Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Simultaneous Decision Rule (1E4)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The_Rock
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think if the opponent does not get to respond to "no [additional] fire" the bidding will be much much faster and still allow incorporation of "me too." During the game with Patrick, for example, there were multiple times where I would have ended the bidding by declaring "no additional fire." The bidding continued because, under the rules, a player can declare:

P1: I fire X from Y at A.
P2: No fire
P1: I add an additional x from Y at A

ect.

Which was how a lot of the bidding in my game with Patrick went.

It started by him declaring 4 ESGs from his DN. I followed by selecting one ship and unloading everything from it into the DN (a mistake, in retrospect, as I had seriously considered just accepting the ESGs if that was his only declaration). Then what followed was about 20 minutes of back and forth declaration (which would have been a lot longer without Skype) and at least half of that back and forth was me saying "no additional fire" as Patrick added small groups of weapons.

That fire sequence could have been speed up considerably if either player could have ended the bidding immediately by saying "no additional fire."

I also agree with Patrick that there should be some rule defining who starts the bidding. There is currently no reason to ever be the first person to declare fire (or to declare you are not firing). Decisions made with more information are better decisions, so you are always at a disadvantage if you declare first.

You could change the rules so that:

P1: No fire
P2: No fire
P1: Still no fire. Shall we move to next impulse?
P2: I fire a p-3 from my FF on your DN (followed by subsequent "me too" rounds).

was a legitimate declaration.

This concern is not nearly as important as a way to end the bidding, since in most cases if I were forced by the rules to declare fire first - "No fire" is going to work just fine. Usually there is one player with a greater benefit of having a weapons exchange during any one firing opportunity - if that player is not you just declaring "No fire" will start the bidding and not cost you anything.

IMO, the game would be faster and better if FC used S&S fire, but just changing the back and forth to end on the first declaration (with the very obvious exception of a "no fire" being the first thing stated by any player - each player must obviously be allowed at least one opportunity to declare fire) of "no fire" or "no additional fire" would be a vast improvement.

Finally, I rules question from that example in Com 28.

"Klingon: Did I mention that my disruptors are over loaded? Federation: Uh... no, you didn't mention that either."

Is that actually legal? I can decide to overload the disruptors after having already declared them as standards earlier in the bidding?

The example has a bunch of very unhelpful, soft language in it by using words like "did I mention..." Would the following actually be legal?

P1: My D7 fires 4 standard disruptors and 3 P-1 at your CA#1.
P2: My CA#1 fires 4 16-point overloaded photons and 6 p-1 at your D7
P1: My D7 overloads those disruptors it previously declared.

Is that actually legal as the example suggests?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 208
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am also getting the idea as I read other posts, that people seem to find a work-around for the rule rather than following the rule as written when they have a larger battle. Of course its a small sample so far...
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 208
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote] The example has a bunch of very unhelpful, soft language in it by using words like "did I mention..." Would the following actually be legal?

P1: My D7 fires 4 standard disruptors and 3 P-1 at your CA#1.
P2: My CA#1 fires 4 16-point overloaded photons and 6 p-1 at your D7
P1: My D7 overloads those disruptors it previously declared.

Is that actually legal as the example suggests?[quote]

Yes as it currently stands the decision ot overload is a separate decision.
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3495
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Doyle wrote:
Quote:
Would the following actually be legal?

P1: My D7 fires 4 standard disruptors and 3 P-1 at your CA#1.
P2: My CA#1 fires 4 16-point overloaded photons and 6 p-1 at your D7
P1: My D7 overloads those disruptors it previously declared.

Is that actually legal as the example suggests?

Yes as it currently stands the decision to overload is a separate decision.

That is correct. Any "instant of fire" overloading is a separate decision.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 208
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike,
On the previous page, I put up a post witha question for you. I wanted to make sure you saw it as several posts have been put up in the last several minutes.
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3495
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
Patrick Doyle wrote:
Quote:
Would the following actually be legal?

P1: My D7 fires 4 standard disruptors and 3 P-1 at your CA#1.
P2: My CA#1 fires 4 16-point overloaded photons and 6 p-1 at your D7
P1: My D7 overloads those disruptors it previously declared.

Is that actually legal as the example suggests?

Yes as it currently stands the decision to overload is a separate decision.

That is correct. Any "instant of fire" overloading is a separate decision.


Also, both players (assuming only two) declaring "no fire" is the end for that impulse. (I am not sure I followed the mention of this a couple posts back, so I thought I would just reinforce it.)

As for who declares first, I don't see it. Yes, whomever decides to declare actual fire first is at a bit of a disadvantage, but (as Paul states) that doesn't have to be the person who goes first. If you are being the "reactive" player, just immediately declare "no fire" and see what the other guys does. If you are the "proactive" player, declare your fire (or at least your first "bid").
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 208
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike West:

I am working on a list of examples of the SIM Decision Rule when applied to firing in multiple situations. It is based on my understanding of the rule. However, if you could comment on the post that Terry O'Carroll and I left regarding our interpretations of the rule. I really need to know if we are right or wrong.

Also, My understanding of the rule is more based on an old version of the rule than the text that is in the latest version of the rules. I've read and re-read 1E4 and I am not certain that either Terry or myself are correct. ANyhow, your interpreation, thoughts or insights would be appreciated.

Thanks!
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3495
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Doyle wrote:
Mike,
On the previous page, I put up a post witha question for you. I wanted to make sure you saw it as several posts have been put up in the last several minutes.


I assume you are talking about the ending conditions.

Basically, once both players declare "no fire" (however they do that), that phase is done. The example screws with this a bit, as the Klingon player pointedly leaves the process open by actively asking "anything else?" If the Klingon player had wanted the process to end, he should not have asked the question. Asking the question lets the process continue. (Apparently, the Klingon was at such a range that he was trying to draw out the Federation player's fire.)

But, basically, once both players have declared they have no more fire to add, the process is done.

On the starting condition, again, as Paul points out, normally, one of the players is more interested in fire that impulse than the other player. If you are being more reactive (at that point), just start the process with a "no fire". If you are the more proactive (at that point), you are going to have to declare something at some point, or the opportunity will be gone. So, declare.

Put another way, the person who needs to declare weapon fire should suck it up and declare their weapon fire.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1881

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


The bidding continued because, under the rules, a player can declare:

P1: I fire X from Y at A.
P2: No fire
P1: I add an additional x from Y at A



I'm sure that at some point it was confirmed that me-to is a case of you can only me-to an actual fire declaration by the other guy, so if he passes that ends the me-to process there and then. But I can't find it now, so I'm either wrong, or it is buried as a side track in another less obvious thread.


[edit -]

Cross post with MWest -

MWest, presumably you are seeing a fire declaration as I fire XXX followed by an implicit 'no more fire', other wise both have not declared 'no fire', only the guy who has actually passed will have said 'no fire'. Maybe that is where the confusion is. You wording does lead to me-to allowing constant adding of weapons as one player is never actually declaring no-fire, he is doing quite the opposite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 208
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Mike.

I think at a minimum, that example in the communique' needs to be disavowed and replaced with a more precise example. The language used is bad and opens it up to incorrect interpretations.

I am working on one i can post and you can cut and paste if you like.

How to end the process has been cleare up, thanks.
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
The_Rock
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike,
To be clear on what ends declarations:

P1: No fire
P2: 1 p-3 from my CA at your DD
P1: No fire

Can P2 continue to add weapons fire at this point or is this phase over?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3495
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The_Rock wrote:
Mike,
To be clear on what ends declarations:

P1: No fire
P2: 1 p-3 from my CA at your DD
P1: No fire

Can P2 continue to add weapons fire at this point or is this phase over?

P2 can continue. P2 has never declared "no fire" and he can continue.

In effect, what you can view the above as is P1 trying to get P2 to hurry up and finish his fire declaration. (Rather than the probably reality, which is P2 incrementally adding fire until he can induce P1 into firing.)
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1881

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK I'm confused -- what you said about the example above is wrong then, it had nothing to do with the klingon asking if there was anything else,There was in fact nothing the klingon could do to end the fire ephase, the Fed could keep adding weapons no matter how often the klingon says 'I'm good' or 'no fire'.


Without the ability to end the phase by declaring no fire seems far far worse than any simultaneous written declaration. There are even more mind games and time comsuming add a piddly weapon at a time goings on. My previous thought that you could only add a weapon if the other guy had declared something kept it reasonably short, as you wouldn't usually want to declare 1 weapon and then find that was all you were firing because the other guy said 'no fire'. It kept out a lot of the time consuming bluff and double bluff.


Last edited by storeylf on Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Rock
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok, well then I understand the rule, and recommend it be changed. That is what causes "me too" firing to severely bog down competitive games. Fixing the rule so that there is an implied "and no other fire" after any declaration, such that the first instance of "no [additional] fire" ends the bidding will really speed up that step.

It will also bring the rules back to a place where "me too" was intended. I assume that the purpose of "me too" is to eliminate the portion of the game (seen in SFB) where both players sit and silently go through the various permutations of fire during S&S firing. I equally presume that the "me too" system was designed to restrict, rather than foster, "trickery" (put in quotes because I understand, but reject, that is something found in S&S in SFB).

I assume the purpose of "me too" firing is not to test the incremental level at which any one opponent will shift from "no fire" to "some fire."

As you concede, you agree with my statement that in most circumstances there will be a player more advantaged by having an exchange in the current phase. It provides a good check against boring game play to effectively force that player to declare all the fire he intends by allowing the responder to terminate the declaration round by declaring "no fire" after the "first bid."

If you don't do that, you will get (I have seen it at least once in every tournament in which I have participated) 20-30 minute + fire declarations that mostly involve one of the players repeating "no fire."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1881

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree to agree with Paul. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group