Topic: ATTN: AoTK II RMs.

[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