Don't let my sense of humor stop anyone from doing this project. Just leave me out of it. My head hurts.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 01:37 pm: Edit

This all feels like the direct fire drone rules from module J in terms of headache involved.

Should Fast ships count for anything special now? In reaction movement between two parties would a fast ship give the edge if the command ratings are equal. Is this a question or counter proposal one wonders

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 05:27 am: Edit

And how about X-ships or X-squadrons?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:16 am: Edit

Seriously, I want you guys to do this. I just want to be left out of it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 02:51 am: Edit

F&E Players:

Greetings.

Shortly , I will be posting a concept for multi-player F&E. The concept, if accepted for development, is intended to be an ALTERNATE F&E multi-player system outside of (301.6). Anyone is welcome to comment on the concept.

FOR THE RECORD: No multi-player system we come up with will reproduce the same type of results we see in the current UNIQUE two player cycle system we all know. We can all only hope to come up with a method that resembles the current traditional system. Therefore, any system we devise will certainly come up short in some areas and we must be willing to accept this fact upfront and keep an open mind as to ways we overcome these issues.

All that said, I do not wish to argue with anyone whether or not that we need a multi-player system and those that disagree are welcome to continue using the (301.6) rules. My job, as is see it, is to develop a set of ALTERNATE multi-player rules with your input.

Now, let's go out and see where we can go from here -- thanks.

Cheers,
Chuck Strong
F&E Staffer

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:09 am: Edit

FEDERATION & EMPIRE MULTI-PLAYER SYSTEM PROPOSAL

We are moving into a new and exciting era with F&E: ISC Wars, Civil Wars, Andro Wars, etc. where we can have not just three mutually antagonistic players but more vying for control of the same space at the same time. The current 2-player system is stable as it was designed to be. However, when we move beyond two players (say five players like the Hydran, Vudar, Klingon, ISC and Andro all trying to control the same area) the current format becomes increasingly unstable and will have undefined and unintended interactions. The intention of this paper is help develop an alternate concept for the multi-player environment.

PURPOSE.
Suggest an approach to deal with multi-sided movement & combat and recommend ways that solve these issues beyond that of ISC Wars (due to the fact that with the addition of the Civil Wars module we could see actions involving more than three mutually antagonistic players vying for control of a given region). The intent is to also maintain, as best possible, the current look and feel of the traditional system yet strive for multi-player balance.

BACKGROUND.
As it currently stands in the traditional two-player game system, during an entire six-month turn (phasing & non-phasing) cycle any given player’s ship can:

A. Operationally move (typically 6 hexes), fight and retrograde (typically 6 hexes) in his player phase and react (up to 2 hexes) and fight during the other player phase --OR--
B. Reserve move (typically 6 hexes) and fight during the other player phase
C. Move strategically if operational movement was not utilized during his phase
D. May retreat or withdraw from combat
E. Resupply fighters/PFs twice in a turn cycle -- once after his phase and then again after the other player phase (making for a maximum of two resupply opportunities during a turn cycle)

DISCUSSION.
The traditional two-player model really breaks down when trying to apply it to multi-player games.

Using the traditional Player A followed by B followed by C, etc. can devolve into a game where one players becomes the target of choice because the traditional game flow no longer applies. The last player to move in the traditional system gets pummeled under these kinds of conditions and does not have the ability or the resources to fix excessive cripples or hold territory. There are also concerns that crippled units will be left exposed without an option to immediately op move back for repairs after committing reserves.

The game system was designed for at best, two sets of combat & resupply, limited reaction and crippled unit withdrawal after an attack in a complete turn cycle. This should remain true even if you play with 2, 3 or even more mutually antagonistic players. Additional consequences of following a traditional sequence of player A followed by B followed by C followed by D are:

A. Ships could be moving more than two hexes of reaction in an entire turn (it is possible that ships could be moving as many or more hexes in reaction than in op movement).
B. Carriers (and to a limited extent PF tenders) become super-attrition unit suppliers because they will be able to rearm and use CEDS between each player phase.
C. Non-carrier units crippled when a player is not phasing will exposed to additional hostile action by each of the following players before he will have an opportunity to op move his crippled units away to safety (currently, units may retrograde during their player phase only, but may not retrograde when not phasing).

RECOMMENDATION.

First any system we come up with needs to:

1. Present a similar type of turn cadence (as outline in the BACKGROUND statement above)
2. Minimize or avoid recordkeeping wherever possible
3. Use existing rule systems wherever possible

In the current system, a phasing player can attack using his ships along with his fighters/PFs/marines until they are depleted, then during his non-phasing portion of the turn, he resupplies/field repairs his units and uses them a second time in the turn cycle (the reverse of this is also true where a non-phasing player “defends”, resupplies/repairs, then counter-attacks).

To mimic a traditional two-sided turn cycle in a multi-player environment, I recommend we consider some sort of simultaneous movement system where players op move their units, fight battle hex where they occur, retrograde, conduct field repairs and strategic movements and set reserves. While this seems straight forward, it does not address a key component of the two-player system -- the counter-offensive.

The recommended variation to this system allows for a counter-offensive (or “dual-phasing”) by modifying the SoP after reserves have been set by permitting a second round of simultaneous movement followed by combat rounds, retrograde of attacking units, but no additional field repairs, strategic movement or setting of reserves. This preserves the traditional turn cycle outlined in the background above regardless of the number of players; details of this system will be described below.

Before introducing the new system, an explanation of how the simultaneous system works is needed. The simultaneous system uses an “act-or-pass” concept at various points in the SoP. At a given step in the SoP; the first player may choose to “act” by conducting 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.

Below is an OUTLINE on how to conduct such a system using the current SoP:

Phase 1: Economics
Players announce any new or broken alliances for the turn (needed only in free campaign games)
All players simultaneously determine income/pay debts etc.

Phase 2: Shipyards
2A: All players simultaneously conduct repair actions
2B: All players simultaneously conduct production actions

Phase 3: Operations (Raids & Op Movement)
Players assign units to the raid pool then assign taget hexes using the “act-or-pass” system.

Example using SoP Step 3A-2B (Raiding Ship Designation & Movement):

Player A takes one action and moves one raid ship to target hex;
Allied Team B takes one action and moves one raid ship to target hex;
Player C chooses to pass;
Player D takes one action and moves one raid ship to target hex (repeat sequencing);
Player A takes one action and moves one raid ship to target hex;
Allied Team B chooses to pass;
Player C takes one action and moves one raid ship to target hex;
Player D chooses to pass (repeat sequencing);
Player A chooses to pass;
Allied Team B chooses to pass;
Player C chooses to pass;
Step 3A-2B is now complete because all four parties have passed consecutively; move to the next step of the SoP.

Example for Operational Movement follows the same sequencing trend (note, if a player chooses to operationally move any giving unit during the phase, he cannot also use reaction movement during that same phase):

Player A selects a stack of ships (no size restrictions) and begins movement using existing F&E rules for moving ships. 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. (Players cannot react to other player’s reaction movement but two players using extended reaction might pin-out each other if they react into a hex containing ships that have reacted previously or have not yet moved.)

Allied Team B chooses a stack of ships and begins and continues movement it reaches it destination (barring any reaction movement of course).
Player C now chooses one ship and begins and continues movement …
Player D now chooses a stack of ships and begins and continues movement (repeat sequencing)…
Player A chooses another stack of ships and begins and continues movement …
Allied Team B chooses a stack of ships and begins and continues movement …
Player C chooses to pass…
Player D chooses to pass…
Player A chooses to pass…
Allied Team B chooses to pass…

Operational movement is concluded as all four “players” have “passed.

(Players may also voluntarily declare that they have completed all their operational movement for this phase to expedite operational movement (they can still react) -- this may have advantages later…)

While the above explains HOW movement is conducted in a multi-player environment, an explanation of how the concept of “dual-phasing” is done to mimic the traditional F&E system is needed. This concept will require some additional counters marked “MOVED-1” and “MOVED-2” – you’ll see why in a moment.

In the first phase we use the pass-act as before with everyone taking turns moving a stack as before. Any ships that moved in this first phase are marked as “MOVED-1” (IOW these units have moved in the first phase). Other players can react normally but these ships are NOT marked as having been moved (they just used reaction movement NOT operational movement). If later in the turn, a player moves a stack of his ships into another hex with some of his ships only mark the ships that moved with a “MOVED-1” counter. Stacks that are marked “MOVED-1” may NOT use reaction movement for the remainder of this first phase. In addition, any ships that used reaction movement earlier in this phase cannot use operational movement.

Once movement for the first part of this phase is complete, any created COMBAT hexes that contain unmoved and/or reaction ships along with “MOVED-1” ship counters are all now grouped under the “MOVED-1” counter and are all friendly units are considered to have “MOVED” in this phase. When anf if reserve fleets are deployed, they may only be deployed to combat hexes WITHOUT a “MOVED-1” counter (this prevents reserves from being used a “offensive-reserves” where a player moves operationally to create a combat hex then send his reserves later to “save” himself). Non-combat hexes with “MOVED-1” and unmoved (or reacted) units are kept separated within the hex; they are NOT merged under the “MOVED-1” counter. If a defending player retreats into a hex that creates a new combat with “MOVED-1” and unmoved (or reacted) units they most also merged under the “MOVED-1” counter also UNLESS the defender is moving into the hex as part of a fighting retreat (players will need to be careful to identified the unmoved (or reacted) ships in this case and not mix-up counters during the fighting retreat and pursuit rounds). In the case of a newly formed combat hex due to a fighting retreat, unmoved units may be merged under the “MOVED-1” counter at the owning player’s option.

Once operational movement is complete for the first phase, move to the next step of the SoP…reserve movement.

Phase 4: Reserve Movement
Using the act-pass system, players place their reserve fleets. Reserves can only be sent to a player’s own or an officially allied or a “true” neutral race combat hex (a player may still move reserves anywhere to open a blocked his own supply path, per the existing rules).

(I’m considering that the LAST player to complete his operational movement under act-pass must commit ALL his reserves FIRST, followed by the second player and so on. This should encourage players to complete their operational movement in a timely order.)

Phase 5: Combat
Since the attacker chooses the combat hex order, any ships that used operational movement that are now involved in a battle hex must resolve combat. The first attacking player of the sequence selects a battle hex and combat in that hex is resolved. Combat is conducted normally using the existing SoP with the defending player defined as the player with base-like units already in the hex or the first player to react into the hex followed by the second, etc. (use fleet colored numbered counters to signify 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. defenders).

SVC suggested an easy way to conduct multi-player combat that I have adapted for this proposal: An attacking player chooses a hex AND which player-or-alliance that he is attacking. Battle continues until one or both leave (to include retreat and pursuit). If there are more than two parties still present in the hex, that hex will have to be selected again by somebody later in the round. No attacking player can "pass" if he has units in a combat hex. After all attacking player combat hexes are concluded and if only “defending” players remain co-hex then any remaining players secretly write down and reveal their intention to withdraw (since only defending players can withdraw from combat). If any two or more players still remain, then the higher rated defender is now designated an “attacking” player for combat resolution (a “3rd Defender” would be designated the “attacker” over a “1st Defender”).

(Here too I’m considering allowing the player who also completes his movement first to also have the highest, first-right-of-refusal in selecting his position in the attack hex selection order followed by the second player and so on (players can still only choose hexes where they are regarded as the “attacker”). This is carried on every selection cycle until there are no more combat hexes remaining in the phase.)

Phase 6: Retrograde
This phase is slightly modified to allow any ships involved in combat to retrograde. Again, follow the player sequencing to “act-or-pass” here also as needed (we already have a system like this in F&E already using non-phasing CEDS retrograde). Only ships that are marked as “MOVED-1” and units using CEDS may retrograde. Retrograded units and other units marked as “MOVED-1” will retain their “MOVED-1” counter as they will not be permitted to move operationally in the second phase.

Phase 7: Field Repairs
All players simultaneously conduct field repair actions.

Phase 8: Strategic Movement
All players simultaneously conduct strategic movement; only units that are NOT marked as “MOVED-1” may move strategically. Any units moved strategically and NOT used as part of a reserve fleet are to be marked as “MOVED-1”.

Phase 9: Establish Reserves
Players may use any of their available units are NOT marked as “MOVED-1” to form reserves.

Second (Counter-offensive) Phase:
Repeat steps to resupply, conduct operational movement (units marked “MOVED-1” cannot use operational movement in this second phase, but may only use reaction movement). Using the same procedures from the first phase, mark moved units in this second phase as “MOVED-2”.

Once operational movement for the second phase is complete, players can then commit available reserves to eligible combat hexes without a “MOVED-2” counter (or to open supply), conduct combat as above and retrograde eligible units marked “MOVED-2” (along with any CEDS retrograded unit) ONLY. There is no strategic movement or additional setting of reserve fleets at the conclusion of the second phase but any reserves not used carry-over to the start of the next turn.

Phase 10: Final Activity
All players simultaneously conduct final activity actions and all MOVED counters are removed.

CONCLUSION.
As I said earlier, 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. But using some simultaneous system as suggested can preserve the current look and feel of the game without rewriting whole rule sections. That said this proposal uses many of the existing rules for movement, pinning, reserves, combat, retrograde, etc.


V/R,
Chuck

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:02 am: Edit

Please let everyone understand that my comment about "hating Chuck's rules" had to do with the fact that 3-way rules were just going to be complex, no way of avoiding that, and did not apply to Chuck's rules so much as to the entire idea, and even that as a player, not as a publisher. I won't play these, and I won't help you guys do them, but when you all have a set you like, I'll print them.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:26 am: Edit

Chuck,
Why are we keeping CEDS? It was a rules fudge to make up for counter shortages. The whole argument for keeping CEDS is that it would change the whole game. This multi player move appears to be the ideal break from the norm to remove CEDS as everyone is going to have to develop new tatics anyway and the whole Klingon/KZ/Hydran game balance isn't a issue as it is a free for all.

By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:53 am: Edit

Phase 5. Combat

At the end, in parents, you suggest an advantage to whomever completes movement first. What does this mean? It is a race against the clock whereby the smaller ship count side has an advantage? Is it someone rushing to say he is done first? Is there a player order determination?

Phase 3. Operations

What prevents a bunch of jokers continually passing if each sees an advantage to moving after his fellows? Is it a rule that if all sides pass the phase is over? If player 'A' passes seeking a later advantage and all other sides pass, is 'A' now stuck? Is there a move order determination?

Phase 4. Reserve Movement

How about a little chart? Just a picture of it when the rules are published so players can make their own on a piece of paper. Number boxes on which a player places an identifing token (a ship of the race or something) which keeps track of who moved and in what order and thereby who reserves in what order. With 5+ players and constantly shifting sequences it may assist.

Best of luck as you try to tame this monster!

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:30 am: Edit

For Reserve Movement:

When and if reserve fleets are deployed, they may only be deployed to combat hexes WITHOUT a “MOVED-1” counter (this prevents reserves from being used as “offensive-reserves” where a player moves operationally to create a combat hex then send his reserves later to “save” himself).

==========

I think you mean reserves can be sent to battles the player didn't "start", i.e. reserves can be sent to places the owner reacted to or was attacked at, but not to hexes where he operationally moved.

The way it is stated here is weird (reserves cannot go to a moved-1 hex), as ALL battle hexes will have moved-1 counters placed by one side or the other, no? If I have a base at hex 1122, and the enemy moves there, then places a moved-1 marker there, I should be able to react right? But the base owner cannot.

But if I operationally move to an enemy base at hex 1510, and then place a moved-1 marker there, I cannot then move reserves there right? But the base owner or their actual allies can reserve there despite my moved-1 marker.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:32 am: Edit

Damon
Yes, it does read that if all players all pass in operational movement then opp move is concluded. So Player A is stuck. Its a risk between seeing where an opposing stack goes then being being able to plan your move accordingly balanced against not moving at all.
Fencing has the same rule for tournaments. If the two fencers do not engage each other and just stand there waiting for the other to commit to an action the referee can advance the clock to the last two minutes of the bout.

Question
As i read it the player with the most stacks will always get to move last (possibly lots of moves) as long as he does not fall afoul of the "all pass trap"

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:45 am: Edit

Removing CEDS-Retrograde would be a fundamental change to the game. Maybe it needs to be done (in balance with some mauler change) but the multiplayer rules are NOT the place to do it.

So, violating my "nothing to do with it" rule, I won't print this if it removes CEDS-Retrograde.

The question of generally removing CEDS-Retrograde is one for another time and another topic.

(Note: CEDS cannot be removed; I am assuming that the post means CEDS-Retrograde, which has been controversial for some years. The problem is that while it is "just wrong" (and was done to handle counter shortages long before anyone realized the effect it would have on game balance), the Alliance would never survive until Turn 6 if it was removed without some balance factor. and I'm not saying the Alliance being destroyed in the first six turns is a BAD thing.)

By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Jason,

Your fencing anology helps illustrate my critique. There is the old story of two samurai who met for a duel. Neither moved the entire day as it would advantage his opponent. Now, if the same penalties will apply to multi-player movement, who gets to be lucky player 'A'? Round Robin, draft order, fleet size, command ratings?

Perhaps an initial order should be determined for each scenario. ISC is first in this one, Andros first in this one, and so forth. Players could then bid throughout the scenario with EPs to change their position. If nothing changes stay with the previous turn order.

Or, even better, each scenario starts with a turn order to reflect how the war has been going for them up to that point. Using Command Points a player could move his side up or DOWN one position. Could mess with other powers and uses something already in-game. As most are in economic exhaustion its use is limited. The more powerful powers, ISC and Andros, have the strategic intiative anyway so their capacity to earn a Command Point and purchase one reflects their superior position at start. Use of Admirals will impact this but either give the ISC and Andos a stockpile or say they don't use Admirals. Probably easier for Andros, but this IS the first time ISC fleets have deployed in full-scale, galactic conquest battle......

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Roll-off dice for order with the last player of the last turn ineligable to be first (so he doesn't roll the first round of the roll-off).

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 01:05 pm: Edit

I started to write a question about CEDS retrograde, but I think it's actually all answered above. So let's see if I have this right.

Say the Kzinti have a carrier group (and other ships) at the Duke's SB. The Klingons attack the SB, but the only reinforcements sent to the SB are the Kzinti reserves. Since the Kzinti don't have a "moved-1" tag in the hex, the only Kzinti ships that can retrograde are the carrier groups. They retrograde to the capital after the battle, including the carrier groups that were in the reserve force. They are CEDS repaired at the capital in the retrograde step, and then they can be used during the 2nd movement phase since they don't have a "moved-1" tag on them.

This seems to come pretty close to how it would work in the normal two player system, but I wanted to be sure I understood the proposal.

..begin edit..

But I just saw something else. Said carrier groups Strat move during step 9 back to the Duke's SB (which held, but was damaged.) Then, since they don't have the "moved-1" tag on them, move operationally into Klingon space and cause some minor havoc.

Is that about right? I would clarify the rules that units repaired by CEDS repair during the field repair step DO NOT get free strategic movement, otherwise this could be a pretty nasty effect of what you've written.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:52 pm: Edit

-- First off, I don't want to get into the weeds of how we will rotate through the cycles at this point -- we'll figure that out later. For now and for arguements sake we will use four players (or alliances) rotating ABCDABCDABCD etc.

-- The pass-act concept is designed to encourage efficient actions and limit "gaming" the system by players with larger fleets. It's designed to be both a hammer and a carrot.

-- If four palyers pass (in any order: ABCD, BCDA, CDAB, DABC) then that segment is complete.

-- Nick:

"I think you mean reserves can be sent to battles the player didn't "start", i.e. reserves can be sent to places the owner reacted to or was attacked at, but not to hexes where he operationally moved."

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:54 pm: Edit

...BTW field repaired units cannot use free strat movement -- is there an existing rule that says otherwise?

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 04:29 pm: Edit

"Once movement for the first part of this phase is complete, any created COMBAT hexes that contain unmoved and/or reaction ships along with “MOVED-1” ship counters are all now grouped under the “MOVED-1” counter and are all friendly units are considered to have “MOVED” in this phase."

Unless I am reading this wrong, this will prevent unmoved ships of the attacker from being able to strat ships that were unmoved in the target hex. While it would be unlikley that a player will move ships into a hex that he has unmoved ships in, and has a SMN in it could happen. Say for example Player A has 10 ships on a SB. Player B moves and attacks that SB. Player A then moves to that same SB. If Player A wins the hex, he can not use those 10 ships to strat to another hex nor can they be used as a reserve. Those ships should be available for reserve duty, as they meet the criteria in the regular rules.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 04:30 pm: Edit

No, there is no such rule.

But field repair and CEDS repair are different.
Field repair is done by repair ships, CEDS repair is done at bases and FRDs.

The rules as currently proposed would make the carrier groups I mentioned eligible for strat move (i.e., they wouldn't have the "moved-1" tag at the beginning of the strat move phase.)

I just wanted to make sure that there was the understanding that the FREE strat move was only for units repaired during the first economic phase, not for those CEDS repaired. Both types of repair occur at bases (and PRD/FRD) and some people might assume that being repaired at a base is what grants free strat move.

If you think that nobody would make that assumption, then ignore me.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Chuck-

---

Quote:

(204.311) Units repaired by repair ships do count against the limits for Strategic Movement; the repair ships themselves do not. Tugs acting as repair ships (422.8) do not have free Strategic Movement, except when first built. Units repaired by FRDs would have free Strategic Movement only if the FRD was at an SMN on the Strategic Movement grid.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:30 pm: Edit

-- Read (204.1); if you move by ANY means (Reaction/Operational/Retrograde) you cannot use strat.

By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 02:30 am: Edit

So let me see if I understand this:

I'm player-A -- I pick a stack of ships and I move them six hexes and along the way anybody can react if they choose? Then, player-B selects a stack and moves up to six hexes...and the same for player-C and so on? Correct?

If this is the case, then I think you are on to something here and I could see using it in an open campaign with 6-8 players. I like it.

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 02:41 am: Edit

I just don't like it.. the I move a unit or a stack of units followed by you, followed by player C, D, E... etc.. then back to me, then back to b, c, d, e... until every unit on the map has moved is just not workable and it too far outside the scope of what F&E is

By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 03:52 am: Edit

Well Jimi, when we played a large balanced free campaign of 6 players using the regular system the game quickly broke down into a blood bath as the player that was damaged more early was bled to death EP-wise before he could even get a second turn. The preceeding three players ripped into him as he could not retrograde his cripples to a repair point (because you cannot retrograde in a non-phasing player turn -- they were sitting ducks). They also snarked-up his provinces knowing he could not do anything to stop without taking anymore cripples. He gave-up before completing his second turn.

We tried to do it again a year later with 5 players and had to give up as the same thing happened. The fifth player could not put together any kind of offensive because his fleet has damaged from the pounding before he could start.

With all due respect, since this is an alternate system, you can go ahead and knock yourself out with the existing system; I want something that is balanced and fair. This proposal looks like it will use existing rules for econ, movement and combat and deserves consideration. Saying it is not workable at this point without even testing it out seems to be a bit premature wouldn't you say?

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 07:01 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Read (204.1); if you move by ANY means (Reaction/Operational/Retrograde) you cannot use strat.

---

---

Quote:

only units that are NOT marked as “MOVED-1” may move strategically.

---