The Ajax Expanse

Scoutdad · Post by **Scoutdad** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:59 pm

Since I usually end up running these types of things, I've love to actually participate in one run by someone else.

Count me in.

Tony L. Thomas
Battlegroup Murfreesboro

mwaschak · Post by **mwaschak** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:14 pm

Scoutdad wrote: Count me in.

That is a pretty solid start then. A lot of how we run this game will depend on what kind of campaign you want? Do you want to be running objectives from high command on an obscure frontier? Do you want a grand scale campaign with lots of diplomacy and galactic players? Do you want something historical, like the Kzinti front in the Four Powers War? Do you want to be on teams?

Those are just a few things to consider. All players will be welcome, but I do encourage you to play only if you are able to handle weekly or bi-weekly turns.

-Jay

Scoutdad · Post by **Scoutdad** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:24 pm

mwaschak wrote:...what kind of campaign you want? Do you want to be running objectives from high command on an obscure frontier? Do you want a grand scale campaign with lots of diplomacy and galactic players? Do you want something historical, like the Kzinti front in the Four Powers War? Do you want to be on teams?
-Jay

I'm sure there will be as many answers to this as players... but for me, I think something historical would be great.
Maybe a small section of the 4 Powers War near the WYN Cluster? You could have a map with a "Y-shaped" front: Klingon/Kzinti/Lyran.

Lots of options that way.
Teams:
Sure. The Klingons and Lyrans are allied, but do their goals actually match? Or does one side need to use it's resources in a slightly different manner?
What if one side calls for help... who comes to aide them? Their own forces, or an allied force?

Pirates operating out of the WYN Cluster?
Mercenaries hired by one side or the other to wreck havoc behind enemy lines?

And that area is so remote (at least in that era) that you're only going to get the most general orders from High Command.

JonPerry · Post by **JonPerry** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:07 pm

I'm sure there will be as many answers to this as players...

No doubt.

Not too interested in a huge F&E style of game. I'd prefer a campaign that can actually end.

From what I've read of FA, the sector commander scale sounds really interesting to me (I speak for at least one other gamer in my group on this one).

When you say process turns weekly or biweekly, you mean getting campaign orders and such in, or that we'd be expected to crank through a Fed Com battle every week?

I'm assuming that nothing actually happens until the participants get FA in their greedy little hands. Until i see what is possible, the "what do you want" question isn't easy to answer.

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:01 pm

I'd prefer sector commander scale.

If turns are weekly or biweekly, using the CSCR would be better for me (less time commitment, and I just can't seem to find time to get online for fCOL)

I suppose a historical medium-scale campaign would be OK. I would NOT want to play a huge scenario.

mwaschak · Post by **mwaschak** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:37 pm

Thanks for the reply everyone. I am sure we will get a lot of preferences, and fortunately it is not hard to accomodate players to some extent. So if we did go with a medium weight campaign around the time of the 4 Powers War near the WYN Cluster, we could find a way to fit a player in based on how many resources they wanted to control or how involved they want to be.

So for example we could give someone who knows FA a little better, like Tony, supreme command of the Lyran forces as an admiral. Then maybe we could give him two sub-commodores who could run a small section of the map with a much smaller fleet. There are easy ways to divide up the game to give everyone something important to do and fit their preference.

I do think whatever we do we should keep the objective system intact. I have this vision of one side trying to passively trigger a conflict, while the other needs time to prepare. And like Tony said, the Klingons are allied with the Lyrans but each side might have very different goals. This makes for some very interesting scenarios in my experience, and a lot of interesting diplomacy.

As far as battles go, I am all for FASCRS for most battles. If the battle is too important we can find a way to play it in FC.

If this sounds good I will start drawing up a map, and maybe some custom scenario goals.

-Jay

JonPerry · Post by **JonPerry** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:43 pm

It didn't occur to me that the system could be played at two different scales at the same time like that - or at least could be kit-bashed to allow for it.

Interesting.

Yep, I'm in.

What is an upper limit for players? Do I ask the others in my game group if they are interested, allowing for your restrictions on order turn-around?

mwaschak · Post by **mwaschak** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:54 pm

JonPerry wrote:It didn't occur to me that the system could be played at two different scales at the same time like that - or at least could be kit-bashed to allow for it.

Interesting.

Yep, I'm in.

What is an upper limit for players? Do I ask the others in my game group if they are interested, allowing for your restrictions on order turn-around?

Think of it as one grand admiral shouldering more responsibility of the team. So if you were on Tony's team, he might run 100 EP of ships and 10 systems, while you and another commodore ran 15 EP of ships and 2 systems.

Turns typically don't take long for me to process. How many players are you thinking of adding? Do you want on the same team?

-Jay

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:44 pm

If you are thinking of the Four Powers War, would that mean you'd plan to use the Middle Years ships from Briefing #2 to play it out?

The Shat · Post by **The Shat** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:21 pm

I am in if you don't mind a noob. I am excited to try this system out!

-Matt

Scoutdad · Post by **Scoutdad** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:44 pm

Nerroth wrote:If you are thinking of the Four Powers War, would that mean you'd plan to use the Middle Years ships from Briefing #2 to play it out?

It wouldn't haveto be the Four Powers War.
It could just as easily be just priorto the opening of the General War.
The Klingo-Lyran Alliance could be attempting to lure the Kzinti into a pre-emptive strike across the neutral zone so that they can claim "They started it... We're just finishing it!"
The Kzinti could be trying to selectively reinforce the border areas without allerting (or at least undulying alarming) the Lyrans.
The Klingons could be tryign to force an assault into Lyran territory, all the while maintaining an innocent posture.
The Lyrans could be trying to convince the Klignons to provide economic support for their propaganda campaign.

Meanwhile, the WYN are trying to stay neutral...
and the local Pirate Cartel would be hiring itself out to all three parties, selling weapons/intel to both sides, and trying to make as much money as is possible before open hostilities break out.

that's 5 sides, right there.

mwaschak · Post by **mwaschak** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:59 pm

I think this summarizes a good scenario for us. Thanks Tony.

So let's use this as the template. The more interest we have, the more small commanders we can squeeze in as border commodores with a minimum of 5 players. I also thought about having a player just run the plot points I might need here and there.

Lyran
Kzinti
Klingons
Orion Cartel
WYN

I believe I am going to build this to be at the regional campaign scale. That should give us plenty of wiggle room, and keep the fleets fairly reasonable. I will also draw up some preliminary ship lists and OoB to make sure I am consistent with the SFU history. I think setting the campaign in the years building up to the General War is a good idea.

How do you guys feel about using the objective system? For those who haven't seen the material this is basically more about fulfilling the goals of your empire, not necessarily the standard 4x of most space campaigns. This opens the door for minor players to actually win games if they are completely ignored. Like Tony mentioned, this might mean that the Orion player making money is scoring VP for that player.

-Jay

JonPerry · Post by **JonPerry** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:13 pm

If I and a friend or 2 of mine joined this, and we were placed in opposing sectors (Klink/Kzin border) - am I correct in saying that the objective system (and the Fed Admiral system in general) would/could act as a scenario generator for us, allowing us to run some small battles locally, as well as providing a larger strategery framework with decisions, repercussions, pathos, etc?

Scoutdad · Post by **Scoutdad** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:44 pm

Jay:
Some points...

Regional Scale: Perfect choice.
This gives us room to grow, but will not bog down with massive accounting efforts. And as you stated, gives a chance for expanding the pool by adding sub-commanders. And the best thing is - they can be added at any time they are needed / available.

General War setting:
Still a good idea. I don't know if it's feasible or not - but what if...
Starting units were Middle Years units (of course, this would require Briefing #2) and new units added over the course of the event were regular GW units? It would recreate the existence of older ships at the frontier locations, slowly being upgraded as the certainty of war increased.
And it would force the commanders to decide where to station his older ships.

Objectives:
I definitely vote FOR these.
We played one small campaign w/o them to learn the basics, then added them into the next one. Having objectives certainly increased the enjoyment on our end. Knowing that you have more things to accomplish than you have ships to use,a all the while trying to guess what your opponent is striving for really rachets up the enjoyment.

That said, now to decide who I want to play...
Hmmm...

gambler1650 · Post by **gambler1650** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:00 pm

Heck... I think I'm gonna have to dive into this one...

I agree about Regional Scale being the sweet spot. I'm an SFB player not a Federation Commander player, so I wouldn't be able to play out any tactical battles. Not sure where that means I would fit best.

My favored race of the ones listed would be Kzinti followed by Lyran. I'm perfectly happy to be more of a fleet commander than a regional commodore, but wherever is needed I can give a shot.

Oh, and Objectives? Yes.