Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through June 02, 2003	25		06/02 04:55pm
	Archive through August 01, 2003	25		08/03 12:51pm

John, I am the Alliance player in the BttF game (I'm the Kzinti/Hydrans, Tim is the Feds).

The only reason the Expidition got across was that our Coalition opponent had NEVER had to defend against it before as his Alliance players have never tried it (also his normal Alliance opponents are VERY turtleish, always afraid to attack the Coalition targets).

My offensive style was very aggressive and kept him out of Hydran space.

If you watch the Rear Echelon game, you will see a successful Hydran Expidition (I'm the alliance, Tim is the Coalition). Plus the crushing of Hydrax for minimal losses as I've lost so many units attempting to get the Hydran Expedition across.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

the early romulan entry will definantly need to define the expenses that the romulans have to pay during that time (besides loosing their PWC) the result should be that if the romulans just build base hulls then on turn 10 they will have the same fleet (they will get a smidge of extra income from captured fed territory, but will have lost or crippled ships capturing it) and if the romulans want any varients they will have to end up with fewer ships then the PWC shows.

By John Smedley (Ukar) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 08:56 pm: Edit

It seems that we may need a different criteria than "if the Feds are activated early", as this does not account for the situtation the game is in due to the expedition.

Perhaps the criteria should be that the Romulan Reaction is triggered if the Hydrans activate the Feds AND no alliance capital has fallen by the time the Roms would enter. This would prevent the Hydrans from getting punished twice for a marginal expedition - one that succeeded at the cost of their capital.

Also, remember we are discussing this as an option for the Romulan player (like the Fed reaction). If the Romulan player does not believe that entering turn 8 or turn nine would improve the coalition's position, he will not choose to use the option. Therefor this rule should never be bad for the Romulans.

By John Colacito (Sandro) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 09:21 pm: Edit

Such a proposal actually favors the Coalition and penalizes the Alliance for daring to run the expedition. As stated elsewhere Early Rom entry allows them to better manage their economy and will result in a much tougher Romulan Fleet.

An early Fed entry is still worth an Expedition even if the Roms enter early and “manage” their economy a bit better. Saving the Feds from a T7 blitz is paramount. Hey, if a Coalition player doesn’t defend against an Expedition because he figures the Roms will help anyway then better for the Alliance. I’d be thrilled and send my Hydrans running to Fed Space.

In my opinion, if you activate the Gorns even earlier then they are activated, will just see the Romulans fall easier, quicker, and the Coalition die that much faster.

Assuming I agree with your assessment, and I don’t, what’s your alternative? As far as I’m concerned the Expedition is self-defeating. If it works the Coalition is most likely doomed, if it fails well then the Hydrans/Alliance are screwed. I’d prefer an option that allows the game to continue.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Some notes, which I haven't seen mentioned on early Romulan entry (although I might have missed them)...
- The KC9R might have to be at least partially payed for (13 EPs turn 6, 5 on turn 8)
- How much does it cost the Romulans to convert those PWC Klingon hulls to Romulan service? If it's 2-3 EPs each, that'll eat up a lot of the "extra" income
- (mentioned previously) How many more provinces will be unexplored pre-war?

I'm not opposed to a Romulan Reaction rule. I'm very much a pro-Alliance player, but if this is done right, it could help encourage the continuation of the game.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 12:08 pm: Edit

I think the only Klingon-style ships in the PWC are those lousy K4s, and no more than 12 of them at that. I can see the Romulans putting converting them off for a bit while they build better ships.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 04:09 pm: Edit

Sorry - I meant the Klingon deliveries - not the K4s in the actual PWC.

The OOB notes the Klingon ships are Activations - just not sure what turn they show up to be activated...

By John Pepper (Akula) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Do we really need a Rom Reaction?? I don't think so; if the federation entered the war early I think the Romulans would have 2 options:
1. With the Klingons in trouble (a successful expedition spells doom for the Klingon southern flank) , winning a war against the Alliance looks far less certain, the Romulans could concentrate on constructing there fleet in preparation for a much latter offensive against the Gorns.
2. Join the Klingons because after the Klingons fall the Romulans will be attacked by the alliance.

I think number one is much more likely, the primary reason the Romulans joined the war in the first place was because the federation was weak and the Klingons looked like they would be victorious.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Copy of my post in the Hydran Expedition
I think there is a serious problem with this proposal,
SVC and others of the powers that be please correct me if I'm wrong but:

It doesn't really matter how many ships the hydrans get to the federation 1 / 3 / or 20 the point is this, If the hydrans make it to the Federation it shows that the Klingons are weak and that there entire southern sector is in disarray and therefore ripe for the taking. If the Hydrans choose the Kzini route it shows that there is now a 4th front and that the Klingons and lyrans are now separated.

If I'm the Klingons I'm not going to tell my commanders its ok to let 1 ship through but not 3. I'm going to tell them to stop them ASAP because they are drawing off ships and resources and destroying my southern flank. If the Klingons are attacked they can't just go and change the rules in life, they have to deal with the threat by using superior tactics or creating new ones.

By John Smedley (Ukar) on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 10:23 am: Edit

John

The justification for the Romulan reaction is the same as the justification for the Federation reaction:

This is a game, and the game is less fun for all involved if it ends by turn 10. In the case of the Federation reaction, the problem being addressed was that a mistake by the alliance early in the game could result in the loss of both the Kzinti and Hydran Homeworlds. This could make the Federation's situtation untennable, leading to an early alliance surrender. It might make more sense for the Federation to sue for peace in this situtation, but instead they mobilize for war, because it makes for a better game.

In a similar manner, a successful expedition can make the game very difficult for the coalition. This may lead to the coalition player conceeding before the alliance really gets to use it's ship superiority - no fun for either side. The Romulan reaction atempts to rectify this by bolstering a faltering coalition so the game can continue. The VP penality should be large enough that the coalition is significantly less likely to win if the option is invoked, but the balance of forces is somewhat restored, so the game remains a chalenge to both players. It might make more sense for the Romulans to stay out, but having them get in (early) will make for a better game.

By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 11:09 am: Edit

I thought the Fed reaction was just an excuss to give the Feds a battleship.

By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 11:10 am: Edit

I would say that any Coalition player who uses the Romulan reaction should first conceed the game, then use the Rom reaction to continue with a more playable situation.

I completed a Hydran expedition once and my coalition opponents decided to resign. Instead I showed my opponents how they could have stopped it, allowed them to stop it in that manner, and then continued our second game from that point.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 08:57 pm: Edit

The point of the game is not to extend it or end in a draw!!! It is too win, if you pull off a Expedition that brings you closer to winning. There should be serious consiquences to the Klingon player, there certainly our to the Hydrans for failing. This is one of the epic struggles in the war, and reaction takes away from that.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit

While it would make since for the federation to sue for peace from a there perpective the Klingons would never have agreed thus the federation reaction, this is far different from the romulan's situation war for them was not a for sure.

By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 09:09 am: Edit

Why would the Federation sue for peace? I have never understood the mistaken opinion that if the Kzinti and Hydran capitals both fall the alliance is toast. It all depends on the cost you pay. If the coalition loses 60 ships more then the Kzinti in the fight for the Kzinti capital the alliance is winning. I figure about 40 to 50 ships is break even for the coalition and if the coalition loses less then 30 its doing good, less then 20 is a minor miracle and the coalition is actually winning.