Topic: General War GSA campaign

[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?