Archive through April 17, 2007
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Proposals Forum:
Multi-Player Rules (3, 4, or more!):
Archive through April 17, 2007
SVC: In case you check the BBS tonight, look for my e-mail in the morning.
Just so you guys don't spun-up on this "single ship - meaningless moves first" issue, there is more to it then that. Here a modified extract:
Select a given step in the SoP; the first player may choose to conduct one action related to that step, then the next player conducts one action, followed by the next player (and so on). The sequence is repeated in a given step until no one has an action available or chooses not to act. A player may choose to “pass” in the sequencing action and wait until his turn comes around again for that step, however if all available players consecutively pass then play proceeds to the next step in the SoP; any opportunities not taken are simply lost.
Movement example:
Player A selects a stack of ships and begins movement, after moving three hexes he comes into reaction range of players B & D units and extended reaction range of player C units. Resolve reaction range-1 units first. Since two players are at the same range; compare the command ratings of the flagships, the player D with the higher rating can choose to move before or after the lower rated flagship of the player B. Player B reacts into the hex with Player A and Player D chooses not to react. Player C then chooses to use extended reaction and moves on hex closer to the stack of player A. Player A resolves any pinning issues and continues his movement with no other player choosing to react.
Allied Team B chooses a stack of ships and begins movement…
Player C now chooses one ship and begins movement…
Player D now chooses a stack of ships and begins movement (repeat sequencing)…
Player A chooses another stack of ships and begins movement…
Allied Team B chooses a stack of ships and begins movement…
Player C chooses to pass…
Player D chooses to pass…
Player A chooses to pass…
Allied Team B chooses to pass…
Op Movement is now complete because all four parties have passed consecutively.
============
Jimi is correct about tracking movement of large number of counters as we all seem to manage this well. Rule (202.7) even has two suggestions for doing so.
=======================
You guy need to also understand something -- there is really no easy way to create any multi-player system in F&E and no system can reproduce the exact same type of results of the traditional system. We are all going to have to remain flexable in our expectations and work through this.
At this point, my theory is parallel tracks.
I'm going to do ISC war without 3-player rules and let the scenario victory conditions eliminate the problem. If players tell me it doesn't work, we will delay ISC war two years and do other projects first.
I just have no interest in doing 3-player rules (not least because I see no need for them, and they make my head hurt anyway). More than that, I pretty much hate every single element of Chuck's system. I hate the record keeping, I hate the sequencing, I hate his "two half turns" concept most of all. You're on your own. To maintain order from chaos, you will follow these steps:
1. Chuck can post his system.
2. you guys can ask him questions and point out flaws. NO COUNTER-PROPOSALS are to be posted. Chuck is to post a revised draft by 25 April based on the input of F&E players.
3. On May 1st, you guys can vote whether you want to pursue Chuck's idea or reject it and search for another idea or reject it and abandon the proejct. It should be noted that players are welcome to vote "no" to every proposal if they just don't want 3-way rules at all.
If Chuck's idea is rejected, I will then review by Email other proposals and select one to be posted (or post several outlines for you guys to vote in a straw poll) and we repeat steps 1-2-3.
4. Once there is an idea that is aproved by a vote of 2/3 majority out of at least 30 F&E players, you can work it up in this topic and let me know when it's ready to print.
5. I will have nothing to do with it other than finding blank pages in some future product. I won't approve it, I won't reject it, I won't settle arguments, I won't answer questions (before or after publication), I won't state a preference. Petrick will probably read the draft you guys think is publishable to see if there are logical flaws or loopholes or undefined areas. I have zero doubt that he will find a lot of work you guys haven't done.
So, Chuck, proceed to step 1 followed by the gang's comments in step 2 and a vote starting on 1 May. If you guys really want 3-way rules, you'll somehow create them.
Cool except can we stop calling it 3 player rules. It is really multi-player rules whereas you can and likely will have more that 3 sides involved in a conflict and all not allied to another side. Civil Wars, Non-Historical, ISC whatever the product.
I hate it when I come in on a discussion late, but better late than never, I suppose...
A set of multi-player rules will be useful when you truly have races with victory conditions that are very different, not like the Fed-Klingon vs. ISC examples listed earlier. The example that comes to mind is when the traditional races vs. ISC vs. Anros comes about. Historically, the ISC would have had a handle on everything if the Andros hadn't popped in and ruined it, but at the same time, the traditional races didn't want to see the Andros (or each other) gain advantage either. It just seems - from first glance - a natural time to need multi-player rules.
As far as turn order goes, using A-B-C over and over does mean C gets crushed. If a rotation is used, tactics become determined by predictability of movement and the "super-turn". A random die roll for initiative would be the simplest, most effective answer. In a war with three or more sides, someone is going to get the jump on everyone else through luck, planning, inherent logistic advantages, local conditions, a 37 hour day, etc. And if we are talking about a system where all players go through all aspects of a normal turn at the same time, then it is only the advantage of who gets the first stack move (the Surprise Reversed fits nicely into this - Feds get a first jump - of one stack - and then get buried under the following onslaught).
And speaking of stack moves, couldn't the "break it down into as many little stacks as possible" tactic end up being severely abused? I guess there is an element of that now, but with 3+ races it could get ridiculous.
As far as keeping track of which units moved and which haven't, that is a red herring. We already keep track of the same number of ships (and more) in normal F&E play - not a problem.
A modification of the reserve rules could be needed, too. In the normal game, you can go to your or your allies assistance with reserves. In a game with three plus races, there may be times when it is to your best advantage to have one of your opponents lose a fight- over a planet or base, for example. You would want to go in and help them, but possibly fight them elsewhere. Sending a reserve to help (if accepted and they don't both turn on you!) could be needed for your short term ally. It could also be to your advantage to let someone be your "ally of the moment", too.
Just another thought, wouldn't multi-player rules (games) make for really busy times and new missions for the DIP teams?
Just some ideas / concerns for thought, but with the ISC, Andros, and numerous civil wars coming (some at the same time!), a system like this might be very useful. I am curious if it - or the original rules, for that matter - or both - will work.
I think I've got the process that can make Chucks idea work pretty easy.
At any point prior to movement you place a token (a penny?) on every stack on the board. During the movement process any unit not under a token has moved and cannot move later. Any unit still under a token hasn't moved yet. If you move part of a stack then leave the token on the ships that haven't moved. Keep going until you are done or all tokens are gone.
So simple it's scary.
Chuck's proposal doesn't make the 'knowing of which units has moved yet or not' any more difficult than it has been before. We've always had to know which stacks (and what parts within) have moved yet or not. Anyone that has played at least one game knows that this is not a problem.
Jimi,
but I've been told that Chucks system raises this concern.
I've played the game but a game as big as the ISC vs. Alpha Octant will be huge.
Are you saying no one would ever stop in the middle of a turn? (Remember the scenario involves ALL the races and three players instead of two).
LK:
"I've been told that Chucks system raises this concern."
By whom?
I've never posted any on-line and the most recent revision did not have this problem.
Chuck, isn't that a concern raised earlier in this topic?
I haven't seen any revision so I wouldn't know about that.
As I understand this you are basically creating simultanious movement. There is no phasing player but all players are conducting all SoP at the same time. When it comes to movement each side moves one stack or set of counters at a time. Lets just say, selects a hex to move units from. As he moves units the other players get to react. Finally there may be a battle. Conduct that battle. Battle over and the next player get to move, player react, battle. Player C does this now. By the time player A roll up again he's probably planned his move. Sure. But what happens the fifth or sixth time around? As big as a open campaign would be I would thing that it could get a little unsure what have moved a little (did I move that stack of FF's to that Starbase or was that one already there?).
I've never played anything so big but it seems that there could be situations where after focusing on the other two players you might not be sure exactly what has moved. Then the is the situation where player B say player A already move those CW's.
Anyway, take it or leave it. It was just an idea. It there is any trouble tracking what has and hasn't moved then this is a sure way and by marking everything at the start of the turn it is thurough and a minmal hassel since everyone tokens their own all at the same time.
If it's not needed then... (Gilda Radner) Oh. Never mind. 
"Chuck's proposal doesn't make the 'knowing of which units has moved yet or not' any more difficult than it has been before. We've always had to know which stacks (and what parts within) have moved yet or not. Anyone that has played at least one game knows that this is not a problem."
Actually, it does (make it harder, vastly harder) and actually it is a problem (a much larger problem). We've already had players drop the game because standard F&E is too complicated with too many ships running around. (Hence, the desperate need for an auto-kill rule, as the game as you guys play it is not manageable for normal people due to ship count.)
In standard F&E, one player with an overall plan in his head is making his moves according to that plan. In multi-player, he is constantly interrupted by other players making their moves, all of which change his plans, not just by forcing him to use mentally-committed ships to react and pin, but by changing the overall situation. Which makes keeping track of what moved and what didn't MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH harder, which is why it IS a problem. The solution isn't that hard (blank counters on top of stacks) to implement.
But this is why (well, just one of several reasons) why I will have nothing to do with this insanity. Madness this way lies. Write up something that you get 20 out of 30 players to agree to, and I'll find a place to print it, with a strong disclaimer that it's not needed for any scenario SVC would ever write and VASTLY harder to play. I will also make fun of people who think that this silliness is fun. I'll make up funny nick names for all of you.
Madness. Madness I tell you.
Seriously, boys NOBODY HAS EVEN TRIED to see if this works; you are all just yattering about what you think might happen. Somebody (who is NOT part of a battle lab; those guys have assignments) go give it a whirl and let Chuck know.
But I tell you, it is by definition harder, and the solution (blank counters) solves it. So if somebody think it's not hard and is proven wrong, he just gets some counters. If somebody who got some counters finds then not necessary, he can use them to make fighter counters.
You know I hate to say this but I'm not sure I even WANT to try it. I'm fully committed to KISS "Keep it simple stupid" and this rule totally violates that principle. Keep in mind that this is coming from a person who doesn't support the auto kill rule and believes that F&E is fine as a long game. If anything lets add some rules that allow limited field repairs and some regrouping reserves between turns. If you really want to change combat then make it like the scenario in SFB where Orion, Klingon, and Fed fleets meet. Require everyone to form a battle line and split non directed damage evenly across all units, battle intensity of 10. Only allow one ship to be directed on by one side.
Okay SVC, you got your point across. I may not agree with it for whatever that is worth. Having played your game, and having spent tons of my own personal money and time on your game, I don't really find a problem with ship counts etc.
Having moved around 50 or so stacks of fleets, and some of those movements being only partial units within the stacks, then moving to different stacks then back to previous stacks and back and forth etc. it has never cropped up in any game that it is too hard to remember which ones have moved or not.
In reply to Akula's post above I think that is a good idea, just splitting the damage amongst each side might work well.
Jimi
Loren's comment is a tacnote from an older CLog. Nothing new there. Pennies nickels and dime along with balnk counters and small slips of paper have long been used to track movements, fighter numbers in combat, destroyed bases, etc.
Sidebar: I always found it kind of amusing that the company who sells the counters for cash has an issue with the number of counters in the game. 
Quote:But this is why (well, just one of several reasons) why I will have nothing to do with this insanity. Madness this way lies. Write up something that you get 20 out of 30 players to agree to, and I'll find a place to print it, with a strong disclaimer that it's not needed for any scenario SVC would ever write and VASTLY harder to play. I will also make fun of people who think that this silliness is fun. I'll make up funny nick names for all of you.
Your comments are insulting and uncalled for and you should seriously consider appologizing for them.
Todd: It was a JOKE. Get over yourself. YOU should apologize to me for breaking the rules of the BBS.
Just curious, what rule did I break?
Insulting the owner of the company and publicly telling him how to behave. It's pretty much an automatic 30 day suspension from the BBS, which I'll waive in your case, because I had a good breakfast between then and now. Biscuits and gravy. My favorite, which I'm only allowed once a month.
Let me make it clear that while I do think this whole concept is INSANE, I do recognize that SOME of you want it and you shall have it. I have put the project into the capable hands of Chuck Strong, who certainly doesn't need my help. When he has something you guys vote that you want, I will publish it. (Maybe in an F&E product, maybe in Captain's Log, depending on space and schedule.)
I may still make up funny nicknames for the lot of you.
If my comment was a Tac Note then cool. I was just thinking about it the other day and it hit me that it could work to make Chuck's system easier to manage and not a lot of hassel. I had been reading that people would make what they moved with something or by turning the counter East. To me it can be a problem to remember to do that perfectly after every move and battle. But if at the start everyone goes through the ritual of marking everything and you just removed the marker from things AS you move then there is no chance of forgetting.
I had no idea that such an idea would identify me as not a real player.
I wonder if whoever wrote the original Tac Note was not a real player.
I would use blank counters instead of coins. They're the right size and a lot cheaper. If keeping track of what moved is an issue, keeping track of who that quarter belongs to could be worse.
Yeah, anything. I forgot about your Game Prototype kits. All the blank counters you could want.
As to who the quarter belongs to... the owner of the game of course... no matter who pocket it came from. Sheesh Steve, you're bustin' my bank roll here.
Oh, and we only use those nice new gold dollars that just came out. The one with George Washington and the Statue Of Liberty on each side. (What's cool about that coin is instead of ridging on the edge it has words on it; "E Plurbus Unum", the date, and "In God We Trust" is REALLY small letters. Cool.)
I gotta get some of the new gold dollars.
http://www.usmint.gov/mint%5Fprograms/%241coin/
Every time I go to the bank, they're all out of them 
Too bad really, they're the perfect size for the Tooth Fairy to put under pillows (for my kids of course!).
Personally I think 301.7 covers multi-sided battle hexes very well. The only flaw I see there is in 301.71 where any player can opt to not roll a die and therefore do no damage. Either that should be taken out, or some type of initiative order needs to be decided for the non-phasing players. Or perhaps each player should have the ability to withdraw their decision to not roll a die, if their opponent is going to roll. Their should not be any 'free' shots like that, in my opinion.