|
|
Post by cheethorne on Jul 12, 2010 16:09:59 GMT -4
So Andrew, you definitely playing some Kzinti's tomorrow?
If so, it'll be pretty cool to see how well the built-in defenses of the Branthadon works against drones. One problem I don't like with it, is that, no matter how effective it might turn out to be, a few bad rolls means I get smacked with some drones, and there won't be a thing I can do about it. By the time, I find out that my tail defenses weren't enough, they'll hit me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ikefist on Jul 12, 2010 18:34:31 GMT -4
yes i am playing the Kzinti if you could bring your ssd for them i have not had time to print any off yet i think i am playing 2 DD and a Cw not total sure thopugh
|
|
|
|
Post by ikefist on Jul 12, 2010 18:36:21 GMT -4
If not that than a Frigate bombardment ship and a dd and a cw all i know is i will never make a Cl with them they cann't even go speed 30 they blow chunks
|
|
|
|
Post by cheethorne on Jul 12, 2010 20:21:40 GMT -4
They do blow chunks. Big bad chunks. Just like the Lyran CL and the Klingon LD5...
|
|
|
|
Post by ikefist on Jul 12, 2010 20:42:57 GMT -4
Ok i think i have desided tyhink i am going with 2 dd and a Cm it comes to like 330ish could get the FD in with its 6 6slot drone launchers 36 extra on speed 32 drones kill
just a tossup about 2dd or two Dw they are so close as ships its crazie
|
|
|
|
Post by ikefist on Jul 12, 2010 20:44:27 GMT -4
My second chose was the orions had a funny concect for a fleet with them it was bruatal though and not drone based and thats what i am think of useing next game so could use the practice
|
|
|
|
Post by cheethorne on Jul 12, 2010 22:01:54 GMT -4
I will make sure I have a 2 DDs and 2 DWs for you (and the CM of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 13, 2010 9:27:27 GMT -4
Just got word from Jason that neither he nor Chris can make it tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheethorne on Jul 13, 2010 11:18:42 GMT -4
<blink> Umm, ok then. Good thing we had this on the side  |
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 13, 2010 11:25:29 GMT -4
Yeah... and this is why I think we need some sort of max time limit for any series of battle from one turn to the next. We've been involved with this series for over a month and have been having a hard time getting them done. I understand that 'life happens' and sometimes a session or two may be missed and all, but we are looking at this week and possibly two more before they are finished with these battles. Putting the campaign on hold for 2 months for one turns worth of battles is a bit much as far as I'm concerned.
All that being said, I agree that things are much better for this version and battles are way more interesting and have a much higher chance of being completed under the modified command rating system...
Still, two month down time between turns is too much. I think if we capped the time allowed for battles to four weeks and anything else gets resolved through quick resolution, we'd be better off.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by cheethorne on Jul 13, 2010 13:53:11 GMT -4
and this is why I think we need some sort of max time limit for any series of battle from one turn to the next. Yeah, but what would happen if we had some arbitrary limit on the number of weeks people could play out these battles? Let's say that this was the last week for such battles between Chris and Jason and they were available, but they couldn't fully resolve the BCH vs. Battle Tug battle. So it stops, those ships aren't destroyed, but are still pinned, so they can't go anywhere, and then both sides bring in more ships to the area, creating more groups that have to fight each other, which would then stop after 3-4 weeks of battles, leaving more ships stuck from pins, letting them bring in more reinforcements for the next turn, etc., etc., etc.. An artificial time line will simply let us push through one turn, followed by another slew of battles, all the while, giving the players involved a chance to bring in more and more forces. It is possible, that by the end of the battles on turn 12, there will be no ships belonging to both Chris and Jason in the same hexes, giving them a chance to take a turn or two without battles before they start the next round of attacks. By comparison, an artificial break in the fighting, basically guarantees another round of fighting on turn 13, and then 14, and then 15. I understand that 'life happens' and sometimes a session or two may be missed and all, but we are looking at this week and possibly two more before they are finished with these battles. Putting the campaign on hold for 2 months for one turns worth of battles is a bit much as far as I'm concerned. Ah, now we are getting into something else. We all know ahead of time, that if you aren't there during turn processing, that we will process turns without you. We've also done a good job with helping Jason and Chris play out some secondary battles to help speed up play. I think we should have a general understanding by all involved that if you aren't there on Tuesday night and you can't schedule an alternate time to play (which these guys can't because of work schedules, and I would have a hard time too), then the other players will play your battles for you. This should keep the pace of battles more or less constant. If, let's say, you and Jason were fighting and could organize extra battles, then all the power to you, but I shouldn't be penalized if I can make it to every Tuesday. But I would understand that if I can't make it Tuesday, people will play my ships for me, to the best of their ability. Still, two month down time between turns is too much. Really? Is it too much? We control empires with a very large number of ships and fairly large borders. Due to command limits, we have a fairly large number of fleets that could fight over a broad border. As long as the fights are properly paced and everyone can get a chance to play some SFB (even if they are playing with other people's ships), I don't see a problem. Now, that said, I could agree with a rule that said that no single battle could last more than three weeks before the ships mutually disengage, but that is different then a rule that says that all battles must be resolved within four weeks. Such a rule seems like it would treat opponents that had tons of time on their hands (say some unemployed dude fighting John, who could resolve a ton of battles in four weeks) differently compared to people with very busy work / life schedules (say Jason fighting Chris, who can only play on Tuesday nights, mostly). What we really did wrong here, was not have an agreement in place that if either or both of them couldn't make it, then their ships would be played by other people. |
|
|
|
Post by ikefist on Jul 13, 2010 14:35:35 GMT -4
Are we still doing somewthing tonight then or since nothing going on taking the night off
|
|
|
|
Post by cheethorne on Jul 13, 2010 14:37:32 GMT -4
We are still fighting our battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 13, 2010 15:00:06 GMT -4
and this is why I think we need some sort of max time limit for any series of battle from one turn to the next. Yeah, but what would happen if we had some arbitrary limit on the number of weeks people could play out these battles? Let's say that this was the last week for such battles between Chris and Jason and they were available, but they couldn't fully resolve the BCH vs. Battle Tug battle. So it stops, those ships aren't destroyed, but are still pinned, so they can't go anywhere, and then both sides bring in more ships to the area, creating more groups that have to fight each other, which would then stop after 3-4 weeks of battles, leaving more ships stuck from pins, letting them bring in more reinforcements for the next turn, etc., etc., etc.. All remaining battles get resolved with quick resolution. |
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 13, 2010 15:02:29 GMT -4
And we don't have the present ships/SSDs to play out this battle for them and Jason insisted that he a Chris wanted to play it out.
|
|
