Topic: ATTN: AoTK II RMs.

[KAT J'inn]

You need to read the rules page and provide input PRONTO.

You may post your input or PM me.

And here, let me, help you, help me, help you. 

   Please address the following:


1)  Disengagement Rule     Yes or No.

2)  Line of SUpply Rules      What do you want.

3) Other thoughts.

[Dizzy]

1.) YES! Since we have had ship kill VC's taken away from us, then lets at least still keep the suspense of deep striking going. No deepstriking should be like peanut butter and jelly with destructible bases. Without destructible bases, who cares if you deep strike?

[Braxton_RIP]

1) The Disengagement Rule is needed.   Now remember, I was an Air Force guy, so I know a lot about the whole fight or flight thing.  If I am in my fighter over, say Iraq, and someone fires a SAM at me, there is no magical red safety line that I can just go run over and not have to worry about the SAM anymore.  Infact, if I am over someone elses territory, and get caught, the US, though they will care about it, and hope that I can make it out, won't be able to do anything about it, and I have to fight for every mile that I get closer to friendly air space.  It shouldn't be any different here, if I find someone in the middle of Fed space with a bumper sticker on his ship that says "Earth or Bust" there is no way in hell that I am going to be happy if he gets to run over a little red line and be safe again.

2) Line of Supply is something that is needed, but it should probably be more of an Area of Operation than a Line of Supply.  Again I will use fighter jets as an example.  You can only put so much fuel on a jet, so it can only go so far, but there are no real boundaries as to how far in which direction, it can go a certan distance in one big circle before having to turn around for a refueling.  Back a couple years ago, when I waas still an Admin for the SFC3.net server with Mike Day, we tried a system where the bases provided a certain range of operations, and a planet an even larger area, no matter what color the hexes around them were.  The only stiuplation was, that to provide the area of operation, the base had to somehow have a connection to your homeworld.  It couldn't be placed off 30 hexes into nuetral space in the lone hex your race had manage to capture.  This seems like the best option to me, but again, that is just coming from an Air Force guy, I really haven't ever dealt with the concept of boundaries on land and in air.  You either have more road to drive on, or you don't simple as that.

3) Nothing else comes to mind at the time, but give me time, I'm sure I can come up with something else.

[KAT J'inn]

1) The Disengagement Rule is needed.   Now remember, I was an Air Force guy, so I know a lot about the whole fight or flight thing.  If I am in my fighter over, say Iraq, and someone fires a SAM at me, there is no magical red safety line that I can just go run over and not have to worry about the SAM anymore.  Infact, if I am over someone elses territory, and get caught, the US, though they will care about it, and hope that I can make it out, won't be able to do anything about it, and I have to fight for every mile that I get closer to friendly air space.  It shouldn't be any different here, if I find someone in the middle of Fed space with a bumper sticker on his ship that says "Earth or Bust" there is no way in hell that I am going to be happy if he gets to run over a little red line and be safe again.

2) Line of Supply is something that is needed, but it should probably be more of an Area of Operation than a Line of Supply.  Again I will use fighter jets as an example.  You can only put so much fuel on a jet, so it can only go so far, but there are no real boundaries as to how far in which direction, it can go a certan distance in one big circle before having to turn around for a refueling.  Back a couple years ago, when I waas still an Admin for the SFC3.net server with Mike Day, we tried a system where the bases provided a certain range of operations, and a planet an even larger area, no matter what color the hexes around them were.  The only stiuplation was, that to provide the area of operation, the base had to somehow have a connection to your homeworld.  It couldn't be placed off 30 hexes into nuetral space in the lone hex your race had manage to capture.  This seems like the best option to me, but again, that is just coming from an Air Force guy, I really haven't ever dealt with the concept of boundaries on land and in air.  You either have more road to drive on, or you don't simple as that.

3) Nothing else comes to mind at the time, but give me time, I'm sure I can come up with something else.

Thanks Braxton . . .


1)  One vote Yes

2)   Hey that's basically what my original idea was!!    One vote yes for that.


Hexx,   Krueg??

[Braxton_RIP]

1) The Disengagement Rule is needed.   Now remember, I was an Air Force guy, so I know a lot about the whole fight or flight thing.  If I am in my fighter over, say Iraq, and someone fires a SAM at me, there is no magical red safety line that I can just go run over and not have to worry about the SAM anymore.  Infact, if I am over someone elses territory, and get caught, the US, though they will care about it, and hope that I can make it out, won't be able to do anything about it, and I have to fight for every mile that I get closer to friendly air space.  It shouldn't be any different here, if I find someone in the middle of Fed space with a bumper sticker on his ship that says "Earth or Bust" there is no way in hell that I am going to be happy if he gets to run over a little red line and be safe again.

2) Line of Supply is something that is needed, but it should probably be more of an Area of Operation than a Line of Supply.  Again I will use fighter jets as an example.  You can only put so much fuel on a jet, so it can only go so far, but there are no real boundaries as to how far in which direction, it can go a certan distance in one big circle before having to turn around for a refueling.  Back a couple years ago, when I waas still an Admin for the SFC3.net server with Mike Day, we tried a system where the bases provided a certain range of operations, and a planet an even larger area, no matter what color the hexes around them were.  The only stiuplation was, that to provide the area of operation, the base had to somehow have a connection to your homeworld.  It couldn't be placed off 30 hexes into nuetral space in the lone hex your race had manage to capture.  This seems like the best option to me, but again, that is just coming from an Air Force guy, I really haven't ever dealt with the concept of boundaries on land and in air.  You either have more road to drive on, or you don't simple as that.

3) Nothing else comes to mind at the time, but give me time, I'm sure I can come up with something else.

Thanks Braxton . . .


1)  One vote Yes

2)   Hey that's basically what my original idea was!!    One vote yes for that.


Hexx,   Krueg??

The only difference is the part about having a two hex wide line.... It is pretty much BS, since all that proves is that we can go nutter and take hexes, not if we can control an area of space.

[Hexx]

I already voted (well told you actually that we were using the disengagement rule..)

As for LOS- I like the idea of having to operate within xx hexes of a base, but it's really not going to work as
when things start coming own to the wire there's going to be alot of arguments about whether something was in LOS or not.


How about if you want to claim one of the hexes in the middle (at endgame) you have to have chains of bases every 3-4 hexes from one of your home planets
Farily easy to see and will give deepstrikers something to do
SAme if you want to take a planet or base- you have to have a los-a base  every (say 4 ) hexes.

[KAT J'inn]

Okay 2 votes for disengagement rule.  So it's in.


Now for something that truly bothers me.

I'm sickened actually.

OH DEAR LORD I HAVE TO SAY IT . . .

Hexx's idea about the bases is . . . <shudder>  GENIUS!!

Man, I will soooooooo regret saying that.



Braxton, Krueg,  thoughts????

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

As far as you siding with hexx and calling his thinking genius, What have you guys been doing?

[Hexx]

Braxton, Krueg,  thoughts????

They think I'm a genius as well

[Braxton_RIP]

Both ideas would be essentially the same actually.  There is just one slight difference, which I can demonstrate with a graphic.



In the way I described, both bases would be legal to place and use, but the ISC base would provide no Area of Operations, and until connected, would only be a resupply point.  The Lyran base on the other hand would be full functional and provide Area of Operation.  You could place the ISC base because it is within say 4 Hexes of the other ISC base, but since it isn't connected to the main body of ISC space, ships wouldn't have operational range from it.  I don't think at crunch time it would be hard to tell which bases has LOS/AOO, it is either connected to the main body of your space or it isn't, if you know what I mean.  There isn't much room for gray area.  Hexx's idea would make the ISC base an illegal move if I am interpriting it correctly.  I just think it would add a little falavor, since it would bring about more activity in the nuetral zone, as well as be a very interesting test of strategic placement of bases.

[KAT J'inn]

Braxton.  I like it but it has one draw back.   Due to the server kits limitations mainly.

An attacker would have to be on the honor system as to whether he is within say 4 hexes of a base.   This is because the defender will often not be able to see if there is a base 4 hexes behind the lines.   This is bound to lead to tantrums.

Hexx' concept is better in that it only requires a check of the map by the Admibn at the end of the server to see if all of the Captured VC targets have a one hex wide LOS to a home space planet AND that there is a base placed every 4 hexes along this line (even in home space).


So while I love the area of control idea,  the server kit kinda makes it hard to enforce.

I'm still willing to do it, but the problem is there and needs to be pointed out.

[Braxton_RIP]

Yea, Day and I realized that back when we were doing it, but it seemed to work.  I mean, your going to run into the same problem with the OoB stuff, no one is going to be on monitoring 24/7 to make sure that someone doesn't have more than 7 points of ships on at a time.  Even if it is just someone accidentally logging in not knowing that a side is already at quota.  My arguement is that we are on the honor system with a lot of things, on every server, but, I will leave it to you guys to choose.  I just thought I would put it on the table, since either way is a valid, and functional method.

[FPF-Paladin]

I don't recommend anything that runs too much on an honor system.  It only takes one or two pilots that don't know any better to create issues that could (and can) carry the entire campaign.

[Braxton_RIP]

I don't recommend anything that runs too much on an honor system.  It only takes one or two pilots that don't know any better to create issues that could (and can) carry the entire campaign.

Well, if we nerf the disengagement rule any, it will be the same for both...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Ummm  Hexx aint the RM, I am.

The idea about bases for the LOS at the end of the server will Work for me, but I voted againt the disengagement rule for the time being.  I posted my reasons in the rules thread and also left it open to a vote change if there was enough suppost for the disengagement rule in the Kitties forum as I wish to be representative of my guys.

[KAT J'inn]

ARRRRGHHHH


Since when did Hexx give up the job???


GRRRRRRRRRRR   


Okay, anywho.


Disengagement Rule . . . .  pending Krueg's tie breaking vote.

As for Hexx's other idea.   Chuut votes yes.   And I believe Braxton votes yes.  So that's in.

[Hexx]

I was never RM, I just tend to handle things with anyone flying Lyran
(ie provide reasons why they can't have the cap ship)

Chuut's one of the few people silly enough to believe in general democracy- I'll get the guys in the
forums to change his mind.
(Sides Kreug should vote for the Disengagement anyway)
But nicer if it's unanimous.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I was never RM, I just tend to handle things with anyone flying Lyran
(ie provide reasons why they can't have the cap ship)

Chuut's one of the few people silly enough to believe in general democracy- I'll get the guys in the
forums to change his mind.
(Sides Kreug should vote for the Disengagement anyway)
But nicer if it's unanimous.

No I believe in having a scapegoat, so go for it Hexx 

[el-Karnak]

I was never RM, I just tend to handle things with anyone flying Lyran
(ie provide reasons why they can't have the cap ship)

Chuut's one of the few people silly enough to believe in general democracy- I'll get the guys in the
forums to change his mind.
(Sides Kreug should vote for the Disengagement anyway)
But nicer if it's unanimous.

I very much doubt ISC players are interested in a dyna campaign that does not use the dis-engagement rule and the Frogs are part of the Kitties side this go-around. But, I just used to be an ISC ARM, server admin., mission scripter and Frog player in SFC, so what do I know anyway.

[Braxton_RIP]

I was never RM, I just tend to handle things with anyone flying Lyran
(ie provide reasons why they can't have the cap ship)

Chuut's one of the few people silly enough to believe in general democracy- I'll get the guys in the
forums to change his mind.
(Sides Kreug should vote for the Disengagement anyway)
But nicer if it's unanimous.

I very much doubt ISC players are interested in a dyna campaign that does not use the dis-engagement rule and the Frogs are part of the Kitties side this go-around. But, I just used to be an ISC ARM, server admin., mission scripter and Frog player in SFC, so what do I know anyway.

I hate to say it, but he is right.... I still can't get past the fact that there is no point in hunting down someone out of their area and yet having them be able to run away at will.

[Hexx]

I was never RM, I just tend to handle things with anyone flying Lyran
(ie provide reasons why they can't have the cap ship)

Chuut's one of the few people silly enough to believe in general democracy- I'll get the guys in the
forums to change his mind.
(Sides Kreug should vote for the Disengagement anyway)
But nicer if it's unanimous.

 so what do I know anyway.

Apparently not enough to go to the Kitty forum and place your arguments there like Chuut asked..
<sigh>

maybe if they only sold this game to intelligent people it would have worked out better... of course with no US sales support
might have dropped a bit sooner..

[el-Karnak]

I was never RM, I just tend to handle things with anyone flying Lyran
(ie provide reasons why they can't have the cap ship)

Chuut's one of the few people silly enough to believe in general democracy- I'll get the guys in the
forums to change his mind.
(Sides Kreug should vote for the Disengagement anyway)
But nicer if it's unanimous.

 so what do I know anyway.

Apparently not enough to go to the Kitty forum and place your arguments there like Chuut asked..
<sigh>

maybe if they only sold this game to intelligent people it would have worked out better... of course with no US sales support
might have dropped a bit sooner..

Since, only Kzin players nominated Chuut to be Kitty RM in this thread:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163358149.0.html

I don't have much reason to recognize him as RM for the ISC. Get some nominations from Lyran and ISC players too, next time. No ISC leader in their right mind would argue against the dis-engagement rule. Obviously, by actions taken, Kitty RM means exactly that: RM for the Kzin; otherwise, more consideration would have been made towards at least the concerns of the frog players before issuing blanket against the dis-engagement rule statements.

maybe if they only sold this game to intelligent people it would have worked out better... of course with no US sales support
might have dropped a bit sooner..

Are you making a personal attack? If so, then this post is going to a Forum Admin.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I was never RM, I just tend to handle things with anyone flying Lyran
(ie provide reasons why they can't have the cap ship)

Chuut's one of the few people silly enough to believe in general democracy- I'll get the guys in the
forums to change his mind.
(Sides Kreug should vote for the Disengagement anyway)
But nicer if it's unanimous.

 so what do I know anyway.

Apparently not enough to go to the Kitty forum and place your arguments there like Chuut asked..
<sigh>

maybe if they only sold this game to intelligent people it would have worked out better... of course with no US sales support
might have dropped a bit sooner..

He doesn't have access to that forum silly. Besides rehashing the hexflipping "sockfoot" doctrine isn't going to get us anywhere.

[el-Karnak]

maybe if they only sold this game to intelligent people it would have worked out better... of course with no US sales support
might have dropped a bit sooner..

Forum Rules:

2. Messages should always maintain a respectful, civil tone towards one another. Name-calling,
personal attacks, baiting of others, and abuse is not allowed.

Your SIR, owe an apology. 

[Hexx]

Technically it's only a personal attack if you're a US citizen

As for the RM if you're actually serious about 'No ISC input" then an ISC pilot
shoulda have volunteered to RM, Chuut and Green were "elected" as Rms by being the only people
who would accept the job.

Und again- Chuut said (and I paraphrase as Im to lazy to look it up)
"If the Kitty players want the disengagement rule then post they want it in the kitty forums"
So some of us have- maybe if you posted there as well Chuut would say "The majority wants it, Ill vote for it"

[el-Karnak]

Technically it's only a personal attack if you're a US citizen

Right.... 


2. Messages should always maintain a respectful, civil tone towards one another. Name-calling,
personal attacks, baiting of others, and abuse is not allowed.

I don't appreciate people calling me stupid. If you can't apologize thenn STFU.

[Kroma BaSyl]

maybe if they only sold this game to intelligent people it would have worked out better... of course with no US sales support
might have dropped a bit sooner..

Forum Rules:

2. Messages should always maintain a respectful, civil tone towards one another. Name-calling,
personal attacks, baiting of others, and abuse is not allowed.

Your SIR, owe an apology. 

STFU!!! LOL. <snicker>

[Kroma BaSyl]

Technically it's only a personal attack if you're a US citizen

Right.... 


2. Messages should always maintain a respectful, civil tone towards one another. Name-calling,
personal attacks, baiting of others, and abuse is not allowed.

I don't appreciate people calling me stupid. If you can't apologize thenn STFU.

He is just compensating for his diminuative size, and the fact that I'm prettier than him.

[Hexx]

Since, only Kzin players nominated Chuut to be Kitty RM in this thread:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163358149.0.html

I don't have much reason to recognize him as RM for the ISC. Get some nominations from Lyran and ISC players too, next time. No ISC leader in their right mind would argue against the dis-engagement rule. Obviously, by actions taken, Kitty RM means exactly that: RM for the Kzin; otherwise, more consideration would have been made towards at least the concerns of the frog players before issuing blanket against the dis-engagement rule statements.

Now how could i possibly consider you stupid for making a fine post like that about Chuut (who did essentially volunteer for the position)
While accusing me of being in violation of policy by being unrespectful and civil?

I'm sure the points about "No ISC RM in there right mind"
and "Kitty RM ..RM for Kzin only"
is your way of being very respectful and civil towards him for the job he volunteered for.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Hexx, it is best to just skip right over some people's posts. Like we do with most of yours.

PS, Karnak take your meds.

[Hexx]

Please
each of my posts is a beautifully crafted work of art that apply on so many levels

People play this game just to read my posts


And nobody's prettier than I am...

[SkyFlyer]

Please
each of my posts is a beautifully crafted work of art that apply on so many levels

People play this game just to read my posts


And nobody's prettier than I am...

OH NO!!!!! I'M TRAPPED IN THE MIRROR UNIVERSE!

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

What about using Shipping Lane hexes for Line of Supply?

<runs away very quickly>

[Dizzy]

You know... that ugly ED convoy raid mission that drew up to 2 enemies and never gave you a wing..., well couldnt we have slots for 2 players on each side? I'd love to see some convoy raids. And what terrain types would there be for that, and have we ever seen them b4?

Whatever happened to your convoy raid, Tracey? You were hard at work on one and had a huge input thread on it a while back iirc.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

You know... that ugly ED convoy raid mission that drew up to 2 enemies and never gave you a wing..., well couldnt we have slots for 2 players on each side? I'd love to see some convoy raids. And what terrain types would there be for that, and have we ever seen them b4?

Whatever happened to your convoy raid, Tracey? You were hard at work on one and had a huge input thread on it a while back iirc.

The Convoy Raid and Escort missions I did before doing the Patrols. Since then, the patrols have been tested to a far greater degree and had numerous bug fixes and improvements done to them. The Convoy missions need all the same stuff done to them as the Patrols, but alas there probably isnt time for them before AOTK starts. Basically these Patrol missions will become a "template" for writing future scripts and I've written them with modularity in mind (ie. they can be turned into other types of missions very quickly). Getting the Patrols bug free and with as many enhancements as possible has therefore taken priority, but the work will pay off later.

[Dizzy]

You're a rich precious gem.

[Braxton_RIP]

Well, at least the Alliance guys arn't bickering yet.... 

[GDA-Agave]

Well, at least the Alliance guys arn't bickering yet.... 

Well........now that you mention it.   

[Green]

I was an Air Force guy, so I know a lot about the whole fight or flight thing.  If I am in my fighter over, say Iraq ...

You were in the Air Force and have a PhD in physics ... you rock.  Did you fly fighters?

I thought about joining the Air Force, never thought about getting a PhD in physics though..to much academia for me.

[KBFLordKrueg]

You need to read the rules page and provide input PRONTO.

You may post your input or PM me.

And here, let me, help you, help me, help you. 

   Please address the following:


1)  Disengagement Rule     Yes or No.

2)  Line of Supply Rules      What do you want.

3) Other thoughts.

I'll post...Sorry, just getting a chance to sit down and read the forums....
IMO...
1) I believe in the disengagement rule. I'm disappointed you took away the part about a capitol ship being banned if transferred to another player. I believe there MAYBE should be some exceptions for vastly unbalanced (like 1 CL vs DN and a BCH) ones, but, I can live with the disengagement rule without those exceptions.
I strongly agree with no disengagement for deepstrikers, but disagree with the part "   If you are in a hex that is completely surrounded by NEUTRAL and/or enemy hexes then you cannot disengage."
Especially considering there seems to be no mandatory missions in neutral space. I think no disengagement of surrounded by ENEMY hexes is fine. 
2) LOS rules: This is more complacated...
I don't agree with "No LOS (and no disengagement) in your own space"....
Having played with "LOS to take anything" anyway for so long, I agree with having to have an LOS to attack Planets and strongly agree with having to have a LOS to count for VPs.
I could probably adjust to an "area of control" type thing, but, think the range of this area is too open for debate (and not worth arguing about), so probably should go with LOS rules that we've all pretty much gotten used to and save the "area of control" for another server for now. 

[Kroma BaSyl]

1) I believe in the disengagement rule. I'm disappointed you took away the part about a capitol ship being banned if transferred to another player.

Yeah, me too.

[Green]

I'm disappointed you took away the part about a capitol ship being banned if transferred to another player.

Dropping the "transfer" point is partially my fault LK.  The reason why it needed to be dropped is that there is no hard OOB.  A side could have 6 DN, 10 BCHs, and 9 CVs...the limit is the number online.

If Hexx takes his BCH into a PvP battle and runs away (a very realistic scenario), then he is banned from the hex.  But no one else is going to fly his BCH since it is never transfered.  So the rule doesn't apply to this server's OOB (but it would for a server with a hard OOB and named ships).

[KAT J'inn]

Rule page updated.   Check it out.

[KBFLordKrueg]

The Disengagment rules as they appear now are acceptable.

 2.   You cannot place a base ajacent to any enemy hex.  <--- WTH did THIS come from? the way borders are bound to change during the course of a 30 day campaign. What if some goes into a mission and the adjcent hex flip while in mission...? etc. I think this rule and the enforcment of such a rule will cause too many headaches.
You got stock in asprin...? 

4.  To have a LOS you must be able to trace a single hex wide path to a home space planet of member race on your team.  All hexes in the the path must be controlled by your side.

I think should still be "planet of YOUR race", not, a "member of a race on your team" Disagree with that part of it.

Other than those two things, the rest of the LOS rules are acceptable.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Since, only Kzin players nominated Chuut to be Kitty RM in this thread:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163358149.0.html

I don't have much reason to recognize him as RM for the ISC. Get some nominations from Lyran and ISC players too, next time. No ISC leader in their right mind would argue against the dis-engagement rule. Obviously, by actions taken, Kitty RM means exactly that: RM for the Kzin; otherwise, more consideration would have been made towards at least the concerns of the frog players before issuing blanket against the dis-engagement rule statements.

Karnak, I volunteered (was pushed forward) by Green and Hexx, I accepted the job and the responsibility.  No ISC players have so much as mentioned any desire for the position in the last 2 weeks, nor any Lyans, nor any other Kzin.  If they had a desire I would have expected them to mention it by now.  I have arrananged for player admittance to forums upon requset (thank you Green for taking care of this and doing a great job of it), I have posted several threads about campaign aspects, I have posted a proposed strategy, and I have monitored all relevant post on all forums.  During all this time I have yet to see anyone suggest that they wanted to do any of this.   If you know of someone with such a desire please ask them to step forward and we will put it to a vote in the Kitty forum as to who the players there would like to see as RM.  I expect you to abide by the results of such a vote and go with the majority.  I asked for kitty perspectives of the disengagement rule on our forums for a reason, that being not to have a display like this on Dnet.  I expect all Kitties to follow that general guideline in the future should I be maintained as RM.  Thank you

[Braxton_RIP]

The Disengagment rules as they appear now are acceptable.

 2.   You cannot place a base ajacent to any enemy hex.  <--- WTH did THIS come from? the way borders are bound to change during the course of a 30 day campaign. What if some goes into a mission and the adjcent hex flip while in mission...? etc. I think this rule and the enforcment of such a rule will cause too many headaches.
You got stock in asprin...? 

4.  To have a LOS you must be able to trace a single hex wide path to a home space planet of member race on your team.  All hexes in the the path must be controlled by your side.

I think should still be "planet of YOUR race", not, a "member of a race on your team" Disagree with that part of it.

Other than those two things, the rest of the LOS rules are acceptable.

Amen to number 2!

Since when does a military not put a base where it wants to?  In no time in history, was there ever a point where anyone said "No no, we are too close to the front lines, we will have to move the WHOLE force back to establish a base, and then move forward again tomorrow to countinue the attack."  Sorry to say, it doesn't work like that lol.

4) I personally think should just say "Homeworld of your race" no just a planet of your race, since I could run the whole Federation up into ISC territory, take a planet, with nothing connected to it, and by strict interpretation of the rules, use that as a base point for LOS.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Well, just to play devil's advocate here, it could be argued that constructing a starbase takes a lot of time, effort and resource allocation and unlike a mobile HQ, needs extensive planning to build. Perhaps it could be likened to trying to build a Pentagon on the border of Iraq during the Gulf War. There could be something said for not allowing starbases to be built on the edge of enemy territory. However, perhaps smaller bases could be permitted, most certainly listening posts.

[Braxton_RIP]

Well, just to play devil's advocate here, it could be argued that constructing a starbase takes a lot of time, effort and resource allocation and unlike a mobile HQ, needs extensive planning to build. Perhaps it could be likened to trying to build a Pentagon on the border of Iraq during the Gulf War. There could be something said for not allowing starbases to be built on the edge of enemy territory. However, perhaps smaller bases could be permitted, most certainly listening posts.

This is a good point, but it would be hard to track.

That, and the fact that a full fledged starbase is a rare occurance in the Alliance yards, don't know about the other races.

[KAT J'inn]

The Disengagment rules as they appear now are acceptable.

 2.   You cannot place a base ajacent to any enemy hex.  <--- WTH did THIS come from? the way borders are bound to change during the course of a 30 day campaign. What if some goes into a mission and the adjcent hex flip while in mission...? etc. I think this rule and the enforcment of such a rule will cause too many headaches.
You got stock in asprin...? 

4.  To have a LOS you must be able to trace a single hex wide path to a home space planet of member race on your team.  All hexes in the the path must be controlled by your side.

I think should still be "planet of YOUR race", not, a "member of a race on your team" Disagree with that part of it.

Other than those two things, the rest of the LOS rules are acceptable.

Amen to number 2!

Since when does a military not put a base where it wants to?  In no time in history, was there ever a point where anyone said "No no, we are too close to the front lines, we will have to move the WHOLE force back to establish a base, and then move forward again tomorrow to countinue the attack."  Sorry to say, it doesn't work like that lol.

4) I personally think should just say "Homeworld of your race" no just a planet of your race, since I could run the whole Federation up into ISC territory, take a planet, with nothing connected to it, and by strict interpretation of the rules, use that as a base point for LOS.

Easy enough to change.   See rules.

[FPF-DieHard]

If you place a base adjacent to an enemy hex it will last 20 minutes tops.

[el-Karnak]

Since, only Kzin players nominated Chuut to be Kitty RM in this thread:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163358149.0.html

I don't have much reason to recognize him as RM for the ISC. Get some nominations from Lyran and ISC players too, next time. No ISC leader in their right mind would argue against the dis-engagement rule. Obviously, by actions taken, Kitty RM means exactly that: RM for the Kzin; otherwise, more consideration would have been made towards at least the concerns of the frog players before issuing blanket against the dis-engagement rule statements.

Karnak, I volunteered (was pushed forward) by Green and Hexx, I accepted the job and the responsibility.  No ISC players have so much as mentioned any desire for the position in the last 2 weeks, nor any Lyans, nor any other Kzin.  If they had a desire I would have expected them to mention it by now.  I have arrananged for player admittance to forums upon requset (thank you Green for taking care of this and doing a great job of it), I have posted several threads about campaign aspects, I have posted a proposed strategy, and I have monitored all relevant post on all forums.  During all this time I have yet to see anyone suggest that they wanted to do any of this.   If you know of someone with such a desire please ask them to step forward and we will put it to a vote in the Kitty forum as to who the players there would like to see as RM.  I expect you to abide by the results of such a vote and go with the majority.  I asked for kitty perspectives of the disengagement rule on our forums for a reason, that being not to have a display like this on Dnet.  I expect all Kitties to follow that general guideline in the future should I be maintained as RM.  Thank you

What I was looking for was to see this thread posted:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163358387.0.html

And, U look at the results first before you starting making any public RM votes on the issues like Dis-engagement Rule. Otherwise, you are going to start a controversy.



 

[SkyFlyer]

If you place a base adjacent to an enemy hex it will last 20 minutes tops.

more like 5

[GDA-S'Cipio]

If you place a base adjacent to an enemy hex it will last 20 minutes tops.

Well, there you go then.  The desired result can be enforced by the reality on the board, not by rules we have to remember.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other.  I'm perfectly willing to have the logic enforced by a written rule, and I'm perfectly willing to let foolish players "discover" the rule on their own.

-S'Cipio

[762_XC]

What S'Cippy said. The rule is unnecessary with destructable bases.

[Braxton_RIP]

The only reason I said it was bogus was to see if Krueg actually would have his guys put a base next to one of the Alliance hexes LOL