Topic: Anyone interested in an F&E style PBR game?

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

This would not be a DynaVerse style game, but something similiar to F&E where you actually fight out the battles.

I am looking at a general war senario, but if there is not enough interest, maybe a smaller preceeding war leading up to General war.

It would be turn based economies, builds, and movement.  Politics would be completely in the hands of the players, but there will be factors that can lead your 'people' (and therefore YOU) away from such treaties. (ie the Lyrans and Kzinti can not instantly become allies)

Any & all battles would be fought via GSA or TCP/IP using a modified PBR scheme.

I will need pilots enough for all 8 races and, if enough people are interested, LDR, WYN, and Orions can be added.

One thing I would like to know is this: Would you want the races to have traditional F&E economies or should all the races start off with the exact same sized economies?

[Bonk]

You should get together with skaren...

If you haven't seen his posts:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163365060.msg1122688123.html#msg1122688123

http://www.sfbuaw.com/

[FPF-DieHard]

Yes, abosulutely, sign me up

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Yes, abosulutely, sign me up

ditto!

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Looks like I got some feds... any other takers?

And Bonk,

I don't want this to be TNG, it will use the OP+ shiplist only.

[Skaren]

I am in, as well.  This is what I have been looking for as the Dynaverse although fun is not what I was hoping for.  The negotiation between nations can make a game, no A.I. battles (boring), and no hex flipping (extra boring) would be great.

I have found the F&E rules a bit cumbersome and poor for this use.  If I remember it was one side moves then the other etc.  That causes unrealistic situations, plus aren't you moving like 6 hexes (trying to pull up 15 year old memories) on the campaign map a turn.

You should check out the set of rules I have developed for this type of game over many years.  I am running a campaign now and it is about 8 month into it and loved by all.  The rules are pretty solid having been play tested for years and modified to account for sneaky players twisting rules.  Download em at www.sfbuaw.com.  They are impulse based with 3 hexes of movement a turn, and allow for reactions of fleets etc, similar to F&E.  Battles are resolved on IP hosted ref machine with sector assault tracking damage.  There are rules for repair, spies, all types of stuff.  To be honest it crushes Dynaverse, the catch is you cannot have 150 players.

Modify them as you wish/need but they may make a great foundation for your game, much better than Standard F&E rules.

Count me in and a possible source of answers to problems that you will/may encounter, I've seen em before  

You must be a dedicated, impartial, honest ref !

[Skaren]

Note the rules currently posted are for the current campaign, which is smaller than a F&E style empire game,.. the stack limit is 3 ships.  I have the set of rules for the prior campaign F&E style/scope, it had 6 ship stacks.  That did cause issues though as unless you can guarantee 2 players run each 3 ship fleet you end up with one player having 6 ships in a fleet.  Say he attacks a Base, the stupid A.I. ally will barrel run his ships into the base disallowing a standoff style bombardment.  Now you have to consider if each nation will have many players or one player.  These are examples of issues that you will run into that I have already run over.

If you want the old set of rules that were modded for a larger F&E style campaign I can email them to you.

I have dreamed of games in which each nation has a dozen or more players, but my player pool is 10-12 players there for not allowing that.

That is why I was extremely excited to find this message board and all the dedicated players on it.  I someday hope to recruit many of you for the Penultimate campaign.  Then you will never go back to Dyna     That would require my current campaign to be over and a lot more work on the rules.

Again, count me in and I will take any race that balances the game for the ref.

S

[Lepton]

I have an interest in this as well.  It sounds as if you might be trying to regenerate the STOC campaign.  If there is anything that can be done to avoid the problems that stopped the last campaign of this type that would be great.  One suggestion I would have would be to leave the politicing out of it.  I became sufficiently discouraged by my allies and their committment to executing agreements that I wanted out of the whole deal.  I would stick with traditional SFB alliances that are not subject to change.  Otherwise, I believe the politicing can get very personal.  At least it did for me.  There is enough competitive tension in these things without introducing a shifting political climate.

[762_XC]

Is this a trick question?

I'll help you hammer our rules if you want Bear.

[Skaren]

I agree, I have seen folks get pretty pissed with back stabs and such.  Even with fixed alliances there is still negotiation between allied players though, so it still exists.  Your right though, to be wary of it.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Ok, so we want fixed alliances?

How about economies?  Do we just want to go with tradtional set ups also? Fed has the largest and then down the line?

Also, Skaren, I was planning on taking a combination of F&E, STOC's old rules, and SFC SHADOW's original SFCI campaign rules, putting them together and tossing out the stuff I don't like. 

Seeing as you have set up something similiar, I guess I should add your rule set to the pile also....

Anyways, I am off to do some errands then do my weekly babysitting routine, so I doubt I will be back on tonight (though if the kids fall asleep early like last week, I can scam some computer time)

[Bonk]

STOC! And it was you not Corbomite... That was it, I was trying to remember to tell skaren about it, but couldn't remember the details.

[Skaren]

I have for a while been looking to get my hands on other peoples rule sets governing non Dyna campaigns.  I am always up for taking the best parts out and incorporating them into my own.  So please send me a copy of any rule sets that you have.  Feel free to Orion anything from mine you like.

A word of advice  KISS.  Keep is simple,....

skaren@osv.org

Thanks
Scott

[762_XC]

Regarding economy and OOB, the closer to F&E the better imho.

Which is kind of the opposite of KISS. 

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

I agree with the economics & OOB of F&E as a starting point... but from there, I want the players to decide.

Skaren, I can show you where some of the rules are when I am at home again. (stole the computer for a minute)

F&E rules I am going to need a set of as I only have pages here and there....

And yes, Bonk, I was in STOC.

I still remember studying the map for hours as the Hydran 'King' looking for that kink in my counter part's strategies (ie the Klinks and Lyrans) and for the most part, whipping tail....

One of the things I will truly miss stepping from a racial leader to running the game....

[762_XC]

but from there, I want the players to decide.

No you don't.

Flamewar in 3...2...1...

[Riskyllama]

would this be using the SFB fighters and stuff?

[FPF-DieHard]

can we keep fleets small?  I don't want the battle to be 3 player + 6 AI perside

[Dfly]

I am definitely in

[Lepton]

I'd try to keep the rules and the general system as simple as is possible.  There are a number of interesting aspects to both UAW and STOC campaign rules, but these consist of what I will call more strategic/meta-game aspects, i.e. politics, economies, tech research, spying, etc.  While these are all well and good, I think it might be best to get a simple fun system up and running and get people coming to do the actual combat resolution which is supposedly what we are here for, to play SFC not necessarily to participate in a campaign with alot of extra layers.  Once people are committed to the process, I could see adding more options or complexity to the rule set, but at first I think it really should be more like organized play in a campaign context, rather than a campaign/strategic game with SFC as the engine for combat resolution.

It might even be good to set up an outside time limit for the length of the first shot at this, something like 2 months.  So one would set up a system of rules that either played fast so that the campaign might be close to being resolved in such a short time frame, or use this initial campaign time limit as a testing ground for future endeavours in this area.  I think a shorter time frame is essential.  Look at STOC.  The VG2 only got to turn 26 before it died and no empire was anywhere near hurting except maybe the Lyrans.  Similarly, the length of a dynaverse server has its own outside limits for time and persistent servers are rarely used.  People want action and people want results.  Find a fast playing set of rules and I think people will be happy.