Topic: Anyone interested in an F&E style PBR game? (Read 6125 times)

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **on:** March 02, 2006, 07:27:53 am »

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 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2006, 09:03:16 am »

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 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2006, 09:18:44 am »

Yes, abosulutely, sign me up

FPF-Tobin Dax · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2006, 09:32:41 am »

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on March 02, 2006, 09:18:44 am

Yes, abosulutely, sign me up

ditto!

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2006, 11:06:25 am »

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 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2006, 11:10:57 am »

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 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2006, 11:28:25 am »

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 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2006, 12:23:11 pm »

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 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2006, 12:28:12 pm »

Is this a trick question?

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

Skaren · « **Reply #9 on:** March 02, 2006, 12:30:58 pm »

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 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2006, 03:11:40 pm »

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 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2006, 03:20:02 pm »

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 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2006, 03:40:18 pm »

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 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2006, 04:08:39 pm »

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

Which is kind of the opposite of KISS.

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #14 on:** March 02, 2006, 05:37:20 pm »

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 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2006, 05:39:16 pm »

Quote from: Capt_Bearslayer_XC on March 02, 2006, 05:37:20 pm

but from there, I want the players to decide.

No you don't.

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

Riskyllama · « **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2006, 06:13:13 pm »

would this be using the SFB fighters and stuff?

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #17 on:** March 02, 2006, 06:23:56 pm »

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

Dfly · « **Reply #18 on:** March 02, 2006, 06:28:28 pm »

I am definitely in

Lepton · « **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2006, 06:42:14 pm »

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.

KBF-Crim · « **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2006, 07:02:51 pm »

Shadow had a formula to break battles donw into small parts..

Oh...and yeah...count me and as many klinks as I can bring...

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2006, 07:35:14 pm »

For those interested in the rules...

Here are two of the rule sets I will be drawing off of....

SFCShadow's Campaign

STOC's rules file & other stuff

also thinking of using CyberBoard again as STOC already has a tile set for every fleet, then again, if I can get MaxPower to send it to me again, someone made an actually F&E map & tileset for CyberBoard already...

so that part of the work will be done.

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2006, 07:39:31 pm »

Quote from: Riskyllama on March 02, 2006, 06:13:13 pm

would this be using the SFB fighters and stuff?

That I will leave up to the players...

IF the players want Fighters and PF's... I think DH would be willing to lend us the use of his modified shiplist with Fighters & PF's for all (except Hydrans that is)

Though I think something will have to be done for conjectural ships... probably need to make those ships rather expensive or at least limit the capacity to build them.

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2006, 07:40:21 pm »

Quote from: KBF-Crim on March 02, 2006, 07:02:51 pm

Shadow had a formula to break battles donw into small parts..

Oh...and yeah...count me and as many klinks as I can bring...

Good, I hoping for some good Klingon support here... figured it would be right up yours and the KHH's alley!

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2006, 07:43:06 pm »

Quote from: D'Emon Fly on March 02, 2006, 06:28:28 pm

I am definitely in

As Lyran I hope?

If so 4 races covered, 4 to go....

Actually, that does bring up a question.... do we want the ISC involved?

762_XC · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2006, 08:03:54 pm »

Um...

NOES

Dfly · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2006, 08:20:41 pm »

Quote from: Capt_Bearslayer_XC on March 02, 2006, 07:43:06 pm

Quote from: D'Emon Fly on March 02, 2006, 06:28:28 pm
I am definitely in

As Lyran I hope?

If so 4 races covered, 4 to go....

Actually, that does bring up a question.... do we want the ISC involved?

ya sure why not, Lyran it is. I will see if any more FSD members are interested.

Lepton · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2006, 10:08:12 pm »

F&E Cyberboard gamebox is here:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/Fe-v4_5.zip

I assume this is the latest version but I am not certain of that.

Alphageek · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2006, 10:42:45 pm »

This sounds cool. I'd like to give it a go. Can someone send me a Private Message and explain it in simple form for me? Then I can work out which race I want to be.....probably Federation or Romulan.

Skaren · « **Reply #29 on:** March 03, 2006, 08:02:12 am »

Thanks Bear for those rules sets. I have to say none of them seem simple and quick to implement, I have only scanned them quickly though. I worry you will bog things down with folks dickering with rule section 3b subset 2a, kinda like the old StarFleet Battles board game. It would fall on your shoulders though, so I would not care a bit

Again I am in, and will fly whatever race rounds out the game for you (even if it is a sh*tty race, I will make do), it sucks when a particular race is not chosen for a ref.

-So is the plan to have many players in one race, or just one player per race?

-I think Lepton advice is the best. If this fails, it would suck and set back other attempts like it. If it is kept simple and succeeds then it can be expanded on later or even as the game progresses. The biggest risk to game game being successfull is not players, enthusiasm, battle resolution, etc. The risk is overly complicating it initially, and bogging the game down due to that. Every effort from the ref should be towards the games successfull implementation and running of it, and much of that will be keeping it simple and smooth.

-Our focus and enjoyment is SFC battles with a history and meaning to them. Not fumbling through 33 pages of campaign rules trying to find subsection 3b pertaining to Annexing verse Capturing a territory.

- In the end like every player ought to,.. I support the Ref's final call on any and all decisions. I only offer advice from running dozens of campaigns like this over the years and have seen many reasons for failure. I truly hope and desire for this one to succeed and be enjoyable to all.

Good Luck
S

PS Why did the STOC campaign end ? Please explain its finality to me anyone who was in it. Did it succeed, where was it weak?

Skaren · « **Reply #30 on:** March 03, 2006, 09:27:06 am »

WHAT !!

There is no fog of war ????? I thought that was what a ref was for ???

Is this game going to also have no fog of war ?

No wonder I saw a post a while ago of someone wondering what good scouts were for!

Well, when in Rome,...

S

KHH_Jakle · « **Reply #31 on:** March 03, 2006, 12:24:19 pm »

You should really keep the scale small. Front based if you are imitating the GW, or replay older wars.

Also makes the small size of the engagements easier to swallow...

Riskyllama · « **Reply #32 on:** March 03, 2006, 01:24:42 pm »

are the isc out?...if not i'll fly them

Hexx · « **Reply #33 on:** March 03, 2006, 02:08:36 pm »

Sounds cool.

FPF-Paladin · « **Reply #34 on:** March 03, 2006, 05:29:14 pm »

Count me in!!!

Lepton · « **Reply #35 on:** March 03, 2006, 10:29:42 pm »

Quote from: skaren on March 03, 2006, 09:27:06 am

WHAT !!

There is no fog of war ????? I thought that was what a ref was for ???

Is this game going to also have no fog of war ?

No wonder I saw a post a while ago of someone wondering what good scouts were for!

Well, when in Rome,...

S

Who ever said anything about a ref or fog of war? Such things may be implied in some of the potential rulesets but F&E does not generally I don't think have a fog of war mechanism. I think we are looking some rather simple and straightforward campaign mechanics. If people disagree with this idea, please say so. I'd be willing to participate in this in whatever form it takes. At this point, I am merely making suggestions for what I would hope would keep this thing moving forward once it gets started.

762_XC · « **Reply #36 on:** March 03, 2006, 10:49:31 pm »

I think FoW would add a nightmare of administrative overhead. Not even remotely worth it imho.

And Lepton is correct, there is no FoW in F&E.

Skaren · « **Reply #37 on:** March 04, 2006, 10:12:03 am »

It is a administrative nightmare, but that is what we always use and why the scale of our games is kept small. It does add a tremendous amount to the game though. In some ways the larger the game the less quality allowed, in a small game the FOW is able to be done and if you haven't played with it your missing out. It makes a game very interesting. In reading over the old rules used I noticed that you folks do not use it.

I agree with what is going forward we should not have it. I originally thought (from the original post) it was going to be a small game with one player a nation and maybe like 8 nations, if Bear could get that.

Now with so many people responding positively to Bears ideal, the game seems to have grown a lot in scope.

I am looking forward to seeing the rules for it.

I mentioned ref because someone has to make calls on the rules used and other issues that will arrise, we are not going to agree on everything. I am confussed as to how we could move forward without a ref who sets rules, time tables, resolves other things. What is this going to magical form itself out of the blue or something ?

I am assuming the guy who originally invited us into this is going to ref it. Especially since he said he would miss playing in the game that he suggested we have.

Lepton · « **Reply #38 on:** March 04, 2006, 11:09:58 am »

I suggest the game be referreed by a race of super-intelligent, super-powerful aliens that wager on the outcomes of our struggles. Something like glowing brains in dome. Yeah, that's it. Find those guys and we are set.

FPF-Tobin Dax · « **Reply #39 on:** March 04, 2006, 11:37:12 am »

I bid 500 quatluze!

Lepton · « **Reply #40 on:** March 04, 2006, 01:35:50 pm »

"So, how many drednaughts can I field in one battlegroup, huh?"

Bonk · « **Reply #41 on:** March 04, 2006, 05:09:35 pm »

Skaren · « **Reply #42 on:** March 05, 2006, 05:22:18 pm »

Bearslayer,,,,

If you need any help with anything to speed the startup along let me know. I have a F&E map, could submit tenative starting fleets, organize players,.. what ever help you need,... just let me know. I would be glad to help.

S

KBF-Crim · « **Reply #43 on:** March 05, 2006, 08:57:39 pm »

A link to cyberboard and the tile set would be a starter

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #44 on:** March 06, 2006, 05:30:32 pm »

CyberBoard

As for the tileset... still trying to get a hold of Max Power for the F&E set he has...

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #45 on:** March 06, 2006, 05:43:38 pm »

So far, I am leaning towards some stuff in SFCShadow's ruleset.

Since we want to go with traditional alliance and coalition (or so it seems from the posts) I think we should head to just 2 teams. Alliance and Coalition, but with each race having a 'commander' who deals with builds, economy, and moves.

762_XC · « **Reply #46 on:** March 06, 2006, 08:09:23 pm »

Unless we get 3+ full time peeps for each race, I think that is the way to go.

Skaren · « **Reply #47 on:** March 07, 2006, 07:48:16 am »

I think we need to have a new thread just for sign up, and not cluttered with other posts. I said earlier and I still think that it is important to know exactly how many people are firmly committed to playing. Players need to know what the speed of the game will be as to better decide if the pace is suitable for them to commit to. The worst is players that say "Ya, ya I am in" and then fail to live up to the needs of the game. That hurts both the team they are on, and the game in general.

I am firmly in, and will take any race that helps flesh the game out. If all races are chosen I certainly have preferences but will fly anything if needed.

S

I would also suggest that in addition to race captain's that there also be a team captain, maybe the biggest race's Captain for each side can also double as an overall Team Commander. IE maybe like Fed and Klingon (or Rom) Team captains can also act as overall Coalition or Alliance Commanders to help in coordinating an overall effort for the teams.

Even if a overall team captain is not set by the rules,. I will look for someone on my side to be nominated to help with a overall strategy for our team. If each of us just goes Hay diddle diddle we will be less effective.

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #48 on:** March 07, 2006, 07:54:01 am »

762 & I discussed this the other night. SFCShadow's campaign only had 2 sides, alliance and coalition.

I think (and I think t00l agrees) that we should start it out with 2 sides and if we end up with enough people to get 3 or more per race, then we can further subdivide the groups.

Anyways, I will make a separate sign up post.

Hexx · « **Reply #49 on:** March 07, 2006, 04:45:41 pm »

I hate to say this, well actually I don't because I hate plasma..
but would it not be easier (I'm only thinking of you of course Bear) if this was attempted concerning only
the Western theater of Ops?
No need to worry about the ISC, more players per race, no evil people shooting plasma at me, no chance I'd be expected to fly Rom
plus the added bonus of annoying the Feds- as all their fancy schmancy plasma ships would be eliminated from the list.

Really it's like a win-win-win idea.

KBFLordKrueg · « **Reply #50 on:** March 07, 2006, 04:54:04 pm »

You have my interest... $:-\$

762_XC · « **Reply #51 on:** March 07, 2006, 05:30:56 pm »

Quote from: Hexx on March 07, 2006, 04:45:41 pm

I hate to say this, well actually I don't because I hate plasma..
but would it not be easier (I'm only thinking of you of course Bear) if this was attempted concerning only
the Western theater of Ops?
No need to worry about the ISC, more players per race, no evil people shooting plasma at me, no chance I'd be expected to fly Rom
plus the added bonus of annoying the Feds- as all their fancy schmancy plasma ships would be eliminated from the list.

Really it's like a win-win-win idea.

Until Y173 that's what it will be anyway.

News:

Topic: Anyone interested in an F&E style PBR game? (Read 6125 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

Topic: Anyone interested in an F&E style PBR game? (Read 6125 times)