Topic: General War GSA campaign

[Max Power]

An update on the people who are tracking the development of this one:

1. I'm working nights again this week (as I just found out, lol). So I'll be doing a lot of work on the project this week. I should have the draft rules finished this week, with the exception of the combat section.

2. It should be noted though that in addition to the recent decline of my health (which hasn't been fully resolved) I'm also moving to Milwaukee in July. I will obviously be unavailable during that time. Again, I'm looking for volunteers to assist in doing some of the work. Skills that would be very useful would be knowledge of excel for the creation of automated accounting forms.

[762_XC]

Argh. I know somebody has already made F&E forms for Excel.

I hate cobwebs. 

[KBF-Crim]

Hey max...Will you be using cyberboard to send moves?

If so....could I get on the mail list?

I cant offer any help with contsruction...but when you hit playtesting stage send up a post eh?

[Surfal]

Argh. I know somebody has already made F&E forms for Excel.

I hate cobwebs. 

You would think...but if nobody has, I'm a fair formbuilder with Excel, and I'm very interested in the project.  I'd like to help, so sign me up Max.

[Max Power]

Hey max...Will you be using cyberboard to send moves?

If so....could I get on the mail list?

I cant offer any help with contsruction...but when you hit playtesting stage send up a post eh?

Yes. Actually the way to go will be using cyberboard and the application sharing function of MSN messenger. This allows you to share the cyberboard program (which will be the F&E strategic map) with all opponents, allowing all moves to be made in real time. Then whatever battles are generated will be resolved on GSA.

[Max Power]

Argh. I know somebody has already made F&E forms for Excel.

I hate cobwebs. 

You would think...but if nobody has, I'm a fair formbuilder with Excel, and I'm very interested in the project.  I'd like to help, so sign me up Max.

Probabally, but I don't know anyone that has them. And at the same time they must be adapted to our uses. Send me an e-mail Surfal and we'll try to iron something out where we can have you make up some draft forms. Of specific interest off the top of my head would be the economic form, a production form which would hopefully take the result of the economic form and present it as a total to work from, and a form that tracks what ships are in what hexes (this is essential due to pinning rules - it's a lot easier if a form keeps track than if you have to constantly count ships).

I'm also looking for shiplist help if anyone is interested in that. Specifically, at the moment the OP 3.3+ shiplist needs to be taken and crippled versions of every ship in it need to be added; these ships will have 1/2 the weapons and internals removed from them. In addition modifications are required to add ships like the Condor-V which aren't present in the list.

[762_XC]

I would actually start with DieHard's list Max. He has already modded fighters and PF's for all races. What he has now will be a lot closer to your end product than 3.3.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm also looking for shiplist help if anyone is interested in that. Specifically, at the moment the OP 3.3+ shiplist needs to be taken and crippled versions of every ship in it need to be added; . . .

I think we could find a better way to do this.  Is there a scripter in the house?  Anyway we get set a ships in a Muliti-player mission to already be damaged?

if not, I do not feel we need to do the entire list.  Just make a special list for the scenarios that involved crippled ships.   Most players won't out a crippled ship "on the battle line" unless they have to anyway.

[KBF-Crim]

. Specifically, at the moment the OP 3.3+ shiplist needs to be taken and crippled versions of every ship in it need to be added; these ships will have 1/2 the weapons and internals removed from them.

Max...NTDN came out with an app that loaded damage to ships in a skirmish mission...

You could set damage from light to med,heavy, and crippled....

When the mission launched...your ship would be damage accordingly via a percentage....



You just ran it like  Co-op ace or sector assault...its was kinda a crap shoot what came up damaged....but it was alot closer to knowing what was damaged and at what point a ship was crippled for game play purposes...

I'm pretty sure I have a copy of the script on my other PC....it would need to be ported over from EAW...

BUT....there must be some script function that gives stats back and forth to a server or somewhere....because EXACT damage can be carried from mission to mission in the DV...

Using the script as a model maybe one of the guru's could make you one simular...

[Lepton]

Is there even room in the shiplist to have crippled versions of all the ships??  My recommendation some time ago was to use a smaller hull size ship in proportion to the damage received as was gone in the General War campaign awhile ago.  I do like Max's crippled ship version idea, but I am wondering how doable it is as it mirrors F&E.

Not to be a poophead, but couldn't this be done pretty quickly.  Just copy the entire shiplist in Excel, paste it into another sheet, and multiply all the relevant columns by .5, and copy the new stuff back into the original sheet??

[Surfal]

On Cripples and the shiplist:

Making cripple entries of every ship will be painful.  You can make formulaic entries that will produce a ship with 1/2 power, hull, shuttle, etc., or even some more reasonable breakout that nukes the soft spots hit early in the DAC but keeps the latter spots in some decent shape.   The big problem will come in two areas:  1) you'll need an alternate shipname for every cripple entry, which isn't hard but is a PIA, and 2) you'll need to do the cripple reduction of weapons by hand because of how many weapons are individually listed on their own hardpoints in the shiplist.

On an excel sheet to cobble the economics, track the fleets and such:  very doable, I'm assembling a prototype now.  I'll pass you a note from home later Max.

[Lepton]

Do the hardpoints really need to be edited?  I have no idea myself, but if you take out the equivalent of the SSD box, won't that do it??

[Surfal]

Do the hardpoints really need to be edited?  I have no idea myself, but if you take out the equivalent of the SSD box, won't that do it??

Example:
F-CA hardpoints:

2 Phot FA, 2 Phot FA, 1 ADD6, 1 DroG, 2 Ph1 FH, 2 Ph1 FRRX, 2 Ph1 FLLX, 2 Ph1 RH, 2 Ph3 All
following the divide by 2 rule and rounding up you'd end up with
1 Phot FA, 1 Phot FA, 1 ADD6, 1 DroG, 1 Ph1 FH, 1 Ph1 FRRX, 1 Ph1 FLLX, 1 Ph1 RH, 1 Ph3 All
which seems pretty reasonable.

Now lets try another:
G-BC
1 PLaS RP, 1 PLaS LP, 1 PLaF RS, 1 PLaF LS, 1 Ph1 FAR, 1 Ph1 FAL, 2 Ph1 RS, 2 Ph1 LS, 1 Ph3 RS, 1 Ph3 LS, 1 Ph1 RAR, 1 Ph1 RAL
divide by two and round up gives us a ship that has lost a grand total of 2 Ph1.  Romulans, Gorns, many Hydrans and a fair smattering of the other races have lots of ships with 1 weapon/hardpoint, so you've gotta apply judegement when it comes to stripping weapons off. 

Once we agree on a set of rules this is a doable thing, its just that its not a trivial effort considering the 2000+ shiplist entries....

[Lepton]

Haven't used this, but might it not do what we are looking for??

From Khoromag:

Sector Assault for SFC OP - Updated Nov 12, 2002

This script is designed primarily for campaign systems.  Using this script and the included configuration program you can set up a scenario with:

    *
      Any starbase playable by the host with full loadout support.
    * Option of zero to eight DefSats optimally placed around the base.
    *
      Option of zero to three FRDs placed behind the base.
    *
      Option to have no planet, a light planet, or a heavy (Ph4 armed) planet placed behind the FRDs or base.
    *
      Option of disabling the host's selected space dock ships.
    *
      Optional startup damage for every ship in the game including starbase and planet.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Only problem is neither OP or EAW's SA work as advertised.

Bases get no spares and base load out of marines & shuttles.  Drones are set by the era speed, but base load out.  Fighters/PF's are basic type I's. 

You can set the SA to what ever you want load out wise.  But it doesn't come up during the mission.

I have contacted MagnumMan about this, but he replied that he has moved on and has no interest in going back to fix things.

On the bright side, he did say he was willing to give the source info up to anyone who is willing to continue the work.

[762_XC]

On the bright side, he did say he was willing to give the source info up to anyone who is willing to continue the work.

Yoohoo!! Firesoul!

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Well, that is, at least, one more response than when I posted this on the old Taldren Scripters forum. 

[762_XC]

Not counting the echo?

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Including the echo... unless you count me 'bumping' my own post...

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163293433.0.html

The original....

[FireSoul]

SA = shiplist api?

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

SA = shiplist api?

Sector Assault.  You can get it here: http://www.khoromag.org/taldren/scripts/multi-op.html

[Lepton]

Bearslayer,

Are these issues only occuring for supplying the base involved or is there a problem for any ships selected for the sector assault mission?

Startup damage works great.  Fantastic.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Bases seem to be the main issue. 

I suppose some of the issues can be over come by just maxing out the stats on the shiplist.  But things like drone reloads can't.

[Max Power]

If we could get Sector Assault working instead of having to redo the shiplist, this would be ideal. I guess therefore what we need is a programmer that would be willing to take on a bug fix of sector assault.

[Lepton]

Why not bypass the base selection in Sector Assault altogether and just select a playable one in-game?  Basically, you don't even need the interface. Just need to alter the scripts.ini file.

[Max Power]

I don't know how to do that. Again, we either need someone to work on the shiplist (so we can get done faster and play sooner) or fix SA/create a new script (so we can get done faster and play sooner).

[FireSoul]

I am willing to SUPPORT someone who's willing to fix sector assault..

.. also, can someone re-iterate to me the problems currently faced?

[Lepton]

I don't know how to do that. Again, we either need someone to work on the shiplist (so we can get done faster and play sooner) or fix SA/create a new script (so we can get done faster and play sooner).

I can't say for sure, but I was pretty sure that there were selectable and playable bases in the General War campaign. All that probably needs to be done is reclassify the bases as something other than a base.  I presume if we made the class of bases to DNs, they would be selectable and playable.

So what shiplist and frlist are we using anyway?  If that is all that needs to be done (i.e.making bases playable), that should be pretty easy.  Use the sector assault script for crippling.  Viola!!  Actually, I have no idea if the damage specs mentioned in the sector assault readme can't be used in any script.  If so, we don't even need to use sector assault at all.

[Max Power]

A modified OP 3.3+ shiplist that adds carriers for PF races and PF's for fighter races (and the ships that carry them). As for the fighterlist it will be a list of my own design.

[FPF-DieHard]

A modified OP 3.3+ shiplist that adds carriers for PF races and PF's for fighter races (and the ships that carry them). As for the fighterlist it will be a list of my own design.

Use the DH123 list.   It has this already.   

[KHH Jakle]

I have been waiting for someone to initiate a Cyberboard General War that was a near direct translation of F&E....

What do I have to do to get in on this?  I can bring all of KHH....

[KBF-Crim]

Well...(I dont mean to speak for max...I only speak from beta testing SFCshadows SFCoC)...first thing we'd need is some automation....

Entering all the moves etc etc....can take quite awhile...

Plus...as the thread has shown...you need some way to simulate previous battle damage and have ships load in mission accordingly.....

The biggest two hang ups when playing a cyberboard campaign....

Waiting....

Battle marathons....

Waiting for empire moves...waiting for reaction moves....waiting to get everyone to gether to resolve battles...

Then trying to do a marathon session to get all those battles done....

Then waiting for the map to be updated...and waiting for the empire to move...

*************

upsides

Every asset on the board can be accounted for and controled...

No fog of war...IE...you can see where every asset is...

HUGE battles.....

6 peeps, 3 ships each , mean battles with up to 18 ships are possible...even at that...two peeps with AI wings still can do 18 ship battles...

(Side note....these were some of the hardest, most nail biting ,pucker factor ,battles I've ever flown .....trying to keep situational awareness alone os a HUGE chore....imagine trying to track one player controled enemy ship in such a malestorm...)

Did I say HUGE battles?

Yes...I think I did...

BUT...we also had a system to break those battle down so each ship could be flown by a player...

The option to break down battles ALLWAYS rested with the defenders...

More varied mission objectives...

You might have to simply pin a force by forcing en engagment....

You might get a suicide mission to attack a star base with two D7's....

Intercepts...convoy escort....base assalts...all mean something....any mistake....results in a change on the board....

Disengagment means a routed fleet for next turn....
**********************
Some things that needed some severe tweaking...

Having a force used to pin another force and having the "pinning " force refuse to engage....IE; they left the map....

Shadows answer was the "Battle pass" rules....IE..if you engaged a force on the map...you had to at least pass within 8 of your enemy on the map before disengaging....this still caused problems because the rul never said WHO must make the pass....people would hug the border and leave the map as soon as you got within 8 of them....

My answer (never tested)...in order to disengage from ANY battle...you MUST flee to the opposite side of your map that you spawned on....IE:...you can run away anytime you want (routed fleet)...but to do so...you must first get by your enemy to get off the map....

This gives the attacked force at least a chance of taking out a ship...and makes trying to pin a superior force with two small ships a REAL risk...

I'm try and dust off the old cobwebs...

Directional disengagment....(never tested).....IE...when you flee off the north side off the map...your routed fleet goes in the hex to the north...

Problem....hex mapvs square battle map......its not allways clear which hex the routed fleet should go into...

Solution...whenever possible....routed fleet flees to homeward hex of the disputed two hexes...

******************

Other points if I may be so bold....

One good thing is you can often plan battles, on say a saturday night...good time to get 6 hours of battle done...

Problem:....sometimes those nights were tuesdays or other week nights....

MAJOR PROBLEM....trying to get battles done before deadlines on weeknights almost got me fired and temporarily ruined my marraige...been there ,,,done that....got the scars to prove it...heh heh

problem....I have a game recording of the opening moves of a campaign......after THREE MONTHS the board had only moved a bit....

It TAKES a huge amount of time to get things done....even longer when disputes arise over rules , battle results, or legal moves....

IIRC...F&E sets up that the Federation is out numbered by the Klingon empire....but the klingons have inferior ships...

The federation gets more ships in production later in the game....the klingons strech resources...

But this means the opening of the game is the klingons making a major push into federation space...first strike mentality...and the federation then fights back with superior ships and production...driving the klingons from fed space....

So..we...being the klingons...played the earth gambit.....knowing FULL well that failure to take earth with the ships we could get on site meant we would LOSE the campaign.....becauase our ship production wasnt enough alone to hold the feds off later in the game...

But when the klinks threw every ship at the feds for three turns....the feds pretty much dropped off the radar....this screwed up the whole schedual and delayed the game for weeks...

*********************************

What this means is....the normal complaints that come with dyna play also accompany come with the cyberboard campaign......only it can CRIPPLE the cyber campaign.....because all play stops when one Empire is a no show......

Solution....deadlines....failure to meet a deadline means NO moves....failure to show for battles means attacker can play against AI...attackers get a cake walk...

*******************************

What I have gleaned from discussions on the Taldren boards...

It IS possible to get another chat client to launch SFC into skirmish...per firesoul

It is possible to set conditions in a configurable script loaded from the "map"...../website terrain.. simlular to co-op ace or sector assault...(if SQL was all ironed out)

It is possible to record information from the battle and send it back to the map /website....

What we need...is something BETWEEN the DV and a pure PBEM campaign....

A PBEM campaign is great...its all PvP....but it takes A LONG TIME...and there is little room for people who might not be so PvP strong...

The DV is GREAT!...it allows for casual play 24/7...with no need to track and enter info...

If these two games could be distilled and combined...we might find the grail.....

*sigh*

With code...all things are possible

Sorry for jumping around so much...I typed this in several sessions tonight..


'

[Max Power]

I have been waiting for someone to initiate a Cyberboard General War that was a near direct translation of F&E....

What do I have to do to get in on this?  I can bring all of KHH....

Say that you want to play? We're not some l33t haxors here. Anyone and everyone that has an interest can play. Actually, player interest is something that I've never been concerned about. More problematic is finding volunteers that have time to help do the work. I've been mostly doing it all myself. Part of this is at the start I frankly underestimated the amount of work it would take to start with F&E and "SFCize" it. However, I can see the time when everything will be finished and the real fun will begin.

If you want to help out let me know. Not only do we need people to do the work on the forms and other such things, but also do simple things like take the rules and proofread them. They make sense to me (of course). Whether they make sense to someone with no F&E background or SFB background is a different matter. 

[Max Power]

A modified OP 3.3+ shiplist that adds carriers for PF races and PF's for fighter races (and the ships that carry them). As for the fighterlist it will be a list of my own design.

Use the DH123 list.   It has this already.   

Please resend this to me. When I got it it was garbled and didn't work correctly.

[Max Power]

Well...(I dont mean to speak for max...I only speak from beta testing SFCshadows SFCoC)...first thing we'd need is some automation....

Entering all the moves etc etc....can take quite awhile...

Plus...as the thread has shown...you need some way to simulate previous battle damage and have ships load in mission accordingly.....

First, the moves will go much faster than I think you think. This is the true power of application sharing over MSN messenger. With this, it is quite literally like everyone being at the same game table, except that they aren't of course. All things are done in real time, just as if you were playing in person. It's somewhat hard to explain but if you have MSN I'd be glad to demonstrate it.

As for damage, frankly, I'm not interested in tracking which phaser or photon is damaged. It's too much work for too little reward. All I want really is for the combatants to note when the ship goes under 50% by the bar on the screen, and when it is it is then considered crippled until repaired. This is the easiest and least complex way I can think of to handle this without getting bogged down in minutiae. Confirmation of this status can be done with game film.

The biggest two hang ups when playing a cyberboard campaign....

Waiting....

Battle marathons....

Waiting for empire moves...waiting for reaction moves....waiting to get everyone to gether to resolve battles...

Then trying to do a marathon session to get all those battles done....

Then waiting for the map to be updated...and waiting for the empire to move...

*************

This is a problem. IMO it is the responsibility of the moderator and the players to conduct moves in a timely manner. ATM the goal I have is 1 week per turn. As I already noted, strategic moves I think will go faster than most realize. The application sharing way is how real F&E is played over the internet, something that I have done. I can say that it goes pretty smoothly, especially if you are an experienced player (which I have proven that I am not, lol). As for marathon battle resolution sessions, I'm hoping to get at least 3 players per race (mininum) and hopefully 6 or more, so that battles can be fought concurrently by different groups of players.

upsides

Every asset on the board can be accounted for and controled...

No fog of war...IE...you can see where every asset is...

HUGE battles.....

6 peeps, 3 ships each , mean battles with up to 18 ships are possible...even at that...two peeps with AI wings still can do 18 ship battles...

(Side note....these were some of the hardest, most nail biting ,pucker factor ,battles I've ever flown .....trying to keep situational awareness alone os a HUGE chore....imagine trying to track one player controled enemy ship in such a malestorm...)

Did I say HUGE battles?

Yes...I think I did...

BUT...we also had a system to break those battle down so each ship could be flown by a player...

Currently, my plan is to as much as possible, minimize the amount of fighting done against AI. Ideally, battles will be broken down into 3 v 3 matches and resolved. This ensures that the moronic AI isn't what you're depending on to win out in key sector X. It is my intention that every fight will be player against player, and the best players should win. However, currently, the combat resolution rules have been intentionally left up in the air. I plan on doing those last, as they will be the most difficult to do IMO.

The option to break down battles ALLWAYS rested with the defenders...

More varied mission objectives...

You might have to simply pin a force by forcing en engagment....

You might get a suicide mission to attack a star base with two D7's....

Intercepts...convoy escort....base assalts...all mean something....any mistake....results in a change on the board....

Disengagment means a routed fleet for next turn....

Yep. All of that will be in there of course. Compromises with F&E have had to be made - I'm currently especially annoyed about the lack of stasis ships in the game - but it will be very close to the overall experience.

**********************
Some things that needed some severe tweaking...

Having a force used to pin another force and having the "pinning " force refuse to engage....IE; they left the map....

Shadows answer was the "Battle pass" rules....IE..if you engaged a force on the map...you had to at least pass within 8 of your enemy on the map before disengaging....this still caused problems because the rul never said WHO must make the pass....people would hug the border and leave the map as soon as you got within 8 of them....

My answer (never tested)...in order to disengage from ANY battle...you MUST flee to the opposite side of your map that you spawned on....IE:...you can run away anytime you want (routed fleet)...but to do so...you must first get by your enemy to get off the map....

This gives the attacked force at least a chance of taking out a ship...and makes trying to pin a superior force with two small ships a REAL risk...

I'm try and dust off the old cobwebs...

Interesting idea. Hadn't actually put much thought into this yet, as noted above.

Directional disengagment....(never tested).....IE...when you flee off the north side off the map...your routed fleet goes in the hex to the north...

Problem....hex mapvs square battle map......its not allways clear which hex the routed fleet should go into...

Solution...whenever possible....routed fleet flees to homeward hex of the disputed two hexes...

******************

I will be using a simplified version of the F&E retreat rules. There will be no "foward fumble" here.

Other points if I may be so bold....

One good thing is you can often plan battles, on say a saturday night...good time to get 6 hours of battle done...

Problem:....sometimes those nights were tuesdays or other week nights....

MAJOR PROBLEM....trying to get battles done before deadlines on weeknights almost got me fired and temporarily ruined my marraige...been there ,,,done that....got the scars to prove it...heh heh

problem....I have a game recording of the opening moves of a campaign......after THREE MONTHS the board had only moved a bit....

It TAKES a huge amount of time to get things done....even longer when disputes arise over rules , battle results, or legal moves....

Again, it's the moderator's job, and the race leader's, to make things move smoothly IMO. When it comes down to it at the end I will have final say over everything. This is simply because you can't have arguments that last for months and cause the campaign to grind totally to a halt while (for instance) Dizzy and Brezgonne re-familiarize themselves with each other. My current plan is to do most of the events on weekends of course, but flexability to get stuff done when you can is a definate plus. Again, ensuring that each race has enough players to do job right will alleviate many of these problems IMO, and is a primary concern of mine.

IIRC...F&E sets up that the Federation is out numbered by the Klingon empire....but the klingons have inferior ships...

The federation gets more ships in production later in the game....the klingons strech resources...

Quite correct. We will be using modified F&E advanced operation OOBs. I'm somewhat concerned about the amount of ships on the board however so the numbers might be modified, though I'm nowhere near making that decision at the moment.

But this means the opening of the game is the klingons making a major push into federation space...first strike mentality...and the federation then fights back with superior ships and production...driving the klingons from fed space....

Actually, this is false. In a real general war scenario, the klingon and lyran coaltion start out fighting the hydran-kzinti alliance, in a replay of the four powers war. In many ways the final success of the coalition is frequently tied to how sucessful they are in these opening turns against the alliance. The coalition must cripple (hopefully by driving off the map) the hydrans and kzinti before attacking the federation, or eventually the combined forces of the alliance will overwhelm them.

So..we...being the klingons...played the earth gambit.....knowing FULL well that failure to take earth with the ships we could get on site meant we would LOSE the campaign.....becauase our ship production wasnt enough alone to hold the feds off later in the game...

But when the klinks threw every ship at the feds for three turns....the feds pretty much dropped off the radar....this screwed up the whole schedual and delayed the game for weeks...

*********************************

I very definately won't be telling the sides what to do. Success or failure in the campaign should be as a result of the players playing it. I however may make suggestions to enhance gameplay from time to time.

What this means is....the normal complaints that come with dyna play also accompany come with the cyberboard campaign......only it can CRIPPLE the cyber campaign.....because all play stops when one Empire is a no show......

Solution....deadlines....failure to meet a deadline means NO moves....failure to show for battles means attacker can play against AI...attackers get a cake walk...

*******************************

My current plan is if you are unable or unwilling to get it done in the allotted time is that I will take control of your race on the strategic map and do what I think is best, which most likely will be to retreat forces in combat whereever they are. To address another issue, it goes without saying that players who sign up for the campaign are expected to play it to it's conclusion, if that is the end of the general war in turn 30 or when one side or another surrenders (which it sounds like was the de-facto situation above).

What I have gleaned from discussions on the Taldren boards...

It IS possible to get another chat client to launch SFC into skirmish...per firesoul

It is possible to set conditions in a configurable script loaded from the "map"...../website terrain.. simlular to co-op ace or sector assault...(if SQL was all ironed out)

It is possible to record information from the battle and send it back to the map /website....

What we need...is something BETWEEN the DV and a pure PBEM campaign....

A PBEM campaign is great...its all PvP....but it takes A LONG TIME...and there is little room for people who might not be so PvP strong...

The DV is GREAT!...it allows for casual play 24/7...with no need to track and enter info...

If these two games could be distilled and combined...we might find the grail.....

*sigh*

With code...all things are possible

Sorry for jumping around so much...I typed this in several sessions tonight..


'

True, but the gameplay experience I want is best done this way. I want OOBs. I want something other than BCH's or leader variants at 40k. I think 2 KRB's against 1 F-CA+ can be fun. I want the words "mission times" to never enter into the campaign, nor the word "DV". I don't think I'm alone. Is it for everyone - no; but then again, I think yes.

Reason is that the nut cases like myself can content themselves with thinking about grand strategic moves, attacks, reaction moves, etc until the cows come home and be glad with that. However, Mr Casual player, can also play effectively. All he has to do is listen to his RM, and show up on GSA at the appointed time, and smash the enemy facing him. Both are equally important. Unlike the D2, a casual player has a good chance to have a fair effect on the outcome of the game, since there's need to farm PP for a ship, and since the combat takes place at a known time, it IMO is easier for the casual player to participate.

At any rate, I'm hoping that I can get everyone to particiate and am fairly optimistic at the moment.

[KHH Jakle]

I can volunteer time and ideas...

I have F&E through AO, so I am up to date manual wise and I am familiar enough with the whole rule set to be able to offer help proof reading.  I am moderately familiar with Cyberboard (I've used it as part of the GW4 camp that 9th fleet ran).

jakle@comcast.net...on msn it's jakle@attbi.com

[FPF-DieHard]

Yes Max, let's break the fleet engagement up into smaller battles.   Try to keep the AI to t mimimum

IMHO, cut all command ratings in half, round up for the DNs.

Check the forums for the link to the latest DH123 stuff.  BTW, this a BETA.   Everything tecnically works but may need tweaking for balance.

[762_XC]

Subtract 4 from the command ratings. This way you keep differentiation between the classes.

[Surfal]

Yes Max, let's break the fleet engagement up into smaller battles.   Try to keep the AI to t mimimum

IMHO, cut all command ratings in half, round up for the DNs.

Check the forums for the link to the latest DH123 stuff.  BTW, this a BETA.   Everything tecnically works but may need tweaking for balance.

If we cut the command ratings in half we produce many many more battles.  Unfortunately we can't recreate full battle lines because that means 11 ships, and with 3/player we max at 9 ships per side.  How about reducing command ratings by 2, so we can have 8 ship fleets, or 9 ships with a command point. 

Is GSA stable for 3x3?

[Davey-E]

Hi All

Speaking from Experience, Our VG in STOC suffers from lack of participation due to time zones, Real Life and other things
What you will need to make this work is mass numbers within all tactical groups
eg: when A,B,C,D, and E are not available, F can make the decisions to move or fight
Also, I have pity on the Moderator/s as its a nightmare with 8 races involved
(We,ve been stuck in the VG for 3 months plus at Turn 28 i think)

My Advice for what its worth would be to go down the road of the War Scenario type Campaign where you could have a similar setup to say General War 1 on the Dyna  (Kzin V Lyran/Klingon)

That way you would get more players per race, and a faster turnaround of battles and moves etc

[Davey-E]

Just a little more info

In the War Scenario Campaign we were running alongside the VG, (I was Moderator)
We played a Rom V Fed Scenario using Fog-of-war, Each side got thier own map (using cyberboard) which meant they could only see what their sensors etc allowed them to (Hence the Rom cloak became a very powerful weapon- as it should be IMHO)

Because we could muster 4-5 peeps per Race we sped along quite nicely and soon the Roms were crossing the NZ,

However i made a fatal flaw in my rules that was misunderstood by all (Including me sometimes  )
I found the FOW worked really well overall and we managed some Good Battles, with the Feds losing a few Sensor posts and bases etc, Roms lost a few ships and all to play for,

But real life comes along and hence the reason you need as many per group as possible, Otherwise the hold ups will be a nightmare,
Max,s idea for taking control will work until the 1st group thinks they are being unfairly treat because they cant get online,
Solution = Lots of players per race     

[KHH Jakle]

I believe F&E does come with preset scenario's in order to play the Campaign out peice-meal, so it breaking it down wouldn't be like making anything from scratch.

[FPF-DieHard]

Yes Max, let's break the fleet engagement up into smaller battles.   Try to keep the AI to t mimimum

IMHO, cut all command ratings in half, round up for the DNs.

Check the forums for the link to the latest DH123 stuff.  BTW, this a BETA.   Everything tecnically works but may need tweaking for balance.

If we cut the command ratings in half we produce many many more battles.  Unfortunately we can't recreate full battle lines because that means 11 ships, and with 3/player we max at 9 ships per side.  How about reducing command ratings by 2, so we can have 8 ship fleets, or 9 ships with a command point. 

Is GSA stable for 3x3?

Yes, GSA and direct IP can stably handle 3v3.

I would rather not have anymore than 6 ships pre team in a battle.   let us keep AI to a minimum.   t00l's ide of subtract 4 from the command rating is a good one 

As far as keeping thing more reasonable, maybe we should do things on a smaller scale?   Cut ship production and starting OOB to keep tha amount of counters lower maybe?

[Surfal]

I would rather not have anymore than 6 ships pre team in a battle.   let us keep AI to a minimum.   t00l's ide of subtract 4 from the command rating is a good one 

As far as keeping thing more reasonable, maybe we should do things on a smaller scale?   Cut ship production and starting OOB to keep tha amount of counters lower maybe?

If we are down to 6 ships/side it would probably be best to cut production and the starting OOB.  Unfortunately, this means more work and worst of all, achieving consensus on how to cut 

[benbean]

I have been waiting for someone to initiate a Cyberboard General War that was a near direct translation of F&E....

What do I have to do to get in on this?  I can bring all of KHH....

Say that you want to play? We're not some l33t haxors here. Anyone and everyone that has an interest can play. Actually, player interest is something that I've never been concerned about. More problematic is finding volunteers that have time to help do the work. I've been mostly doing it all myself. Part of this is at the start I frankly underestimated the amount of work it would take to start with F&E and "SFCize" it. However, I can see the time when everything will be finished and the real fun will begin.

If you want to help out let me know. Not only do we need people to do the work on the forms and other such things, but also do simple things like take the rules and proofread them. They make sense to me (of course). Whether they make sense to someone with no F&E background or SFB background is a different matter.

Looks like you found my niche Max. I have no SFB or F&E background other than 4+ years of playing SFC. I'd be happy to read your rule set and provide feedback for you. Email them to me at the address in my profile.

[Lepton]

Yes Max, let's break the fleet engagement up into smaller battles.   Try to keep the AI to t mimimum

IMHO, cut all command ratings in half, round up for the DNs.

Check the forums for the link to the latest DH123 stuff.  BTW, this a BETA.   Everything tecnically works but may need tweaking for balance.

If this is beta, how does it get un-betaed, especially if we are considering using it?

Great work, DH.  I dl'ed the shiplist last night.  Looks good to me, not that I know anything about shiplist though.

Also, I would personally be glad to hear from those who had experience with the General War series run by the 9th and Ghis.  Perhaps there are some pitfalls we can avoid or techiques we can use that came out of that series of campaigns.

Let's keep this ball rolling.

[KHH Jakle]

While the 9v9 AI battles are huge slug fests...this isn't too far off the mark.  

In SFB, Fleet battles usually degenerated into wild melee's after formations came within hitting distance.

Stability does become a concern...battle need to be run at around speed 5 (but with that many ships to manage, that's needed anyway)

But if you limit it to 3v3 (where stability concerns are near unheard of save for the few dialup hold -outs out there):  how do you resolve Base Assaults?  I can see how you can make it all ship v ship as repeated approach battles until there are no defenders - but 3 ships versus a Starbase?  It would probably force the attacker to locate too many capital ship resources in one location in order to pull it off...

The General War then becomes a series of squadron actions....

[KHH Jakle]

I have experience with Ghis's campaign?I ran the Mirak in GW4 (which I believe was the last one). 

Fleet battles (9v9) was used for that.  All in all, they went pretty well.  The problem is the participants and making sure you have a sufficient base to have those responisble ofr playing out the matches show up - this I believe what killed it - the Klink RM disappeared IIRC

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

I would rather not have anymore than 6 ships pre team in a battle.   let us keep AI to a minimum.   t00l's ide of subtract 4 from the command rating is a good one  

As far as keeping thing more reasonable, maybe we should do things on a smaller scale?   Cut ship production and starting OOB to keep tha amount of counters lower maybe?

I think cutting CR's (command ratings) in half then rounding down for line/specialty ships or rounding up for command ships, if there is a fraction involved, is the way to go.

As for cutting ship production... I don't agree with that.

[FPF-DieHard]

I have experience with Ghis's campaign?I ran the Mirak in GW4 (which I believe was the last one). 

Fleet battles (9v9) was used for that.  All in all, they went pretty well.  The problem is the participants and making sure you have a sufficient base to have those responisble ofr playing out the matches show up - this I believe what killed it - the Klink RM disappeared IIRC

I flew Fed on that, actually flew on your wing in a battle.   What killed that campaign was the turn in 2268 where the Klingons lost 19 cruisers and 2 DNs.   

[Surfal]

Those of you that played these previous incarnations, what was your experience with casualty levels? 

Given the nature of online play I'd expect very high levels of casualties, far above what F&E assigns.

[762_XC]

Those of you that played these previous incarnations, what was your experience with casualty levels? 

Given the nature of online play I'd expect very high levels of casualties, far above what F&E assigns.

Yes, for carriers especially.

[Lepton]

While the 9v9 AI battles are huge slug fests...this isn't too far off the mark. 

In SFB, Fleet battles usually degenerated into wild melee's after formations came within hitting distance.

Stability does become a concern...battle need to be run at around speed 5 (but with that many ships to manage, that's needed anyway)

But if you limit it to 3v3 (where stability concerns are near unheard of save for the few dialup hold -outs out there):  how do you resolve Base Assaults?  I can see how you can make it all ship v ship as repeated approach battles until there are no defenders - but 3 ships versus a Starbase?  It would probably force the attacker to locate too many capital ship resources in one location in order to pull it off...

The General War then becomes a series of squadron actions....

Concerning base assaults, every base assault that I was involved in as the defender in GW was a cake walk for the attacker especially for the federation in that they were able to muster 9 ship fleets.  Of course that is from my rather skewed perspective as the one being beat up on.  It was a proxie torpedo fest. 

Restricting fleet sizes might make territory more defendable in general making things move slower on the fronts.  It could also make the actual fighting of the battles more important than who can plan and muster forces better on the strategic level which I think would be a good thing so that the fates of the empires can rise and fall more on the efforts of pilots than on the efforts of a few planners.

[KHH Jakle]

But in a strategic campaign, it is the skill of the planners that become the chief determiner of the success of one's 'race'

What you describe is the pro of the D2 - that the individual players efforts are paramount.  But F&E is a game at the strategic level.  Adapting it to use OP as the method of determining those battles is what makes it available to everybody.  That's my interpretation anyway.

And your right, a Starbase by itself against 9 ships will go down...but that is expected.  What I am saying is that 3 ships versus a Starbase puts too much burden on the attacker.

I agree with you - it will make territory more defendable and slow down the front - I just don't see that as a good thing.  Again, this is supposed to be a strategic game, where you can attack along a broad front.  I am thinking limitiing it to 3v3 will force attackers into single thrusts.  Attacks will too easily be blunted, and make the whole campaign bog down...

[Lepton]

While people do make a difference in the D2, those who love to kiss its smelly hiney would plead that strategy is their aim as well.  I personally do not want this incarnation of the General War to evolve into something where the fate of the campaign rests with the few (the planners), instead of the masses (the pilots).  While I certainly understand that F&E is a strategic game, it is more my understanding or at least my preference that F&E form a basis for the campaign but that the campaign not be restricted by it into being only a strategic game.  Otherwise, we might as well be rolling dice.  If there is someone who is just a better planner or F&E player on one side, should the pilots have to suffer for it?  I don't think anyone wants to be a character in someone else's play here.

[762_XC]

What Jakle said.

Fleet vs undefended base = dead base

It's supposed to be that way.

[FPF-DieHard]

Fleets would still exist.  i think 6 ships versus 6 ships is just far more managable than 9 on 9.

[KHH Jakle]

Lepton - I see your point, in that in a strategy heavy campaign the individual player may suffer in terms of how engaged they may feel.  Many players could care less about the strategy, as long as they are told when to show up and they get to play.  Others feel the need to get engaged in the strategy at some level.  That is a known thing, and a persistent complaint I think with all similar enterprises  - with the exception (perhaps) of Ghis's GW camps.  It seemed to me that everyone involved new what it was about and accepted their part in the play.

It is what it is.  There are inumerable different ways to engage those who want to be engaged, you just have to make the effort.

Max might agree with you - and it's his baby.  If he wants to make it 3v3, so be it - I just think that kills the whole flavor of what this kind of campaign represents (same as tinkering with the OOB to scale this down)

[Max Power]

I haven't made a decision about squadron sizes yet, other than I know for a fact I want to limit the amount of AI interaction to a minimum. Currently, what I was thinking of is having squadrons of 6 or 9, and breaking them down to individual 3v3 battles; AI could be added upon agreement of both sides to save time if desired. Bases will have to be handled in a unknown different manner (I was thinking of approach battles). Again, everything about combat has yet to be decided.

[762_XC]

If you limit the command ratings that will make a practical limit on the AI.

Worst case scenario with -4 command rating modifier:

DN flagship (command rating 10-4=6)
6 line ships
Free scout
1 drone ship

= 9 total

[Lepton]

Considering a full fleet headed by a ship with a 10 command rating would not even be doable in SFC in one battle, there has to be some reduction in the command ratings unless there are a set of rules intended to break up large fleets which amounts to reducing command ratings for all intents and purposes anyway.

[Surfal]

Considering a full fleet headed by a ship with a 10 command rating would not even be doable in SFC in one battle, there has to be some reduction in the command ratings unless there are a set of rules intended to break up large fleets which amounts to reducing command ratings for all intents and purposes anyway.

Actually I think it is, but scripting help would be required.  I think you can have up to six ships under your control, including 1-3 that you come in the fight with, and 1-5 added by the scenario.  Don't think that's practical though.

[762_XC]

Actually the theoretical limit is 18 ships under your control, but that has to be scripted.

FMSE made it easy. Too bad it was never ported to OP.

[KBF-Crim]

Actually the theoretical limit is 18 ships under your control, but that has to be scripted.

FMSE made it easy. Too bad it was never ported to OP.

Yeah too bad....

Another project if anyone wants something to do....