Uh Trab no, I am involved in the inside talks on the whole thing. There have been other proposals in there and I think one of those keeps the F&Eness totally intact and works much better.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Ya know, I'm not totally opposed to the idea of printing more than one set of these, but I suggest you get Chuck's set finished first. Then, you can see if the number of people unhappy with Chuck's set is sufficient critical mass to spin up a project on a second set.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 02:30 pm: Edit

PAK: Correct.

MGS: Fair enough -- we'll fix it.

Lar: You said that you would be sending an e-mail regarding the multi-player system -- did you sent it already? (I don't have access to my mail server at the moment.)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Here are some of my benchmarks that are needed for any multi-player system (as I see them):

During an entire turn cycle, any given ship can ONLY:

A. Move operationally (typically 6 hexes); retrograde (typically 6 hexes) ONCE (excepting CEDS Retrograde and then only twice); react (up to 2 hexes) MAX --OR--

B. Move as a Reserve unit (typically 6 hexes) ONCE --OR--

C. Move strategically if no other movement was not utilized in the turn.

E. Resupply fighters/PFs/Marines no more than twice after combat

F. Engage in combat no more that twice in a turn (not counting retreat combat & raids)

These benchmarks are based on the traditional F&E system. Any system we come up with goes beyond or does not meet these limits will result in ships that limit or expand their designed capabilities.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Sorry I've been buried in work for about a week and just got a chance to review everything you emailed me, Chuck. I think you're getting there. The original idea you e-mailed for review had a couple of points that bothered me but the updated version posted here seems to cover most of them. I'm going to have to read through the latest version a couple of more times to make sure I have my head around it completely.

One thing that may be an issue; a larger race will be able to make sure that the movement cycle does not end until he wants it to end because he will (normally) always be able to move a single ship to some place that does not disrupt his primary plan. This will make sure that the movement cycle continues at least until his next move. Thus the race with the most ships can more easily force the tempo of the game as nobody will want to give him a chance to decide when movement ends. I don’t know what effect this will have, but I’ll bet there’ll be a load of tac notes on it once this rule gets published.

By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Like the man said, if anyone doesn't want to use these rules, he doesn't have to.




The different fleet size implications have been rattling around my head, and Mr. Knipfer focused it for me.

Have an initial fleet count for each power at start of scenario. Each power MUST move at minimum some percentage of his forces each step of movement phase. 10%, one quarter, whatever. Much like Batttletech where the larger side just moves more units in concert with his opponent. Building and destroying ships changing the fleet count shouldn't be a problem for those running multi-sided F&E.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 12:11 am: Edit

I have a different take on the one player gets trashed situation. For example, look at the Kzintis and Hydrans in the general campaign. Two of the three Kzinti neighbors attack them in concert. All the Hydran neighbors attack them. In each case the inferior party reaches out to other parties to form a defensive bloc. My point is the current F&E system is designed around a two-bloc division - if we force that arrangement we avoid cumbersome anarchy. Using a 6 player Early Beginnings-type campaign for discussion, in the stated situation of 5 on 1, well, the side with 5 won and the side with 1 lost. A quick and boring game. The current free campaign rules are adequate, with plenty of fluidity to allow the simulation of multiple sides (over several turns).

Civil wars are a special case, and are rather small scale for the F&E system anyway. Andros can be made different enough that they trump the system. The ISC can either join a side or take everyone on, and if they do the latter they have the option of forming a third side (that moves solo and separate) but must accept the severe combat implications of a third side in the current F&E system. I see no other way of simulating the SFU history (with F&E).

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 06:14 pm: Edit

RL issues have been keeping me busy. I did talk to Chuck and chatted a bit with Jimi. I have been compiling notes and such into a single format and will send it along when complete. I hope to do this some time tonight. I do have two appointments tomorrow morning I need to be ready for so we'll see...If it doesnt happen tonight it will be tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 06:28 pm: Edit

While I think that the "Everyone Takes a Turn" (ETT) system retains the purest F&E-ness, my judgement is that I think it isn't set up to handle blood-in-the-water issues as well as the "Near-Simultaneous Movement" (NSM) system [All acronyms are just so I don't have to write out the names every single time]. While I agree with Alan in that the weakest empire will get creamed first, I think the NSM system allows them more of a fighting chance. To place my comments in example, I'll assume the Kzinti against the Lyrans, Klingons, and Federation. Let's assume a turn order of LKFZ. In the ETT system, the Lyrans attack first and choose their targets. The Kzinti must decide whether to deploy their RESVs to defend the Lyran border. Let's say their don't. Now the Klingons go. The Klingons go and hit SB Duke's. What are the Kzinti to do? Kzintai is safe, and if they don't RESV, they lose the SB for cheap. Let's say the Kzinti RESV to the SB. Now they have few ships defending the capital. The Federation can now take advantage of them. Let's say the Kzinti think conservatively about saving their RESVs for Federation movement. The Lyrans and to some extent the Klingons can take advantage of this to attack with impunity because they know they won't draw the RESVs. Furthermore, let's say the Klingons damage SB Duke's and its fleet but don't take it down. Now, the Federation can come in and smack it down for cheaper before the Kzinti can reinforce it. The Kzinti must endure three waves of assaults. And each assault can be planned with the knowledge of how the previous assaults concluded.

In NSM systems, this is mitigated somewhat. The move order may go LKFZ, but all of the movement happens and then all of the combat happens. The Kzinti get to see all the attacks upon them before committing their RESVs. In an NSM system, the defender can keep the attackers a little bit more off-balance. Will the Kzinti keep the Lyrans, Klingons and Federation from driving them off the map? Heck no. But the Kzinti will put up more of a fight.

To address Daniel Knipfer's comments, my gut tells me this won't be that big a problem. I remember when we played and sometimes the "trickle in the F5s" happened, but we just waited and the Alliance player just waited for a critical mass to arrive and maybe reacted over a couple of ships and the turn just proceeded. I think play will evolve towards the "provisional no-reaction" style of F&E play (only this time towards "provisional no-Move-1"). Because NSM has the second move phase, it allows the use of not moving at all during the Move-1 and seeing if your opponent overextends himself.

NSM Potential Issue: As the Klingons I attack SB Duke's during Move-1. The SB battle goes long, I cripple a bunch of D5s and F5s so I farm my crippled ships out to my various BATS. Now I need a bunch of Move-1 counters and I need to keep those ships separate from my other ships I may have already had on my BATS. Is this possibly a problem? I sense a need for the Extremely Large Map to separate my counters...

Now, as a movement comment in general, I like the NSM system because at large scales it has the potential to be even a little faster than standard F&E. Players on the offensive always take more time than players on the defensive. Early in the GW the Coalition is united in being on the offensive, so KRL turns take longer than FZGH turns (at least in my experience). By late-war, the Goro-Federation (?) Alliance is on the offensive in Romulan space (before defensive PFs arrive) while the Klingo-Lyran Alliance is on the offensive (before defensive PFs arrive). This means that you have a slow turn followed by another slow turn. In an NSM system, you combine all the offensives into the same timespan.

NSM Potential Issue: Something that speeds up F&E is separating out movement by theatres. One player can be the Coalition player in the Hydran Theatre for instance. Can anyone see any issues with "splitting" the pass-act system up into geographical regions so the Romulan, Gorn, and ISC players can all pass-act amongst themselves, while the Klingons, Kzinti, Lyrans, and Pretender forces all pass-act in their own theatre? Now, officially, it would be one-big pass-act sequence, but if this is done, would there be any unintended consequences? Of course, all theatres would be "reintegrated" into a single master pass-act sequence once everyone is relatively sure they are ready to start wrapping up the turn.

By Michael C. Mikulis (Michael) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 09:22 pm: Edit

One option is to allow reserve fleets to respond to both waves. That way if you want to gang up on someone you actually create an alliance and move simultaneously.

By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 10:47 pm: Edit

As far as NEEDING markers for tracking movement, you really don't need them. Our group starts with markers facing the top of a hex or 12 O'Clock and 6 O'Clock once OpMoves are complete for each ship/fleet. If you use one hex of extended reaction, we turn ship/fleets to face 2 O'Clock and 4 O'Clock if you exhasted your reaction. Retro'd ship face 8 O'Clock and StratMoved ship face 10 O'Clock. All markers are then 'reset' to 12 O'clock at the start of every phasing player's turn.

By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Dan,

It looks like some of your concerns could be addressed already in some of Chuck's thinking:

---

Quote:

Dan: "One thing that may be an issue; a larger race will be able to make sure that the movement cycle does not end until he wants it to end because he will (normally) always be able to move a single ship to some place that does not disrupt his primary plan. This will make sure that the movement cycle continues at least until his next move. Thus the race with the most ships can more easily force the tempo of the game as nobody will want to give him a chance to decide when movement ends."

Chuck said earlier: "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."

Chuck later said: "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'.”

---

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 10:11 pm: Edit

I get the feeling that this kind of ruleset would be more useful for a computerised version of Fed and Empire - where activated ships and fleets can have their on-screen counters 'shadowed out' or given an alternate image (kinda like in the strategic level of Medieval 2: Total War - which, I might add, has a sequential movement sequence for each faction in its multiplayer campaign...).

On the tabletop, you could perhaps put some sort of marker icon beside each fleet (I use small crystal pieces - I forget the proper name for them! - in other wargames to denote such) - so everyone can see which fleet has moved and which has not.


But upon reflection, does Andromedan War even need multiplayer rules? Generally the local factions tend to band together and resist the Andro forces, or stay neutral until they get attacked. Granted, in the LMC the Maghadim were temporarily attacking the Baduvai-Eneen allies for a short time, but quickly changed their buggy minds...

It might be useful in a future Omega supplement to have some sort of multi-player rules for their Andro invasion - to allow players to include the Souldra fleet, who had ambitions of their own - but since we won't see Omega for a while anyway, perhaps a gestation period for workable multi-player rules might be handy by then.


I would say that in theory mp rules would be usable in the LMC as well, but most of the 'multi-sided' wars there end up quickly turning into a coalition of the Baduvai and Eneen against the Maghadim (or allied expeditionary fleets in a Maghadim civil war) - and the intrigue between the 'allies' would already be easily represented by using the Zone of Influence rules for the Neutral Worlds provinces...


Gary

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 08:18 am: Edit

Chuck,

Is there a file with the latest revision of these proposed rules? Rather than read the thread from the beginning (and then asking questions on things that have already been resolved), it would be helpful to know where we stand so I can speak semi-intelligently on the proposal.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Joe:

You bet -- but not written as rules yet; just the concept. See my post, this subject on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:09 am.

I'm hoping to have some time to write them this weekend but would like a little more feedback from the crew.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 12:11 am: Edit

F&E Players:

Are we at a point where you want me to begin writing the rules based upon my alternate multi-player concept posted on 25 April. While I don't have a problem writing the rules, I don't want to move-out without a consensus of the F&E community and don’t want to waste my time if most of you are not agreeable with the proposal.

Please vote either:

YES (Meaning you want me to begin writing the alternate rules based upon my posted concept)

--OR--

NO - (Must provide short rational)

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 12:16 am: Edit

Chuck,

Give me a day or two to look over the rules, so I can comment intelligently.

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 12:25 am: Edit

Chuck, I"m going to have to give a sad:

No - the rational is that I think the proposal is convoluted and alters the game too heavily from its original style.

Lar's idea, if he ever gets it mailed to you, keeps the original game style with minimal alterations and without many of the complications that others have brought up earlier.

By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 03:52 am: Edit

Yes: Please begin writing these optional multiplayer rules for F&E.

While I can understand Jimi's position, any multiplayer rules will alter the game from the original. No matter what happens, we are not going to get everyone to agree. And since this proposal looks to use existing rules for economics, movement and combat and their related subsections I can live with it and ask that it developed. Those that don't want these optional rules are free to use the existing (and IMHO broken) multiplayer system and should not prevent the proposal from being developed.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 07:47 am: Edit

I would say "Yes" for comparison purposes. As we can have a couple of ideas bubble to the surface it might be a good idea to have a choice and possibly take ideas and combine them into a new and unique set that works for the majority.

The nature of many games (and even portions of real life) is to destroy/remove the weak while improving your own position. If it is so unbalanced that it is broken then adjustments need to be made. The regular two player set is that way (thus the delayed entry of races, specialty ships, different build schedules, conversion capabilities and limits, map layout, off-map sizes, special rules, etc). The multi-player set will be no different. It will have to be balanced for its time (Ydates), methods and results of its impact to the existing structure of the game. We should try to remember when we look at this that it is not being applied to the GW period and thus will not relate to how many things happen in that scenario rules set. Most people have played (601.0) and (602.0) so our knowledge base is very large with respect to that aspect of the game. Far fewer have played 603.0 through 605.0 and thus have a much smaller knowledge base on what happens as the current rules are twisted by stronger units and special rules that come into play during that time period.

These proposed ideas take place at the end of (605.0) and beyond. The differences will indeed be noticed by the players but will not be that different than the rules that would come out of the next generation of the game (ie needing to be balanced) for the post-war and x-era.

BTW: I am down to the last bit of what I am fooling with regarding this issue and have promised Chuck to have him check it over before pushing it out for general review. I do not want to pre-empt his ideas and rule proposals on this. I have been using Jimi (and Todd L.) as sounding boards thus far and will speak with Chuck after he reviews it for feedback.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 08:29 am: Edit

Actually, would it be possible to put it into more of an outline format? I've read the rules you've proposed, and I keep finding myself having to go back and re-read them to figure out the order of events at times.

By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 10:21 am: Edit

Yes.

By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 06:01 pm: Edit

YES

I like the proposal's tempo and the fact that attrition units (fighters, pseudo-fighters, and marines) maintain the same resupply rates of regular FnE. If we keep the standard player sequencing of ABCDE, the Fed, Kzinti and especially the Hydrans will resupply their fighters at the start of every player's turn. Players will buy carriers and hybrid carriers at every opportunity because they absorb damage for free -- EVERY PLAYER TURN.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Yes,

All of the issues that I see as possible problems can be solved by making adjustments in the rules set to compensate. But we will never know if they are real issues or just my being used to the standard system.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 09:54 pm: Edit

I have fowarded the rules proposal I have been working on for Chuck to review and get some feedback back to me. Once that happens maybe we can broaden the group of reviewers and even get some play-testing in. Shouldn't be that hard to set up.

I will want to hear some opinions on what you guys think of this method in comparison to the others.