Commander Malex
Backyard Yowler
SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND! "Kat-Of-Endless-Droning"
Posts: 881
|
Post by Commander Malex on Jan 7, 2008 22:25:31 GMT -5
Ahhh, I have a Master's in that One! ;D
Yes, Pirates are merely Stealthing around mixing in with Merchant traffic with codes etc.
|
|
|
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Jan 9, 2008 8:27:40 GMT -5
Even in the B5 game the Minbari went on a spree of building Dark Stars cause they were simply the best around, why build anything else? In the end it is up the Ref running the game but without some restriction folks will always construct the best ship and nothing else but that. It makes sense to. The question is that what we want players to be doing, just building the same ship over and over again? That is pretty much what has been occurring repeatedly in each game we have run, and it is occurring now in the L/K game also. a spree of one?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Spock on Jan 9, 2008 8:37:12 GMT -5
Nope they were building a second as the game ended and had nearly completed it. If the game had gone longer a third. The number is not what is really important.
Like I say it is up to a ref to decide. But I think when players see what the Mirak are doing this game they will also say "Ya, we need to address this somehow." I am pretty sure the Lyran are following suit with their own specialty ship and exclusively building just that.
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Jan 9, 2008 9:32:41 GMT -5
Ahhhh, my bad then! maybe a note explaining that it is not cloaked would help. As stealth in the game ,Under "fleet orders" when playing the game with one player controling more than one ship means cloak. Would hate to have anyone think they were moving cloaked ,and then find out the hard way that..... "peek aboo" i see you !
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Jan 9, 2008 9:43:58 GMT -5
Rather than trying to limit production of specific ships . It may be better to set a % of the evp available for non line ships. even though i disagree with not being able to build as you please. We already have a built in production scale. 100 per turn per battle station. this prevents a "building Spree" of elite ships in and of itself. Lets keep the Kiss theory as our guide for future campaigns. As we gain more players we will find that Kiss may well be the best way to go and a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by DeathFrog on Jan 9, 2008 17:15:57 GMT -5
My idea on the whole of the ship building issue would be to limit certain ships only, depending on the campaign style to be played. In a big campaign as this one is, :::SUCH AS:
never more than 2 DN never more than 3 HBC never more than 4 CARRIERS
Numbers can vary depending on size and style of campaign. This would encourage teams to have those limits maxed, but at the same time they could only build a more standardized ship once the limits are hit. If for a small campaign, you could say no DN, 1 HBC, 2 Carriers, therefore making it a much more manageable battle structure.
I know Scott is not for this idea as he, and maybe others, feel it would still escalate to building the biggest ship available. I state that even when you build a max of 3 of any one ship, the teams will still try to build the biggest bestest ship available anyway, so why not limit a whole category instead of a total of a single ship?
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Jan 9, 2008 17:37:28 GMT -5
I like that idea except for the poor ref. He would have to track which ships are being built and which type already exist + if any were lost in combat while the builds are in progress. Makes my simple mind spin just thinking of it! that is why i went with the percent of evp. And yes of course we try to build the best available but with the percentile rule it would limit those builds. and emphasize using your money for other uses. basic builds , bases, spy's, bribes ,retirement funds, 401k insurance, vacation fund etc....
|
|
|
Post by DeathFrog on Jan 9, 2008 18:56:24 GMT -5
ACtually, how could you even start building a ship, say a DN, when you are already at your limit? If you are, you would become in contravention of the rules. I suggest a system that simply puts all DNs in the same category, all HBC in the same category, all carriers in the same category, etc. If you go with what was suggested earlier, of having no more than 3 ships of the same type, (ie 3 CAR, etc,) you have even more for the ref to look over for each build. Percentile builds still require the ref to not only verify you have not passed those percentages, but now he must calculate for each section per team as well. That to me would be even more work.
Currently with the 100 EP max, it tends to make teams look for those very best ships at the 100 bpv and under, the 200 bpv and under, and the 300 bpv and under. I for one would never build a ship that costs 101-175, or 201-250, unless there were no way to have more funds over time, or an actual NEED to have a specific ship. Why would any team want to waiste 3 turns to build a Gorn DNL at 214 for example, when for every 2 turns you could build a Gorn DND for 200, which is nearly identical, or the BCH which costs 193, and takes 2 turns as well.
This is one of the biggest reasons, in my books, why no one builds a CC+, or a D5L, for example. Who would build a 132 point ship which takes 2 turns when they can build a C7 or such for the same amount of turns? Is there an easy solution to this? Not sure. As Scott had mentioned, one way would be to limit it to no more than 2 or 3 of the same ship, or as I mentioned, no more than certain amount of the ship classes.
Perhaps we should have a mix of it. No more than 1 DN, 2 BCH, or 3 Carriers, or 2 of any one ship.
Oh ya, as an add-on, why does no one really use spyes or majic eyes or scientific stuff? THE COST. To me, Why should I waiste my time with those when I can have an effective fighting ship instead? I mean by this, why should I build a CC+ and spend the rest in scientific stuff when I can skip the scientific stuff and get a BCH instead of the CC+? Get my drift?
enough ranting. These are just views and thoughts. comments welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Spock on Jan 9, 2008 21:21:34 GMT -5
Dfly's solution would not address a nation that exclusively builds,.. um ,.. lets say battle Tugs. Again what you do is make a never ending more complicated set of subtables defining each new instance found. The solution is to say that in a small/medium campaign once you build a ship type you move on and build a different one next. In a medium/large campaign you get two builds. Why is it bad to build a different ship the second time and third ? More skill then becomes involved as players dig past the obvious first choices. KISS is the overidding ideal behind it also. It is like one sentence! Having to use a calculator for a rule almost automatically kills a rule in my ref brain. I think repair and damage is the only rule to breach ideal. There is nothing fun about a nation just building the same ship over and over and over. I certainly understand why players do it. Right now I support what is going on in the Mirak nation as a Mirak player and would do the same. But as an X ref it is troublesome. Some ships are just plain outrageous and the more you let multiples of them get built the worse it is. Many ships we run do not reflect the problems associated with them in the real life StarFleet Command World )))) The Battle Tug for example does not have long duration space time like a CA does, no Holo Deck, sparse quarters, crappy beer, etc. This cannot be reflected in our game. Yet we are free to build them at will and engage with no penalties as if they were standard fleet ships. This is just my opinion on this. Whatever is decided keep it simple.
|
|
|
Post by DeathFrog on Jan 9, 2008 22:44:39 GMT -5
I think perhaps the decision on whether or not such a rule would get used or not relies solely on the ref(s) who would be running the next campaign(s). I say this because I believe that a ref may or may not use certain rules depending on what design his campaign will have. I agree keeping it simple is best, but how to keep it simple is not simple some times.
|
|
|
Post by DeathFrog on Jan 10, 2008 19:15:06 GMT -5
Another topic of rule changes starts with this message.
There is too much confusion about what a CA and an FF is.
As per the message of********* stating he wishes about my calling a CA a CA, well, it fits in with calling a DD an FF.
I believe the HC is a heavy Cruiser. THere is no ship with the HC designation. There is however a ship in NEARLY every race(including pirates) with a CA designation. Same goes for a FF. There is nearly every race with a FF designation, but none with the FRIG designation.
I will propose it here,, for a rules change in the way classes of ships are designated.
DREAD = dreadnaught
HC = heavy cruiser
LIGHT = light cruiser
FRIG =frigate
NO more of this FF meaning a frigate while a DD is a frigate, and an FF is also a frigate. NO more of this CA meaning a Heavy Cruiser, while a CA is also a CA, and a heavy cruiser.
This only causes confusion.
|
|
|
Ho Chi
Scurvy Cat
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 93
|
Post by Ho Chi on Jan 12, 2008 15:44:57 GMT -5
Not that it is my place to suggest a rule revision...being new and all but....
If you wish to prevent a single ship from being repeatedly built, begin requiring "support ships" inorder to build the ship.
For example,
if a nation wishes to build a light cruiser, then 2 frigates must be build prior to be in a position to "support" the light cruiser.
if a nation wishes to build a heavy cruiser, then 2 light cruisers must be built to support prior to the actual heavy cruiser is put into production.
etc etc etc....this mechanism will prevent a game of heavy cruisers or dreads....just a thought
|
|
|
Post by DeathFrog on Jan 12, 2008 16:12:02 GMT -5
Thanks, and I tried for such a ruling once. What transpired was they want the K.I.S.S. theory, where there is next to no bookkeeping.
|
|
Ho Chi
Scurvy Cat
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 93
|
Post by Ho Chi on Jan 12, 2008 17:08:41 GMT -5
Hmmmm.....paperwork? Individuals submitting orders cannot count?
|
|