(607.0) Four Powers War - Scenario Reports

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E PRODUCTS: F&E Future Products (Near Term): F&E WARBOOK: Warbook Update Fighter Operations (FO) : FO - Section 600 Reports Scenarios and Options : (607.0) Four Powers War - Scenario Reports
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
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


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".

Add a Message

This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation