Topic: What do I have to do to sell this...?

[KHH Jakle]

Hey, it's me....the GZ guy.

Back in January I came over here (meaning the Taldren boards) to try to pitch a new league concept.  I count myself exceedingly lucky in having enticed Green to come over as well as GDA.

We are getting ready to wrap up Cycle 2 of Divisional Play.  Cycle 2 spanned all of the summer, so as typical of GSA play since SFC1, the volume of players has dropped - of course nowadays, that means things are at a crawl.  I am hopeful that Cycle 3 will successfully kick off in September with a bit more vigor.

Anyway, I bring this up again with a plea:  essentially, this 'League' is basically a collection of players who simply love playing this Game (Orion Pirates utilizing Firesoul's OP+).  Where as years ago, this was a passionate pursuit, where we would all find ourselves online in MPig/GSA multiple nights a week, now were pursue this as a hobby, played for it's pure enjoyment.  We dedicate ourselves to about 2-3 hours of play, once a week in team games (2v2/3v3), scheduled against designated opponents.  When you break it down to bare bones - that's what we're all about.

So here is my plea - we are all here, on these forums, because we love this game.  Is there a way that our Divisional Play could be structured to dovetail into place with D2 play?

What we currently offer:

Scheduled matches (best of 3 game series)
Play commitment is basically 1 match per week, but there is a lot of flexibility there
Games are 3v3 (will allowances for 2v2).
Each game uses a predetermined Total BPV to be divided amongst the players on each team
Era is predetermined
(basically, there is no negotiation, except when working out the day/time of the match)


The competition is Team based - basically and collection of 3 or more players consitutes a team.  People have a tendency to think 'Fleets' in the traditional ladder sense, where volume of players mattered - but all the players in the world make no difference there.  Matches are Race-based, meaning that if you say your team is Fed for the cycle, then you fly fed in all your matches.

So that's what we have now.  Is there anything we could add to the framework to make it any more appealing - or easier?  Easier for D2 focused people to participate?

I am eager to try to make mandatory the adoption of GZ's CnC system called Patrol Battle Rules, but at least 8 teams are needed who are willing to work with that to put it in place - not sure if playing under an SFB-ish framework would be attractive (some like it because it eliminated 'Cheese' combos and is felt to improve the game experience)

I don't know, but I am earnestly looking for input from everyone here as to what set up would make participating in some organized GSA play worthwhile.

Thank You

[Green]

Gotta agree w/ Jakle ... it is a hoot.  Worth the effort.

[Lepton]

Unless you can put forth endless AI missions for purposeless and meaningless gain, I don't think you will attract a D2 crowd.

The main reason I have not joined GZ is the conference play system.  While it's a fine idea, it seems to me if you join up with a fleet currently involved in conference play, you may be unlikely to ever fly in one of those matches.  So what's the point?

Also as far as I know there are only 3 games scheduled per week or something to that effect.  D2 guys want 24/7 action even if it is beating up on lines of code.  I also think those in the D2 have had their fill of ladder leagues which I think is the other component of GZ, the skirmishes.

So to sell it, I have no idea, but there are likely to be few takers. 

Prove me wrong, folks.

[Corbomite]

Unless you can put forth endless AI missions for purposeless and meaningless gain, I don't think you will attract a D2 crowd.

Its a game. What sort of meaning are you looking for here? In Monoploy you roll dice and try to gather as much "real estate" as you can while trying to have fun. I can find no worthwhile "meaning" other than that for any game, SFC included.

The main reason I have not joined GZ is the conference play system.  While it's a fine idea, it seems to me if you join up with a fleet currently involved in conference play, you may be unlikely to ever fly in one of those matches.  So what's the point?

To have fun with people you enjoy playing with and hanging out with. If you are an asset to your team, I'm sure they will make a spot for you.

Also as far as I know there are only 3 games scheduled per week or something to that effect.  D2 guys want 24/7 action even if it is beating up on lines of code.  I also think those in the D2 have had their fill of ladder leagues which I think is the other component of GZ, the skirmishes.

I would ask you to just speak for yourself on this issue as you really have no idea of the mind of everyone who plays this game, whatever part they may enjoy.

So to sell it, I have no idea, but there are likely to be few takers. 

Prove me wrong, folks.

Since none of us were put here to impress you or prove anything to you, I'll decline the offer.


While I have nothing against you Lepton and I think you do usually bring up valid points, I find it hard, as I have from the beginning, to respect anyone's opinion that complains about the game more than they play it.

[Corbomite]

Unless you can put forth endless AI missions for purposeless and meaningless gain, I don't think you will attract a D2 crowd.

Its a game. What sort of meaning are you looking for here? In Monopoly you roll dice and try to gather as much "real estate" as you can while trying to have fun. I can find no worthwhile "meaning" other than that for any game, SFC included.

The main reason I have not joined GZ is the conference play system.  While it's a fine idea, it seems to me if you join up with a fleet currently involved in conference play, you may be unlikely to ever fly in one of those matches.  So what's the point?

To have fun with people you enjoy playing with and hanging out with. If you are an asset to your team, I'm sure they will make a spot for you.

Also as far as I know there are only 3 games scheduled per week or something to that effect.  D2 guys want 24/7 action even if it is beating up on lines of code.  I also think those in the D2 have had their fill of ladder leagues which I think is the other component of GZ, the skirmishes.

I would ask you to just speak for yourself on this issue as you really have no idea of the mind of everyone who plays this game, whatever part they may enjoy.

So to sell it, I have no idea, but there are likely to be few takers. 

Prove me wrong, folks.

Since none of us were put here to impress you or prove anything to you, I'll decline the offer.


While I have nothing against you Lepton and I think you do usually bring up valid points, I find it hard, as I have from the beginning, to respect anyone's opinion that complains about the game more than they play it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Hey Lepton, I invite you to join the GDA for GZ. GZ has been a lot of fun, and has really breathed new life into the game for me.  Sure it has it's own issues, but makes for a nice PvP play.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Lepton I don't do GZ, must admit I've considered it however.  Everyone I know who has participated has found it fun and rewarding.  I'd recommend it as much as someone who hasn't tried it can.

The only reason I haven't tried it is that its the strategic nature of SFC that is most appealing to me and the fact that I work off hours.  However, I do think I will get around to giving it a shot at some time in the future.

[Cleaven]

Unless you can put forth endless AI missions for purposeless and meaningless gain, I don't think you will attract a D2 crowd.

The main reason I have not joined GZ is the conference play system.  While it's a fine idea, it seems to me if you join up with a fleet currently involved in conference play, you may be unlikely to ever fly in one of those matches.  So what's the point?

Also as far as I know there are only 3 games scheduled per week or something to that effect.  D2 guys want 24/7 action even if it is beating up on lines of code.  I also think those in the D2 have had their fill of ladder leagues which I think is the other component of GZ, the skirmishes.

So to sell it, I have no idea, but there are likely to be few takers. 

Prove me wrong, folks.

Somebody is trolling, or doesn't undestand what a sweeping generalisation is.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I've found GZ to be a lot of fun.  If you haven't tried it, I'd encourage you to give it a shot.  What makes GZ work for me, when I wasn't into a lot of other GSA stuff, is the fact that every match is three on three.  Participating really helps you develop your fleet flying skills.  Since you need to fit three ships into a randomly selected BPV each match, you also end up flying a lot of ships you simply wouldn't ever use on D2.

It's fun.  It's different.  It's worth a try.  And Chuut, if you ever want to join in the fun, you could always bring back GDT-Graz'Taz and join us in the GDA.

-S'Cipio

[KBFLordKrueg]

Hmm, I could maybe get back into GZ play. I mostly stopped playing there due to the endless haggleing over BPV, etc. for a match. The constant connection issues with some players was also maddening sometimes. I could be on GSA for an hour and be lucky to complete 1 or 2 games at best. I could run 6-8 missions in the same time on D2. Another big factor was that the last fleet I was in (MoK) kinda fell apart and I just didn't feel like jumping into another fleet right away. Then I discovered the great sense of comradery on D2, got invited to join KBF and just kinda stayed with it.
But, if there is sceduled matches with pre-agreed BPV, etc It would be nice to show up, play a couple games and have some fun...

[Mog]

As a former occasional ladder player (HoZ, HMT, RAK and CB), I too was turned off by the hassles of negotiations etc. My main problem is still time zones. Being in England makes it damn hard to fit in with the rest of you, otherwise I could be interested (though I don't know for what fleet).

[Cleaven]

As a former occasional ladder player (HoZ, HMT, RAK and CB), I too was turned off by the hassles of negotiations etc. My main problem is still time zones. Being in England makes it damn hard to fit in with the rest of you, otherwise I could be interested (though I don't know for what fleet).

I had the same dramas, so you can join my fleet. We only do battle between midnight and 4 am on Sat mornings, US time.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

I presently fly with iCoP in GZ's 3v3 format. 

[KHH Jakle]

Also as far as I know there are only 3 games scheduled per week or something to that effect.   I also think those in the D2 have had their fill of ladder leagues which I think is the other component of GZ, the skirmishes.

Nobody uses the Scrimmage system (aka 'Skirmish' ladder).  It's there...but nobody bothers with it.

Ultimately what I am groping for is bringing teams of players over - not necessarily onesy-twoseys who come over and join an existing team/fleet.  Don't get me wrong - every single individual who participates adds a great deal to the whole.  But ultimately the play needs teams to pit against each other.

That's probably an additional stumbling block.  Each team needs not only 3-4 reliable players, but one player willing to take point and schedule the matches and notify his wings of the date/time.

But that's part of what I am here asking about - what could be done to make this special enough and novel enough to participate? 

To respond to another of Lepton's comments - the desire for 24/7 action.  Well that's what the D2's for .  Again, I am trying to offer something on the side:  pure team pvp action, scheduled to minimize wasted time.  When you break it down to the core, that's what we are. 

So what else do we need to be?

[Lepton]

Whew!  You guys really cannot identify jokes.  I think GZ is great, but I also think it's a bit ironic trying to convince folks that seemed to have already voted with their feet for the D2 to head over to GZ.  I'm glad to see you guys support GZ.  Perhaps you'll get the infusion of folks you are looking for, but I have no idea what incentive that can be offered.

[KHH Jakle]

Ironic?  Yeah, I guess it is.  I have no illusions.  It is quite evident to me that in the evolution of this game, the D2 side of the house is the side that has maintained a greater degree of vigor than the GSA side of the house.

I never would have thought this the case - my perception has always been that D2 play simply sucked and that GSA ladder leagues was the way to go.  As it is, I only participate in the GW series, but my overall perception of D2 play has changed.

I am asking that folks here extend themselves out to another venue with nothing in return but the chance that it might increase their overall enjoyment of this game, but that would be the only thing they will get in return, there is no other real incentive perse.

So if that incetive is at all attractive - what might still be in the way that would cause a D2'er balk at participating.

I am thinking now that the main stumbling block is really the lack of centrally controlled 'Fleet's over here.  My impression is that a lot of people are totally independant players, players that identify with a certain race but no fleet allegiance, or players that are affiliated with a loose organization but that does not have a central head. 

I think GDA has adapted well because Kel took interest and pulled a team together and then continued as point man (or leveraging Kroma in his place).  That's a good example of how teams need that lead point guy - it's not enough to have willing players, someone needs to pull them together.

I mean, would it help if I somehow facilitated a pool of interested players, and then once it reached critical mass look for willing individuals to act as the team leaders?

[FPF-Jem]

Quick question, how are the games played, over Gamespy?

It does sound interesting but I really dislike gamespy, which is the biggest hangup for me.

[Mog]

Ironic?  Yeah, I guess it is.  I have no illusions.  It is quite evident to me that in the evolution of this game, the D2 side of the house is the side that has maintained a greater degree of vigor than the GSA side of the house.

I never would have thought this the case - my perception has always been that D2 play simply sucked and that GSA ladder leagues was the way to go.  As it is, I only participate in the GW series, but my overall perception of D2 play has changed.

You weren't alone in that feeling lol. I think the majority of the ladder players felt that way. I tried many times to inform my fleetmates that it had changed from the early days, but they just wouldn't have it. I'm pretty sure they thought that us D2 players sucked too in terms of skill. I tried to disavow them of that notion also

As I said in my previous post, really the only things stopping me from joining up are time zones and not being in any group or fleet. I don't understand your final paragraph.

[KHH Jakle]

Ack!  No GSA?

Seriously - GSA is the standard method of connecting for matches.  However, it is in no way required.  IP games are just as valid....it would seem a little unorthodox so most, but I've done IP connect games before, there isn't much to setting them up.

The trick would be setting it up.  We use an interface to negotiate the match time, then a scheduler when the day/time has been agreed upon.  If some one wanted to host and had a fixed IP, you could load that into the scheduler, and it would be visible to all players.  Otherwise, you'd have to have some venue with which to communicate it (email, IM.....GSA chat room)

Does my earlier 'Team Matching' idea sound at all agree able to any individual interested players?

[FPF-AJTK]

Man, few things betta than watching Corbo and Cleaven get up a head of steam! 

I mean, DH is more entertaining in a vulgar sort of way, but hes all the time getting banned, just when he is getting warmed up! 

[Lepton]

Head of steam??  More like a fart with a little sh** in it.  It just makes them look and smell bad.

[Corbomite]

Head of steam??  More like a fart with a little sh** in it.  It just makes them look and smell bad.

Says the guy with the -31 Karma. 


I don't know what I did to deserve this cheap shot as I was very civil in my response to your ignorant mumbling. So be it. You got what you wanted. You've made an enemy. Next time I'll just sh*t in your face instead.

[Lepton]

Lordy, so touchy.  It's a bit of scatological humor.  Get over it.

[Corbomite]

 


Now who can't recognize a joke? You can be quite sure I don't give a rat's ass about what you say or think.

[Ronin]

I don't know, but I am earnestly looking for input from everyone here as to what set up would make participating in some organized GSA play worthwhile.

While I can not speak for everyone, I can't help feeling that some sort of strategic element would be helpful if your goal is to bring D2 players into the GZ realm. While the "live or die" aspect of GZ play is a rush, and the challenge (in terms of tactics) formidable and enjoyable, something beyond a weekly battle for a "win" might be helpful in luring D2 players to try your offering.

Do I recall that GZ was once discussing a system that incorporated spies and a realm of intellectual and "non-combat" activities that would work in conjunction with their league? A system which, like the D2, has the potential to put the group who used their brainpower best in the winners circle? Something like that would interest me. But if it was merely discussed and dropped I would certainly understand a reluctance on your part to spend a lot of time and effort on something that might bring D2 pilots to your league.

I wish I could offer more in the way of constructive ideas on what would accomplish what you seek. I offer these thoughts for what they are worth with hope that it may be of some help.

Respects and kind regards...

[KHH Jakle]

That is a great idea.  Unfortunately, we are limited by what can be done with existing code/framework in the short term.  Long Term....well, the crystal ball is hazy.

Kel posted and interesting comment on our boards:  we are having a discussion about setting up a companion divisional league that is a bit more...recreational (same format, but a bit looser on the match completion timelines).

This league would have what you guys generically call 'CnC' built in.  GZ has developed a set of SFB based ship selection criteria called 'Patrol Battle Rules' (PBR) which is very popular with the GDA bunch. 

In addition to eliminating what some might consider 'cheese' combos, it also adds a great deal of depth and thought to each game, as each side has to is tested to come up with the best available combo (subject to the confines of PBR) as well as has the skill to get the most out of non-supercharged 'line' ships.

is that attractive?

[FPF-DieHard]

My fleet is interested but I have my reservations after reading many of the after action reports. 

I would like a GZ league to be more like "Stock Car Racing,"  I want pilot skill, not who can develop the cheesiest fleet, to determine who wins or looses.

Is PBR mandatory in the next cycle?   If yes, count me in.  If no, I'll wait until that happens.

I like the SFC battle forces you have on your website and would love to see a league that only uses them. 

[KHH Jakle]

Stay tuned then...cause I am working on the PBR league.  It's just a matter of numbers.  I need 8 teams.  So far, I have 3 completely viable teams: KHH, FSD, GDA.  There's another 3-4 on the fence (either not sure if they are still viable, or not sure about PBR).

So, if you can bring a team with you....that's a big net gain.

As for your After Action Report comment:  your right, this last cycle has seen an increase in rancor between teams that have widely differeing views of what the game should be.  Within the GZ communti, you have the anything goes crowd, and the PBR crowd.  That, along with some unnecessary roughness so to speak has brought in an unsavory element to the league.  I honestly feel like the PBR crowd is overall much more fun bunch....

Battle Forces:  totally agree.  Optimumly, it would be excellent to move from TBPV games to Battle Force games.  The stumbling block there is each race needs some one who both understands PBR and knows their race to develop competetive Battle Forces.  I wrote all the ones on my website, and I received commentary from those that know those races that said "that's not what I would have put together" - and that's WITH PBR in place.  So I don't have the skill set to design Battle Forces across the full spectrum.  When it comes down to it, I only know Klink.

So it would take continued development.  Getting the PBR League in place would probably be a leap in that direction.

[FPF-DieHard]

Count me in for a PBR league.   I suggest making battleforces an option.

PS, your Federation ones were pretty damn good for someboby who only know Klingon.

[GDA-Kel]

As I said in my previous post, really the only things stopping me from joining up are time zones and not being in any group or fleet. I don't understand your final paragraph.

I wouldn't worry too much about timezone differences for you or Cleaven.  We (the GDA) have flown matches starting at 9 AM (EST) on a Saturday to starting as late as 10 PM (EST) on a weekday.  Most fleets are also equally accomodating regarding scheduling.

As far as fleets go, we could always use another experienced 'Bruce,' if you're so inclined Of course, you could always try and put your own team together.  The term 'fleet' is a bit too official for this structure.  You really only need 3-5 guys and a method of staying in relatively close contact with each other.  Jakle is correct in that you need one guy to remain 'engaged' to facilitate scheduling matches and rounding up your 3 man team. 

A Rom fleet would be a nice addition.....     

[Mog]

Ah Kel, i should have added, weekends are usually out for me wrt SFC playing, leaving weekdays from 1pm EST to 6pm EST.

[KHH Jakle]

http://gzleagues.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=84

I set up a seperate forum for PBR League discussions.

Thanks FPF for pinging our main forum.  Please monitor the PBR forum (link above) for news

[FPF-DieHard]

http://gzleagues.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=84

I set up a seperate forum for PBR League discussions.

Thanks FPF for pinging our main forum.  Please monitor the PBR forum (link above) for news

Wating for a reply in the fleet forum, we may be a go on the PBR league.

[KHH Jakle]

Awesome.  I anxiously await the asnwer...

[Corbomite]

Jackle,

Since the ISC get and extra bonus (paid for in BPV) of being able to fire more I-Torps than SFB I would limit all ISC fleets to one ship with PPD (1 - 4). Otherwise it looks good to me.

[KHH Jakle]

Interesting....

I think when I first looked at it, in 90% of the cases - that's exactly how it works out (only one PPD armed ship).  But that might have also been a factor of the TBPV limits we were acting under when it was first drafted

In other words, with the highest possible TBPV, if you bought a CC or a DN, there wouldn't be enough BPV left for the other 2 ships to also get a CA.  Of course, I believe there is another ship - the CM? - that was a PPD test bed. 

Anyway - I'll take a look.  Thanks!

[Corbomite]

What I'm worried about is misunderstandings in situations like this:

There are two CL hulls with PPD for the ISC - The CSP(Z) line and the CMP(Z) line. The Strike cruisers have 2 PPD and the Medium Cruisers one PPD.

Now the confusion starts one which ship is considered the leader. The ISC doesn't have traditional Command Variants like other races and the disticntion here is a little blured as to what the determining ship will be. Their weapons suites are comparable (1 PPD and 2 G-Torps vs 2 PPD's, the rest is the same), but one is labeled a Medium Cruiser. Does that make it "bigger" than a Strike Cruiser of the same hull class?

If it does there is no problem if I read your rules right. There can't be a Strike Cruiser wing to a Medium Cruiser because of the one PPD slot (I read that as one PPD only, not one PPD ship). If the Strike Cruiser can be designated leader then we have a problem.

[KHH Jakle]

I see what you are saying...

What it seems like is that in this specific situation, there is room for debate on which one is the 'Lead' - based on how I defined it.

I'd like to see if there is a way to fix that without locking them into only one PPD armed ship.

[Evil Kraven]

hmmmm, I would think the ships you speak of, would be under a command varient. does ISC have a support ship?nI would think they would have some ppd supporting ships. so it would be kind of difficult to restrict it.

but I don't see a multiple PPD ships being together (faceing like 6 or more ppd's should'nt happen). also any carriers would need escorts. that tones done the use of strike carriers I would think.

JMHO

"The Evil One"
Kraven

[KHH Jakle]

It's a Strike Cruiser Krav - not a Strike Carrier.  So the Carrier/Escorts rule doesn't come into play

Those two ships aren't command variants - so that one doesn't come into play either.

All races have Combat Support ships - but neither of these ships fit that bill.

No - these are just line ships that happen to make a muddle of the PPD Deployment rule.  I need to fix that.  I'll probably need to make several tweaks prior to the PBR League Cycle kick off.  I kinda laid off on updates a couple months ago.

You are right though - no matter what, in a 3 ship squadron, no way the PPD's could exceed 5 (much less 6).

Corbo - did you look at the Matrix at all?  Any recommendations on making that more user friendly as a reference tool?

[Corbomite]

No I haven't had time to peruse the Matrix just yet, but I will. I'm still trying to get a team together.

IMO the CMP(Z) line is superior and should designated the Command Variant for the ISC CL's unless you want to lay it on the Carriers in the hull class, but they already have rules and it doesn't fix the problem. While the Strike Cruisers cost a bit more the Medium Cruisers have better firing arcs (FH vs FA on the Plasma vs the PPD), more crunch power (2x Plasma G vs 1x PPD), a more versatile weapon in the Plasmas (Enveloping, Pseudo, Fast Loading F's, firing within range 4) and the Designation "Medium" signifying that it is a bit "bigger" than a normal CL. It is between a Light and Heavy Cruiser by definition.

[KHH Jakle]

Gotcha

No I haven't had time to peruse the Matrix just yet, but I will. I'm still trying to get a team together.

Cool!

[KHH Jakle]

Just to make things official:  I just made the notice on our forums that our next cycle will be using PBR as the 'CnC' for all matches.

Hope to get all you interested parties on board

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

If anyone needs an extra Fed or Hydran pilot, let me know.

I will give this a whirl.

[Corbomite]

I would still advocate only one ship with PPD's if I-Torps are in play. Maybe you could give them a choice based on the number of ships with I-Torps chosen. At the risk of over complicating matters how about something like this:

(This part would obviously only pertain to 3v3's and the PPD rule would still apply)

If three ships are flown the ISC team may have one of these options -

1) Three ships, all with no PPD may all have I-Torps

2) Three ships, one with PPD may have two with I-Torps

3) Three ships, two with PPD may have one with I-Torps.


I took a look at the Matrix and noted a few anomalies that I will post when I get more time.

[Julin Eurthyr]

I wouldn't worry too much about PPD / Z-refit ISC fleets.  Don't forget the ISC's naturally high BPVs counter-act the situation a lot...

Considering that a I-CSZ = D7L or D5L range BPV, the I-CAZ = C7 range, and I-CCZ = DN, I don't see a lot of high PPD / Pl-I ISC fleets flying, unless the enemy's getting a lot of 2xCLC & BCH or 2xBCH & 1 DN fleets, the ISC probably can't afford them.  The most I'd probably see is a CCZ, CSZ and CLZ as a typical BCH / CLC / CW ISC force...

However, in mid-era fights with just the P or Y refits, then it might be feasable to fly an all-PPD fleet, which could get annoying fast.  So, I'd recommend going with a variant of the SFB-rules on PPDs.

The original rule calls for the PPDs on the flagship (up to 4 for a DN / BB), and one more PPD for every 3 ships in addition to the command ship.  Therefore, per SFB, to get a second PPD ship you need a 4 ship squadron...

I'd recommend a limit of 4 PPDs, total, in any SFC fleet.  Excemptions may be necessary if the fleet construction rules (say a Mid-era DN & 2 CA battle, if the DNT's not out or can't be afforded, the I-DN gets 4 PPDs and the CAs get 1 PPD each), for the era etc, make it impossible to field a near-equal competitive BPV fleet without going overboard on PPDs.

Oh, Jackie, I noticed the CSX (Strike Cruiser, X-refit) is a "command" boat, and the DDL line is not on the list...

[KHH Jakle]

However, in mid-era fights with just the P or Y refits, then it might be feasable to fly an all-PPD fleet, which could get annoying fast.  So, I'd recommend going with a variant of the SFB-rules on PPDs.

The original rule calls for the PPDs on the flagship (up to 4 for a DN / BB), and one more PPD for every 3 ships in addition to the command ship.  Therefore, per SFB, to get a second PPD ship you need a 4 ship squadron

I'd recommend a limit of 4 PPDs, total, in any SFC fleet.  Excemptions may be necessary if the fleet construction rules (say a Mid-era DN & 2 CA battle, if the DNT's not out or can't be afforded, the I-DN gets 4 PPDs and the CAs get 1 PPD each), for the era etc, make it impossible to field a near-equal competitive BPV fleet without going overboard on PPDs....

That is almost exactly how the PBR PPD Deployment Restriction is worded - except our in house SFB Rule's lawyers interpreted the rule as saying the 3rd ship allotted an additional PPD 'slot'.  I actually initially interpreted your way.

Oh, Jackie, I noticed the CSX (Strike Cruiser, X-refit) is a "command" boat, and the DDL line is not on the list...

Thanks...I need all the help I can get fine tuning it  - and soon.  I'd like to wrap it up this weekend so I can publish and official Cycle 3 version.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Okay...

As an experienced ISC captain (though not a ladder player), Looking things over, this is what I've seen so far...

On the rules site:

PPD Deployment Limits:  The ISC limited the fielding of PPD?s.  For a Squadron of ISC ships of 3 or less, the number of PPD?s cannot exceed 4.  ex.  A CCZ and CAZ together have 4 PPD?s, so their 3rd ship could not have a PPD. A DNZ alone has 4 PPD?s, so none of it?s wings could have a PPD.

Just to let you know, typical PPD deployments in the ISC fleet as of the P refit on:

I-CS series, light cruiser, 2 PPDs
I-CM series, light cruiser, 1 PPD
I-CA series, heavy cruiser, 1 PPD
I-CC series, heavy battlecruiser, 2 PPDs
I-DN(H) 4 PPDs
I-DNT 2 PPDs
I-DNL 3 PPDs
I-BB 4 PPDs
"Strike" Carriers typically have PPDs (usually 2), while the "Fleet" carriers typically have Plasma, but won't be an issue as, IIRC, carriers require 2 escorts, and no ISC escort carries a PPD.  The newer "oddball" ships work differently, Fast cruiser and Local Defense ships have no PPDs, while the NCS gets 2 PPDs on a CA-hull...

So, a CCZ / CAZ pair only has 3 PPDs, allowing a CMZ / CAY as the 4th PPD.
It takes either a DN / BB, CC / NCS, or  CC / CS combination, to prevent a fleet from having 3 PPD-armed ships.

Oh, from the sounds of it:

That is almost exactly how the PBR PPD Deployment Restriction is worded - except our in house SFB Rule's lawyers interpreted the rule as saying the 3rd ship allotted an additional PPD 'slot'.  I actually initially interpreted your way.

And the current PPD rule is derived from the initial reading...   Because if you went with the "group's" interpretation, you could go DNH / DDZ - FFZ / CAZ for 595 (w/DDZ) or 573 (w/FFW) with 4 PPDs on the DNH (or DNZ to save 14 more BPV) and the 3rd ship (CAZ in this case) triggers the "additional PPD slot", making a 5-PPD fleet...

I noticed the rules page called for all fights to occur in "late" era.  Exactly what year is this, as it determines a couple of choices available to the ISC officers...  From what I remember of Firesoul's design, refits "overlap" for like 2 years.  2279-2281 is the best range for ISC officers to work in.  The reason being is that the "Z" refit is issued in 2279, and "Y" refits are still available till 2281.  Being that the "Z" refit adds anywhere from 10 to 29 BPV to a ship, it can mean the difference between CCZ / CAZ / CAY (588 BPV) or CCZ / CAZ / CMZ (577 BPV) as a top-end "DN"-centered fleet.  CCZ / CAZ / CAZ is not possible in your rules because the combination is 617 BPV, and you've capped the BPV at 600...

One other thing, I'd recommend making the full PF tenders fall under the "Carrier" rules, since Taldren, in their infinite wisdom, prevented the PF races from fielding true carriers, calling the PFs their "fighters" instead.  Also, I think, at least on a Plasma standpoint, that this would help even-off a "carrier" battle, as it's PF-tender w/ 2 Pl-D escorts vs. Carrier w/2 typically AMD escorts.  Otherwise, it gets very tempting for the PF players to grab a tender with 4xPFLs as their "support" ship...

[Corbomite]

I agree with Julin about the PF Tenders as carriers. Any ship with more than two PF's should be considered a carrier and follow those guidelines.

I can't disagree more about his PPD deployment plan though. I like the original scope of Jackle's rule, it just needs some fine tuning. The "extra slot" thing is a bit vague. After thinking about it some more IMO your choices for PPD deployment on three ships should look like this:


If the largest ship is a CL hull (this includes the CM's) then two PPD's max.

If the largest ship is a CA hull then three PPD's max.

If the largest ship is a DN hull then four PPD's max.


Using what I said in previous posts and making the CM line the Command Variant for the CL hulls, this allows you to take a Strike Cruiser as leader and get your two PPD's, but you can't have two CMP(Z)'s because that would be two Command Variants. This keeps the Plasma to PPD ratio in line as two or more CMP(Z)'s are hard to beat.

The CA and DN levels are a no brainer, although the Plasma Dred and two Strike Cruisers would be an interesting squad.

I still think I-Torps need to be regulated as well. The BPV paid was a bargain for that function.


A couple of things I noticed in the Matrix -

The R-SPJ should be listed as a Combat Support ship, not a Command Variant.

The R-ROCF and G- DNP aren't listed at all. They should be listed as a Carriers, but if you are not going to modify that part they should at least be listed as Command Variants.

I'm pretty sure there are some more HDW's that should be listed in certain places, but I have to look.

[KHH Jakle]

Data Overflow....

I was thinking to try to keep the rule simple, just to limit ISC formations to a single PPD armed ship.  I am being a little abstract, but considering the other rules - this would dovetail in nicely to defacto represent some fairly accurate squadron construction.  I think anyway - please feel free to trouble shoot.

The Total BPV ranges for matches are set as follows on the random generator:

TBPV ranges:
Early 250-500
Mid 300-600
Late 300-700

[KHH Jakle]

A couple of things I noticed in the Matrix -

The R-SPJ should be listed as a Combat Support ship, not a Command Variant.

The R-ROCF and G- DNP aren't listed at all. They should be listed as a Carriers, but if you are not going to modify that part they should at least be listed as Command Variants.

I'm pretty sure there are some more HDW's that should be listed in certain places, but I have to look.

The R-SPJ has been noted.

Can't believe I missed the ROCF and the DNP.

And the HDW's in OP+ are a bit tricky to ferret out their actual role...so any help there is appreciated.

[Munin_Raven]

Hook me up with a pair of rommies to fly with (i prefer the wingman to winglead role) and a link to where your fleet composition rules are posted and consider me in. (and then watch as the feebs learn to fear the darkness of "empty" space  )

[KHH Jakle]

http://gzleagues.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1220

That will take you to the current Rules...they will be modified prior to Cycle start - nothing hugely signifigant to be changed though.

I'll see about some Rommies....

[el-Karnak]

I'll play with the ISC guys.  Will check with my fleet if they are interested about getting a GFL squadron involved.