Let's face it! Some people (such as me who is a cop by trade )and can't always get to a player run game see a need for a module dedicated to solitare senarios any feedback?

By Richard C Magee (Fltadmrich) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 08:22 pm: Edit

Also, is there a way to adapt current senarios to solitare mode?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Richard,

I would like to see such a module.

By Charles Risoya (Charlesrisoya) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Richard,

Excellent idea

By Jeff Johnson (Jeffro) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:58 am: Edit

Has anyone written decent "robot-rules" for the Fed CA sp that I can take my D7 for a practice run before wasting my next opponent's time?

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit

If they couldn't write decent 'robot rules' in SFC I doubt anyone could on paper...too many variables and situations.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit

When you guys get this designed let me know and I'll publish it.

By Phil Shanton (Mxslade) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Steve I had a serious question about this.

Would you be opposed to a system inside the senarios that use different dice (ie. 1d10, 2d8, ect.) go get different resolutions for stuff (to make the senario work, not change the SFB combat system)?

And how would you feel about a paragraph system (using lab & special sensor, even EW rules to get to an outcome that you would read a paragraph with the results)?

Geoff, Intro to Starfleet and The Cadet Manual both had some workable robot rules.

Rich You've got a great idea, I remember some quote in Nexus or one of the Expansions about the need for senarios to explain all the cute new rules; a solitare module could just be the thing to do that.

And personal I think it would draw more people in because you could theme it to use exploration and survey ships and new people may think it to be more their liking as it would reflect what they are seeing on TV.

In my mind I'm think a format like the old T&T and Fantasy trip solo modules, hey you could even incorporate Prime Directive and Star Fleet Commander.

Sorry to run on just some thoughts.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Phil; I have my doubts most SFB players have non-d6 dice. I don't see why something cannot be done just as well with d6s.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:39 am: Edit

It's hard to imagine not having polyhedral dice around (since I've been playing other wargames and RPGs as long as SFB's been around...) but even if someone doesn't have them the cost of a set is small compared to what an SFB module would cost.

OTOH, it would feel weird to use d8s or what-have-you with SFB. SVC's right; d6s will work fine... (You can even use base-six d% if you want linear distributions larger than 1-6; I've seen this in other games before.)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:45 am: Edit

Following the "Robot-Rules" theme that Jeff Johnson suggested above, why not "hash out" the various factors?

I mean, If we approach it like an engineering or programming problem, (using the number of people "lurking" on the board to comment on good/bad aspects of the idea), we could establish a set of criteria fo the "robot-rules" that could be used for a Fed CA.

For instance, what if there were 3 options, call them the "approach", "combat" and "Retreat" themes.

Then we would need the various rules under each profile. for example, so long as the ship is undamaged and shields functioning, the robot uses the approach set of rules, perhaps with a alpha strike at impulse # 25 of each turn as it closes on the enemy.

the combat profile could take effect whenever there is internal damage above a certain level, and the ship continues to close and fire weapons at predetermined points in the turn sequence.

the retreat profile "kicks in" whenever warp power is 50% of original levels or less, and the ship automaticlly begins the disengagement by accelleration (or sublight evasion, if needed).

if caught in a tractor beam, and there is not enough energy available to win the tractor auction, the default is self destruction.

just some thoughts...

By Phil Shanton (Mxslade) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit

That shouldn't be to hard to start to do Jeff, it could be laid out in a flow chart and then the flow chart could be used as a play aid to help the player keep the robo-oponent going.

If it's done right you could program different types of oponenets, ie aux ship, convoy, pirate, klingon, ect.

I'm will to try stuff out and suggest stuff, cause I think this module will be a boon to the gamers out there and bring more people in.

By Jeff Johnson (Jeffro) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Solitaire piracy scenarios would be easier to work up than an intelligent Fed CA robot-- the objective of nabbing a frieghter and getting out of there means that you don't have to program the robot for handling all the difficulties that a duel-to-the-death entails. Adding a variety of armed freighters, Q-ships, Robot POL's could fine tune the balance and give the player a lot of variety.

We could then go on Robotize the rest of pirate scenarios from the Basic Set and then combine them with a half dozen "Basic Piracy" randomly-rolled-up-type-scenarios to form a Solitaire Pirate's campaign. Score points for your haul and your kills-- and lose points for the damage you take.... Maybe include a way to work your way up the ranks from LR to CR....

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

This sounds like a good idea, for those nights you can't find anyone around to play, or to play those scenarios that some people avoid (like large fleet engagements).

Following up on Jeff Wile's idea, and taking into account various weapon statuses, there are several categories.

Approach: with subcategories for Weapon Status 0, 1 2 and 3.

Combat: Offensive and Defensive. What I mean here is offensive is when the robot is actively pursuing it's target, while defensive is when the robot is retreating or maneuvering to recharge heavy weapons/phasers.

Retreat: As per Jeff's suggestion, though there are many reasons why a ship would try to disengage. Something like that should be decided at the start of the solo battle. Other reasons include mizia attacks removing all offensive weaponry, multiple shields down making continued fighting extremely dangerous, racial motivations (Klingon: today is a good day to die! Romulan: Those who run today live to fight another.), etc.

I think Phil has hit upon a decent idea for a play aid, a nice flow chart.

I believe the SFB Play-By-Email rules could be adapted to serve as the basis of the Robot rules. Along with a few things from how seeking weapons move and acquire targets.

Using the flow chart play aid, the solo player fills out energy allocation, and writes out a SOP for the robot. Play begins, and the player operates both their ship and the robot, the robot behaving as per the theme (approach, combat, retreat), and using breaks to detirmine whether and when it reacts to weapons fire, seeking weapons, speed changes, etc.

The only problem to this is that the solo player knows everything, energy allocation, what shuttls are set as, weapons charged, etc. So I propose that there be random elements to the EA and SOP setup and that the human player fill out energy allocation first. This leaves random surprises when it comes to drone loadout, when scatterpacks fire, whether those plasmas will be standard, bolted, or enveloped, and so on and so forth.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Sounds like a tie in with Solo gurps campaigns conducting a series of solo sfb scenarios would be the ticket.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 10:37 am: Edit

I concur with Phil and Peter, A flow chart with a series of decision trees would work IMO.

Better yet, from ADB POV this proposal opens up a multitude of flow charts for future publication, perhaps a regular feature in Captains Logs, for the "Vanilla" cruiser for each race, and variations for different solitare scenarios.

Lots of playability and different results in each battle, enough to hold a players interest.

By Jeff Johnson (Jeffro) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 11:00 am: Edit

Here's an idea...

Once we get a fairly good prototype together, let's make a robot tournament. Pick a year, and some ships. Each player submits robot rules for their ship. Then run a round robin were each robot fights all the other robots one on one.

I'd love to see a Kzinti robot anchor a Klingon D7 'bot and then smash it with a half dozen drones!!

This would be a way to play over the web that doesn't require SFBOL or tons of emails!

By Seth Iniguez (Sutehk) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

I'd be impressed if somebody could write an even marginally competent automated system for starships. There are just too many variables, you might as well play a computer game or a monster scenario. Not to rain on anybody's parade, but "I'll believe it when I see it."

By Jeff Johnson (Jeffro) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Seth,

that's why I'm suggesting we lower the bar by "programming" convoys for LR attacks and/or programming robots to fight each other. We're not necessarily talking about a Rated Ace level of intelligence here.

Also, the robots don't have to be playing with all the Commander's rules. Note that when playing SFB without the Advanced rules, you don't even have to worry about side slips and over loads.

Of course, there are already some robots that were written for "Introduction to SFB" so this has been done before.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 02:34 pm: Edit

There are already some provisisons in the rules for some of it. for example, use pursuit plotting for robot ships during the "approach" phase.

It shouldnt be impossible for a flow chart procedure, infact, if we start with a specific ship (call it a Fed CA) you could program a set speed, power for photons holding cost, phaser capaciters already filled, and contingent power for tractors, transporters or Electronic Warfare.

The combat profile, depending on damage levels, could plot for reloading photons and phasers, and a predetermined speed and tactics.

Evasion, should be self explainatory.

You could, if you wanted to go to that level, even plot options for dealing with race specific opponents.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Well, I'll take Seth comments as a gauntlet thrown down, and I'll see if I can't get a preliminary flow chart up in short order. Should I write one for the Fed CA and the Klingon D7, since these two babies are the ones many have cut their SFB teeth on?

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 03:09 pm: Edit

And thus the madness begins...[grin]

By Adam James Villatorio (Merlinfmct87) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit

One idea for the Robot EAF is to put say 5 power(allocated) to 'systems' so that the robot can decide (via dice or flowchart) where to allocate that power.

All in all it sounds great!

Merlin

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit

use random results, plain flowsharts are too predictable.

I'm very interested in seeing the ideas you come up with and programming autopilots to use them. a D7 vs CA fight with both ships robot controlled should be interesting to run a few hundred times

By Jeff Johnson (Jeffro) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Either that... or get these robots up and running on SFBOL for people to practice against and/or to test them against each other.