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.