Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 11, 2007	25		04/16 03:32pm
	Archive through April 17, 2007	25		04/25 02:51am
	Archive through April 26, 2007	25		04/26 07:04pm
	Archive through May 06, 2007	25		05/12 06:35am

Yes

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Chuck did you recieve? For some reason my email filters get bogged down when you and I converse and I often find you in my spam folders.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 12:18 am: Edit

Got it this evening...

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 06:31 am: Edit

Great.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 06:35 am: Edit

Nothing from Chuck yet, hopefully he gets time this weekend.

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 09:10 am: Edit

hey Chuck I would like to know a ruff numbers of units for each race....not a acurate count.......and if there any way to have a counts of units by the History account of the War up this point when the ISC comes in

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 09:49 am: Edit

MHO:

I don't understand your question or how it relates to the multi-sided rules proposal.

Lar:

I'll try to give you a call this weekend.

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 11:41 am: Edit

I have a idea about something and was tring to get some numbers to compare with some numbers I came up with a couple of years ago from a game that I was in ...and how its relate to this site ....I dont know till then

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 12:40 pm: Edit

MHO:

I don't know how to help you here....can you be more specific?

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Chuck ...a ruff ship counts and what you was working with in the Started of the ISC war... Myself and my Brother play a game a few yrs ago with the ISC...and we had issues with a 3rd person to the game....we had to take out a few rules and have a HIGH ship kill ratoi to...and we are planning to a other game again with all the new Mods now and post this on the site in a few weeks...and I wishes for some numbers you may have for ISS setup for this mods...only a ship count for what you are doing.. I hope this cleans up what I meaned....Thanks mholiver

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 12:16 pm: Edit

ON multi-player (3) rules.

The only real change I would make is to allow a reserve marker to contain up to 2 fleets (each kept separate). Against each opponent, you can depoloy one reserve fleet. Otherwise, I see no reason why things should not work out just fine as it did for EB.

By Michael C. Mikulis (Michael) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Davidas,
While that might work, I think it might be easier to let one reserve fleet respond to each opponent.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 08:05 pm: Edit

DAS:

Knock yourself out playing the rules as written as I am suggesting this OPTIONAL rule set for those of us who see the reason why we need them.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Chuck- I'm waiting to hear back from John, Dave and Tony, but as of Origins we were going to start playtesting the rules I outlined to you. I hope to have a proof of concept done by the end of July and some good playtest info by the end of August.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Chuck have you had any time to review the rules ideas I had at Origins? I'd like a staffer like yourself to let me know if what I put down on paper even has merit.

Unfortunately the scenario rules were not followed to the letter this past Origins and the test rules did not come into play until the very end and were too rushed for actual playtest.

By Kenny Bruce (Lt_Bruce) on Friday, October 05, 2007 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Yes. (are we still voting?) I am working on an alternate location for F&E that would likely lead to 3 side wars. I want to see this

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Well we used the multi-player rules at this years Origins and they seemed to work rather well. I would like to hear feedback from some of the participants and of course get a few more playtests under the pervebial belt before making changes.

By John Robinson (John_R) on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 07:58 am: Edit

I think it worked well, though I would prefer that there be some requirement that all three sides have to fight each other. I doubt I would have lasted any longer in that situation, but you guys would have taken more damage from each other at least.

By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 08:43 am: Edit

Lawrence,

Did you use the rules as of Chuck's post on April 25, 2007 - 03:09 am. I browsed this topic quickly, but did not read every post. Is this the latest version of Chuck's proposal?

By John Robinson (John_R) on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 06:22 pm: Edit

I'm not sure what version we used, but it went something like this. Lar (Klingon) moved within one hex of me (Fed/Rom) and the ISC. I reacted off my hex to the Klinks. At that point, the ISC reacted to my move.

Once in battle, we each secretly selected who we were fighting. If both sides opted to fight each other, the battle went on normally. If one side wanted to fight and one did not, the battle went on but at lower BIRs. If both opt to not fight, then nothing happens

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 08:52 pm: Edit

No, ours were a earlier developed expansion of the (301.7) rules. They work well, but I do agree with John, with Lar and I not engaging eachother put John at a serious disadvantage. I'd say that there is still minimum damage taken when 2 sides choose not to engage eachother.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, July 06, 2008 - 12:28 am: Edit

Q1, can one react to someone else's reaction move?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, July 06, 2008 - 08:55 am: Edit

Scott it is the rules as I have proposed them (based on and extrapolated from the groundwork put forth by SVC)...they have not been made public as I wanted to playtest them a bit and have Chuck and Mike C. look at them for Staff input prior to formal presentation to the powers that be. They really just take what SVC had put in place and expand a few things. I think they work ok (but I am biased) and seems to only have needed a few tweaks thus far. We shall see.

Mike has responded Chuck has not had time yet but expressed interest. His concern is with balance of course and its a fine line to walk keeping things balanced.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, November 29, 2008 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Ryan: Please archive.

Jean: Once archive by Ryan, this topic can be deleted.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Saturday, November 29, 2008 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Chuck,

Do we want to delete something still on the drawing board?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, November 30, 2008 - 05:58 am: Edit

Done

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, November 30, 2008 - 11:50 am: Edit

I don't think we want to delete this yet.