Sheridan
Backyard Yowler
President Earth Alliance
We stand on the Edge of the Shadow
Posts: 633
|
Post by Sheridan on Sept 11, 2008 8:49:14 GMT -5
I know that I threw out the Hysterical ideal and that will be kicked around for a year, but what about other ideals. We do not have to just focus on that one. Other players have any?
Shalafi are you experiencing any Ref burnout? I think you make a grand Ref, is it your intention to run the next game also or is it too early to even decide that now?
|
|
|
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Sept 11, 2008 11:21:20 GMT -5
I'm fine burnout wise... course i also design campaigns where i have a quasi active part in them too it helps
|
|
Sheridan
Backyard Yowler
President Earth Alliance
We stand on the Edge of the Shadow
Posts: 633
|
Post by Sheridan on Sept 11, 2008 14:20:27 GMT -5
Gulp,.. Sheridans hairs raise on the back of his neck.
DID EVERYONE HEAR THAT !!!! LOL LOL
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Sept 11, 2008 20:24:44 GMT -5
i do have an idea but i am hashing it out yet not quite ready to run it up the flagpole.
|
|
|
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Sept 11, 2008 22:18:23 GMT -5
one i always thought would be cool would be the Assault on the federation scenario from F&E... basically it's the feds with several expeditionary fleets (gorn and Kzinti) vs the Klingons and the Romulans.... and if i dig around i can find the actual starting fleets for that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Oct 1, 2008 12:45:07 GMT -5
Well i have finished a map for the campaign i had in mind. Here are a few thoughts for the basic layout of it. the premise is, that. there are pirates . That all the nations playing in the campaign are trying to eliminate. the problem however are , #1, they can't afford to send a large task force to do this. #2 They do not know where the pirate base is. #3 They don't trust each other , {IE} each nation has reason to think that there are other nations aiding the pirates. #4 they are tasked with a empire expanding mission. {IE} to occupy and hold as much terrain on that map as possible. Of course that may mean , confronting the other nations to do so. And if that isn't enough, there a "gateways" Linked to each other . but the knowledge of how to use them is "lost" and so the use of a gateway is unpredictable. The gateways would provide tremendous movement possibilities on this map. So to sum it all up. Kill the pirates, conquer more than your opponents, and solve the gateway mystery. While just starting with a rather modest fleet. Of one CA, one CL. one Tug with 2 pods, one scout. and one DD and one FF. The tugs pods when deployed could be converted to build a base station. Just a base with no way to ever upgrade to a BATS. That would limit the production to a maximum hull of a CL. The pirate player would have a larger fleet to start with, Undetermined yet. And his victory conditions are elimination of {tbd} number of the nations hunting him. Also solving the gateway mystery before any of the other nations. He would also start with a base station "hidden" of course! The map is the same size as the B5 map. But there is a WHOLE LOT MORE TERRAIN! Well i am sure there are holes in this for you all to pick apart! so give me some feedback. This would not be a short campaign! as it would take many turns to accomplish victory. And there may be not as much fighting as some would like. It's really more along the the lines of an empire building campaign than we have seen to date.
|
|
|
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Oct 2, 2008 0:17:21 GMT -5
two thoughts with that Barry... well one thought and a clarification
How would it end if it becomes a stalemate between the nations and the pirate? (my thought is a random number of turns to the whole campaign... *numbers are just thrown out* like 12? as a base and when turn 12 is over the Ref(s) would roll and add 2-7 more turns till the final turn?
the gateways would basically be wormholes that a nation has to unlock how to use them?
|
|
|
Post by DeathFrog on Oct 2, 2008 7:37:57 GMT -5
i like the premisse. it would be a lot less battling, and any battle has the potential for advancement, but at what cost?(retorical question).
A campaign like this I envision taking some 25+ turns, most of which could go faster than the standard turns we see now as there would most likely be very few battles and encounters.
|
|
Sheridan
Backyard Yowler
President Earth Alliance
We stand on the Edge of the Shadow
Posts: 633
|
Post by Sheridan on Oct 2, 2008 10:17:52 GMT -5
I am just going to play devils advocate here,...
I found a game like LK cmapaign cool cause each turn there was a lot going on. Yes the turns were slower, but to be honest I do not like filling out orders forums,.... to do so more often does not nessesarily equal more fun, it might be less fun. My point being a single turn with lot going on is not nessisarily worse than many turns with nothing going on.
For myself keeping my interest is important. It only takes a couple of slow players to grind a game into slow motion.
One recommendation for a future game would be to trim the player pool to those have shown themselves to be dedicated to the game in the past. Folks that drop from the radar frequently should be dropped from a future game. Maybe no one fits that bill anymore,.. I have not a clue,.. but Shalifi does.
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Oct 2, 2008 21:14:23 GMT -5
Ok very good feedback, well i am not really worried about a tie per say Scott as there are more than one objective to the game. It would have certain point vaules for each objective completed. And the pirate may not even wind up being elimanated. in order for one of the other nations to win. The pirate is more of a side show in my view but.... Not one that could be ignored!. As for the filling out of turns i am afraid that can't be gotten around The premises is out there for ALL of us to work on . I do have some ummmm ideas /twists for the ref to keep it interesting in mind that i don't want to layout heere and now however. Yes the Gateways could be considered wormholes if that is what we decide. And as Dfly says i do see the turns running faster, that should help to keep the intrests peaked.
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Oct 8, 2008 8:48:18 GMT -5
So , Walter did you ever get around to looking up the F&E scenario you mentioned earlier? I was shopping the other day and almost bought an old F&E, board game off the discount rack i saw. "would of to but no one to play it with"
|
|
|
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Oct 8, 2008 10:18:28 GMT -5
yes and no? lol i found one that was the next size up from it but i could easially scale it back to a manageable size
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Jan 1, 2009 22:08:33 GMT -5
I will offiacly requst a review of the rule about scrapping a base. how does everyone feel about it? is it good or should there be a rule change?
|
|
|
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Jan 1, 2009 23:12:43 GMT -5
I'm already getting a list together (in a place i will not loose it ie my e-mail under it's own section) of stuff to look over.
|
|
Sheridan
Backyard Yowler
President Earth Alliance
We stand on the Edge of the Shadow
Posts: 633
|
Post by Sheridan on Jan 4, 2009 17:14:10 GMT -5
If scrapping of bases were allowed in this game Ho Chi and I were ready to scrap both a BATS and the B5 racking in above +900 EP and producing 2x SWARS +. This is an abuse of the at start setup for the EA and leads to an imbalance in the game.
In the upcoming game in which nations are given at start multiple bases,.. scrapping should be restricted as it has always been,.. else players will turn bases into war ships. No one wants to defend "a point", all of us wish for a fluid attack force, not a static base defense.
Careful of rules changes players ask for,.. these rules are there,.. due to situations/abuses in the past that caused the rule to be inacted in the first place.
Just my 2 cents
S
|
|