| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Saturday, February 23, 2019 - 06:12 pm: Edit |
Well, it's up to you. I am also OK with starting a new game along the lines you suggested earlier. A happy Paul is better than a grumpy one.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, February 24, 2019 - 04:50 am: Edit |
Lets go for new game then.
Rules - Just F&E 2010 and the advanced combat chart from CO or 2010 and all of CO (basically afew bits, but Bases are weaker (G troops) and EW is more important)?
Who do you want to play as also?
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Sunday, February 24, 2019 - 08:09 am: Edit |
I was looking over CO. Most of it I don't like. SAF and SFG seem reasonable individually, but unbalanced without EW, which I don't like. I always like playing the Alliance, but idk about balance. Relevant to balance -- was it ever resolved whether or not Tholians who have joined and left the alliance count for victory?
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, February 24, 2019 - 10:21 am: Edit |
Tholians become associated members of the Alliance on turn 22 (if neither side attacks them) for a couple of turns - and then go neutral again.
IIRC it doesn't have any bearing on a Win for either side - main reason for the Coalition to capture it is the Ep's generates (lost Klingon Colony).
Will go through CO later as I can't remember what else was in it 
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Sunday, February 24, 2019 - 10:23 am: Edit |
By "reasonable individually", I mean playable at least. I'm certainly not demanding those rules. If the Tholians don't count for victory on turn 34 (i.e, you don't get 20 points for each Tholian SB, etc.), I think our earlier game showed there is a Coalition edge. I'll see if Ted Fay knows about the Tholians since he asked about it in Q&A.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, February 24, 2019 - 04:29 pm: Edit |
OK - CO
(Can't find pages 1 and 2 currently... Salvage Rules?? - Neutral)
Advanced Table - Neutral
SFG - Big Pro Coalition
EW - Marginal Coalitiion (EW for PDU's was added in AO IIRC, which makes it neutral/pro-Alliance)
Commercial Convoys - Pro Alliance (more cash for both sides - proportionally more important for the Alliance)
Base Stations - Neutral
Aux Ships - Pro Alliance (can probably use them more)
Special Kz/Kl - Neutral
Hydran FSP/FCP - Pro Alliance
LTT - Marginal pro-Coalition (more tugs probably helps help)
Monitors - Pro Alliance
SAF's - Pro Coalition
G Troops - Pro Coalition
Prime Teams - Marginal Pro-Alliance (safer use on Carrier Groups)
Police Ships - Big Pro-Alliance (makes it a lot easier to recapture own provinces).
Extra Ships - Pro Alliance (More ships helps the smaller side)
Overall - CO is probably (in my opinion) the most balanced add on Rules pack!
On the Tholians - they wreck a couple of BATS and a Klingon planet - plus have 1 fleet of 12 ships able to go further.
Not significant, but perhaps enough of an annoyance to do something.
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Sunday, February 24, 2019 - 07:35 pm: Edit |
The problem is that mechanically, I dislike almost all of the CO rules, because they prevent one from getting further into the game! More record keeping, more steps, etc. So I suggest we use the advanced table only.
If the Tholians don't count for victory, I am behind the 8-ball, but that's OK!
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, February 25, 2019 - 02:21 am: Edit |
Tholians - 603.3 - it now confuses me - will see check the other scenarios.
If neither side invades them though - they don't count - but if either sides does, they count (but Tholia doesn't count as a third capital for instant win).
OK on CO - I suggest we just play with the 2.5% damage table?
Still want to be play Allied?
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 25, 2019 - 10:05 am: Edit |
Not that this is my game - and you guys can do whatever you want - but I will throw out there that the supplements are designed to be played "as a package". In other words, if you take CO as a whole, then *as a whole* it is designed to be balanced. Once you start playing salad bar with individual rules you run the risk of creating unintentional imbalances which you didn't foresee.
So, you might be better off playing a straight up F&E2010 vanilla game.
YMMV - have fun guys!
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, February 25, 2019 - 11:31 am: Edit |
Ted
Totally agree - although 'hopefully' as the Advanced table is used by both sides - assuming normal luck, it should have no bearing.
The only normal game luck effect I can see in NOT using the 2.5% is approach battles - the occasional 5% or 10% (or 15%) out rolling might allow an attacker to get to the base more easily....or equally allow the defender to keep the attacker away for another round.
Assuming equal luck - it should therefore be neutral and so generally the side with higher compot will benefit from the reduced outrolling chance?
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 25, 2019 - 11:36 am: Edit |
Seems like a safe bet to me if you use the graduated combat table only.
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Monday, February 25, 2019 - 09:14 pm: Edit |
Paul -- did you want the Alliance? As I had them before, it's only fair to give you the option.
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Monday, February 25, 2019 - 09:27 pm: Edit |
If we think play balance is questionable, another option would be a bid. High bidder picks side. Low bidder, if their bid was X, gets X EP extra in the initial treasury, divided equally among all powers on their team, with odd EPs going wherever the player wants them. So if the high bidder picks the Coalition, and the low bid was 40, then each Alliance power starts with 10EP extra in the bank, on turns 1, 3, 7, and 12, respectively. This works great in Axis and Allies. Perhaps less well in this game as it takes about 10 years to find out if your bid was accurate.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 25, 2019 - 10:44 pm: Edit |
Or you could use balance options. If you think the Coalition is advantaged, give the Hydrans and/or Kzintis some bonuses ir whatnot.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - 02:03 pm: Edit |
As Richard said - the Balance Options is the way to go.
Happy to Start the Bidding (and we go down!)
10 Option Points and I am happy to play the Alliance
(So either your accept or offer 9 or less Options Points to play the Alliance... )
I doubt we will get down to Negative Option points to play the Alliance
Personally - I think the Alliance does need a couple (4-6 Option points ?) to help readdress the Changes to Carrier groups - but time will tell!
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - 06:28 pm: Edit |
Are starbases any good in this game? I think I'd better go down. But first a clarification -- is the low bidder allowed to stick the other person with negative balance? Or do they have to stay positive on their own charts?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - 06:34 pm: Edit |
If y'all both want to play Coalition, you each bid how many points you want to give to the alliance player. The person who bids more gets to play the Coalition. (That's one way to do it).
I ususually don't go that far, I generally let my opponent pick a side, then propose some options for them and myself to make the game more interesting. Not quite what y'all are going for, I know.
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - 11:13 pm: Edit |
Actually it doesn't matter, at least not yet. I bid eight. We should still settle it though.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - 02:18 am: Edit |
Happy for the Alliance player to put negative points on the other side - with a maximum of 8, there isn't much they can do (most are -10 or -20).
Star Bases are pretty important - but since the dual SB rule effect was introduced (Only 1 SB per location counts at full effect), they have been slightly reduced in 'killer line' power.
I'll bid 7 for the Alliance
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - 08:15 am: Edit |
6
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - 09:10 am: Edit |
5
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - 01:49 pm: Edit |
4
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - 03:43 pm: Edit |
And you Sir, not only are the Alliance....
...but you can have the honour of naming the new game
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Monday, June 24, 2019 - 09:28 pm: Edit |
This can be moved to the inactive folder. But please don't delete it, as I refer to it from time to time.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 26, 2021 - 01:58 pm: Edit |
Get an archive, we cannot store dead files for years. This will be deleted 31 Dec 2021.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |