Topic: General War GSA campaign

[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.