Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - Standalone => Wings of Dawn => WoD Forum Game => Topic started by: Spoon on September 09, 2015, 07:59:18 pm

Title: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 09, 2015, 07:59:18 pm
The general thread for all your discussions, questions and comments related to the forum game.
Everyone welcome, including those not taking part in the game.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on September 09, 2015, 09:27:00 pm
Hello all, let's have a fun and memorable run of things! :cool:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on September 10, 2015, 12:12:25 am
Echoing Lepanto's sentiments, let's all have some fun and help make Spoon feel relaxed and happy (because all the rules work well.) :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on September 10, 2015, 04:19:29 am
Well then, GL & HF to everyone

- In Pace Vigil, In Bello Clemens

EDIT: is my latin correct on this motto?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on September 10, 2015, 04:28:15 am
GL HF, folks. Hail Spoon.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on September 10, 2015, 06:01:01 am
Me gonna crush you all! :P

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on September 10, 2015, 06:24:04 am
The Sol Union greets and welcomes all to join under our flag of democracy and in the solemn guardianship of the cradle of humanity.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 10, 2015, 08:48:43 am
The game hasn't even 'started' yet and its already in full swing, I'm absolutely loving what I'm seeing so far  :D

I'll venture to get the fleet statistics up today, but I sort of had a last moment of design inspiration and I want to explore that line of thought a bit. Before putting it on the forum and making it 'official'. Either way, should be soon!

Each new phase will start on a sunday, so 'saturday' will be the deadline for orders before they are set in stone. Since I'm a nerdy NEET my days are almost in sync with the american time zone, so in general, sunday sort of starts for me on 13:00 central european time* (its when I crawl out from underneath my blankets). So consider that the last possible moments to submit orders.

*If I'm not mistaken that is 07:00 EST
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on September 10, 2015, 09:01:38 am
I've got it showing up as having all the summer time and daylight saving stuff implimented. But as I always convert time wrong, I'd ignore me.

Based on the above, it will also be 10pm AEST (GMT +10). :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 10, 2015, 07:13:14 pm
I'm crunching a lot of numbers on the fleet stats, I like where I'm going with this but it requires a bit more math before I can put it on here.
I'm basically throwing out a large bit of already done work at the last moment because I got struck by inspiration yesterday  :p

G-good thing this is a test game...!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 10, 2015, 08:27:27 pm
Spoon, do you think we should have some sort of role play thread in here too?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 10, 2015, 08:29:38 pm
Oh right, forgot about that.
Go forth and create one.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on September 11, 2015, 04:23:23 am
Not life-threatening or anything. But in the Ihefulian System, the node to Uuni is labelled as "Terconia".
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 11, 2015, 08:38:18 am
You have saved many lifes just now
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 11, 2015, 09:25:09 am
Something I have completely neglected to mention for everyone and totally should have:
All factions will have 3 fleets, the factions that currently only have 2 will recieve a 'npc' Spoon fleet to level the playing field.
In the cases that two Spoon fleets would come into conflict with each other, I will ask an admiral from each respective faction to do the battle for me instead.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on September 11, 2015, 09:26:42 am
Will the UCG still start with neutron weapons, despite equal fleets?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 11, 2015, 09:34:12 am
Yes
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on September 11, 2015, 09:41:17 am
Yes

How does Neutron weapons effect the UGC fleet?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on September 11, 2015, 09:42:36 am
Yes

How does Neutron weapons effect the UGC fleet?

10% of damage by weapons with the Neutron-keyword bypasses enemy shields

Regretting the treaty with the DD already? :P
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on September 11, 2015, 09:51:00 am
Yes

How does Neutron weapons effect the UGC fleet?

10% of damage by weapons with the Neutron-keyword bypasses enemy shields

Regretting the treaty with the DD already? :P

While I cant go into details I will state that the Delest Dynasty treaty is an important step given the proximity of our capital worlds but at the same time it is one component of our diplomatic plans and that UGC and Britannia treaties are at different stages of negotiation.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 11, 2015, 03:06:23 pm
Hi Spoon. I'd like to ask you a few things. :)

When are we going to learn what we can spend our resources on?

Also, what is the definition of a location? Is it a system or something within a system? So do we all have 4 locations to start and the nebula in the middle is a location?

Can a faction be completely eliminated?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 11, 2015, 04:33:54 pm
Hi Spoon. I'd like to ask you a few things. :)

When are we going to learn what we can spend our resources on?
Rrrright about now.

Also, what is the definition of a location? Is it a system or something within a system? So do we all have 4 locations to start and the nebula in the middle is a location?

Can a faction be completely eliminated?
A location is any place a fleet can move to inside a system. So a starlance, planet, nebula, asteroid belt etc.

Its possible for a faction to be completely eliminated.
But perhaps the conquering faction might want to employ the services of the Admirals of the conquered faction? Or perhaps the Admirals of the defeated faction can seek refuge at an other faction and continue the good fight there?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 11, 2015, 04:46:20 pm
Thank you Spoon.

I put some questions in our new thread.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on September 11, 2015, 04:55:17 pm
How does the tech economy work and how does it impact fleet performance?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 11, 2015, 05:19:44 pm
Increasing your faction's tech level will unlock extra projects, which will sometimes lead to an additional ship type or just a straight up upgrade for a weapon type. etc
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on September 12, 2015, 03:26:28 am
Regarding tech level, will the tech remain the same each time the game is played?

Ie. Test game has x and a at L1, b, Y, u at L2
Main game is the same,
Game 42 is also the same.

Or would they change a little bit sometimes, possibly randomised or something just to change things up. ?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 12, 2015, 11:33:29 am
Can we take locations that are not planets just by moving over them? Do you take the Shipyards that are already on the map or blow them up?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 12, 2015, 01:19:32 pm
Regarding tech level, will the tech remain the same each time the game is played?

Ie. Test game has x and a at L1, b, Y, u at L2
Main game is the same,
Game 42 is also the same.

Or would they change a little bit sometimes, possibly randomised or something just to change things up. ?
Maybe, perhaps, possibly.
I'll get back to you about that in ~20 weeks  :p

Can we take locations that are not planets just by moving over them? Do you take the Shipyards that are already on the map or blow them up?
Both questions are answered in the rules, under shipyards and admiral mechanics
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on September 13, 2015, 10:25:46 am
Spoon, will you be shaking the game up with special events, or just let us play the game out per the rules?

As it stands, we seem to be entering a period of universal peace through diplomacy. While peace is great from an objective standpoint, it'd be boring if nobody started shooting each other.

Unless there's some sort of Machiavellian plotting under the surface I'm missing that'll destroy the peace and explode into full-scale war when Britannia least expects it. :drevil:

Overall, what has the current progress of diplomacy taught you about the game (before the game has even begun)?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 13, 2015, 10:42:20 am
Spoon, will you be shaking the game up with special events, or just let us play the game out per the rules?

As it stands, we seem to be entering a period of universal peace through diplomacy. While peace is great from an objective standpoint, it'd be boring if nobody started shooting each other.

Unless there's some sort of Machiavellian plotting under the surface I'm missing that'll destroy the peace and explode into full-scale war when Britannia least expects it. :drevil:

Overall, what has the current progress of diplomacy taught you about the game (before the game has even begun)?
That for this exact reason, the npc faction leaders are needed  :p
Bunch of hippies!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on September 13, 2015, 11:09:16 am
Spoon, will you be shaking the game up with special events, or just let us play the game out per the rules?

As it stands, we seem to be entering a period of universal peace through diplomacy. While peace is great from an objective standpoint, it'd be boring if nobody started shooting each other.

Unless there's some sort of Machiavellian plotting under the surface I'm missing that'll destroy the peace and explode into full-scale war when Britannia least expects it. :drevil:

Overall, what has the current progress of diplomacy taught you about the game (before the game has even begun)?

You seem to think that peace treaty = peace.

I am sorry to say that peace treaty != peace.

That does NOT mean that the DD are planning to backstab everyone.   :drevil: Just pointing out that someone might be thinking along those lines...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on September 13, 2015, 11:36:15 am
Spoon, will you be shaking the game up with special events, or just let us play the game out per the rules?

As it stands, we seem to be entering a period of universal peace through diplomacy. While peace is great from an objective standpoint, it'd be boring if nobody started shooting each other.

Unless there's some sort of Machiavellian plotting under the surface I'm missing that'll destroy the peace and explode into full-scale war when Britannia least expects it. :drevil:

Overall, what has the current progress of diplomacy taught you about the game (before the game has even begun)?
That for this exact reason, the npc faction leaders are needed  :p
Bunch of hippies!

The problem with running a PvP on an open minded inclusive forum lol
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 13, 2015, 11:49:42 am
That for this exact reason, the npc faction leaders are needed  :p
Four military coups later... :drevil:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on September 13, 2015, 01:02:13 pm
That for this exact reason, the npc faction leaders are needed  :p
Four military coups later... :drevil:

At least that would involve fighting garrison (louyalist) fleets  :lol:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 13, 2015, 01:11:08 pm
And Admirals would have to avoid mysterious sabotage on their fleets from higher forces operating on a plane beyond what they can perceive.  :drevil:

Spoon, will you be shaking the game up with special events, or just let us play the game out per the rules?
I currently don't have any special events planned for the test game. (This might need to change to get you guys to actually wage some proper war  :p)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on September 13, 2015, 03:23:23 pm
Do we receive our first round of income on turn 1 or 2?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 13, 2015, 03:27:11 pm
Every intrique phase so, first round of income would be on turn 1
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 13, 2015, 08:29:09 pm
About the garrison fleets, can you have more than one in a location? Can you only garrison planets or can you garrison anything on the map? If so, even Starlances?

Is there any benefit to securing a starlance apart from giving defeated admirals an escape route / capturing defeated admirals?

Shouldn't the potential of our fleets be 1/3 for the good morale? That is the potential stat, right, and the reason our garrison fleet is at 1/3 and 110%?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 13, 2015, 09:51:00 pm
No
Planet only
Aside from blockading the usage of most projects and capturing admirals, there is not other benefit to controlling starlances.
Yes, but I haven't updated that part of the map yet because I haven't put down the CRF fleets yet (the CRF doesn't have patrol fleets)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on September 16, 2015, 04:39:57 am
Doing some playtesting with Fleet and Ship stats. My sincere condolences to the CRF and the SF (j/k). :drevil:

(seriously, though, a friendly suggestion to the SF admirals: use those EMP / ECM ships, or you're screwed).

Is the 'Anti-Cap' flag at all relevant anymore (see rules thread)?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 16, 2015, 09:26:46 pm
No, anticap is being removed.
Also for Admirals wondering where they should tell me what fleet types they want their fleets to consist of, use the orders thread for it :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 17, 2015, 11:35:15 am
Can you get Garrison fleets to move to shipyards for repairs, reinforcements and refits?

Is the faction's starting Garrison Fleet predetermined, or can we choose what it's composed of?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 17, 2015, 11:54:19 am
That is a good question, I'll get back to you on that.

Starting garrison fleet is predetermined.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on September 17, 2015, 11:58:50 am
Can you get Garrison fleets to move to shipyards for repairs, reinforcements and refits?

Is the faction's starting Garrison Fleet predetermined, or can we choose what it's composed of?

The only time a garrison can move is to a shipyard for refit/repair, note that so far as I can tell all starting garrisons are located at the homeworld which will also have the marker for a minor shipyard above it
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 17, 2015, 12:51:12 pm
Is headdie correct Spoon? Both about garrison fleets and that that marker signifies a shipyard on the planet?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on September 17, 2015, 01:19:48 pm
The marker, definitely, it's in the rules. The move-to-repair thing is TBC.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 17, 2015, 01:36:47 pm
The marker, definitely, it's in the rules.
Thank you. I've now located the reference.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 18, 2015, 09:30:29 pm
Okay so about garrison fleets:
Garrison fleets can only be refitted if the planet they are garrisoned at have a shipyard. Garrison fleets will automatically repair 25% strength every strategic phase, no cost. They cannot be repaired manually. They repair even when they've been brought down to zero strength. They won't repair from zero strength if there is an enemy fleet present on their location.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on September 18, 2015, 09:41:08 pm
Cool.

Do they repair if they're in the middle of a battle and not dead? I'm guessing no.

Do they need a shipyard on the planet to repair?

If the planet were to be conquered and then retaken, would the old garrison fleet respawn, or would you need to build a new one?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 19, 2015, 08:09:12 pm
Yeah I guess it wouldn't really make sense if they automagically repaired during combat.
They don't need a shipyard on location to repair (just to refit), the garrison fleets are lost forever and all eternity if the planet is taken by the enemy. And you'd need to build new ones.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on September 28, 2015, 12:10:15 pm
Spoon, one suggestion I'd make:

If there's no tactical combat going on in a turn, merge both phases and do them in the same week.

As it stands, the Admirals have nothing to do during the intrigue phase, at least until the shooting starts. If you shortened noncombat turns, that'd get us to the shooting and resolve the game much faster.

------------------

Also, if you're bored with all the peace, maybe you could activate the Faction Leaders now? Just a suggestion.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on September 28, 2015, 01:02:48 pm
Everyone is dumping fleets into Aldebaran or at least moving them into the direction. Some of the publicly known non-agression pacts allow combat in Aldebaran. If we are still doing nothing in two turns despite these signs Spoon has to wake us up somehow :D
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 28, 2015, 01:07:27 pm
I'm currently really content with the pace and direction the game has been heading. It's super cool and interesting to see all the politics going on, all the ministers are doing marvelous jobs. And for me, the game almost just plays itself, I just sit back and enjoy all the things that are happening  :D
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on September 28, 2015, 01:24:24 pm
+1 on shortening non-combat turns .. considering how much diplomacy still goes on during the Admirals' turns to long wind-up, wind-down to each intrigue phase doesn't have to be



One faction also made pretty clear how they value their treaties .... so instead of peace (at that appeared to be in place during I1) we are actually at an Infinity-level situation at the end S1 :) - so maybe there is no need for faction leaders yet
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on September 28, 2015, 06:26:19 pm
The pace could be shortened. But there are reasons for it being like this, which I am quite happy with :) (it doesn't mean I stop checking the boards multiple times per day however).

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on September 29, 2015, 11:21:02 am
Questions that were asked:
"This turn I'm planning to Research 50% and reach Tier 2. I assume that I can immediately trade this?"
"Starbases require Tier 2 Tech. Can I start building a Starbase this turn, or must I wait for I3?"

Let's say in the interest of pace and consistency that you can immediately do all these things on the same turn that the research completes.

"If I submit a fleet design in I2, can I immediately approve refit of a garrison fleet based on that design, or must I wait for I3?"

Same for this, immediate refitting is allowed.



Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on September 29, 2015, 12:24:48 pm
Certainly at the moment I am happy with the pacing as it gives myself and my admirals chance to analyse what is happening and set up our next moves
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 05, 2015, 10:49:09 am
Well, the next turn is a bit on the late side since hlp was down the whole day yesterday! I'm on it as I type this.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 06, 2015, 05:25:50 pm
About the tech level deal, if one faction can give another what they need to move up a level, how can that work when each faction has a different tech tree?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 06, 2015, 06:17:30 pm
Game mechanics~
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 07, 2015, 11:36:38 am
About the tech level deal, if one faction can give another what they need to move up a level, how can that work when each faction has a different tech tree?

Think of tech progress as XP advancement in an RPG with a class level-system... each level unlocks abilities depending on the "class" but advancement towards the unlock is universal.

On a simulation level, tech progress is measuring the time and effort put into research. A faction doing the "research X%"-order is putting its own people at work to develop/copy/design/invent their tech, from schooling, via trainging to employing their research staff. A faction trading tech is simply buying up a workforce and knowhow at another faction, instead of developing it domestically.



Question!

What happens if two factions try to secure a location but both are "friendly" with each other? - Since we technically wouldn't fight, what would happen?

I think everyone is an agreement that this should be worked out before this happens:

No one has fired a shot yet and three of four factions have comitted to Aldebaran. each with an assurance not fire on the others ... and theoretically all three will move towards the Refinery next turn with a 2nd order to secure it....
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 07, 2015, 04:37:18 pm
Unless the factions trying to secure it at the same time have some kind of sharing agreement (in which case the location will be be split control with split resource distribution), the faction that secures it last gets it. When both factions try to secure it at the same time, both will fail and it'll remain in control of the last owner (or neutral).
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 09, 2015, 07:34:28 am
Gather Intel will no longer be available starting next intrigue turn.
For two reasons: 1. Even my vague global reports seem quite powerful hints in the hands of all these capable ministers.
2. I don't want you players to feel like you need to hide your (interesting to read) discussions from prying Spoon eyes, because they might contain info that could help another faction.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 09, 2015, 09:58:50 am
Awww :(

Well, that's your call. Maybe you could rebalance Gather Intel for the main game somehow? Having an intel option adds a new dimension to the political game, but I understand if you think Gather Intel as written is OP.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 09, 2015, 11:36:34 am
Personally I'm happy to see it go. For this exact reason:
I don't want you players to feel like you need to hide your (interesting to read) discussions from prying Spoon eyes, because they might contain info that could help another faction.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on October 09, 2015, 02:25:55 pm
Personally I'm happy to see it go. For this exact reason:
I don't want you players to feel like you need to hide your (interesting to read) discussions from prying Spoon eyes, because they might contain info that could help another faction.

That so much true.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 09, 2015, 02:31:31 pm
Gather Intel will no longer be available starting next intrigue turn.
For two reasons: 1. Even my vague global reports seem quite powerful hints in the hands of all these capable ministers.
2. I don't want you players to feel like you need to hide your (interesting to read) discussions from prying Spoon eyes, because they might contain info that could help another faction.

Maybe rather than stricking the project wholesale, introducing a counter-espionage system might be an idea for Tech 2 and beyond... just thinking

EDIT: continuing to throw stuff out there:

rather than the current format one could revise Gather Intel wtih a focus on just a single faction - while counter-espionage should global but relatively cheap compared to eyeing everyone....

Alternatively it would be simple to just tier Gather Intel and having the a corresponding or higher tier of counter-espionage cancel it out.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 09, 2015, 03:01:36 pm
Maybe have the espionage info not be entirely trustworthy? It'd be more realistic (and a prime opportunity for Spoon to troll players. :p)

If you, say, pay 2000 for Gather Intel, you get ambiguous and possibly misleading info. If you pay 4000, you get mostly-trustworthy info. If you pay even more, you get definite info.

On the other hand, players can spend money on Counter-Intel, which either shuts down enemy espionage networks or lets you deliberately feed the spies fake information. :drevil:

Make the total amount of funds spent on espionage public, but keep each faction's specific expenditures on different kinds of Intel and Counter-Intel secret. That faction over there, whom your spies have told you is trustworthy, and whom you're considering an alliance with? Did they just spend 4000 money on spying on Faction C, or did they spend it feeding YOUR spies false intel as part of an elaborate backstab? Who knows... ;)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 09, 2015, 03:45:44 pm
perhaps

Have a general Intel gathering like we see now where you can get info on all factions but also have a general counter intel which puts an element of chance, say 50% on gaining intel from that faction

but then have choice of instead of general intel you can launch a targeted intel at one faction, this would overpower a general counter intel, but if a faction wants to they can hide a specific action set say the movement of a fleet or several if they have the same destination or part of the same operation with a high chance of beating both intelligence types.

I think perhaps have both intelligence costing 1000 money and counterintelligence costing 500

Also on the turn summary thread is they just show as intelligence and counterintelligence so that it is unknown to the other factions exactly what levels they are running at
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Droid803 on October 09, 2015, 09:58:01 pm
Grading the intel doesn't help the fact that people will still just take things to PMs to avoid their supar sekret plahnz gittin leek'd.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 10, 2015, 01:52:04 am
Grading the intel doesn't help the fact that people will still just take things to PMs to avoid their supar sekret plahnz gittin leek'd.

An active counter intel-action might be the solution to that. Mostly the problem is that there is no active stance against Gather Intel in the game... if you can "firewall" your discussion ACTIVELY it can mitigate the "must not Spoon see this"-problem
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on October 10, 2015, 02:34:00 am
But - why would you spend cash on active defence instead of taking your planning to PMs to get the same effect, for zero cash? You'd need some other incentive to counter that, and sorry, I don't have any ideas at this point.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on October 10, 2015, 09:26:49 am
But - why would you spend cash on active defence instead of taking your planning to PMs to get the same effect, for zero cash? You'd need some other incentive to counter that, and sorry, I don't have any ideas at this point.

There is too much to leave to simple "Trust", and yeah, there would be people who would hide away anyway. No point for some to beeing fair and keep posting on forum boards where Spoon can see, while others take it to PM's. Not fair there, so either kill it, or regulate it.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 10, 2015, 12:34:45 pm
It just makes too much sense to just cut Spoon out rather than spend valuable resources to do it (and even then it might not be totally reliable, while taking it to PMs is 100% reliable.)

The test game has had its first real success in removing Gather Intel imo.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 10, 2015, 02:11:44 pm
I don't want to do it in the Public Diploacy thread, so I'll say it here, Enioch and Lepanto, you're cracking me up with your posts. I'm imagining that song being played to the DD's super soldiers. It involves tables and chairs flying through the air and a massive metal fist going through a viewscreen. :lol:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 10, 2015, 02:46:43 pm
Edit: Game update tomorrow is gonna be a bit later than usual as I'll need a bit of extra time to set up the tactical part (and to try and figure out all the complicated diplomatic webs you guys have weaved.  :p)

I agree that intelligence and counter intelligence could be an interesting concept, but as has already been pointed out by others here, it could be completely negated by just taking stuff to pm or some other channel. If you guys have other ideas that could add something to the intrigue phase to replace gather intel, speak up, I'll consider it.

Quote
Addendum: Music can soothe the savage beast, but we would very much appreciate it if you could stop clogging our subspace bandwith with enthusiastic renditions of your national anthem, 'Rule Brittania' and 'Hearts of Oak'. Not to mention it's not helping your case, since our Yonsakuren troops are used to go into battle trances when they hear it.
-Commander T. Skivlana, DD Foreign Vice Minister
Quote
If your troops go into battle trance at the sound of our national anthem, that must be a dreadful inconvenience for them; after all, since our two nations are not at war, they are seeing no combat against Britannian troops. For the time being, we have replaced our traditional diplomatic broadcasts of our National Anthem with a classic early-21st-century song famed for promoting international harmony. Hopefully, this tune will be less offensive to your troops, and convey Britannia's sincere spirit of international cooperation. Please inform us which song is more to your convenience.

P.S. Her Majesty formally and sincerely apologizes for her Flipper comments yesterday. After the Cabinet had an extended discussion with her on the benefits of social media tact, she agreed that perhaps "ABOUT TIME WE GET IN A GOOD SCRAP LEPANTO YOU LOUSY HIPPIE" was a suboptimal choice of words to express her nuanced feelings on Britannian astropolitical relations.

(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Junk/1250809903219_zps0zgakn2p.jpg~original)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 11, 2015, 05:07:04 am
Edit: Game update tomorrow is gonna be a bit later than usual as I'll need a bit of extra time to set up the tactical part (and to try and figure out all the complicated diplomatic webs you guys have weaved.  :p)

Can you please at least give an advance notice who we are all shooting at?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 11, 2015, 11:46:15 am
Turn is up, This is your advance notice  :p

Speaking about notice, I just noticed I forgot to update the +500 resource and money income to the UGC and CRF, worry not, you will in fact receive +3500 next turn. I'll update it then.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 11, 2015, 12:59:51 pm
Spoon, your tactical battle map, 0rph3u5 didn't take Carriers.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 11, 2015, 01:02:43 pm
Ah darn, mixed up the 2nd and 3rd.
Also forgot to account of the ECM, lemme go and fix all my mistakes.

Edit: There, hopefully everything is A-okay now!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 11, 2015, 03:51:02 pm
The nebula backdrop on the Aldebaran tactical map is purely cosmetic, I presume?

And can you shoot through the "donout hole" on the Aldebaran tactical map?

EDIT: also the 1st DD's Port and Starboard orientations are in reverse, for them the left side of the map should be Starboard and the right side Port as they observe the map turned by 180°.
EDIT: same with 1st through 3rd SF's orientations in the Fomalhaut.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 11, 2015, 05:24:00 pm
Yeah, it's just there to indicate it takes place in a nebula (so the penalty to weapon accuracy applies), every grid is nebula.
Yes, you can fire through the donut hole.
Also yes, you are right, I've been dumb with the compass directions. But since there have already been orders that have been given I'm not going to change it now, since that would only add confusion. So just accept the wrong as right for now  :p
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 11, 2015, 05:28:44 pm
Yes, you can fire through the donut hole.

Damn, I really wanted to go all Space Hulk on the 1st DD ;)
In the Space Hulk Boardgame one of best tactics for the Genestealers is to lurk just around a corner so you negate the Space Marines' ranged combat advantage
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on October 11, 2015, 06:39:35 pm
Hey Spoon

There's your war.

:)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on October 12, 2015, 12:07:24 pm
So all the peaceful rhetoric was just a big lie to cover the time until the first fraction was ready for an invasion (the given diplomatic reasons are flimsy at best). Not really unexpected though since that web of treaties (and whatever secret additions there are/were) was never going to hold when exposed to a juicy nebula refinery. Also we have to do war anyway to test the game ;)

I just hope we get some more reasonable and stable politics/diplomacy in the main game...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 12, 2015, 12:10:29 pm
What do you think was unreasonable/unstable about the politics going on?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 12, 2015, 12:23:01 pm
What do you think was unreasonable/unstable about the politics going on?

I think he meant that there should be more clean-cut alliances instead of you being Minister of Peace (not an Orwell reference)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 12, 2015, 12:31:25 pm
Well the faction leaders are going to play their part. It seems more like they'll set the goals and the minister will be free to pursue said goals however they wish. And if they don't try to fulfil those goals there will be penalties.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 12, 2015, 12:34:04 pm
The issue with the politics in the test game I think is basically 4 factions with only 1 square to expand into which if spoon says wasn't deliberate I will call BS.  The proximity and 10 turn time frame means there was no time for a treaty to become the norm and what we instead see is a very fluid political situation where words certainly have meaning at the time they are said by the end of the next phase could be rendered irrelevant, because with no time to deduce the hidden politicking of the other factions, for example the CRF/UGC Aldebaran share agreement, we in the Sol Union thought we had side stepped that possibility but either by advanced planning or hurried agreement it happened which with the UGC's heavy deployment into Aldebaran forced the Sol Union to either accept being 500/500 per turn down (We had a share agreement with the DD) or take a proactive step (a 3 way split on 1000/1000 would not really be a noticeable income for a faction)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on October 12, 2015, 01:09:30 pm
It's pretty much what headdie said: The small symmetric map generally made diplomacy a fast paced guesswork which in my opinion it shouldn't be. It never allowed for the all peace setup that the CRF promoted to come true. And don't tell me the CRF was surprised by the invasion that their allies started.

I also think Spoon made it like this deliberately so we got to fight within a few turns. I just hope that the main game diplomacy will be different and not just fast talk and ruses/lies that you can't seperate from things someone ment honestly half a turn ago. Diplomacy is a big part about trust but you need time and (smaller) actions to build it - time we don't have and any fleet commitment is close to an all-in.

Edit:
I really like to read all the roleplay and diplomacy stuff that has been posted and it's sad there is so few substance behind all of the (more or less  :drevil:) carefully crafted words...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Droid803 on October 12, 2015, 01:24:26 pm
I don't think anyone was surprised by the invasion, but yeah, all the diplomacy has pretty much been a lot of hot air in terms on the non-aggression agreements and really boiled down to who was going to break one first.

Still think there's some value to it though. Possibly. Or I will be trying my darn best to put some value into it.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 12, 2015, 01:40:35 pm
There was a lot of intent for peace but the way the game unfolded that intent was optimistic?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 12, 2015, 02:37:33 pm
Edit:
I really like to read all the roleplay and diplomacy stuff that has been posted and it's sad there is so few substance behind all of the (more or less  :drevil:) carefully crafted words...

The problem with the RP in its current state is that few of us are doing it and all beside each other, esspecially consideirng Minister gameplay somewhat bottlenecks information ... I mean the initial exchange between AdmiralRalwood and myself in the Aldebaran stand-off is was nice and tense  but I only know that he and the CRF players got to see it (and after the initial exchange it hardly required continuing because I got all the info I wanted out of it :) )

But then again, we might see more of it as the SF-UGC war drags on ;)



Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 12, 2015, 06:04:05 pm
Hey Spoon

There's your war.

:)
I'd like to officially thank the SF for their willingness to bite the bullet and potentially risk their position in the game by being the first ones to go to war  :D

The issue with the politics in the test game I think is basically 4 factions with only 1 square to expand into which if spoon says wasn't deliberate I will call BS.
It wasn't delib-
Hah, no, of course it was  :p

I just hope that the main game diplomacy will be different and not just fast talk and ruses/lies that you can't seperate from things someone ment honestly half a turn ago. Diplomacy is a big part about trust but you need time and (smaller) actions to build it - time we don't have and any fleet commitment is close to an all-in.
Yeah, I think it will be. The faction leaders being present in the main game (which I can say with a lot of confidence now, will definitely happen) alone should change how diplomacy will go.

Being able to see all 4 sides of this game is just so much fun for me, I'm just watching all this speculation, trickery and politics unfold with a big grin on my ugly mug.

Actually, now that I'm on the subject, I should mention one concern of mine. While the diplomacy messages are great, I sort of lost track of which faction has Aldebaran fight exceptions with who etc. And going through the thread means 'plowing' through a lot of 'thick' messages, which is not ideal when I'm trying to keep track of a bunch of things during a new turn.
I guess, now that I'm typing this, I should keep track of all the little diplomatic exceptions in a spreadsheet for the main game.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on October 12, 2015, 06:29:41 pm
If it's any help, at this point in time, the DD have a non-combat agreement with everyone and everywhere with the exception of the CRF (truce expired and we're at cold war again).
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on October 12, 2015, 08:35:17 pm
It's pretty much what headdie said: The small symmetric map generally made diplomacy a fast paced guesswork which in my opinion it shouldn't be. It never allowed for the all peace setup that the CRF promoted to come true. And don't tell me the CRF was surprised by the invasion that their allies started.

You won't believe me, but I was. Didn't think SF would have moved so quickly into combat, but did expect some sort of event to occur anyway, Aldebaran was a certain though, just the question was with what faction/fleet makeup

Quote
I also think Spoon made it like this deliberately so we got to fight within a few turns. I just hope that the main game diplomacy will be different and not just fast talk and ruses/lies that you can't seperate from things someone ment honestly half a turn ago. Diplomacy is a big part about trust but you need time and (smaller) actions to build it - time we don't have and any fleet commitment is close to an all-in.

Yea, this smaller game doesn't really allow diplomacy to work, which is a shame but the shortened span is so the game can be tested, and part of the test requires combat. Overall, I see the diplomacy system working much nicer in the long run of a main game.

Quote
Edit:
I really like to read all the roleplay and diplomacy stuff that has been posted and it's sad there is so few substance behind all of the (more or less  :drevil:) carefully crafted words...

My posts suck, hence why I haven't even tried to post them. :( Fiddlesticks


As long as we are all enjoying ourselves and providing feedback. Personally enjoying the inter-faction work again, and that the 1st CRF is in the running for "Most Fuel Efficient Fleet".  :lol: Thanks Spoon!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on October 13, 2015, 12:10:41 am
Quote
If it's any help, at this point in time, the DD have a non-combat agreement with everyone and everywhere with the exception of the CRF (truce expired and we're at cold war again).

With the map we have here,  you cannot avoid war, and im not sure im getting it right - but you seem to make a war in this game like it was a problem. But its not, it is just a game, and a test one to it.

And come on, CRF with their diplomatic game - someone finally HAD to make a move, and play out of this thick web of politics.

Quote
My posts suck, hence why I haven't even tried to post them. :( Fiddlesticks

Roleplaying in English somewhat doesn't work with me as well, and what is the point, to ruin yours exceptional skill with my poor writing.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 13, 2015, 04:20:02 am
If you guys have other ideas that could add something to the intrigue phase to replace gather intel, speak up, I'll consider it.

How about an anonymous bullet-in board-thingy visible to everyone.... For which players send Spoon messages which he posts without revealing the identity of the sender ...

 It may not replace intelligence gathering but it can be a tool spread misinformation, leak interna in a cryptic fashion and similiar...

Sample message:
"The SF may considering that they have a friend who does not fear the Black Griffons." - anonymous

As the senders remain anonymous their messages are of unreliable content (and since they go through Spoon they might be filtered, altered or br written by him) but the fact that they are going to be public allows every faction to arrive at a different conclusion if to act on them or not. Plus they might give the Ministers something to talk about among each other :D
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 13, 2015, 12:13:13 pm
Sounds like a fun idea to me
I dont know if anyone would really use it though? Thoughts?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 13, 2015, 12:17:23 pm
I may be missing the point. If it's misinformation why would anyone pay attention to it? I suppose you could put something truthful in there amongst the garbage to try and make someone think it was false.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 13, 2015, 01:47:29 pm
I may be missing the point. If it's misinformation why would anyone pay attention to it? I suppose you could put something truthful in there amongst the garbage to try and make someone think it was false.

Misinformation if recongnized is also "actionable intelligence", in a "against the left side, off the table, through the door and against the Bulsar's head yesterday"1-kind of way. If you know that you are being lied to you are often half-way to determiniting why you are being lied to as well, which in turn reveals where the other wants to guide your attention to and away from.

Imagine being a sceptic at a magician's show. You know it is all an act, that all the sweeping gestures and beautiful assistants are just there to distract you from things happening elsewhere on the stage. As you are not dazzeled by the theatrics you can actually see hints of the hidden compartment in the chair/box/bottom of the stage and hence know how the trick works, all because you see what the magician is attempting to distract you from.
(However you being a sceptic doesn't dissuade the magician from his/her act as long as there is audience that is not sceptic and falls for the distractions.)

1 - while not an acutal quote (couldn't find the right book) a tribute to the late Sir Terry Pratchett
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 13, 2015, 01:51:46 pm
I am uncertain what the benefit would be to posting into this BB
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 13, 2015, 02:28:28 pm
I am uncertain what the benefit would be to posting into this BB

Firstly, you can use it as tool for misinformation from an official side without being recongnized, kicking out a Red Hering. Since it is per se marked as unreliable information it may not work but then again no one knows that s.o. posting information about DD fleet movements is in fact the SF Minister.

Secondly, players can use it to post information and oppinions unfiltered by their own faction. E.g. in the case of dissention inside a faction, esspecially with the faction leaders in place, one side may use this to call out to players on another faction to help them shift the internal discussion through external pressure. (Remember despite disagreements inside a faction all players of that faction may "walk the company line" when they are in an open converstation)

Lastly, you can be as creative as you can get as this is purely player created content. I mean you could use it as a joint forum to talk with your allies if you employ some encoding techniques but that would just be elaboratily silly  ... or wouldn't it be?

Since facilitating annonymity is most easily achived by using Spoon as go between, he can also impliment the same rules that apply to open treason via the faction leaders in case of excessive whistleblowing
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 13, 2015, 03:29:29 pm
RE: misinformation, Lorric's right. Who'd want to post accurate intel on a public forum in the first place? It'd be only useful for really complicated reverse-psychology mindgames that probably won't work anyway.

RE: open criticism:

A: Given that the criticism could only be coming from 2-3 people within the faction, it's still probably fairly obvious who's doing it. And that creates drama.

B: It's better to simply talk things over with your fellow faction members, rather than complain to everyone and start more drama than necessary.

C: It'd be really easy for complainers to accidentally betray inside intel, which ruins the game for the rest of your faction.

RE: joint forum, we've already got PMs and the internals (since Gather Intel is no longer an issue.)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 13, 2015, 03:32:08 pm
Yeah, if I end up being a minister in the main game, I won't want anything to do with such a thing. That's both stuff being posted into it or paying attention to stuff others put in.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 14, 2015, 05:56:17 pm
Question... What are we testing here?


To Minister Headdie of the Sol Union,

Your unprovoked invasion of the United Guilds of Commerce has shocked the civilized world. Allies or not, none of us can stand idly by while you turn your guns on your neighbors. Rather than discuss your grievances with the UGC via bilateral or multilateral diplomacy, you have broken your non-aggression pacts and returned to the ways of crude brute force.

We of the United Guilds of Commerce, Delest Dynasty, and New Britannia have formed a united front against this aggression. We have all agreed on the following stipulations, drafted by Delest Premier Kalazonitov:

Quote
The three nations (UGC, DD, CRF, henceforth referred to as the 'Alliance') will, as suggested by the CRF, present a joint ultimatum to the SU. They will need to withdraw to their own territory without firing on UGC forces, or face our combined fleets.

If they fail to do so, the Alliance will declare war on the SU. By extension, all truces, non-aggression treaties and alliances involving an Alliance member and the SU will become null and void.

In the above circumstances, the war will be pursued until the SU provides us with war reparations to the satisfaction of the Alliance members; the UGC, as the attacked party, will be the primary judge on this matter but war reparations will have to be paid to all Alliance members that have suffered casualties during combat.

The income from Aldebaran will be divided, as suggested by the CRF and UGC, in three equal parts between the Alliance members.

The acceptance of the above terms by the DD is subject to the resolution of the Aldebaran standoff.(...)

Once the Delest and Britannia have settled our dispute over Aldebaran [by next Strategy Phase], consider these terms in effect.

We beg you, withdraw your declaration of war, and we can settle this matter without loss of life. If not, we will expel you from Fomalhaut with lethal force.

Make the right choice, for all our sakes.

Yours in Honor and Resolve,
Britannian Foreign Secretary Lepanto
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 14, 2015, 06:22:16 pm
Umm... whether three different factions with their own agendas can form a united diplomatic and military front against a fourth faction, I guess?

Spoiler:
If you want to covertly undermine our alliance against you, go ahead and try.

If Spoon wants to veto this or something, go ahead.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on October 14, 2015, 06:22:31 pm
The feasibility of fighting 3v1 odds, by the 2nd UGCR & followed by the SU? :D
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 14, 2015, 07:06:19 pm
I'm not gonna veto, just be aware that I am fully supporting SF's cause  :p
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on October 14, 2015, 07:07:35 pm
I'm not gonna veto, just be aware that I am fully supporting SF's cause  :p

Obvious information is obvious.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on October 15, 2015, 02:00:16 am
The problem with the RP in its current state is that few of us are doing it and all beside each other, esspecially consideirng Minister gameplay somewhat bottlenecks information ... I mean the initial exchange between AdmiralRalwood and myself in the Aldebaran stand-off is was nice and tense  but I only know that he and the CRF players got to see it (and after the initial exchange it hardly required continuing because I got all the info I wanted out of it :) )
That's true and since quite a lot happens via PMs there is no way to release any exchanges. In this case the DD people obviously got to see it as well and it was a nice read. Diplomacy is just running so fast that the exchange might not be relevant anymore...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 15, 2015, 03:24:15 am
I might do something daft like release some or all of the messages at the end of the game just to see what ppl think
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 15, 2015, 08:46:11 am
I support the suggestion  to release game related PMs at game end. They're a vital part of the game's progression.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 15, 2015, 11:23:11 am
I support the suggestion  to release game related PMs at game end. They're a vital part of the game's progression.
Seems like a good idea to me, but I would make sure everyone else is okay with it first before doing so.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on October 15, 2015, 12:01:57 pm
Fine with me
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 15, 2015, 12:05:30 pm
I support the suggestion  to release game related PMs at game end. They're a vital part of the game's progression.
Seems like a good idea to me, but I would make sure everyone else is okay with it first before doing so.

Yer checking would be a good idea
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Droid803 on October 15, 2015, 12:20:19 pm
Fine with me as well :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 16, 2015, 02:22:34 pm
Fine with me as well, but then I will have to start saving those...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 16, 2015, 04:49:13 pm
Full disclosure: I just took my copy of The Art of War off the shelve ... soooo, it's on, I guess ;)

EDIT: to clarify: Sun Tzu not Machiavelli - don't know where I put my copies of Machiavelli's works (I actually own The Prince and his The Art of War)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 18, 2015, 02:44:22 pm
Excuse the delay, was getting to it but then a technophobe friend of mine called because he had accidently managed to make his windows installation unbootable. I spend some time on the phone to help him getting it fixed. Next turn should be up within the hour!

Edit: And it's up. As usual let me know if I was dumb and forgot something or did something wrong.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 18, 2015, 04:02:19 pm
Since you've told us what the latest round of projects do, could you tell us what the Artillery Centre does?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on October 18, 2015, 04:23:05 pm
It's a DD fleet (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90450.0) type.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 18, 2015, 04:49:55 pm
It's a DD fleet (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90450.0) type.
Ohhhhh... :D

The name made it sound like a building for upgrading Artillery fleets. Thanks niffiwan. :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 21, 2015, 02:25:08 pm
Would you guys be so kind to actually provide me with some combat data before the end of this test game though? That'd be great.
Sol Force being chickens after giving them my repeated assurance of Spoon backing was kind of disappointing.

So new rule: 5 points for each fleet flank destroyed, 10 points for every center fleet.

Fight.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 21, 2015, 03:30:55 pm
Hee hee hee. ;)

Makes me think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwhI7qdrsaA#t=0m48s

I wonder what kind of "Spoon backing" would be used to have a chance of overturning a 3 on 1.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on October 21, 2015, 03:42:36 pm
Sol Force being chickens

Spoon, your assurance will not grant us invincible fleets - in long terms, its a wise thing to do. Nobody wants to face a 3 on 1 situation anyway.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 21, 2015, 05:02:18 pm
It's rather like this right now:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 21, 2015, 06:29:29 pm
That seems accurate  :p
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on October 22, 2015, 02:20:15 am
I kind of expected the game to turn into a 2 on 2 war, with potentially shifting alliances, that the thing ended up a 3 on 1 is a bit surprising.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on October 22, 2015, 04:00:23 am
What makes you think it ended up a 3-on-1?

Fightin'hasn't started yet.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on October 22, 2015, 04:51:49 am
Well, if there hadn't seemingly been a coalition threatening to retaliate should the Sol Union attack, I think it's safe to bet that there would have been some shooting last turn.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 22, 2015, 06:26:55 am
in the position we were in we needed a strategy to work with to stand a chance and for a strategy we needed information, all we had were vague suggestions.  The hard information we had was that this coalition was strong and intent on following through.  While we had suggestions of dissent in the ranks the indications were that it didn't go far enough.  As such the the SF admirals made the grudging decision at the 11th hour to keep targeting systems powered down.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 22, 2015, 08:01:52 am
Well, information is to blame for public appearance of the CRF ... we knew and you all didn't knew what we knew, so our decissions may have seem erratric (not at as bad as the DD ones)

ps. RP for the tactical combat in Aldebaran is still WIP; just need to get some RL stuff done first

EDIT: and -not bragging or anything- but I toppeled a government  :cool: the wrong one of course but I did it
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 25, 2015, 09:01:44 pm
EDIT: also the 1st DD's Port and Starboard orientations are in reverse, for them the left side of the map should be Starboard and the right side Port as they observe the map turned by 180°.
EDIT: same with 1st through 3rd SF's orientations in the Fomalhaut.

Ahem....
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on October 26, 2015, 01:11:41 pm
Is it really that important? These directions lets say, are MAP-WISE.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 26, 2015, 05:41:43 pm
EDIT: also the 1st DD's Port and Starboard orientations are in reverse, for them the left side of the map should be Starboard and the right side Port as they observe the map turned by 180°.
EDIT: same with 1st through 3rd SF's orientations in the Fomalhaut.

Ahem....
Aright, I guess I wasn't completely clear in my last post.
I won't change/fix those orientations for the current ungoing fights, because it would add nothing but confusion. I'll try to get it right for all the new fights.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 29, 2015, 08:41:04 pm
I really like where the public diplomacy thread is going.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 29, 2015, 10:34:19 pm
I really like where the public diplomacy thread is going.
:beamz: :snipe: :hammer: :headz:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on October 30, 2015, 01:12:33 am
Its now going the way I have planned out the first time :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 30, 2015, 09:12:35 pm
Ouch, gonna need some burn cream for that one.

But I can dish it right back out. (Or would you just rather wait for the results of this phase before our next verbal round of Enioch vs. Lepanto?)

(OBTW Spoon, we never actually gave the DD a 1/3 share of the refinery. That, as Enioch made specific in his treaty terms, was contingent on our resolving the dispute in Aldebaran. Which we obviously didn't.)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on October 30, 2015, 09:33:27 pm
Ouch, gonna need some burn cream for that one.

But I can dish it right back out. (Or would you just rather wait for the results of this phase before our next verbal round of Enioch vs. Lepanto?)

(OBTW Spoon, we never actually gave the DD a 1/3 share of the refinery. That, as Enioch made specific in his treaty terms, was contingent on our resolving the dispute in Aldebaran. Which we obviously didn't.)

 :p

Hit me at your leisure.

Re Aldebaran: Did you secure the location again? Don't forget that the last 'secure' command takes effect.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on October 30, 2015, 10:15:42 pm
Haha oh man, these diplomacy posts give me such delight  :lol:

(OBTW Spoon, we never actually gave the DD a 1/3 share of the refinery. That, as Enioch made specific in his treaty terms, was contingent on our resolving the dispute in Aldebaran. Which we obviously didn't.)
I wasn't sure so I asked the DD before the turn:
Remind me, did you guys have some kind of agreement with the other groups to share the resources of the refinery or is this a 100% grab of it?
Both the CRF and the UGC appear to have been OK with a three-way split of the refinery. They did seem to adopt our stipulations against the SF, which included a three-way split of Aldebaran.
Else the refinery would have been 100% in the hands of the DD since last turn.
But I guess any sharing in the nearby future is coming to an end?  :p
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on October 31, 2015, 01:13:37 am
Haha oh man, these diplomacy posts give me such delight  :lol:

Spoon wants us all to burn :O
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 31, 2015, 09:39:05 am
Haha oh man, these diplomacy posts give me such delight  :lol:

Spoon wants us all to burn :O

Oh, he has made that abundantly clear. :p

Time to give him some skulls for the skull throne. :mad2:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on October 31, 2015, 10:34:16 am
Haha oh man, these diplomacy posts give me such delight  :lol:

Spoon wants us all to burn :O

Oh, he has made that abundantly clear. :p

Time to give him some skulls for the skull throne. :mad2:

[Cain] Well, he can't have mine [/Cain]
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 31, 2015, 11:11:29 am
Your nation lacks plot armor, so you don't have a choice in the matter. ;7

Spoon, you have your war. I hope you're happy. :P
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on October 31, 2015, 11:23:24 am
All you guys had to do was keep out of SF interstellar policy and the war would have started already  :banghead:

also Diplomacy thread is proving awesome popcorn material
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on October 31, 2015, 12:49:20 pm
Sorry if my previous foreign policy prevented anyone else from having fun.

Glad you're being entertained by our back-and-forth, at least. ;) Who do you think has the better zingers?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on October 31, 2015, 01:10:57 pm
Spoon, it's a good thing you told us you needed your data. I think there's still a decent chance that even with your new points system, we'd have been able to keep peace in this galaxy. I personally would have found the challenge of that appealing. :)

But the literal God of the Universe has spoken. And he is a God lusting for the flames of war to spread through his galaxy.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on October 31, 2015, 05:28:48 pm
So many hot heads in one sub-forum. :D

Good stuff guys, and we're better testing the combat now than later. The diplomacy has certainly been interesting, especially as each side really takes a different view of the same issue. Hopefully my next post highlights that a little bit. But yea, word spam.. it's all I can do.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on October 31, 2015, 09:34:49 pm
Spoon, it's a good thing you told us you needed your data. I think there's still a decent chance that even with your new points system, we'd have been able to keep peace in this galaxy. I personally would have found the challenge of that appealing. :)

But the literal God of the Universe has spoken. And he is a God lusting for the flames of war to spread through his galaxy.

If there was no war for like say 3-4 turns, I'd throw in the cyrvans as a "random event", If I were Spoon.
Well, to late already
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on November 01, 2015, 02:13:43 am
Could have thrown in some other faction/universe event instead of the Cyrvans as well. I had an idea of what but forgot...

How is everyone else finding the game so far?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 01, 2015, 02:22:55 pm
Turn has been turned, Actual shots fired.

Missiles seem really strong at the moment, but I don't wanna draw any conclusions yet after a single battle.

Regarding shields: Since these regenerate after each battle, I'm not going to change the number on the map. So don't get confused if they should be at zero or some other number after getting fired on.

Regarding Center/Centre: Since I'm copy pasting a bunch of orders from different threads, there will be a delightful inconsistency between British/American spelling, you will all have to deal with it :cool:

Regarding 'overwatch' commands as I remember someone coining that term. <-- lemme get back on that later, I wanna type stuff on this subject but not right now.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on November 01, 2015, 02:23:41 pm
Spoon, I hate to do this to you but you resolved the Aldebaran Tactical Combat wrong:

3rd CRF Orders were:
1. ------------------
2. ADVANCE 3rd CRF Right PORT
3. ADVANCE 3rd CRF Right PORT
4. ADVANCE 3rd CRF Centre FORWARD
5. 3rd CRF Centre FIRE AT 1st DD Right

you resolved 2 and 3 for the wrong part of the fleet (Centre instead of Right)

and I targeted the wrong flank, figures
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on November 01, 2015, 02:29:15 pm
Welp, I was about to suggest that we pull back from Aldebaran, but apparently front-line reports were erroneous.  :p Rumours of casualties were greatly exaggerated.

Orph3us, kudos for fair play.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on November 01, 2015, 02:31:27 pm
(was supposed to be an edit but there is a reply now)

I guess we can accept the results as-is... but I want to point it out for future reference
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 01, 2015, 02:31:45 pm
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Junk/1229119558806_zps7bpbstrg.jpg~original)
I hate myself.


Okay disgard current turn, check back in an hour as I fix my mistakes.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 01, 2015, 03:07:59 pm
This time for sure..! Hopefully.

Alas, fair play was not rewarded with favorable RNG
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on November 01, 2015, 03:15:23 pm
I'm all for reducing the damage taken, simply for rewarding fair play. Orph3us could have kept mum and nobody would have ever known.

But then Spoon kills me for suggesting he should redo everything, so I keep my mouth shut.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on November 01, 2015, 03:55:11 pm
I'm all for reducing the damage taken, simply for rewarding fair play. Orph3us could have kept mum and nobody would have ever known.

But then Spoon kills me for suggesting he should redo everything, so I keep my mouth shut.

No need to bend over backwards on my account; I have one more reason to fall back and get my free Veteran upgrade now...


BTW if the 3rd CRF were to return now to a CRF planet and get its free Veteran upgrade from the Academy, does the fleet retains it's combat XP?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 01, 2015, 05:13:12 pm
No need to bend over backwards on my account; I have one more reason to fall back and get my free Veteran upgrade now...


BTW if the 3rd CRF were to return now to a CRF planet and get its free Veteran upgrade from the Academy, does the fleet retains it's combat XP?
Yes, it would become Veteran 1/4
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 02, 2015, 04:33:46 pm
Okay ministers, time to check your project threads for the new techs!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on November 02, 2015, 04:42:59 pm
interesting
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 04, 2015, 12:31:47 pm
Regarding 'overwatch' commands as I remember someone coining that term. <-- lemme get back on that later, I wanna type stuff on this subject but not right now.
Okay, let me get back on that now.

I won't add a new command, since multiple fire on any target commands effectively fill that overwatch role. However due to how political situations can be, I will allow some flexibility in fire commands. For example, Andrewofdoom gave the 3rd these commands last turn.
1) 3rd UGCR Advance Forward
2-5) Return fire to anyone who shoots at our fleet.
Since nobody fired on the 3rd UGCR that didn't trigger and they just held position.

(This doesn't mean you guys can just make up new commands on the spot though :p )
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on November 04, 2015, 05:40:58 pm
So I can't order the WoD CRF variant of a Nuclear Strike?

Or Kamikaze Runs? With my capital ships?. Into Planets?

Bugger :P
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 08, 2015, 12:26:06 pm
We're about half way through the test game~
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on November 08, 2015, 12:30:47 pm
You've mixed up the locations of the first two battles.

Did the 2nd UGCR retreat?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on November 08, 2015, 03:49:34 pm
Yes - see the 10% damage taken in the main map sidebar.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on November 09, 2015, 03:16:35 pm
Or Kamikaze Runs? With my capital ships?. Into Planets?

Bugger :P
No colony drops?! I was hoping I could haul that captured shipyard into a planet. :p

Well in the end it became the expected 2 on 2 war situation. I was hoping that it might turn out differently but at least we can kick some CRF ass... ;)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on November 09, 2015, 03:35:39 pm
I feel sorry for Orph3us, especially given his last turn fair play, but that's what you get if you try to retreat in an orderly fashion between the might of the DD :P
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on November 09, 2015, 03:45:42 pm
retreat? Heck, he was heading for the DD home system!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on November 09, 2015, 03:58:44 pm
Replace 'retreat' with 'agressively relocate' then
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on November 12, 2015, 10:02:51 am
I feel sorry for Orph3us, especially given his last turn fair play, but that's what you get if you try to retreat in an orderly fashion between the might of the DD :P

retreat? Heck, he was heading for the DD home system!

Not exactly and imideately my decision ... after I went behind the back of my faction in hopes of maintaining the alliance with Sol in event of the pruposed 3v1-alliance, I had to make it up to the rest of the CRF somehow - and since I rather kept my own council instead of bowing to presure to take the penalty for an disorderly retreat, the 3rd is doomed...

But they are not going down quietly! Let's see how long I can maintain that tactical :D
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 15, 2015, 03:09:12 pm
Apparently not very long! In case anyone was doubting the 1 range firepower of a UGC regulars fleet.

So this Tactical phase we learn all about vicious close quarter combat and discover one of the three 'hidden achievements', as well as how RNG can be... well, RNG.
First off, my condolences to the CRF.
Second off, I swear, I did not cheat with any of my Spoon controlled fleets!  :p
When I first looked at Veers orders, it was almost like he read my very move and was moving in such a way to counter it, but then when I started doing the turn results today, I saw he had edited his orders today. Not with the best results... :drevil:
Third off, about the targets of opportunity occurence. This happens when a valid fire order has been given and the primary target has been destroyed. Then, when there are still unfired weapons remaining and another valid target is in the same range. (<-- added to the rules thread now)

How is everyone else finding the game so far?
Now that we are at the half way point of the test game, I'm very interested in hearing you guys opinions. Anything that you like or don't like?

Personally I'm thinking about streamlining the weapon section of the fleets a bit. Sure, this current system works but it can be done a bit more simple and elegant. Which would help me speed up the calculations a bit, and should hopefully provide a clearer picture on what ranges a fleet functions optimally. I'll get back to this with an example later this week.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on November 15, 2015, 03:27:53 pm
Given how diplomacy never shuts down, and indeed operates almost independently of the combat side of the game one suggestion I would like to make is to allow ministers to issue orders at any time, those orders then take a full turn minimum to enact.

As for the turns you could run based on the military side so phase 1 is Strategic turn, movement between locations, orders for refits, delivery of fleets etc and phase 2 is the Tactical turn which are the combat orders.

 - So If I order a garrison fleet during Turn 3 tactical phase, Turn 4 Strategic is when the order is started, Turn 4 Tactical runs, Turn 5 Strategic the fleet arrives
 - - But if I order the fleet on Turn 4 Strategic,  the order is started, Turn 4 Tactical runs, Turn 5 Strategic the fleet arrives
 - If I order Research 50% on Turn 3 tactical, it arrives Turn 4 tactical, likewise if done on a strategic phase
 - - Same with tech and resource sharing deals

Or would that be too much to keep track of?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 15, 2015, 03:34:52 pm
Yeah, unforunately that's a bit too much on the tracking end of things. It would blur the lines a bit too much for me.
(I make enough mistakes during the turn processing by missing things as it is...)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on November 15, 2015, 03:39:01 pm
Trial by Fire, I thought I had checked the rules enough and still missed something, and the improved orders, by luck, did not work out as planned. Oh well, it happens and hey. I've learnt that Spoon is crazy for blood, we knew it but he really wants war.  :lol:

Good Fun, Good Fun :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on November 15, 2015, 03:52:19 pm
Wow, Spoor is scary.  :shaking: I suppose she was champing at the bit to fight some CRF ground swine and mud turtles.

Truly sorry for the RNG, Veers.

Also: has the CRF really not built a single starbase yet? Hmmmm.  :drevil: :lol:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on November 15, 2015, 04:00:19 pm
Yes well, we were not counting on the leading Admiral to trip over himself and his fleet in one swift move. Conspiracy much?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on November 15, 2015, 04:01:35 pm
Wow, Spoor is scary.  :shaking: I suppose she was champing at the bit to fight some CRF ground swine and mud turtles.

Truly sorry for the RNG, Veers.

Also: has the CRF really not built a single starbase yet? Hmmmm.  :drevil: :lol:


That why you have settled for freeloading our shipyard?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on November 15, 2015, 04:07:43 pm
Yes well, we were not counting on the leading Admiral to trip over himself and his fleet in one swift move. Conspiracy much?

Clarify please. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about

That why you have settled for freeloading our shipyard?

Partially. Also because the Harcon shipyards have an excellent view over the Harcon / Fomalhaut starlance, a noticeable lack of garrison fleets and Netflix.

We're waiting for our shiny new tech to take effect, at which point all your starbase are belong to us orbital debris.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on November 15, 2015, 04:23:00 pm
Yes well, we were not counting on the leading Admiral to trip over himself and his fleet in one swift move. Conspiracy much?

Clarify please. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about

Sorry!

What I mean is we were not counting on the leading admiral. By which I mean myself in command of 1st Fleet. Tripping over himself and his fleet and having it thrown right into the hands of a full DD barrage.

And I'm sure we could make a conspiracy theory out of it. :D

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on November 15, 2015, 04:24:55 pm
That why you have settled for freeloading our shipyard?

Partially. Also because the Harcon shipyards have an excellent view over the Harcon / Fomalhaut starlance, a noticeable lack of garrison fleets and Netflix.

We're waiting for our shiny new tech to take effect, at which point all your starbase are belong to us orbital debris.

I have to agree Harcon is a sight to behold and the Shipyards have a spectacular view.

Talking about secondary locations, how about a turret or mine mechanic to fortify minor locations.  Strength would be weak, enough to cause a nuisance to an attacking fleet, sapping a little strength, without a supporting fleet , more of a deterrent than an actual threat.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on November 15, 2015, 04:47:43 pm
So while 3rd DD/1st CRF went for straight headbutting and pretty much trashed each other in one turn (and poor 3rd CRF left us after firing one salvo) 3 SF fleets are unable to corner one UGC fleet...

That why you have settled for freeloading our shipyard?

Partially. Also because the Harcon shipyards have an excellent view over the Harcon / Fomalhaut starlance, a noticeable lack of garrison fleets and Netflix.

We're waiting for our shiny new tech to take effect, at which point all your starbase are belong to us orbital debris.
That shipyard is a really nice place to sit at with my fleet. All warm and cozy. We are in the progress of removing all entertainement systems and adding them to the fleet. But I wonder how long I'll be able to stay there - maybe some combat would be nice for a change.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on November 15, 2015, 04:51:15 pm
... 3 SF fleets are unable to corner one UGC fleet...

Bravely, bravely, ran away!  :lol:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on November 15, 2015, 04:57:53 pm
... 3 SF fleets are unable to corner one UGC fleet...

Bravely, bravely, ran away!  :lol:

What else should the UGC fleet have done when it's all about buying time? :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on November 15, 2015, 05:03:19 pm
Obvious video is obvious, and I still couldn't decide on which one...

https://youtu.be/BZwuTo7zKM8?t=1m1s
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on November 15, 2015, 06:30:16 pm
all that damnable fleet has to do is hold out a little longer and I suspect UGC reinforcements will make SF lives very miserable
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on November 16, 2015, 05:02:30 am
It might serve everyone to remember that each fleet element only resolves one fire order ... Veers gave multiple this turn, so did Ralwood last turn

and I will see if I can't optmize my fleet before it is rebuild... those carriers in the Vigilance Sentinel flanks are rubish

p.s. sadly only killing centres gives traits...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on November 16, 2015, 07:27:39 am
... 3 SF fleets are unable to corner one UGC fleet...

Bravely, bravely, ran away!  :lol:

You might say thats easy, but if he keeps running away - we can't exactly track his movement. So if he predict where we'd move, he can completly move out of range. But there... it is soon enough...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on November 16, 2015, 12:28:19 pm
It might serve everyone to remember that each fleet element only resolves one fire order ... Veers gave multiple this turn, so did Ralwood last turn

and I will see if I can't optmize my fleet before it is rebuild... those carriers in the Vigilance flanks are are rubish

p.s. sadly only killing centres gives traits...
You don't lose the ability to fire though if your first order can't shoot anything. You only lose the ability to fire a specific weapon after that weapon has shot at a target. You could give 5 fire orders and if only your last one had a target in range, then that target would be hit. Or if the 4th one hit, then the target moved in closer, then the 5th one would hit with the weapons that were now in range to do so.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on November 16, 2015, 01:02:43 pm
Not sure about that bit.

I think that if a fleet fires and hits, then that's it for them. I think that if an enemy baits your fire @ range 2, then the fleet has fired and will not fire with its 1 and 0 range weapons if you get closer.

Might be wrong (wouldn't surprise me).
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on November 16, 2015, 01:10:27 pm
No, actually I think you're right. :)

From the rules:
Quote
A fleet can have any number of move and fire actions, but a fleet will fire only ONCE during a single tactical combat turn. So the trick is to try to maximize the amount of weapons that are in range.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on November 17, 2015, 07:35:18 am
While we are on subject: Since it didn't resolve, how would the 3rd CRF's 5th order have resolved?

For reference:
1. 3rd CRF Centre (and attached Left) FIRE AT 1st DD Left
2. ADVANCE 3rd CRF Right STARBOARD
3. ADVANCE 3rd CRF Centre BACKWARDS
4. ADVANCE 3rd CRF Right STARBAORD
5. 3rd CRF Centre (as well as attached Left and Right) FIRE AT WILL; please prioritize targets that have issued a FIRE-order against the 3rd CRF
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 17, 2015, 08:34:35 am
Assuming the right flank would had survived, the 5th order would have allowed the right flank to fire at the closest, highest strength target in range. Left and Center had already fired so they wouldn't do anything.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 17, 2015, 04:34:14 pm
Just for the official record:
It is allowed to convert garrison fleets to player fleets. So you could potentially pick up a new flank or center from an existing garrison one, to replenish part of your fleet. Or put a currently unassigned admiral in charge of a garrison, making it a player fleet.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on November 20, 2015, 07:15:29 am
Just for the official record:
It is allowed to convert garrison fleets to player fleets. So you could potentially pick up a new flank or center from an existing garrison one, to replenish part of your fleet. Or put a currently unassigned admiral in charge of a garrison, making it a player fleet.
I don't like that idea so much when thinking about the final game on a larger map with more planets. At some point most planets will have a garrison fleet and when your fleet partially destroyed anyway you could just do a suicide attack for max damage and take the next fleet instead of jumping all the way back to the shipyard for expensive repairs (I know repairing is cheaper but for example a destroyed Center has to be replaced completely). Saves maybe a turn or two and makes it very easy to convert a ressource advantage into a combat advantage by spamming fleets. Also a suicide attack can be used to get on the other side of the map when it really pressing cause there is a ready garrison fleet...
I would change the game so that a surviving Admiral travels in an escape shuttle with 2 or 3 jumps (+ 1 additional jump directly after the defeat done before the main strategic orders so there is a chance to get away) per strategic turn and if he meets a hostile fleet he can enjoy a nice prison cell. Then normal ransom rules would apply and the Admiral ends up in a diplomatic shutte to fly back home. This shuttle can't be brought up by any other fleet.

Picking up a flank or center is fine since the fleet actually has to move to the garrison.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on November 20, 2015, 07:20:18 am
Not sure about the jump bit, would need to be fleshed out more.

But same with the Garrison Fleet spam. Perhaps it would, as with the jump. Take x turns for the Admiral to reach and activate the fleet. So it isn't an immediate benefit on the next immediate turn. Or limit the amount of times it could be done?, or it could only be done every 10 (or x) strategic turns?

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on November 20, 2015, 08:29:02 am
Howy about adding a penalty to scoring, morale and/or morale xp gain if the option is used?

 Having a repurposed garrison fleet start with a lower morra,e would give it a slight combat disadvantage, blocking it from gaining xp for some turns would hace fleets that fight it accumulate a slight bonus and/or excluding it from the set of fleets that can advance the faction's cause or the time being...f
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on November 20, 2015, 08:35:40 am
I think people are forgetting EXP in general. Over a long time keeping a fleet alive will reap benefits. You could also have it cost a lot more to build a new fleet than to repair one.

We did have a limit in the last game of several turns before a defeated admiral got a new fleet though.

However, there's also talk of possibly being able to build more player fleets than the number of player fleets in the faction so this might not matter too much anyway in the main game with additional fleets being moved up immediately instead of having to wait for one to be destroyed.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on November 20, 2015, 09:02:41 am
morale and/or morale
A penalty to morale and morale? Well, it's certainly an idea I've never heard before...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on November 20, 2015, 12:59:11 pm
morale and/or morale
A penalty to morale and morale? Well, it's certainly an idea I've never heard before...

I was meaning to say xp-gain, now fixed, ... the on-screen keyboard on my tablet usually blocks out the HLP interface, so I dont see what Im typing when Im on the road
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on November 21, 2015, 01:41:50 pm
I've read and considered all your posts (a while ago, but I didn't really have anything sensible to add), for now lets see how this pans out in the test game. If it leads to unsatisfying gameplay it can always be changed later.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 06, 2015, 03:51:27 pm
I'm having a bad grumpy day
So I'm going to be selifsh and do the turn tomorrow.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 07, 2015, 09:48:00 am
Triple posting~

I realize this might be completely different from what I said previously about invasion fleets. But I wasn't happy with the idea that it was either
- 1. Being able to capture a planet with a secure order, without the defenders being able to do anything about it or
- 2. Not being able to do anything at all while there still defenders around.

So instead the Invasion fleet is a presence on the tactical combat map, and can be targetted and destroyed. It'll immediately secure the planet if it can reach the indicated point on the map.
It'll be able to move 4 amount of move orders (given by the Admiral who it is attached to on the strategic map), these move orders are seperate from the admiral's normal fleet. (So two sets of orders need to be given, 1 for the Admirals normal fleet, and 1 for the Invasion fleet) (It is not allowed to use Valor)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 07, 2015, 10:19:40 am
I realize this might be completely different from what I said previously about invasion fleets. But I wasn't happy with the idea that it was either
- 1. Being able to capture a planet with a secure order, without the defenders being able to do anything about it or
- 2. Not being able to do anything at all while there still defenders around.

Yeah, that was confusing (see my orders post)

It is not allowed to use Valor

Awww.... man


With this change, will Invasion Fleets be altered again the in the foreseeable future or does that all depend on the combat performance this turn?


EDIT: While we are on the subject of Valour - can it be used to "jump" over a friendly fleet (like a knight in chess can)?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 07, 2015, 01:07:34 pm
So I only just now noticed that the SF EMP missiles are incorrected listed as 1-1 instead of 1-2 range. I don't know why it took me this long to notice it, but yeah. Oops.
Just know that they are in fact, 1-2 range. True fact.

With this change, will Invasion Fleets be altered again the in the foreseeable future or does that all depend on the combat performance this turn?
Probably not, but it'll depend on how this pans out, yeah.

EDIT: While we are on the subject of Valour - can it be used to "jump" over a friendly fleet (like a knight in chess can)?
No
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 08, 2015, 08:22:42 am
Shouldn't the 2nd CRF Centre have shields?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 08, 2015, 08:53:07 am
Shouldn't the 2nd CRF Centre have shields?
Uhm, yeah. They should have  :p
Also the UGC and CRF shouldn't still be listed as having a non-aggression pact...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 08, 2015, 09:27:37 am
Yo Spoon, can you explain Neutron weapons a bit?

Say I have a gun that does 1x100 damage with the Neutron keyword.

My target has 50 shields and 100 Strength. What happens if I shoot and hit? Does my target now have 10 Shields, 40 Strength? Or 0 Shields, 40 Strength? Or something else?

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 08, 2015, 09:42:47 am
0 and 50 in your example... if it were 100 Shields and 100 Strength the final result would be 10/90 as far as I understand it
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 08, 2015, 12:41:37 pm
Neutron weapons are not super significant of a deal
with 50 shields and 100 hull, the result without neutron is 0 - 50
with neutron its 0 - 45

If the target for example had 200 shields and 100 hull, with neutron the end result would be 100 - 90
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on December 08, 2015, 01:36:45 pm
So what it means is that 10% of the shield points drained by Neutron weapons gets dealt as hull damage?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 08, 2015, 02:30:00 pm
I don't even... Really, I'm confused.

What's the algorithm for shield and hull damage?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on December 08, 2015, 02:39:09 pm
According to Spoons numbers neutron weapons actually add damage instead of being a piercing effect that passes through shields. They add 10% of the damage to shields to the hull damage.

So for 50 shields, 100 hull, 100 damage that means 50 shield damage and 50 hull damage. Neutron adds 10% of the shield damage for another 5 hull damage. That means 50 shield damage and 55 hull damage. Effectively 5% damage increase.

In case of the 200 shields, 100 hull, 100 damage case it's a flat 100 shield damage with added 10% of the shield damage as hull damage. Result is 10 hull damage and an effective damage of 110 which is the maximum possible increase of 10% that Neutron can to do.

That's definitely better than how I thought they work...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on December 08, 2015, 02:42:38 pm
Yeah. Simplest way to look at it seems to be to just say for every 10 damage a neutron weapon inflicts on shields it does 1 damage to the hull. Since shields are fully charged every turn, it's going to do some additional chip damage every turn.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 08, 2015, 04:19:17 pm
That...actually makes sense. Thanks all.

Yeah, NW seem to be better than I'd originally thought. Consistent chipping damage in the range of single/ low double digits.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 10, 2015, 03:56:12 am
It'll be able to move 4 amount of move orders (given by the Admiral who it is attached to on the strategic map), these move orders are seperate from the admiral's normal fleet. (So two sets of orders need to be given, 1 for the Admirals normal fleet, and 1 for the Invasion fleet) (It is not allowed to use Valor)

Just to clarify: Which orders of the Admirals Fleet do the orders to the Invasion Fleet correspond? (I can guess your answer from the post in the CRF-forum but in the interest of fair play, let's put it out here)

EDIT: Another question, if DD/UGC fleet uses its phase torpedos to damage a retreating fleet (with its centre in 11-20% range which as it disengaged with out a Retreat-order, to escape the jammer, drops to the 1-10% range), and that way destroys it's centre, is the Admiral then a awarded a perk just like in Tactical Combat?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 10, 2015, 04:53:33 am
EDIT: Another question, if DD/UGC fleet uses its phase torpedos to damage a retreating fleet (with its centre in 11-20% range which as it disengaged with out a Retreat-order, to escape the jammer, drops to the 1-10% range), and that way destroys it's centre, is the Admiral then a awarded a perk just like in Tactical Combat?


Just kidding. Would be interested to hear the response to that myself, actually.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 13, 2015, 11:11:03 am
Holy **** I can't believe I forgot to answer this!
Sorry orz

But I like Enoich's answer, so let me just quote this for truth:

So I'm busy processing the turn, but here's a preview
Hidden Text: preview • Show
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Battle-at-Capital-2_zpsjofg39rv.gif~original) (http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Battle-at-Capital-2_zpsjofg39rv.gif~original)
(Starbases will need a durability buff)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 13, 2015, 11:26:11 am
I like Enoich's answer, so let me just quote this for truth:

Quoted for truth. Witness me!

Quote
(Starbases will need a durability buff)
Starbases will need to become relevant in system defense again. Because they used to be the big bad wall that the enemy had to chew through to land their invasion fleet. Now, they're just HP pinatas with popguns, waiting to be jumped upon and insta-nuked (as the lovely .gif showed us). And invasion fleets can just sneak past them now.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on December 13, 2015, 12:05:15 pm
Quote
(Starbases will need a durability buff)
Starbases will need to become relevant in system defense again. Because they used to be the big bad wall that the enemy had to chew through to land their invasion fleet. Now, they're just HP pinatas with popguns, waiting to be jumped upon and insta-nuked (as the lovely .gif showed us). And invasion fleets can just sneak past them now.
I'm pretty sure our starbase sat idle the whole turn doing nothing and being as irrelevant as possible. Unless of course the CRF decided to instablow it for some reason...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 13, 2015, 12:12:30 pm
Calling it now. It fired ONE shot.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 13, 2015, 12:31:35 pm
Now I'm really hoping it does nothing more than that
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Junk/hehehehe7_zps0kmnbuzo.gif~original)

Let's go find out~
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 13, 2015, 12:53:57 pm
Quote
(Starbases will need a durability buff)
Starbases will need to become relevant in system defense again. Because they used to be the big bad wall that the enemy had to chew through to land their invasion fleet. Now, they're just HP pinatas with popguns, waiting to be jumped upon and insta-nuked (as the lovely .gif showed us). And invasion fleets can just sneak past them now.
I'm pretty sure our starbase sat idle the whole turn doing nothing and being as irrelevant as possible. Unless of course the CRF decided to instablow it for some reason...

Considering the discussion in CRF forum proceeded from this:

Quote from: 0rph3u5
Damge averages for all combatants (R0 /1 /2 /3)

DD Garison (S: 180 + H: 440) : 269 / 310 / 128 / 128
3rd DD (S: 246 + H: 677): 579 / 434,4 / 70,4 / -

Starbase (S: 50 + H: 300): 122 / 122 / 50 / -


2nd CRF (S: 175 + H: 670): 346 / 343,35 / 343,35 / -
3rd CRF (S: 177 + H: 604): 326,8 / 379,6 / 291,6 / -


Remember these are averages and they don't factor in fire control (applies only point defense and DD secondary batteries anyway) and the evasion values...

- the 2nd CRF actually has enough firepower to solo the starbase in the R1-2 band; the 3rd can only do that in the R1 band (unless Lady Luck really hates us)
- 2nd and 3rd combined can't destroy the 3rd DD but would reduce it about 22-25% of its health (again without Luck factored in); if we manage to shoot first there we can clip their firepower significantly
- 2nd and 3rd conbined can destroy the Garison fleet

Yeah Starbases might have a problem of being relevant

And the .gif really is a Horray for Valor :D

EDIT: I just noticed a grammar mistake that went unnoticed the entire week and may have subtly influenced our decision making... where it reads "2nd and 3rd combined can't destroy the 3rd DD but would reduce it about 22-25% of its health" it should reat "reduce it TO about 22-25% of its healt"
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on December 13, 2015, 01:00:12 pm
Maybe instead of changing the Starbase stats, you could change something else. Maybe cut out the shipyard phase and just have it cost 2500/2500 to build one. Or have Starbases give an economic boost to the planet.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 13, 2015, 01:39:50 pm
Hold on guys, we're experiencing a bit of an Admiral breakdown
Right now I have this mental image of Admiral MS leaning on his desk, both hands in his hair going "None of these rules make sense! And every time Spoon answers one of my questions, things get worse!"  :lol:

(I'm sorry Admiral MS, for writing confusing rules)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 13, 2015, 01:55:45 pm
"None of these rules make sense! And every time Spoon answers one of my questions, things get worse!"  :lol:

(I'm sorry Admiral MS, for writing confusing rules)

I am a Veteran of 4 Tabletop Wargames (Games Workshops's Warhammer 40k, Corvus Belli's Infinity, as well as FFG's Star Wars: X-Wing and Star Wars: Armada) and several RPG-systems. I think I can safely say, this game isn't that bad when it comes to the rules (even without factoring in that it is still in testing), I mean they all fit on less than 15 pages and have to little to no cross referencing, no special probability "things"...

That the starbase rules and the tech-trees are not with the main rule-set in one place may be a bit problematic

Don't give up yet, Spoon  :yes:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on December 13, 2015, 02:09:06 pm
So I spent the week figuring out that I misinterpreted a rule, that a rule was confusing, incomplete or outright depreceated. Everytime I cobbled together another tactic just to see it fall apart again next day. Screw starbases, screw Fire on any Target and screw fleet detachment rules. And I probably forgot something...

Thinking about it there is something else I need answered: What happens to the starbase and garrison if the invasion fleet reaches the drop point? Do they switch sides or do they at least fight to the end?

@0rph3u5
Though realizing several times that the very specific idea or rule you based your tactic on doesn't work for whatever reason, including being told by Spoon 2 hours ago that my orders are partially invalid, is just annoying after spending quite some time figuring out what to do. Even more so when it gets worse every time to the point where everything leads to destruction and a certain loss next tactical turn as long as the CRF does it right. At the beginning I thought that the situation is not so far away from being equal...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on December 13, 2015, 02:37:37 pm
I think the rules could do with cleaning up before the main game. There's all this info scattered about all over the place. Bring it all into one new thread I would advise before the main game.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on December 13, 2015, 02:43:22 pm
needs a professionally produced PDF in 5 colours
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 13, 2015, 03:04:42 pm
@0rph3u5
Though realizing several times that the very specific idea or rule you based your tactic on doesn't work for whatever reason, including being told by Spoon 2 hours ago that my orders are partially invalid, is just annoying after spending quite some time figuring out what to do. Even more so when it gets worse every time to the point where everything leads to destruction and a certain loss next tactical turn as long as the CRF does it right. At the beginning I thought that the situation is not so far away from being equal...

I know what you say ... I do know that situation from experience (both suffering through it and inflicting it on others during tournament prep)... Best in this situation is to remember you are still playing a game, so there is next to nothing at stake if something doesn't work out quite right.

As for specificity in tactics, it helps to remember that your opponent is only human and will get things wrong just as you do, so don't sweat having THE winning strategy that plays with every aspect in the game - at the least have a simple one that works, at best have one that your opponent can't impact. Most of the time you will land between these two anyway, simply by the fact neither play is a mind reader and only can do so much.

EDIT: Just remember, any plan you make has to better than this:

I think the rules could do with cleaning up before the main game. There's all this info scattered about all over the place. Bring it all into one new thread I would advise before the main game.

Well, the current situation is a result of gensis of the rules ... I mean Spoon basically turned the Tactical combat inside out on "Launch Day" (too bad I recently deleted the draft of the rules I got three weeks before the test game started...).

And on the plus side, it is not that bad since Spoon is acutally here and can answer any questions in little time (or not) - so we don't have to "make due" in the face of ambiguity.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on December 13, 2015, 03:21:37 pm
About the rules I'm more thinking about new players joining in than the ones in the game right now. And I've never been afraid to ask Spoon questions. For me personally it wouldn't matter all that much, but I think it will be of value for new players and attracting new players.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 13, 2015, 04:00:33 pm
Unforunately, photoshop doesn't want to change the text/numbers on the proper frame, it just seems to change it for all the frames starting from the first one. So don't be suprised when your fleet has a seemingly lower starting strength than its suppose to have. That's just the end result of things.

New turn is up (kind of a heavy one)

I'm totally open for suggestions on how to make everything better/more clear.
One thing I've been meaning to do for like 2 weeks now is compressing all the different weapons a fleet can have into a more streamlined approach. Which should make the information presented a lot more clearly. I started at one point, but then it looked like it was going to be a bit more involved than I figured at first. It'll probably remove the fleets consisting of indiviual ships and the 'build your own fleet type' project.

Well, the current situation is a result of gensis of the rules ... I mean Spoon basically turned the Tactical combat inside out on "Launch Day" (too bad I recently deleted the draft of the rules I got three weeks before the test game started...).
True.

Thinking about it there is something else I need answered: What happens to the starbase and garrison if the invasion fleet reaches the drop point? Do they switch sides or do they at least fight to the end?
They won't just magically switch sides, they'll fight till the end (for as short as that has been, so far :p )
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 13, 2015, 04:20:02 pm
Congratulations to the Sol Forces! A Fight, A Victory!

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 13, 2015, 04:20:29 pm
Called it  :p

Well, I can't really discuss streamlining atm (staggering off to bed), but I'll be glad to talk about it tomorrow.

Frankly, as a sidenote, I'm reasonably happy with how things turned out in Uuni (Capital not so much). We had made some considerably more worrying predictions for the CRF fleets...  :nervous:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 13, 2015, 04:28:10 pm
Also, Spoon, in the interest of fair play, can you please check the money and resources that the various factions have spent/ acquired this turn? I'm especially looking at Resources for the DD, which somehow don't add up for me, but A) I might be wrong and B) There might be other mistakes...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 13, 2015, 04:30:49 pm
Called it  :p
[...]
Frankly, as a sidenote, I'm reasonably happy with how things turned out in Uuni (Capital not so much). We had made some considerably more worrying predictions for the CRF fleets...  :nervous:

What did you expect? - Due to it's ability to fire multiple times the Starbase was quite a risk to keep around. And since darting into/out of combat is currently the CRF's only strength over the DD we need the space to maneuver in.

But in a related subject, I am very glad you moved the Garrison Fleet :D If you had not, the 3rd CRF would probably attacked it as part of the Valor order (because how Fire at Will is worded)... and that had not gone as well as the attack on the Starbase


EDIT: Why did I get the Inspiring Trait? I am the only Admiral to date with the loss of a fleet to his name, that's hardly inspiring stuff...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on December 13, 2015, 04:40:03 pm
EDIT: Why did I get the Inspiring Trait? I am the only Admiral to date with the loss of a fleet to his name, that's hardly inspiring stuff...
Starbase kill.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on December 13, 2015, 04:54:32 pm
aiiieeeeee!

The multi-frame pic is cool; but also irritating that I can't control which frame it's on.  I like to step through things at a slower pace; and I need to wait ages to see the final frame again to check I've got the position of all fleets ready for the next turn :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 13, 2015, 04:57:00 pm
Fair point, should I also post the final still frame then?

Also, Spoon, in the interest of fair play, can you please check the money and resources that the various factions have spent/ acquired this turn? I'm especially looking at Resources for the DD, which somehow don't add up for me, but A) I might be wrong and B) There might be other mistakes...
Will do (tomorrow)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on December 13, 2015, 05:05:49 pm
What did you expect? - Due to it's ability to fire multiple times the Starbase was quite a risk to keep around. And since darting into/out of combat is currently the CRF's only strength over the DD we need the space to maneuver in.

But in a related subject, I am very glad you moved the Garrison Fleet :D If you had not, the 3rd CRF would probably attacked it as part of the Valor order (because how Fire at Will is worded)... and that had not gone as well as the attack on the Starbase
I had some CRF battle plans in mind that would have been pretty safe for you no matter what orders I could come up with. Also there would have been very limited or no exposure to the starbase. That stupid starbase was in the way of the garrison fleet as well...

Chances that the garrison fleet stayed at its position until the end were extremly low. Even if - it would have used its fire order before and while the 3rd CRF might have been unable to kill the center at range 0, it is still able to trash the starbase next turn with the first fire order. Add range 0 point defense and left-over firepower and the garrison fleet might be dead as well.

In the end the situation is better than expected and that's mostly thanks to whatever the 2nd CRF expected us to do...

Fair point, should I also post the final still frame then?
Yes please!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 13, 2015, 05:18:39 pm
Last still frames added to the post
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on December 13, 2015, 05:37:05 pm
I would like to chime in that I disagree with how the economy works via linking things back to your territory.

I'm indifferent with the current arrangement that you can gather resources/have a secured route to do so thanks to your allies. But you should have a secured route back to your own space first. So for the Delest to use the Valkyrie Shipyards, they can do so thanks to the UGC supply lines (read: resources. The UGC would be the only ones to benefit from the generate resources at this time) but do make use of it with their own resources/add to their own resource pool. They should have a link to their home systems. (that gets a bit complicated. Simplified version of, secure both sides of the lance. Works better)

So basically, would need to secure the lances to Ihefulian and Serpens, both lances being in Aldebaran.

But I guess on the other hand, as the system is under their control (is it?, colour only changes on the refinery and not the entire system?) you can kinda write that off saying they only need to secure the lance in Serpens.

I just read it more like how the CRF captured the Uuni Lance. We have both sides secure, rather than the Aldebaran lances which are "One-Way".

Let's see if I can summarise.

- Captured locations within an enemy system should have secured lances back to home territory for usage.
-- Marked by both sides of lances being secured in friendly colours. Allied lances also fulfil this. Minus the natural risk if your ally is no longer your ally. Severing the supply line.

- In the current turn example, for the DD to use the Valykire yards, they need to have the Ihefulian and Serpens lances in Aldebaran secure. If they only secure the Serpens lance, then they can access the yards but lose the supply line if the DD/UGC allience was terminated (theoretically. For the example)

- Both sides of lance should be secured for civilian traffic/resource traffic. Rather than just one side. If only one side is secured, say the Serpens System side. Resources could be carried back to friendly territory but income taffic cannot so production cannot be used? Or such. Adds additional complexity over basic. Secure both sides.

Edit:

With current wording, for Harcon as the example
Quote from: Soon
Harcon Shipyards has no direct friendly/neutral starlance route leading to a DD planet, facility cannot be used for repair and produces no resources until a route is secured.

Makes the above irrelevant again as a neutral lance functions the same as a friendly lance. It just makes more sense in my head to have both lances (sides of) secure first, rather than just the one.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on December 13, 2015, 06:03:15 pm
Last still frames added to the post

tyvm Sir Spoon!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 14, 2015, 03:07:38 am
I would like to chime in that I disagree with how the economy works via linking things back to your territory. [...]

I see what you mean, but I do not agree.

We have established that Neutral = not dangerous. I see no reason why supplies and raw materials would not easily flow through a neutral starlance - both ways. There is a possibility that, in the actual game, some random event might punish you for not securing starlances (e.g. pirate fleet spawns) and that might be an interesting twist but now I'm theorycrafting.

Furthermore, basing your supply and 'forward shipbuilding' economy on an unbroken chain of secured Lances would make any forward advance a crawl. You'd need to build up a wrecking ball of fleets and leapfrog slowly forward a la steamroller - and there's no way your enemy wouldn't realise you're coming, resulting in huge 3-vs-3 fleet battles. That's all good and there's a place for that, but it shouldn't be the only option. Utilising neutral starlances allows for more raiding / guerilla / backstabbing strategies and rewards admirals for outmaneuvering the enemy, establishing beachheads etc.

That said, I agree that securing starlances should have some purpose beyond changing the color on the map.

What if neutral starlances were sealed to traffic if a hostile (Cold War or War) unengaged Admiral fleet was in the system?

In the current map, Aldebaran is clear of any hostile forces and thus traffic flows. But if, for example, an SF fleet jumped in, it could 'threaten' the neutral starlances and make traffic impossible (send out patrols and commerce reaiding forces etc). If a UGCR fleet followed the SF fleet and engaged it, then the SF fleet would be tied down to defending itself and would be unable to hinder traffic for the duration of the battle.

EDIT: Thanks for the still maps Spoon!

Does the Starbase debris still hinder movement, or will it become regular terrain next turn?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 16, 2015, 10:26:56 am
A question barrage:

1. If a fleet with an invasion fleet is destroyed by Subspace Torpedoes but the Invasion Fleet survives (because the Fleet carrying it had a lower strength), is that Invasion Fleet then destroyed as well? (if it were tactical combat it would be clear)

2. If a Fleet uses the Inhibitor as their first order can it then use Subspace Torpedoes as a 2nd order?

3.1. Can a Fleet prevent a hostile fleet from firing Subspace Torpedoes as 2nd order by using the Jump Inhibitor as 1st order?
3.2. If yes, what happens to the expended funds?

4. On to Advanced Subspace Drives, if a fleet with Advanced Drives makes 3 movements in one Strategic Phase how does that interact with the Jump Inhibitor or with hostile Subspace Torpedoes? (basically at what time resolves the 3rd move?)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 16, 2015, 11:22:02 am
Heh, good questions. Hadn't considered the fluff affecting mechanics.

Sppon, have you had a chance to look at the Resources yet?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on December 16, 2015, 03:54:15 pm
I have a question (not sure if I just missed the answer earlier): What does "Speed Doctrine" do? I've seen a description for all the other special tech, but not that one.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on December 16, 2015, 04:10:48 pm
I have a question (not sure if I just missed the answer earlier): What does "Speed Doctrine" do? I've seen a description for all the other special tech, but not that one.
Its a SF Tech
Tech 2 Special technology:
Speed doctrine: When executed, immediately adds a +3 evasion bonus to all fleet types.
-Single use
-Cost: 2000/2000
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on December 16, 2015, 04:30:02 pm
tyvm
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 16, 2015, 08:19:37 pm
Heh, good questions. Hadn't considered the fluff affecting mechanics.

Sppon, have you had a chance to look at the Resources yet?
fudge, I'm terrible and so easily distracted.
I'll put it on a postit note on my monitor so its impossible to forget for me tomorrow. I'll try and clean up the rules thread a bit and do something about the starbase's stats too.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 17, 2015, 12:38:14 pm
Starbase received 50 extra shields and 200 extra hull strength. Also looked at Delest's resources, which as Enoich fairly pointed out didn't quite match up for some reason. Has been corrected, resulted in 1100 less resources for DD.

A question barrage:

1. If a fleet with an invasion fleet is destroyed by Subspace Torpedoes but the Invasion Fleet survives (because the Fleet carrying it had a lower strength), is that Invasion Fleet then destroyed as well? (if it were tactical combat it would be clear)

2. If a Fleet uses the Inhibitor as their first order can it then use Subspace Torpedoes as a 2nd order?

3.1. Can a Fleet prevent a hostile fleet from firing Subspace Torpedoes as 2nd order by using the Jump Inhibitor as 1st order?
3.2. If yes, what happens to the expended funds?

4. On to Advanced Subspace Drives, if a fleet with Advanced Drives makes 3 movements in one Strategic Phase how does that interact with the Jump Inhibitor or with hostile Subspace Torpedoes? (basically at what time resolves the 3rd move?)
1. I've added this bit to the rules:
Invasion fleets:
Invasion fleets are constructed as a project by the Minister at a shipyard. Once constructed, they will need to be attached to a player fleet to move around. In tactical battle, an invasion fleet can be given up to four move commands, and it cannot use special commands, such as Valor. When an Invasion fleet arrives at an enemy controlled planet, there will be a drop point indicated on the tactical battlemap. If this Invasion fleet manages to reach this point, the planet will be immediately secured. Though if there is a Starbase still present, it will not immediately switch sides.
If the fleet the Invasion fleet is attached to gets destroyed by damage not directly dealt during tactical combat (by for example, subspace torpedoes) but the Invasion fleet survives the damage, it will not be destroyed along with the attached fleet. But it will not be able to move until another fleet can pick it up. An invasion fleet will be destroyed instantly if it makes contact with a hostile fleet and has not fleet around to protected it. (Just a Starbase is not enough)

2. Yes, WoD inhibitor tech is super convenient in that it only inhibits hostile subspace travel

3. I totally haven't considered this possibility. But it makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Let's go with yes in the case that both fleets are at the same location when this happens. Inhibitors prevent leaving, not entering.
3.2 Resources won't be expended in that case.

4. The third move would resolve at the very last. So it would get stopped by a Jump inhibitor field set up as a second order.


Regarding starlance securing, I like the current set up. And as Enioch said, if you have to secure every neutral starlance as well, it will really slow down the game pace.
Quote
In the current map, Aldebaran is clear of any hostile forces and thus traffic flows. But if, for example, an SF fleet jumped in, it could 'threaten' the neutral starlances and make traffic impossible (send out patrols and commerce reaiding forces etc). If a UGCR fleet followed the SF fleet and engaged it, then the SF fleet would be tied down to defending itself and would be unable to hinder traffic for the duration of the battle.
This might be interesting but I don't think that situation will come up a whole lot of times (so it'll just be one more thing for me to forget about  :p)

Quote
Does the Starbase debris still hinder movement, or will it become regular terrain next turn?
Will become an empty space (as seen in the aldebaran refinery map)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 17, 2015, 01:05:51 pm
Nice. Now I feel fair. :p

May I ask for a further clarification on Jump inhibitors / phase torps?

I note that, the description of the torps is worded thusly:

Quote
These can be fired at any location in the system the fleet is currently in.

Does this mean that they may be fired 'danger close', in the location where the fleet currently is? ('Fire artillery on my position!') If yes, would such a launch be prevented by Jump inhibitors?

Also, just to make sure I get this: if the invasion fleet reaches the planet, the planet is secured but doesn't change sides unless the starbase is destroyed? What does this mean for resource gathering?

And if the enemy assault is repelled before the starbase is destroyed, (i.e. no enemy forces are present in the planet, with the exception of the successful invasion fleet), what happens then?

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 17, 2015, 01:20:18 pm
Does this mean that they may be fired 'danger close', in the location where the fleet currently is? ('Fire artillery on my position!') If yes, would such a launch be prevented by Jump inhibitors?
Yes and Yes

Also, just to make sure I get this: if the invasion fleet reaches the planet, the planet is secured but doesn't change sides unless the starbase is destroyed? What does this mean for resource gathering?
The planet is secured and changes sides, but the starbase does not during the combat


And if the enemy assault is repelled before the starbase is destroyed, (i.e. no enemy forces are present in the planet, with the exception of the successful invasion fleet), what happens then?
If the invasion fleet reached the drop point, but the attacking fleet gets destroyed/repelled and the starbase is still intact.
Now there's kind of a special situation

What do you guys think should happen with the starbase in that situation?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on December 17, 2015, 01:25:10 pm
If the invasion fleet reached the drop point, but the attacking fleet gets destroyed/repelled and the starbase is still intact.
Now there's kind of a special situation

What do you guys think should happen with the starbase in that situation?
Resources are shipped to planets, so I don't see how it would impact resources for the faction owning the planet. Even if you did want to move resources from a planet to another location it would be easy to bypass the static starbase.

But with the starbase still there, it would be very easy for the faction owning it to use it to build an invasion fleet and re-take the planet. I imagine if there were no defenders there, just building said fleet would result in an instant changing of hands.

No repairs for the starbase if another faction owns the planet.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on December 17, 2015, 01:29:38 pm
Just an amusing thought I had. It takes longer for fleets to resolve battles between them than it takes to conquer an entire planet. You could conquer the entire Earth in one turn. :p
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on December 17, 2015, 03:13:07 pm
I support keeping starbases of captured planets under the original owner's control. After all, the invasion fleet never captured the starbase, now did they? :p

And if the original owner can quickly retake it with an invasion fleet, that's what the attacker gets for invading a planet despite enemy orbital control.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 27, 2015, 07:15:39 pm
I realize it's technically already monday here and that I'm really late! Last turn of 2015!
This is absolutely because I was lazy and playing games of very important things! I can assure you!

From this point onward, a defeated Admiral has to wait at least 1 turn before he can be assigned a new fleet.

Also, with the animated gif for tactical battles, I don't feel like its necessary to type out every move order anymore. (Please agree with me, its kind of a drag :P) So from now on, it'll just list if a move is invalid for some reason, and fire results.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on December 28, 2015, 02:57:02 am
I actually prefer the text...

and I find the GIF moves too fast for me.

No, I'm not physically old (23). Just mentally. :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 28, 2015, 04:15:36 am
I actually prefer the text...

and I find the GIF moves too fast for me.

Seconded
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on December 28, 2015, 10:41:04 am
I too much prefer the text to the gif. Maybe if Spoon doesn't want to, we could copy in the orders we gave ourselves.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on December 28, 2015, 03:32:40 pm
What if the gif were 5 separate images, or an "album" where you can browse each image at your leisure before moving on to the next one?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 28, 2015, 09:32:17 pm
Typing it all out in text is actually more time consuming than you might realize.

What if the gif were 5 separate images, or an "album" where you can browse each image at your leisure before moving on to the next one?
This wouldn't be too much extra effort to do.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 29, 2015, 03:50:18 am
Can I also ask for a more user-controlled overview of tactical combat? Whether a detailed writeup, or a slide-by-slide album makes no difference for me, but I'd like to be able to work through the tactical steps without having to wait for the .gif to cycle around again.

Also, regarding that accursed shiny new CRF project, can I ask:

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 31, 2015, 05:01:28 am
I thought I answered this one, but I guess I do a lot of things in my mind  :p

1. No
2. Yes
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 31, 2015, 05:17:18 am
Thanks Spoon,

Now, excuse me for a minute.

 :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on December 31, 2015, 04:40:45 pm
QFT

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on December 31, 2015, 05:30:49 pm
First of all, happy new year to all from Greece!  :)

Secondly, I've got to say that, based on what I see so far, the CRF just seems to have all the answers when in the offensive. Valor is insanely good and pretty much hard-counters starbases. Similarly, Field Repair makes repair facilities irrelevant, since it can be used repeatedly, as long as the Minister has money to spare. Not only that, but CRF fleets can now repair fully while in combat, halfway across the map from their home space. Without having to waste an action to request resupply.  :banghead:

I acknowledge that the main reason I'm addressing this is because its nasty, nasty business end is pointing toward the DD, of course. I'm not crying imba, especially not with those supercomps doing work for the DD since early on. Still, while we're testing, can I ask for a more impartial opinion from the other players?

The upcoming T5 DD project might be an interesting counter, but it's not going to see much testing, I think. Details on that soon.

BTW, is FR a T4 project?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on December 31, 2015, 05:47:33 pm
Happy new year from the Baltic Sea!

Secondly, I've got to say that, based on what I see so far, the CRF just seems to have all the answers when in the offensive. Valor is insanely good and pretty much hard-counters starbases. Similarly, Field Repair makes repair facilities irrelevant, since it can be used repeatedly, as long as the Minister has money to spare. Not only that, but CRF fleets can now repair fully while in combat, halfway across the map from their home space. Without having to waste an action to request resupply.  :banghead:

I have a counter argument to that, however I dread that I get slapped again by someone in the CRF from giving information to "the enemy" if I were to present it in detail... Rest assured that I can bring some numbers to the table which make it seem less so overwhelming as you might think...
As for Valor, I got some numbers for that too ... once the game is over I am willing to present the argument there...

No "X is broken" is neccessary at this point... (well, Starbases were and might still be broken)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on December 31, 2015, 07:47:37 pm
Happy new year from the Netherlands!

1. Absolutely wanna hear ya'll thoughts on the balance in regards of projects. Like, its amusing to me that the CRF kind of had a lukewarm reaction to its T4 projects. But then I see Enoich and Niffiwan go  :banghead:
 :lol:

2. Unrelated but sort of related, in case you somehow missed it. Be sure to check out Axem's latest JAD dev blog (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84738.msg1809246#msg1809246)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on December 31, 2015, 07:57:31 pm
First of all, happy new year to all from Greece!  :)

Secondly, I've got to say that, based on what I see so far, the CRF just seems to have all the answers when in the offensive....

Subspace torpedoes. I rest my case.

Srsly, though, I'm not all up on balance. And my opinions on it, lacking statistical evaluation of the game so far, would inevitably be biased. Hope you're getting plenty of useful data, Spoon.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on December 31, 2015, 09:19:55 pm
Hi From Aus, considering I was awake at midnight and awake again at 3am local *couldn't sleep and started work at 4am*. The future hasn't changed much, and started quite nicely for a change. Perhaps It shall be a good year.

Re: Balance, I think we'll all be able to delve into a deeper discussion on it once the game ends, that way we're not worrying about appearing with bias against another faction or spilling any beans on our own stuff that others may not have thought of or figured out yet.

Personally, I haven't looked into other factions abilities much so can't comment. Nor have I used Valor or looked at Field Repair, simply because it hasn't been of use to me yet.

But initial thoughts are each faction has varied tech which is interesting and useful when applied. Only concern being that if the game pairs down to 2v2 or such like this, then we end up with a 1v1 war regarding tech as both sides. So that seems mute in the sense that it waters down the unique-ness of the tech.

Umm... just thought of it. What if there was a limit to the amount of special tech you could be using at a time, or usable in a fleet?

Say. Minister has 4 tech slots, but has 5 special tech options. He needs to choose 4 that he can use over the next intreque/combat turn
Like:
Available: Field Repair, Super Computers, Adv Jump Drives, Academy, Fleet Insurance.
Active for next turn: (So on his turn, he chooses what to activate for the coming combat turn and his next turn. This current turn is decided by what he chose previously)
Field Repair, Super Computers, Academy and Jump Drives.

So he can use those.

A Fleet might only have 3 options available. And each change would require a refit.
Minister has Field Repair and Jump Drives available, jump drives can be installed on the fleet. So the 1st CRF is refitted with them

1st CRF
- Jump Drives
-
-

And next turn, perhaps now the Minister activates Mirage Fields instead. And the fleet is refitted with them.

And if the setup was like this

1st CRF
- Jump Drives
- Mirage Fields
- Valor

and they wanted to swap the jump drives for phase torpedoes, assuming the minister had that access. Then they could refit. With the result being

1st CRF
- Phase Torps
- Mirage Fields
- Valor.



-------

Blerg. Not thought out more than an idea. Seems interesting as it limits the amount of special tech that you can be running at any one time and makes fleets more unique rather than having everything available. I dunno.. would also be complex to keep track of each turn? A specific order sheet would help track it but I don't know how much more work would be on the back end.

Any thoughts/feelings on this?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on January 01, 2016, 04:37:19 am
Well, here are some of my opinions about both Phase Torpedoes and Field Repair...

Phase Torpedoes

1) 1v1 the repair cost of the damage dealt is not much more than the cost to fire them
2) 10% damage doesn't make much of a difference in determining who will win combat, correct positioning of your fleet has a far bigger effect. And I don't think there's any fleet damage/health combo's currently in action where 10% damage will take a 2 shot kill to a 1 shot (at least for centre fleets, with average %-hit RNG results)
3) Only useful as a 1st action, wastes a lot of resources if you miss your target
4) Works well when targets are concentrated; I feel its kinda reasonable to have a counter to the otherwise overwhelming advantages of concentrated force, it's also good to have options available apart from only concentrating forces

(OK, the stunt the UGCR just used on the SF really maximised the value of Phase Torps, not sure what the exact counter is for that one, although we couldn't have done it if the SF had brought their invasion fleet along)

Field Repair

1) Great action economy for fleets, considering the moves saved in using this vs having to retreat for (e.g.) 2 actions to get to a friendly shipyard for repair; it's even better the further away you are from a friendly shipyard
2) Minister actions aren't limited in number, so can repair fleets to full between strategy phases; essentially boiling down to fleets being invincible unless one-shotted (while resources last, 'natch)
3) May waste some resources since repairs must be done in 20% chunks (or the fleets are left between 81-99% health if you don't want to waste resources)
4) ?? unknown limitation alluded to by 0rph3u5 ?? Usable only once per fleet per Intrigue phase? But that doesn't quite seem to fit with:

Quote
The minister can initiate this project as many times as resources allow for.

Maybe there's some resource cost to activate the repair, but I'd expect that to have been advertised like phase torp cost was?

@Veers,

The limited slots idea sounds interesting, although that could make certain lesser-powered upgrades not worthwhile at all. And it seems to make more sense to me to be for fleets rather than ministers.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 01, 2016, 08:58:35 am
4) ?? unknown limitation alluded to by 0rph3u5 ?? Usable only once per fleet per Intrigue phase? But that doesn't quite seem to fit with:

You are correct: As member of the CRF I know how much the project costs per execution; that cost was not made public the same way the cost for Phase Torpedoes was

@Veers,

The limited slots idea sounds interesting, although that could make certain lesser-powered upgrades not worthwhile at all. And it seems to make more sense to me to be for fleets rather than ministers.


It sounds interesting but there are some complications with projects that require fleets to be refited (Mirage Fields, Adv Jump Drives etc etc)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 01, 2016, 09:29:12 am
Going over the last two turns of the combat at Uuni II, I noticed something:

Between I7 and I8, the morale of the 3rd DD rose from Good to Superb as well as the Garrions Morale from Ok to Good, that's from what exactly? The 3rd DD didn't refit and destroyed no targets....

Did I miss some project being activated?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 01, 2016, 09:50:56 am
Wow, wasn't expecting this much of a response...  :nervous:

As I said above, the fact that the CRF and DD are currently interacting makes all of my observations suspect; and any objections I raise might pale in comparison to imbalances we haven't yet discovered because e.g. the DD and the UGCR decided to work together instead of butting heads. So, take everything with a grain of salt.

The way I see it now, the DD encourages turtley / defensive / time-buying play, to allow for the ecoomic bonus granted by the supercomputers and the high-tier projects to come into effect. It's meant to snowball into the lategame, and the early stats of the fleets reflect that: we get one of the most cost-effective shield-to-command-point ratios (heavy cruisers!), allowing us to play defensively and regen some of our lost health between tactical engagements, and we have a very solid range advantage over the other nations' fleets (artillery). At game start, however, our fleets are considerably weaker than our opponents' (low potential) and in the actual game, we will also start with a resource disadvantage. Furthermore, artillery @ range 3 has a very lackluster damage output and artillery fleets are very squishy.

The way I see it, this means you need to be able to hold enemies off as the DD; and this lack of hitting power during the early game needs to be offset by good late-game power, to balance things out. Now, consider the projects the DD has to offer (all of the following information can be gleaned from previous turnsheets, so I'm not divulging anything horrible):

Tier 2: Supercomps (2000/2000): Tier-for-tier, best project for the DD. I have no complaints about this. Best value-for-money we've had so far, and, in all honesty, this might need a nerf. Consder, however, that this allows the DD to economise MONEY, not RESOURCES; as such, resources are worth as much to the DD as they are to everyone else. Keep that in mind for the following projects, please.

Tier 3: Phase torps (1000/4000 for research, 0/1000 per shot, one shot per fleet per turn). Huge upfront cost, especially given that most of it is resource-based (4k resources is a lot). I, of course, acknowledge that other factions' projects probably have similar costs and am not crying imba - just pointing out that just making this available to the admirals isn't cheap. Then, of course, you need to spend 1k resources per shot and you are limited to only one shot per fleet per turn. Thankfully no refit is required to install this.

As niffiwan pointed out, this is only cost-effective when firing on more than one targets (you need at least 2 centres and 3 flanks as targets to cause cost-efficient damage). Furthermore, 10% damage across the board does not affect the damage output of the enemy fleet, unless you knock them under 50% (an 80% fleet does exactly the same amount of damage as a 100% fleet and is, therefore, equally dangerous in a tactical scrap). Furthermore, phase missiles hurt all fleets in a location, so they can't be fired in a melee, unless you are willing to suffer equal losses; and they can be blocked by inhibitors, so a sacrificial fleet can hold off the fire of an entire DD 3-fleet armada if it's willing to take a beating to protect the rest the invading force. Finally, there's the matter of action economy: admirals need to spend their first action to guarantee a hit. This takes a toll on DD fleet mobility.

i.e. your only chance to score kills (or seriously inconvenience an enemy) with phase missiles is to keep up a steady fire of them and pile on the damage, turn after turn. And the enemy needs to oblige you, by staying there and taking it.

Tier 4(a): Fleet modernisation (1000/3000): Adds 2 max potential, 10 shields to flanks and 15 shields to centres. Requires free refit. Probably comparable to 'speed doctrine' and other projects that add flat numbers to fleets' stats. I'd like to know what the cost of such projects is for others; note that modernising requires a free refit, which requires retreating / burning actions to get a small bonus. Frankly, I have no idea how significant this shield bonus is (it's equivalent to just 1 primary weapons hit or so), but the potential unlock is important, I think. Again, HEAVY resource cost.

Tier 4(b): Undying Loyalty(2000/0): Adds one morale to all, immediately. I like this, because it focuses on money, and rewards you for your earlier investment in supercomps. No objection here; again, some small nerf might be considered.Orpheus, this answers your question.

Note that NONE of the above projects gives you additional options in a tactical environment (where the actual damage to enemy fleets takes place), only small buffs to fleet stats via modernisation / morale. The DD starts with its main tactical advantage (peashooters with range); and other factions acquire skills that counter this advantage in the early/mid-game (T3). Mirage fields (that make artillery miss) and Valor (which closes the range to enemy artillery and supersedes the artillery firing order) are, essentially, hard-counters. The only additional tactical order that the DD gets is T5 (so, very lategame, I'd think) and it is, again, a range-based order, with some pretty heavy drawbacks for the DD. Also, heavy in resource cost (ugh) but, thankfully, no refit required. Can't say anything else at this point, and it remains to see how it's going to work, but I'm not very convinced.

Add to this that the latest CRF project appears to hard-counter our phase missiles, and you can understand why I'm attacking walls with my head. The CRF can now repair damage in 20% blocks, without a supply line or repair facility and with no (apparent) additional cost. They can also do it without the admiral burning repair orders - and they can do it in combat as well. So, essentially, they can keep their fleets moving, all the time, provided they have enough resources to throw at the problem. The piddly 10%/20% damage that the DD fleets can inflict with phase torps can get instantly repaired next tactical turn, even if the DD fleets follow their phase missile launch up with jumping in and engaging in a tactical fight. What's the point of softening up your opponents when they can immediately repair the damage they suffered before you follow up? And hasn't something gone horribly wrong when the enemy can repair better than you while in orbit over your besieged planet?

(BTW, Spoon, can an admiral give the repair / refit order while in combat?)

And if the argument is 'outspend the enemy', then I'd like to remind you that the DD can economise money with the supercomps, but we are as dependent on resources as everybody else. 1k resources spent for your enemy to spend 400 money and 700 resources to immediately repair is, arguably, not a good deal.







Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 01, 2016, 10:39:48 am
1. I have not run the numbers on the DD fleets as to the curve they take with concerning potential but potential does only an incrimental combat effect, each point of potential (Morale and Veterancy) translates in a single point of evasion (-1 to enemy accurracy) and a single percent accuracy for accuracy based weapons... While the effects can cummulate with enemy stats, the change so far does not surpas the single or low double digits in the averages.

Also, you downplay the advantage that the highter shield ratio has on sustained combat - causing a reduction of permanent damage of inbetween 25-50 percent against any non-Neutron attack is breathtaking (most fleets average out at about 200 (SF Assault) and 340 (UGC Regulars) for their Centres alone in their peak range*, around half of that for the flanks; most DD Fleet elements have 100+ shields right out of the gate ).

*UGC Mercs are considered an outliner and not included

EDIT: Might I redirect your attention to this post, for a sample of comperative DD vs CRF stats as far as average damage and effective hitpoints go: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90442.msg1807330#msg1807330
(Note: At that point in time, both 2nd and 3rd CRF are full fleets at 90% hull strengh, the 3rd DD still a full fleet at full strength while DD Garison is only a Centre and a Flank at 100%)

2. Valor is very high-risk-reward for the CRF if you look at the pure fleet stats - in combat against the UGCR more than against the DD (the damage figures of the UGCR Regulars are -before Neutron extra dmg- beyond compare in the R0-1 range). When in comes to firepower the CRF enjoys more consitency across its 1-2 range than any other faction - esspecially since most don't have much R2 firepower - but pay for that with a vurnability in R0 (exception is the Vigilance Fleet).
On the Tactical Field the effects are even worse and I'd happy to discuss that after the game is concluded (before that I fear CRF counterintelligence is watching me to closely)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 01, 2016, 11:33:56 am
1. I have not run the numbers on the DD fleets as to the curve they take with concerning potential but potential does only an incrimental combat effect, each point of potential (Morale and Veterancy) translates in a single point of evasion (-1 to enemy accurracy) and a single percent accuracy for accuracy based weapons... While the effects can cummulate with enemy stats, the change so far does not surpas the single or low double digits in the averages.


The modernisation project does not grant us extra potential - it just allows us to gather XP / morale to bring the effectiveness to above 120% (which is our baseline).

Also, keep in mind that potential adds to damage, not hit percentage. 1 point of potential adds ~1 to your evasion and 10% to your damage.

Quote
Also, you downplay the advantage that the highter shield ratio has on sustained combat - causing a reduction of permanent damage of inbetween 25-50 percent against any non-Neutron attack is breathtaking (most fleets average out at about 200 (SF Assault) and 340 (UGC Regulars) for their Centres alone in their peak range*, around half of that for the flanks; most DD Fleet elements have 100+ shields right out of the gate ).

*UGC Mercs are considered an outliner and not included


No argument on the effectiveness of shields from me. Note that I have identified 'good shields' as one of the two calling cards of the DD (the other being 'good range, with poor damage').

What I am arguing is that the modernisation project just adds a flat 15 shields to centres and 10 to flanks. That is e.g. ~3 percent of effective HP for a heavy fleet. Is such an upgrade cost-effective? Maybe. Dunno. Not a lot of testing, I suppose.

Keep in mind that no matter how effective shields are, if your fleet needs two attacks to kill a target DD fleet in the first place, then a 3% increase in shields is not going to make much difference.

Quote

EDIT: Might I redirect your attention to this post, for a sample of comperative DD vs CRF stats as far as average damage and effective hitpoints go: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90442.msg1807330#msg1807330
(Note: At that point in time, both 2nd and 3rd CRF are full fleets at 90% hull strengh, the 3rd DD still a full fleet at full strength while DD Garison is only a Centre and a Flank at 100%)

What's your point? Are you comparing the effective firepower and health of a brawling fleet (the 3rd DD is built to brawl, and has the HP and short-range punch to reflect that) with a CRF sniping fleet (2nd and 3rd CRF are mostly Carrier fleets)? Apples and Oranges. The 2nd and 3rd CRF are meant to stay at range 2 and snipe, not brawl.

A comparison of a DD Heavy to a CRF Vigilance would be more appropriate, I think. Again, DD has better shields and overall HP (haven't run the numbers on damage output), but DD Heavy fleets are considerably more expensive and have higher repair costs.

Quote
2. Valor is very high-risk-reward for the CRF if you look at the pure fleet stats - in combat against the UGCR more than against the DD (the damage figures of the UGCR Regulars are -before Neutron extra dmg- beyond compare in the R0-1 range). When in comes to firepower the CRF enjoys more consitency across its 1-2 range than any other faction - esspecially since most don't have much R2 firepower - but pay for that with a vurnability in R0 (exception is the Vigilance Fleet).
On the Tactical Field the effects are even worse and I'd happy to discuss that after the game is concluded (before that I fear CRF counterintelligence is watching me to closely)

Valor used as an attack might have the risk/reward problem that you are raising, but keep in mind that Valor can also be used as a retreating technique. Also keep in mind that Valor uniquely moves the fleet before firing orders take effect, allowing you to close from e.g. range 4 to range 2 (death against DD artillery fleets) - or drop from range 2 to range 4, and evade counter-fire.

Honestly looking forward to seeing your feedback after this is over. This has evolved into a more interesting conversation than I'd expected after my (on hindsight slightly whiny) OP

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 01, 2016, 12:13:53 pm
1. I have not run the numbers on the DD fleets as to the curve they take with concerning potential but potential does only an incrimental combat effect, each point of potential (Morale and Veterancy) translates in a single point of evasion (-1 to enemy accurracy) and a single percent accuracy for accuracy based weapons... While the effects can cummulate with enemy stats, the change so far does not surpas the single or low double digits in the averages.


The modernisation project does not grant us extra potential - it just allows us to gather XP / morale to bring the effectiveness to above 120% (which is our baseline).

Also, keep in mind that potential adds to damage, not hit percentage. 1 point of potential adds ~1 to your evasion and 10% to your damage.

RAW, not actually my post but:
Experience: Fleet experience will go up one a level after a tactical combat*, and adds to the Potential. New fleets start at Regular (+0) and go up to Veteran (+1) and Elite (+2)
Morale: Like Experience, Morale adds to the Potential of a fleet. Morale is generally influenced by faction and Admiral achievements.
Morale ranges from Broken (-2), Shaken (-1), Ok (+0), Good (+1), Excellent (+2) and Zealous (+3)
Potential: There are several factors that can contribute to a fleet's effectiveness, such as good morale, crew experience, a solid commander in charge and so forth. But there is only so much a motivated crew can do to overcome technical limitations. This is reflected in a fleet's potential. This stat affects a fleet's damage and evasion.

How potential affects damage is not specified, for my purposes I always simply modified accuracy, since number of shots and damage per shot are easier to maintain as fixed values for the purposes of calculation an average:

EDIT slightly wrong formula:

nshots x dper shot x ((vaccuracy)/100) = daverage
(this has the ellegance that I can just take it "x 1 + (vmorale + vveterancy - venemy evasion) / 100" for adjusting it to potential and enemy evasion - there are better ways to do this but this is fast)

EDIT: right one:
nshots x dper shot x ((vaccuracy + vmorale + vveterancy - venemy evasion)/100) = daverage

if "(vaccuracy + vmorale + vveterancy - venemy evasion) > 1" it equals 1
if "vmorale + vveterancy > lmax potential" then it equals lmax potential

NOTE: This is math 101, not some secret knowledge which must be withheld

Quote
Also, you downplay the advantage that the highter shield ratio has on sustained combat - causing a reduction of permanent damage of inbetween 25-50 percent against any non-Neutron attack is breathtaking (most fleets average out at about 200 (SF Assault) and 340 (UGC Regulars) for their Centres alone in their peak range*, around half of that for the flanks; most DD Fleet elements have 100+ shields right out of the gate ).

*UGC Mercs are considered an outliner and not included

No argument on the effectiveness of shields from me. Note that I have identified 'good shields' as one of the two calling cards of the DD (the other being 'good range, with poor damage').

What I am arguing is that the modernisation project just adds a flat 15 shields to centres and 10 to flanks. That is e.g. ~3 percent of effective HP for a heavy fleet. Is such an upgrade cost-effective? Maybe. Dunno. Not a lot of testing, I suppose.

Keep in mind that no matter how effective shields are, if your fleet needs two attacks to kill a target DD fleet in the first place, then a 3% increase in shields is not going to make much difference.
[/quote]

You ignore the clarification of "sustained combat", I was not simply talking about single rounds of combat but every round of combat - shields recharge every round after all ... in a 1-on-1 all but Neutron-armed fleets (which will eat DD fleets faster) looses up to half of its potential damage before it damages a DD fleet's, hull so a DD fleet suffers from less attrition if the combat goes on

Quote
Quote
EDIT: Might I redirect your attention to this post, for a sample of comperative DD vs CRF stats as far as average damage and effective hitpoints go: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90442.msg1807330#msg1807330
(Note: At that point in time, both 2nd and 3rd CRF are full fleets at 90% hull strengh, the 3rd DD still a full fleet at full strength while DD Garison is only a Centre and a Flank at 100%)

What's your point? Are you comparing the effective firepower and health of a brawling fleet (the 3rd DD is built to brawl, and has the HP and short-range punch to reflect that) with a CRF sniping fleet (2nd and 3rd CRF are mostly Carrier fleets)? Apples and Oranges. The 2nd and 3rd CRF are meant to stay at range 2 and snipe, not brawl.

2nd CRF - Carrier Centre + 2x Carrier Flank
3rd CRF - Sentinel Centre + 2x Carrier Flank (I make due with what I am given, acutally I want my Vigilance Flanks back at the very least)

My point being, what I stated above:
CRF fleets enjoy consitency in damage output due to the ability to attack with 3 figure damges (exception Vigilance) at Range 1-2; in case of the Carrier Fleet even 0-2. But they do not come close to the peak damages other fleets can put out (SF Fleets not withstanding, but they go another bag of tricks). But in turn 1/3 of our fire power is negated by the Centre Shields of 3rd DD alone.

Note: The 3rd DD is also a bit sub-standard according to my math

Quote
A comparison of a DD Heavy to a CRF Vigilance would be more appropriate, I think. Again, DD has better shields and overall HP (haven't run the numbers on damage output), but DD Heavy fleets are considerably more expensive and have higher repair costs.

Cost efficency has not factored into my calcuations yet (that's why the UGC Mercs are out of picture), as I am an Admiral and less concerned with building fleets then killing them - but the comparison of single fleets from different factions doesn't serve a purpose either...

The DD Heavy Fleet for example can't be explained without the DD Light and the DD Artillery, in between which it stands: The Light Fleet which is the true DD brawler and the Artillery Fleet has a one more range bracket but less damage except for the R2-3 band.

Everything else, after the game concludes.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 01, 2016, 12:47:50 pm
1. Potential works as follows FYI:

Potential = Morale + Experience (e.g. 'Good' and 'Regular' nets you a 1 in potential. 'Superb' and regular nets you a 2. Superb and Experienced nets you a 3).

Potential x 10 = percentile added to evasion and damage.

So, a fleet with 3 potential has 130% evasion and every attack does 130% damage. This does NOT affect the chance of an attack to hit - just ups the damage it does IF it hits. keep this in mind for your calculations: low-chance attacks, such as your main batteries for those carriers do more damage when potential is up, but they have the same low chance to hit.

2. We're arguing different points. I understand how shields work. I am NOT arguing against the fact that they play a large part in DD fleet survivability. What I am saying is that I question whether paying 1000/3000 and requiring a refit for a 3% increase in shields is cost effective. I lean towards 'yes' (that's why I paid for the upgrade) but I'm on the fence and would like to hear how much other factions' fleet-upgrade projects cost. That's it.

3. Fair enough.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 01, 2016, 12:56:20 pm
1. Potential works as follows FYI:

Potential = Morale + Experience (e.g. 'Good' and 'Regular' nets you a 1 in potential. 'Superb' and regular nets you a 2. Superb and Experienced nets you a 3).

Potential x 10 = percentile added to evasion and damage.

So, a fleet with 3 potential has 130% evasion and every attack does 130% damage. This does NOT affect the chance of an attack to hit - just ups the damage it does IF it hits. keep this in mind for your calculations: low-chance attacks, such as your main batteries for those carriers do more damage when potential is up, but they have the same low chance to hit.

Neither here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90330.msg1793732#msg1793732) or there (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90450.msg1795125#msg1795125) is it explained as you do... so... yeah ... Confusion happened just now

EDIT: Note: A buff to accuracy also increases damage but doesn't increase the maximum possible damage (which is still caped by nshots x dper shot ) which matches up with the fluff text/simulation description of the Potential Characteristic. That is another reason (other then I found it easier for the math) why I factored it into my calculations like I did.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 01, 2016, 01:09:45 pm
Quote
Fleet statistics:
Shields: Effectively serve as hitpoints that regenerate each new tactical combat turn.
Strength: Your fleet's hitpoints, unlike shields, these do not regenerate on their own. In order to repair this damage a fleet must be resupplied at a shipyard. Fleets below 50% strength suffer a 25% penalty to the damage they deal.
Evasion: A flat percentage to avoid a shot.
Experience: Fleet experience will go up one a level after a tactical combat*, and adds to the Potential. New fleets start at Regular (+0) and go up to Veteran (+1) and Elite (+2)
Garrison fleets do not gain Experience.
(*Actual combat, so no trying to raise your fleet experience by going into tactical combat with someone and not shooting at each other)
Morale: Like Experience, Morale adds to the Potential of a fleet. Morale is generally influenced by faction and Admiral achievements.
Morale ranges from Broken (-2), Shaken (-1), Ok (+0), Good (+1), Excellent (+2) and Zealous (+3)
Potential: There are several factors that can contribute to a fleet's effectiveness, such as good morale, crew experience, a solid commander in charge and so forth. But there is only so much a motivated crew can do to overcome technical limitations. This is reflected in a fleet's potential.
This stat affects a fleet's damage and evasion.

Example: The 101th UGCR fleet has a maximum potential of 4, it has achieved Elite status in Experience, adding a +2 modifier to its potential. It also has Good morale, adding an additional +1. But it is currently being affected by enemy ECM, which applies a -1 penalty to its potential. Leaving the 101th with a 2/4 potential, meaning it operates at 120% efficiency. Adding a 20% increase to its damage and evasion stats.

The above example from the rules page clarifies the system perfectly.

Note that "Max potential" =! "Potential". "Max Potential" is altered by projects and base max potential varies between factions. For the CRF, max potential is 3 at game start, so the most you can get out of morale and experience is 130%. The DD fleets start with Max Pot = 2, so we can go up to only 120% before the modernisation.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 01, 2016, 01:16:46 pm
The above example from the rules page clarifies the system perfectly.

Suits me for looking it up in the Fleet Statistics topic... but we belaboured the point of having to fix the presentation of the rules before...

But considering the boost is added after the fact my calculation were at least always wrong by yielding lower results than were actually possible :D

also I noticed that I had not limited potential in my earlier formula as posted. Here are home I got it all neatly in a Exel-file which automatically reduces the figure to its limit...



Spoon, we might need your opinion on "How fair is Spoon?" in the CRF internal...



Also for a full faction balance discussion, we need also the tech that was not yet researched... Spoon's comment to the reception of CRF T4 might give you an indication but I bet other the other factions also have tech that wasn't researched and might have an application on a larger map and with more turns to play...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on January 01, 2016, 01:54:08 pm
With the current "try to one-shot everything" meta shields play a much smaller role than they could, like for example if two damaged fleets continue fighting and retreat is no option for both. I guess on the normal map things might play out differently compared to now where everything is so close that sending in all fleets is not such a huge risk (but might still leave you wide open like in case of the CRF).

What I don't like is that additional tactical orders are limited to one nation early on and only come up later for others (not sure about SF and UGC). The same with strategic orders and the SF movement increase. I have no idea how to balance it but I feel all nations should be able to get an additional tactical order at the same tech level. If that is difficult at least make it a tactical or strategic order on a certain tech level and on a higher tech level the reverse.
As an Admiral I feel so limited when trying to cope with that goddamn valor and the possibilities that come with it. The same is partially true for the 3 movements option but at least we got subspace missiles in our alliance as a strategic order. Seeing our tech-lvl 5 tactical order I really wish I had something like it earlier (even if it was a bit weaker cause of being placed at a lower tech level).
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 01, 2016, 02:41:52 pm
A lot of really interesting debate going on.  :nod:

Any thoughts/feelings on this?
I think it's an interesting idea that I'll give some more thought. It wouldn't work with the current way fleets and technologies are but it's given me some food for thought about the more streamlined fleets I'm playing with.

Quote
(BTW, Spoon, can an admiral give the repair / refit order while in combat?)
When in combat at a location that is a shipyard or has one/starbase? No.

Maybe there's some resource cost to activate the repair, but I'd expect that to have been advertised like phase torp cost was?
Yeah It should have been. I changed how project/usage cost is listed in the project thread slightly and because of this forgot to copy paste it into the game thread properly.
Field repair has a flat 2000 resource cost.
Repairing a CRF Carrier center for 20% normally would cost 500 money and 1000 resources.

Spoon, we might need your opinion on "How fair is Spoon?" in the CRF internal...
Being a proper nerd, I can assure you my skin is very fair.

As an Admiral I feel so limited when trying to cope with that goddamn valor and the possibilities that come with it.
Valor is definitely the tech I did not expect to have such a big impact as it does and it probably comes a bit too early at T3.

Phase torpedoes on the other hand, work about the way I expected them to get used.
Also I changed excellent morale to superb on the strategic map because it's shorter.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on January 01, 2016, 04:43:41 pm

Spoon, we might need your opinion on "How fair is Spoon?" in the CRF internal...
Being a proper nerd, I can assure you my skin is very fair.


Oh Gosh.. now I see blonde hair and blue eyes. I am so so sorry for this mental image.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 01, 2016, 05:19:39 pm
I do have blue eyes, so there's that  :p
I don't have the white dragon to go with it though.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on January 01, 2016, 10:16:31 pm
Maybe there's some resource cost to activate the repair, but I'd expect that to have been advertised like phase torp cost was?
Yeah It should have been. I changed how project/usage cost is listed in the project thread slightly and because of this forgot to copy paste it into the game thread properly.
Field repair has a flat 2000 resource cost.
Repairing a CRF Carrier center for 20% normally would cost 500 money and 1000 resources.

Ah yes, that changes the value proposition a fair bit (although still good IMHO).
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 02, 2016, 01:00:37 am
^ Truth.

In fact, given this info, I can see why our CRF colleagues cried UP. FR is NOT a counter to phase torpedos, but a situational heal. Still good IMO, for the in-combat heal and for not having to travel back home. Momentum is important.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 02, 2016, 06:00:56 am
As an Admiral I feel so limited when trying to cope with that goddamn valor and the possibilities that come with it.
Valor is definitely the tech I did not expect to have such a big impact as it does and it probably comes a bit too early at T3.

Maybe if Valor could swap its place in tech tree with "that other tech" from CRF T4, that could help - I mean after the confusion how it worked was cleared up, the situation with "that other tech" went in the "wish we had it earlier direction"

^ Truth.

In fact, given this info, I can see why our CRF colleagues cried UP. FR is NOT a counter to phase torpedos, but a situational heal. Still good IMO, for the in-combat heal and for not having to travel back home. Momentum is important.

The fact that it is 4000 for 20 percent to an entire fleet, while 2x SSTs which undo it are 2000, makes it an uneasy balance thing... but we will see how it really turns out...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 03, 2016, 09:42:13 am
I'm not completely sure what went wrong with the 3rd SF morale, but it was listed as Superb on the strategic map since like turn 7, even though it should only be Good.
Also, I hope the Green-Blue switch around isn't going to be too confusing to our UGCR and SF combatants.
And the 2nd DD makes its combat debut at last~
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 03, 2016, 07:05:17 pm
I undestand why the Grind at Uunii II expanded to 6x6 but when combat was joined initially the Invasion Fleet started at A5 and the Drop Point was A1 ... Now that it has rejoined it is 5 moves away (A6-> A1)... Is there a logic behind this?

Because from where it sit - ignoring the DD blockade for academic purposes - the CRF cannot bring the Invasion Fleet to the planet within one turn, while it was possible when the Grid was only 5x5. This appears to be a previous unknown advantage towards the DD...

EDIT: Correction in text above, on I7 the Invasion fleet started of course on A5, as there was no A6

EDIT: Looking back it kinda puzzels me as well that the 3rd DD on I7 started in B2, and now the 2nd DD starts in A2... As constrast, the UGC Defenders at Captial started in the 1-row sry, wrong - damn gif
EDIT3: Point withdrawn, inconstistency was a misconception because I was looking at the -gif from I7 not the starting pic that came with the results of S6
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 03, 2016, 07:21:17 pm
Quote
Is there a logic behind this?
I avoid having fleets entering combat directly in firing range from each other
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 03, 2016, 07:24:47 pm
Quote
Is there a logic behind this?
I avoid having fleets entering combat directly in firing range from each other

Then why not move the drop point somewhere else? Is there a rule it has to be A1?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 03, 2016, 07:47:39 pm
For the record, I was just thinking about adding faction dependent boni to Starbases to increase their importance in the defense of a planet... (e.g. DD Starbases count as being equipped with Fire Control with a Range of 3 instead of the usual 0, CRF Bases allowing Garrison Fleets togain XP, SF bases or UGC Starbases apply a minor effect similar to Mirage fields to any friendly in R1)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 03, 2016, 07:53:57 pm
Wasn't it said somewhere that Starbases would improve as technology improved?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 03, 2016, 08:45:00 pm
Then why not move the drop point somewhere else? Is there a rule it has to be A1?
Someone asked me if drop points stayed at the same location at some point (I dont remember who/where that was) and I answered yes to that.
It makes sense to me that its at the same location. I'm sorry that it turned out poorly for the CRF, but it is what it is.

Wasn't it said somewhere that Starbases would improve as technology improved?
They benefit from things like mirage fields and neutron weapons so.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 04, 2016, 04:00:08 am
Then why not move the drop point somewhere else? Is there a rule it has to be A1?
Someone asked me if drop points stayed at the same location at some point (I dont remember who/where that was) and I answered yes to that.
It makes sense to me that its at the same location.

I avoid having fleets entering combat directly in firing range from each other

So if the 3rd DD were not at B4, the Invasion Fleet could have started at A5?

And just out of curiosity, if the CRF had not attacked from direction of the Carnia Starlance, were would we have started then? Would it have been possible (position of the DD Garrison Fleet aside) to start the Invasion Fleet at E1?



I'm sorry that it turned out poorly for the CRF, but it is what it is.

This is not about sorry - well, I am pretty irritated how it turned out but that is beside the point - it is about finding the consistent basis for the rules...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on January 04, 2016, 06:38:13 am
Would any of the rear line be an option as the invasion point?, or depending on map size there is a second, or even a third as it grows larger?

I dunno. Just thinking
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 05, 2016, 07:56:42 am
Hello all,

Can I jump on the bandwagon and express my concern about the changes in the tactical grid for Uuni?

The new situation greatly benefits the DD, partly because even if we do not engage, but just run away, it is impossible for the CRF to occupy the planet this turn. That said, the main problem is (I believe) the perceived inconsistency in spawning positions for the invading fleets. The CRF forces came into Uuni using the exact same approach as last time, but spawned in different locations. This makes a carefully planned attack (my compliments for the roundabout approach, BTW) a dud - for no reason that the CrF admirals could have anticipated, because it hadn't arisen yet.

I.e. we need spawning rules to be clearly laid out, and made available to all, so that players can plan out their moves with reasonable safety. What the rules will be is not so important - the important thing is that they are there and that spawning is a codified, consistent thing.

 
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 10, 2016, 01:25:55 pm
My compliments to you too. The DD have been a cunning and worthy foe. :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 10, 2016, 06:06:40 pm
(I've noted the complaints about the spawning positions)

This combat turn at Uuni II has a bunch of rule violations and it only kind of dawned on me after I was done doing all the calculations.
Veers didn't specify which of his flanks should move, because he didn't start the combat with a center fleet, he shouldn't have been able to move both flanks at once as if they were attached to a center. Both Lorric and 0rph3u5 lost their fleet centers and according to the rules as written wouldn't have been able to execute their fleet center with flanks attached orders either. But after I had already done everything I just sort of went "well, whatever." The whole concept with fleet flanks isn't really working out as I had imagined it anyway, its too unwieldy.

Also, I can't make a gif right now because photoshop has once again to randomly give me a program error when trying to 'save for web'. And fixing this usually requires nuking all my settings and stuff. I hope the album works?

Also also, some abyssmal rolls in the Starlance leading to Harcon battle. I also made a calculation mistake with the 3rd SF Center not dealing reduced due to being below 50%, but it would only make a few percentage of hull strength difference... Sorry about that UGC.

And for my usual dose of self loathing: This combat system allows for too many calculation errors on my end and the weapon damage isnt very transparant for the Admirals. Too many little factors that I have to account for and manually change on the maps, easy to forget, frustrating to correct. Ideally I don't want to spend more than 2 hours doing a turn, but for the intrigue phases with combat its usually a lot longer than that.
So yeah, I'll change it someday. (Once I find the motivation).

Also, I'm sorry Ministers. I realize that by killing the diplomacy, your roles haven't exactly been exciting.

Well, only 3 phases remaining before game end.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on January 11, 2016, 03:22:20 am
It's funny how I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what to do during combat turn 7 because of Valor. This time I had my orders for 3 fleets ready in less than 10 minutes - again cause of Valor. A straight forward inevitable boom: Everything fired within the 2nd order. Combat would have been more interesting without Valor this time...

The whole concept with fleet flanks isn't really working out as I had imagined it anyway, its too unwieldy.
Generally I like the idea of detaching flanks but it seems only the DD really used it (though it did work out). On the other hand detaching them is usually a disadvantage as more orders are needed to do anything and the rules can be misunderstood easily. No idea how to improve this and making it simpler at the same time :doubt:

About complicated combat calculations: How about removing all the specific weapon types and instead just giving a damage and hit chance value (flat percentage that can be modified and is capped at 100%) for each range? These values are calculated once at the beginning for each type of Center or Flank according to the specific weapons installed on the ships.
Then dump target of opportunity or reduce it to check if a Flank doesn't need to shoot at the target to kill it in which case it fires on something else.
For randomness use either a damage range (like 80-100) that returns a random value, or if it should mimic rolling for weapon hits, use something like a normal distribution tabulated before the game starts. One roll giving a value of said distribution then replaces single shot rolls and the result only has to be scaled/streched to have the maximum at the given hit chance and maybe a capped value at the maximum (or not if critical hits are a possibility).
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 11, 2016, 11:36:38 am
About complicated combat calculations: How about removing all the specific weapon types and instead just giving a damage and hit chance value (flat percentage that can be modified and is capped at 100%) for each range? These values are calculated once at the beginning for each type of Center or Flank according to the specific weapons installed on the ships.
Then dump target of opportunity or reduce it to check if a Flank doesn't need to shoot at the target to kill it in which case it fires on something else.
For randomness use either a damage range (like 80-100) that returns a random value, or if it should mimic rolling for weapon hits, use something like a normal distribution tabulated before the game starts. One roll giving a value of said distribution then replaces single shot rolls and the result only has to be scaled/streched to have the maximum at the given hit chance and maybe a capped value at the maximum (or not if critical hits are a possibility).
Yeah, I was thinking something along the same lines of simplifying weapons like that.
And instead of having a center fleet with attached flanks, I am thinking about having each Admiral control a main fleet and an escort fleet. Which can move independently from each other, with the escort fleet being faster but less powerful than the main fleet. So the escort fleets could be used more as raiding forces, while the main fleets are like the 'serious business end' of things.
Which should hopefully make things a bit easier to understand and simpler to execute on.

Also, instead of having different fleet types for each faction, it'll be one base type for main and escort, which the admiral then customizes with modules.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 11, 2016, 11:59:34 am
And for my usual dose of self loathing: This combat system allows for too many calculation errors on my end and the weapon damage isnt very transparant for the Admirals. Too many little factors that I have to account for and manually change on the maps, easy to forget, frustrating to correct. Ideally I don't want to spend more than 2 hours doing a turn, but for the intrigue phases with combat its usually a lot longer than that.
So yeah, I'll change it someday. (Once I find the motivation).

If you want to look at a more userfriendly approach to the weapon stats of the each fleet, you can check out the .pdf I made for the CRF; it should be easy to find in the internal (the formating is bad but only because I converted it straight from the Exel-file) - I basically made each weapon a collum and each range a row, with a 5th collum for a total for each range

As for how to avoid calculation errors, we can discuss it after the game is done - open to the hood and all - but remember to also share how you do your randomizing - depending on what kind of RNG you use you might run into some issues with how it creates "random" numbers...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 13, 2016, 10:21:18 am
Hi Spoon.

I never knew flanks couldn't move together without a center. Will that rule be enforced next turn, or can I use valor next turn? Also, can two flanks with no center fire together?
Keep moving the two flanks as a single unit, like last turn. It's too much of a hassle to go and move all of the individually.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 17, 2016, 10:52:47 am
The Inhefulian Blitz has begun ...


One turn too late but considering the yield for the test part in this test game: worth it
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 17, 2016, 11:05:50 am
BTW: How does Siege Mode work? If the owning player cannot issue any other order after Siege Mode was triggered, when does a fleet in Siege Mode fire?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 17, 2016, 11:09:12 am
BTW: How does Siege Mode work? If the owning player cannot issue any other order after Siege Mode was triggered, when does a fleet in Siege Mode fire?

Quote
Can only be issued as the 1st order of the combat. No move orders can be issued after going into Siege mode and Evasion drops to Zero
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 17, 2016, 11:13:08 am
Okay ... back to the drawing board then...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on January 24, 2016, 12:57:22 pm
Spoon, now that I am a POW of the DD, shouldn't my access to the CRF Forum be limited? - Not that I am not willing "to face the music" for loosing my second fleet and utterly failing to take Inhefulian Prime, but you know, a fun idea...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 24, 2016, 01:10:40 pm
It's an amusing thought, but probably too fiddly for Axem. Plus it just seems needlessly counterproductive someone then having to catch up when they get back.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 24, 2016, 03:32:56 pm
Well, I can set membergroups and stuff. But disconnecting you from the forum for the last week doesn't seem very productive  :p

So I noticed a lot of competitive spirit setting in, along with a fair amount of people becoming disinterested when not being on the winning side of things. I know this is sort of the nature of competitive/pvp games. But I'd rather see everyone having fun, and it's making me reconsider if this format is ideal for any future games. I'd rather be the 'dungeon master' of a fun experience rather than the referee in a match, so to speak.

That is not to say that I personally didn't had a lot of fun this game. Cause I did.
Either way there will be a break when the game comes to a close after next week, I can't tell how long of a period it will be for the next game.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 24, 2016, 04:09:05 pm
I've said from the beginning I'd prefer PvE to PvP. We could join to face the hierarchy again. PvP, the nature of the beast is there are going to be winners and losers. But I will play PvP if that is the direction you go in.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 24, 2016, 04:13:17 pm
Well, it's a bit hypocritical to say that I enjoyed the PvP. :p

But it's fair to say that PvE is the option that will leave most of the players happy. What I fear is the quarterback syndrome kicking in.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 24, 2016, 04:32:32 pm
What I fear is the quarterback syndrome kicking in.
I tried to step back from that in this test game. Take a more passive role. But the way things went I very much feel that was the wrong decision, and for the main game I will be striding forward not stepping back.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 24, 2016, 04:40:19 pm
That certainly doesn't ease my fears.

I might acknowledge the objective superiority of another player's suggestion, but I certainly don't appreciate it being forced on me 'because it's clearly our best option'.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 24, 2016, 04:44:05 pm
That certainly doesn't ease my fears.

I might acknowledge the objective superiority of another player's suggestion, but I certainly don't appreciate it being forced on me 'because it's clearly our best option'.
It isn't possible to force someone to do something though.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 24, 2016, 05:01:59 pm
Strictly speaking, true; but there is such a thing as peer pressure in the context of the game. Just having someone pick out all your sub-optimal actions and point them out for everyone to see is grating.

Also, the point of a game is for every player to play; not for one player to find the best way to do things and expect others to conform to their plan, no matter how perfect that is. That would equate to just them playing.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 24, 2016, 05:08:54 pm
I am aware of the issues with the quarterback problem, but then the quarterback has to let themselves be dragged down with everyone else rather than raise everyone else up. It isn't so much of an issue for the quarterback if his intervention is unnecessary to still ultimately prevail. Also other players could learn from the quarterback's interventions and the quarterback ultimately becomes less and less influential.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 24, 2016, 05:36:03 pm
[...] but then the quarterback has to let themselves be dragged down with everyone else rather than raise everyone else up. It isn't so much of an issue for the quarterback if his intervention is unnecessary to still ultimately prevail.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Also other players could learn from the quarterback's interventions and the quarterback ultimately becomes less and less influential.

No, they don't. Whether by 'teaching' other players or by constantly pointing out the best way to proceed, they get the playerbase to follow their (admittedly possibly optimal) path. Which exists in a way that makes the game boring. If there is a 'best way' to do things, then a computer can play the game as well as we can and I find no particular pleasure in playing such a game.

The only two ways you can effectively eliminate the quarterback problem in a game (i.e. make it objectively moot for a player to suggest optimal strategies) without PvP is


In both above cases, there's no point in having a quarterback, no matter the purity of their motives, because they don't have all the information and any suggestion they make can be countered with ''yeah, that's your opinion, I prefer to do X and your suggestion is not objectively better than my choice".

TL;DR: I don't mind players telling me what to do. I mind them being objectively right. I do not want to play a game in which a specific move can be shown to be objectively 'the best' each and every turn.

Which is why I enjoyed the PvP: it's hard to predict the moves of another player and, in many cases, it serves you better to bluff or anticipate a gambit than to play 'safe'.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Droid803 on January 24, 2016, 05:49:12 pm
Aren't both those points achieved in the current (proposed) system anyway?
- Enemy orders in tactical combat are unknown, it is impossible to derive optimal battle orders without knowing this.
- Faction leaders will reward imperfect group actions for "playing in character"

Thus this shouldn't be a problem for a PvP or PvE scenario?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 24, 2016, 05:55:47 pm
Well the first part I was basically saying if the quarterback has a choice between going into action and winning or not doing and losing how could he do nothing and thus end up being a loser? And that that is much less of an issue if the quarterback can still win without going into action.

As for the rest of your post, well that's quite interesting. So am I right then that your issue isn't with the quarterback at all but the fact the game allows the quarterback to exist? That would explain your puzzlement with that paragraph I guess.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 24, 2016, 05:57:25 pm
Yes, they are. Which is why I said I liked the current system.

It has its problems, of course, of which the most notable is a tendency to snowball. Once the CRF started losing, it became really hard to stop losing.

Of course, the current system also involves PvP, which makes it a non-pure-coop game.

EDIT: Yes, that is exactly my point.

A game can have many people involved, but it might only have a single player. A pure co-op game, with no hidden information is, by definition a single-player game. It's just that this single player happens to have a lot of brains and separate physical bodies. It only takes one of those brains being skilled enough to handle the game mechanics for it to take over and be an effective quarterback.

The game system should not give the possibility for a quarterback to exist. They should be unaware of something: either the other players' goals, or the exact results of their actions, or the upcoming developments, or the other players' capabilities. Something.

You have to involve a lot of players, not brains behind a single player.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on January 24, 2016, 06:21:09 pm
Food for thought if we go back to PvE. But even if we don't, the main game will ultimately become PvE when the Hierarchy rolls into town...
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: NGTM-1R on January 24, 2016, 06:21:46 pm
A game can have many people involved, but it might only have a single player. A pure co-op game, with no hidden information is, by definition a single-player game.

This statement fails to acknowledge that cooperation between humans is unlikely to be perfect, assured, or even necessarily seen as a desirable outcome, as any idiot who's ever done a raid in Warcraft can tell you.

The existence of a co-op game in no way removes the multiple human friction factors that may result in there being multiple people playing the game. Indeed, it can be designed so there are ultimately multiple players regardless, as the players may be physically unable to coordinate their actions in a meaningful way.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 24, 2016, 06:36:52 pm
If cooperation is imperfect, this means that a) information is not shared equally b) complete information is unavailable or c) the goals of the participants are not the same.

In any case of imperfect cooperation, you can attribute failure to one or more of the above factors. In your WoW example, a failed raid might be due to e.g. specific key players choosing to prioritise their characters' survival over the success of the raid (not the same goals) or the leader not communicating the changing battlefield information properly (information problems) or the players not knowing what defenses are in place (incomplete information)

Now, as you said, human friction factors can cause the above situations. But a game cannot depend on its players to cause the necessary problems that will impede proper cooperation and make things interesting, especially if it is in their stated best interest to attempt to coordinate perfectly. If the goal of the game is to cooperate to win, then the players are expected to try to cooperate and any game that says 'yeah, playing will be interesting because chances are high that my players will fail to coordinate perfectly' has fundamental design problems and is self-contradictive. The game design needs to actively encourage the players to cooperate - but somehow prevent them from reaching total cooperation, by incorporating one of the above three points (a, b or c) in the game rules.

In your final example, of the players being 'physically unable to coordinate', information is not shared equally (case a). This is an acceptable cooperative game by my standards.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on January 24, 2016, 07:12:13 pm
I like the idea of going back to PvE, but with imperfect information and side goals that reward selfishness. That way, we avoid this game's problems with ministers and defeated faction players losing interest. And we still mostly avoid the problems with quarterbacking from the first game.

Spoon, if we switched back to PvE, do you think you might retain the minister positions, or would we be going all Admirals again? I think the minister position was cool in theory, and cool in practice so long as Ministers had a relevant job to do. Even if all the Ministers were theoretically allied, they could allocate resources to the war effort, research tech, and conduct diplomacy with each other and any races willing to talk. During WWII, the Allies had a hard time agreeing on anything, and Eisenhower had to spend a lot of time and effort just keeping the U.S. and Britain operating together on the Western Front. Ergo, shifting back to PvE wouldn't obviate the minister position.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Admiral MS on January 25, 2016, 09:46:15 am
I would be a bit sad if the pvp component gets completely removed. Thats not because we are "winning" against the CRF but cause I liked the fact that there are players behind the fleets on the other side who may or may not share the same oponion. That said I don't think commanding up to three fleets by myself was absolutely fair...

I like the idea of going back to PvE, but with imperfect information and side goals that reward selfishness. That way, we avoid this game's problems with ministers and defeated faction players losing interest. And we still mostly avoid the problems with quarterbacking from the first game.

Spoon, if we switched back to PvE, do you think you might retain the minister positions, or would we be going all Admirals again? I think the minister position was cool in theory, and cool in practice so long as Ministers had a relevant job to do. Even if all the Ministers were theoretically allied, they could allocate resources to the war effort, research tech, and conduct diplomacy with each other and any races willing to talk. During WWII, the Allies had a hard time agreeing on anything, and Eisenhower had to spend a lot of time and effort just keeping the U.S. and Britain operating together on the Western Front. Ergo, shifting back to PvE wouldn't obviate the minister position.

If we really ditch the pvp part I hope we can keep something like what Lepanto wrote. Each nation should have their on goals provided by the dungeon master (Spoon), their own territory and potentially have to trade and cooperate to get certain ressources, technology or build ships. Might think and write about some detailed stuff later if I'm motivated ;)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 31, 2016, 03:58:50 pm
Last turn result delayed because I intend to record a short video for it, but Lv90 wizard Swifty is working on making the shields look a lot better, so I'm patiently going to wait for him to work his magic before I do the recording!

Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on January 31, 2016, 04:33:22 pm
Fair enough. Any idea when to expect it?
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 31, 2016, 05:14:17 pm
Probably (hopefully) no later than tomorrow.

At the very end, I realize. Uuni II has a nebula background on the strategic map that I never put on the tactical map.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on January 31, 2016, 07:16:26 pm
magic


At the very end, I realize. Uuni II has a nebula background on the strategic map that I never put on the tactical map.

Well, at least someone noticed. I don't think any of us did. :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on January 31, 2016, 08:03:24 pm
Fixed that youtube for you (just insert the last set numbers of the url, not the whole url)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on January 31, 2016, 08:19:30 pm
Ahh, cheers. :) Weak humour anyway. :D
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on January 31, 2016, 09:14:34 pm
Lv90 wizard Swifty is working on making the shields look a lot better
wait what
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Spoon on February 01, 2016, 04:03:01 pm
Well it's clear the 128x128 shieldani's from the mediavp's don't look so good when used on large ships. Guess I'll have to go make new ones!
Photobucket is unforunately being a **** right now, I hope imagebin works for everyone.

And that's the end of this forum test game. Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on February 01, 2016, 04:34:57 pm
Well frak me, I'll have to hand in my UGCR commerce badge after letting us come dead last in economics/resources  :lol:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on February 01, 2016, 04:44:07 pm
Good Game guys
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on February 01, 2016, 05:19:57 pm
Yeah, a big thanks to everyone who played.  And an even bigger thanks to Spoon for running it all for us  :yes:  :yes:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lepanto on February 01, 2016, 05:21:09 pm
Can't say I'm not bummed at the result.

But yeah, thanks for running this. I hope you've learned a lot about how to improve the next game's experience.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Lorric on February 01, 2016, 05:27:36 pm
There were ups and downs, but overall it was a pleasure. Looking forward to the main game. :nod:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: headdie on February 01, 2016, 05:38:13 pm
Yes some good lessons learned I think, defo worth the time and like the others have said, thanks for hosting it spoon
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Veers on February 01, 2016, 06:03:19 pm
I think that was solid test of the rules. :)
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Enioch on February 01, 2016, 06:10:49 pm
o7
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on February 01, 2016, 06:12:36 pm
Well frak me, I'll have to hand in my UGCR commerce badge after letting us come dead last in economics/resources  :lol:
Dead last in economy and still second place in points. :yes:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: niffiwan on February 01, 2016, 07:28:25 pm
Gotta kill 'em all... United Guilds of Warfare perhaps  :nervous:
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on February 01, 2016, 11:39:17 pm
Congratulations everyone on a game well played.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: 0rph3u5 on February 02, 2016, 03:56:52 am
GG, everyone



A big round of applause and "not to be underestimated" thanks to our host and organizer, Spoon.

First off you did a great thing of putting this together, even if the results were not always to your liking. But then again "do, learn, do better" and this game was not just done but well done in the great scheme of things.

And I think the Test Game showed the weaknesses of the rule-seet (order economony in tactical; deployment into tactical; accessibility concerns) but also it's strengths (Diplomacy made for a very entertaining early game, Strategic warfare was awesome compared to the chore of Tactical). Look foward to see what comes of it and to see it in action on an expanded scale.

Once more, thank you, Spoon. You did good.
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: Droid803 on February 02, 2016, 11:51:43 am
Well frak me, I'll have to hand in my UGCR commerce badge after letting us come dead last in economics/resources  :lol:
Dead last in economy and still second place in points. :yes:

Gotta spend money to make mone- errr points.
Actually our "economy" in terms of income is tied 2nd/3rd with the SF. We just didn't stockpile at the end.



Cheers! Thanks for the testgame!
Title: Re: General forum game discussion
Post by: procdrone on February 03, 2016, 12:59:36 pm
damn, SF came out at a last, there tough, we had some intern problems as well as the whole coalition thing hampering us down in the start :D

Research points, go home - you're drunk.

I would be on for another round actually.