your start date.

2)In my Challenge Campaign (which is the basis for option #1 I believe) scenarios have a random range of bpv for each scenario type. It is in your interest to buy all kinds and all sizes of ships so that you can easily mix and match from the fleet to form a force for that scenario.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Paul F.,

The little survey seems inconclusive. Out of 10 'voters';

optn#2 led with 4 votes
optn#1/3 tied with 3 votes

On a points system (giving 3 points for first choice, 2 for second, etc.)

optn#3 led with 21 points
optn#1/2 had 18 points each


So with such inconclusive data, where do we go? Perhaps we should consider who would moderate any kind of SFBOL campaign. Would that be you Paul, with yoru time already comitted to PBEM and SFBOl already? Or someone else? Could I offer to take the reins of SFBOL Campaign and run with it, as it were?

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Paul F? Have you read the above?

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Geoff,
I am going to print it out. And read it offline. I definitely should have the time tonight.

Paul Franz

By Matthew J. Francois (Francois42) on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 09:32 am: Edit

I would like to see (T2.0) Economy of Force.

But we all know my affinity to that little debacle.

Nonetheless, a Y160, pre-war EoF remains small, manageable, but does provide a workable set of "linked" games.

-Francois
francois@purdue.edu

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 02:52 pm: Edit

I never liked T2 because of its unrealistic set of 6 simultaneous scenarios from core assaults to border defense to neutral zone skirmishs all the way to the same on the other side.

If it somehow involved an ebb and flow, ie: win the NZ scenarios to attack the border, win that to assault the core, etc. then it might be more appealing, like the Admirals Game.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Geoff,
After re-reading all of the posts and re-reading your campaign rules. I got an idea. The idea is that why not have you run the v3 Campaign using your rules. This will benefit both you and me. You in that you will be able to playtest your campaign rules. And me that we will have an "official" campaign going on SFB Online. If you decide to do it. Just tell me if there is anything that you need. (i.e. a link at to your website, a CGI script/program run on the SFB Online website to help you, anything that I can do to help just tell me)

Paul Franz

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Okay, I have to mull over how exactly this would work on sfbol (being a group campaign originally) and get back to you.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Ok, I figure you might want to have an initial signup to start it off. And then afterwards allow people to join on an adhoc basis. Have people report wins and loses to you via Email. Check with SVC if you could post the rules to the Board so that you could get other people to review the rules and playtest them but still have them published like other rules. (We could start another topic for this) As it is according to the Board Posting rules:

---

Quote:

Everything posted to this BBS becomes the property of ADB, Inc., immediately. However, if it is used in an SFB or SFU product, you will be credited and compensated under our standard terms just as if you had sent the item in by mail. This is of course subject to standard terms and conditions; if we have had a new ship in the file for years then it really doesn’t matter who was the first to post a similar ship on the new BBS this year.

---

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Well a put a couple hours of work into the rules last night, cleaning things up and converting to sfb rules #s. Then I realized that we will get very few players with only Tholian pcs available.

May have to shelve this indefinitely?

By L.LeBlanc (Lessss) on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 04:22 pm: Edit

:-) No, you have the players make the ssds as they need them. You only need a copy of the ssd on one side for it to work from my understanding. Using it on your end doesn't give the other player a copy, although he can see it while you play.