|Archive through May 08, 2013||25||05/08 03:51pm|
|Archive through May 10, 2013||25||05/11 10:25am|
|Archive through May 13, 2013||25||05/13 07:13pm|
|Archive through May 14, 2013||25||05/14 01:27pm|
|Archive through May 15, 2013||25||05/15 12:26pm|
|Archive through May 16, 2013||25||05/17 12:34pm|
|Archive through May 19, 2013||25||05/21 09:59am|
|Archive through June 05, 2013||25||06/05 08:23am|
|Archive through June 07, 2013||25||06/07 10:20pm|
|Archive through June 13, 2013||25||06/14 05:09pm|
|Archive through June 20, 2013||25||06/21 01:02pm|
|Archive through June 23, 2013||25||06/23 09:12pm|
|Archive through July 04, 2013||25||07/07 06:47pm|
|Archive through July 09, 2013||25||07/10 06:29am|
|Archive through July 12, 2013||25||07/15 03:08pm|
|Archive through July 16, 2013||25||07/16 02:14pm|
|Archive through July 17, 2013||25||07/17 03:44pm|
|Archive through August 08, 2013||25||08/08 01:35pm|
|Archive through August 14, 2013||25||08/14 01:23pm|
|Archive through October 19, 2013||25||10/21 02:20pm|
|Archive through October 25, 2013||25||11/19 07:35pm|
|Archive through November 28, 2013||25||12/11 07:15am|
|Archive through January 12, 2014||25||01/15 06:57pm|
|Revised Four Powers War Scenario||1||06/04 03:28am|
|Archive through February 01, 2014||25||02/01 01:57pm|
|Archive through February 20, 2014||25||03/11 07:53pm|
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 01:51 pm: Edit|
Yeah, with the dead SB VPs, the game ends up with a 125% advantage for the Alliance, i.e. a fairly thin Marginal Victory.
As noted in the game thread, I think with the changes since we started (i.e. changes to VP scoring system, tweaks to Lyran Civil War damage, ability to release some Far Stars ships, the Vudar rule), the game is pretty close to balanced. Which is excellent.
The Coalition are going to have a hard time scoring a legitimate victory, as the Alliance have most of the advantage in this game, which is ok, but a draw isn't at all unreasonable. And the Alliance will have a hard time scoring a non Marginal victory.
All in all, I think with the suggested changes implemented, we have a very solid, fun, completely manageable scenario.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 02:04 pm: Edit|
I agree. I think it would be reasonable to release six ships from the Klingon East Fleet when the Smarba Treaty goes into effect, as was the case in the old version of this scenario, but don't say any six ships, list the actual ships released (as releasing the six biggest ships is probably not reasonable; the Fed border does have to have good ships).
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 02:50 pm: Edit|
FINAL DRAFT OF THE 4PW SCENARIO v4.3 POSTED TODAY.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 03:41 pm: Edit|
607.23 is missing. Perhaps a note should be placed there to state that the rule was removed.
FEDS: Fixed; moved .27 to .23.
|By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 07:53 pm: Edit|
607.263 9+15 = 24, not 23
607.71/72 LDR/Vudar have auxpod production but no note on what is produced (LAC/LAA/SAC/SAA) or limits...
(useful only if used but....)
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 11:08 am: Edit|
Looks good. A minor typo:
"(607.31) TURN #1, Y157F
Note: This scenario begins during the Alliance player turn; the Coalition OOB includes their pre-war construction. The first Coalition player turn occurs during *Y182S.*"
Also, in the VP conditions, there are now new lines about scoring points for the enemy not replacing destroyed SB (i.e. you get 8 VP for blowing up a SB, and then another 8 VP if the SB isn't replaced at the end of the game). Which is new. Not a problem. Just making sure it was intentional (as killing SBs are now worth twice as much, effectively, if they can't be replaced).
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 02:43 pm: Edit|
You now have me confused. You and Richard asked me to add those VPs on 20 Feb 2014 and I did; so what does it now need to be?
Please edit just the VPs chart as it needs to be (but don't change any values) and post them here for review.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 08:48 pm: Edit|
Oops. You are correct. I totally forgot we made that suggestion. And then recalculated VPs based on them. Never mind :-)
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, March 13, 2014 - 07:04 pm: Edit|
(607.9) "new comers" should probably be "newcomers".
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation