Dynaverse.net

Taldrenites => Dynaverse II Experiences => Topic started by: Gook on July 14, 2004, 09:23:27 am

Title: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 14, 2004, 09:23:27 am

Socky posted this in the Klink and Kzin Boards around CW5/6.

Many will hate it and violently disagree.

I agree with most of it unpalatable as it may be to many. The thing is whether your fillet is slugfest or hex flip you ought to see what the other guy may be doing. As It seems many have lost or forgotten the art of winning a Dyna, it may interest some, I already know who will hate it :)

THE ART OF THE CAMPAIGN

by

SOCKFOOT


   I have been campaigning in the Dynaverse for about a year now.  During that time I have developed a few simple guidelines I go by when planning a campaign.  I have espoused many ideas but never in a cogent and logical manner.  This manual is my attempt to lay down these guidelines in one place for all who are interested. 

In my opinion there are just a few keys to conducting a successful campaign in the Dynaverse.  These are all hinged on the one great truth of campaigning:

A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN REQUIRES THAT YOU KILL THE OPPOSING SIDE?S AI BEFORE HE KILLS YOUR AI.

This must be the center of any campaigning strategy in the Dynaverse.  I?m sorry if you don?t like hearing it, but no race has ever won a campaign playing player v. player missions.  Somehow the term ?AI Killer? has gotten to be a derogatory term in the Dynaverse.  You must rid yourself of that mentality to wage successful campaigns on ANY server.  More about this later, but for now know that any other central tenet of a campaign will result in failure.  So bearing this in mind, here are what I believe to be the keys of a successful campaign.  BEFORE YOU PLAN YOUR CAMPAIGN you must begin with the three buzzwords.

I.   THE BUZZWORDS OF CAMPAIGNING

A.   ORGANIZATION

   This is a ?buzzword? that gets thrown around a lot at the beginning of a campaign, but few people actually understand it.  It means everyone has a place and there is ONE LEADER.  This leader may have advisors but there must be one person that says this is what we are doing.  The other people, however they are organized, must then achieve whatever the leader orders.  I have always believed that a leader should only set objectives.  How those objectives are achieved is up to the individual commanders in the field and the troops.  Committee leadership invariably winds up as a mess.

B.   COMMUNICATION

   The second ?buzzword.?  The most successful plan is successfully communicated from the planner to the people who will execute it.  A commander MUST maintain contact with his field troops.  This is done on several levels but the most successful communication is done through 1) Roger Wilco 2) Race Chat and 3) Posts on the Starfleetcomms race forums.  While all these are subject to enemy penetration, it is more important to communicate than to maintain security.  Espionage can be countered in other ways, which we will not discuss here.

C.   PREPARATION

   The final ?buzzword.?  I have a simple little rule I follow.  Have ANY plan, EVEN A BAD ONE, and you are one vital step ahead of 99% of the rest of the people.  I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about how people react in a crisis situation.  One of the topics was airplane crashes.  They talked to people who were one of the few to survive cataclysmic airplane crashes where over 90% of the passengers had survived the initial impact but less than 10% of the passengers survived the post crash fires etc.  All of the survivors reported that instead of running for the exits, most people got up from their seats and began to go through the overhead luggage compartments to get their luggage out.  This caused the aisles to clog up, a stampede resulted, and people got jammed in the aisles and tangled up with each other and these people all burned to death.  The survivors forgot about everything else (including the human lives around them) and did nothing else but make for the exit any way possible as soon as possible.  Some even reported climbing over seats and the bodies of other passengers to get out.  These people felt a little guilty BUT THEY WERE ALIVE!  It turns out EVERY SINGLE ONE of these people had said to themselves as they got on the airplane something as simple as ?if this thing crashes, the nearest exit is right there and I?m going out that exit at all costs.?  A plan that simple had saved their lives. 

The upshot of the show was that people who didn?t plan when they got in a situation they hadn?t anticipated reverted to an ?automatic pilot? mode and did things that they would ordinarily do; i.e. get luggage out of the overhead compartments before getting off the airplane.  You can?t get a more powerful illustration than this.  It doesn?t have to be much.  In fact, later on I?ll recommend SIMPLICITY as a hallmark of a good plan, however, there must be something tangible there for your troops to sink their teeth into and execute.

   Preparation also includes getting your troops in the right equipment, getting them in the right position and having enough resources to pull it off.  The best plan in the world is worthless if you are not prepared to pull it off.  Think about the airplane crash survivors.  You can say ?I?ll climb over that old lady to get out of this thing? but if you are not fully prepared to actually climb over her, your plan is crap.

II.   BUILDING A PLAN

   Ok, you?ve done the buzzwords.  Now how do you go about building a plan?  Here are six simple guidelines.

   A.   THINK

   That sounds real simple and obvious doesn?t it?  Well, you?ll be surprised how many times people forget to do simple and obvious things JUST BECAUSE they are simple and obvious.  What do you think about?  Get out your scratch paper and think about the following.

1. Resources

List your assets and liabilities.  How many captains do you have?  What are their experience levels?  Can they be counted on?  When are most of them on line?  What ships are available to your captains?  Are there any special server rules that will hamper you?  Who are your allies?  What is their track record?  Think about the same things for your enemy and list them as well.

2. Objectives

List your objectives.  What are you trying to achieve?  What will you focus on?  What will you ignore?  Again try and think like your enemy and list his possible objectives.

3. Contingencies

List the best and worse case scenarios for yourself and your enemies.  What is the absolute worst that can happen?  What is the absolute best?  What is likely to happen?

4. What you know/don?t know

List all of the ?given? facts you know about the campaign.  List all of the ?given? facts your enemy knows about the campaign.  (Example ? Alliances and relative starting positions).  Do the same for the ?mysteries? of the campaign.

   By the way, its is important to think like your opponent and try and discern his plan as it is for you to come up with your own plan.  I can?t tell you how many plans I?ve seen go right in the dumper because one side failed to anticipate what the other side would do.  This puts you back to square one without a plan and we all know what happens to people without a plan.  They become crispy critters.  I?m NOT saying build your plan to counter his plan or mold your plan around his, but you MUST take these things into account when making your plan.

B. LOOK AT THE MAP

You NEED to know the ground you fight on.  Choose ground that maximizes your assets and strengths while minimizing the relative strengths of your opponent.  Many times the ground will dictate your objectives.  You?ll also have an easier time anticipating your enemy?s moves by looking at the map.  Think like this ?If I were that guy, I would just HAVE to do something about ?.?

C. REVIEW

Get together with your people and talk with everyone about what they see.  EVERYONE IS GOING TO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.  Take advantage of many opinions before you plan.  Then go back and look at what you have done above. 

D. BE PREPARED TO START OVER

Never get ?married? to your ideas to the point you can?t scrap them.  Heck, you could be completely wrong after all.  Scrap any plan that becomes not feasible.

E. GIVE YOURSELF PLENTY OF TIME

A plan that has time to mature will automatically be better than one slapped together at the last minute, so start making your plan as soon as possible.

F. DOCUMENT IT

Write it all down in a clear concise manner and distribute the plan to the people who will be in charge of executing the plan.  I have one suggestion here.  If you can?t write your plan out on a single page, you don?t understand your plan and cannot communicate it effectively.  Therefore it isn?t ready for execution.  Speaking of which ?


III.   IS MY PLAN ANY GOOD/READY FOR EXECUTION?

   How do you tell if you?re ready to roll?  Well, in my opinion a good plan has three hallmarks.

A. SIMPLICITY

Keep it as simple and clear as possible.  It really ought to fit on a single page.  If an idiot could do it the way you?ve written it, write it again and make it simple enough a retarded chimp could do it.

B. FLEXIBILITY

Campaigning is a dynamic art.  Your plan must be able to change as the situation changes yet maintain its general flow.  Also, tell your captains to seize any golden opportunities they come across, even if they are out side of the ?plan.?

C. FEASABILITY

Your overall plan should be within your logistic capabilities.

   If your plan meets these criteria, you?ve done a good job of planning.  For me personally, the best plans I?ve ever come up with have been just lists of objectives.  They are not listed in any particular order.  My troops would pick one and do it in whatever method they saw fit and in whatever order seemed to best fit the situation.  Deadlines are bad unless imposed upon you externally.  A deadline implies you are prioritizing a target.  Only set deadlines if that is your intention and you simply MUST HAVE IT!

IV.   GENERAL NOTES

   This section is full of tips and ideas for execution of your plans and just general thoughts on campaigning.  All are tried and tested by yours truly.  They work.  Don?t be shy about using them.

A. MORALE

Ten motivated players are worth thirty clueless ones.  Guys who have a plan and are visibly achieving even small objectives have high morale.  Guys who are floundering in big packs will quit you mid-campaign.  You can do many things to improve morale, but nothing does it like success.  I insist my guys maintain a ?can do, will do? attitude.  Every victory makes them more confident in you and themselves.  If you?ve got a bad attitude among your group, get rid of it.  And use positive language (Example : WHEN we capture target X we WILL move on to capture target Y.)  Before you can win, you must tell yourself and your guys that you will win.  And stay loose.  Its fun after all.

B. INITIATIVE

Don?t sit around and react to what the other guy is doing.  Make him react to what you?re doing.  If he doesn?t react, DO IT HARDER!  If you can take him out of his game plan and make him react to your game plan, you are winning.

C. A WORD ABOUT PLAYER VERSUS PLAYER

Ok.  Here is the AWFUL TRUTH AGAIN!  If you want to win a campaign, you MUST KILL THE OTHER GUY?S AI BEFORE HE KILLS YOUR AI.  You kill his AI and flip his hexes to gut his economy and cripple his empire.  The ultimate goal of any campaign is to make your enemy too weak to wage war.  If your enemy starts with ten economy producing planets and you take 5 away from him, you have effectively cut his production capacity in half.  This will make him more and more reluctant to directly engage your players because if he loses that dreadnought, he cannot replace it.  To that end, player versus player combat is only valid in the Dynaverse in one of three situations;

1. You are drafted by your enemy;
2. Player v. Player missions further your objective; and/or
3. You have achieved your objectives and you are ?mopping up.?

I know this offends the heck out of people, but Player v Player FOR ANY OTHER REASON on the Dynaverse is just a dick-measuring contest and MUST BE AVOIDED.  To all of you who sit around thumping your chest and counting ?kills? I say you have done NOTHING to help the cause.  You have not flipped a hex and you have a) probably set your enemy back to a more ?campaign orientated? ship thereby making the enemy stronger for campaign (read hex flipping/econ ruining ships) purposes and b) let other enemies run defensive or offensive missions in your area of operations while you were clowning around for 45 minutes trying to prove your manhood.  Any half way decent player with a half way decent ship can engage you and keep you busy for at least 20 minutes.  You want player v player?  Go play Gamespy.  YOU?RE NOT HELPING!  YOU ARE A WASTE OF RESOURCES!  The average Dynaverse mission is around 7 minutes.  That means your enemies, running AVERAGE missions, have run 6 + missions while you were ?winning? that 45 minute player v player mission.  Think about what that equals out to if they are running fast two-minute missions!  You cannot kill all of the bad guys in that one mission and they will ultimately just replace the ship you blow up anyway unless you wreck their capacity to make war.  And that?s assuming you are lucky enough to score a knockout.  Remember that you might fight for 40 minutes, land a telling blow and then watch your wounded prey warp out over the border.  Now you have COMPLETELY wasted 40 minutes!  Oh, so he has to leave the area for 10 minutes?  So what?  He?ll be back running missions before you finish your next 45 minute player v. player mission.

Ever hear of winning the battle but losing the war?  Well, the ?player v player? testosterone crowd are the living embodiment of this principal in the Dynaverse.  Sorry guys, but you know its true.  I?m going to ruin your economy and then, and only then, I?m going to blow your ass out of that dreadnought.  Then you can sit there on your empire?s one remaining planet hex in that frigate you get as a replacement with a giant mound of prestige you can?t buy a thing with and wait for me to shoot you again or log off and wait for the next campaign.  Either way, I win because you lost sight of the big picture.  So get over yourself!  Player v. player is NOT the point in the Dynaverse. 

Sorry about the rant, but I have a real burr under my saddle about these morons.  They have no concept of team play and that really burns my ass.

D. SPEED

Faster missions flip hexes faster and gut economies faster.  It comes down to basic mathematics here.  Four 2-minute patrols are 4 times more effective for campaign purposes (read Defense Value of Hex Purposes) than a single 8-minute patrol.  Whatever you are up to do it fast.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 14, 2004, 09:26:38 am

Part Deux ;)


E. THE LIGHT CRUISER AND YOU

For campaign purposes, the Light Cruiser is KING!  Every race has a light cruiser that will run two to three minute missions over and over and over.  Yeah, even the early era Gorn and Romulan.  (BTW it?s up to YOU guys to figure out exactly which light cruiser that is.  I?m not giving away ALL the answers here.)  The problem is, most races NEVER USE THEM BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY SUCK FOR PLAYER V. PLAYER PURPOSES.  In the Klingon ship list, besides the droners, the lowly G2C is the best ship to run 2-minute missions in.  That is right; that POS G2C you never flew!  You can?t swat a housefly in player v player combat with this boat but you can flip hexes like there is no tomorrow.  But your big ?I have a winning player v. player record? ego just wouldn?t let you fly it, eh?

Think about it.  The light cruiser is always the most versatile hull available to every race.  These were MEANT to be the workhorses of every fleet.  They are cheap to buy and maintain and they run disproportionately fast missions because they draw weenie AI opposition.  They can do every mission in the Dynaverse extremely well and fast.  If it is struggling with base assaults, TEAM UP WITH ANOTHER PLAYER!

   Light Cruisers mission times for a simple patrol against AI opponents average around 2 to 3 minutes.  A heavy cruiser is double that averaging around 4 to 6 minutes.  A dread, you guessed it, double the heavy cruiser at around 8 to 16 minutes.  Why?  Crunch power.  A chimp with a dread has a puncher?s chance against a player.  An alpha strike at an inopportune moment from even a retarded AI driven dread can have you reeling and spending an extra 10 minutes winning the mission.  AI is basically a trained chimp.  YOU?RE SUPPOSED TO BEAT IT!  THE REVOLUTIONARY IDEA IS TO BEAT IT AS QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE! 

Try this at home.  Take a dread and leave the shields down.  Have your buddy come in and try to kill you.  Even if you don?t fight back or even raise a shield, the dread can take so many internals that it takes about 4 minutes to kill it!  Now just raise the shields and sit there not firing but trying to keep a good shield facing your enemy.  The mission time jumps to around 8 to 9 minutes.

   Ok, so you?re an exceptional player who can do 6-minute average missions in a dread.  So what?  You are STILL neutralized for campaign (hex flipping and DV lowering) purposes.  First, the guys in the light cruiser are running three two-minute missions to your one six-minute mission.  Second, you have to go resupply.  You can?t take a dread into enemy space.  It?s too vulnerable to running out of expendables and damage because it draws that gigantic AI, which might get lucky with all of that firepower.  Third, the durned thing is EXPENSIVE!  You?ll never make enough prestige in it for the ship to recoup the initial expenditure to buy the darned thing and the supplies it runs through. 

Not convinced yet?  Do the math.  A patrol yields around 300 to 400 prestige points average.  The average dreadnought costs 120,000 prestige points to purchase.  That is 300 to 400 missions you must run to recoup your loss and you haven?t paid for supplies yet!  Multiply 350 missions (average of 300 and 400 missions) by 6 minutes (a DARN good mission time in a dread) and you?ve got to play for around 35 hours just to pay for the ship.  The light cruiser is going to cost you around 3500 prestige points.  That is around 9 to 12 missions to recoup the initial investment before supplies.  At two minutes per mission you?ve paid for the initial cost of your light cruiser in around half an hour.  The point is you can risk the light cruiser on missions where you can?t risk a dread such as ?behind the lines? or ?deep strike? activity.  So maybe you?re not a player v. player machine.  So what?  Remember the object of the campaign!  If they blow your light cruiser up, go buy another one!  Heck, they?re so cheap compared to the dread they almost come in a six-pack like disposable razors!

   Oh, you have some dude in a frigate or a freighter to draft you and your dread to get light AI?  Terrific!  Now you have TWO players in one two-minute mission while your opponent has two players running separate two-minute missions.  A next hex flip/DV gain to your opponent of 1 mission per two minutes.  You lose except you lose slower.  Which fleet is maximizing their resources?  Plus now your earning 100 prestige points per mission.  Big deal.  It will cost you 200 prestige points to replace your expendables.

Dreads only have three purposes in the Dynaverse.  First, it is there to shore up pieces of front and chase of invaders.  Well, we know from above how well THAT works and with the draft radius set to zero, the dread is now a paperweight holding down one hex of front while 6 light cruisers run missions in the surrounding hexes.  Unless the draft radius is large, the Dread does this role poorly.  Second, it busts starbases.  Two light cruisers will take down anything except a full starbase in about the same amount of time as a single dread.  I recommend that you tell your light cruiser pilots to just flee from full starbases and go pull another mission.  Why waste time trying to take out a starbase it will take a dread at least 15 minutes to bust anyway?  Go pull another mission.  You might get lucky and get two 2-minute patrols instead.  Third, it is to kill enemy dreads.  It does this pretty well, if you can find them.  But your dreads are going to sit around doing virtually nothing campaign wise until the enemy dread is located.  Then you have to draft the SOB and hope he stays in the fight. 

Basically, for purposes of campaigning, dreads are a big waste of time and effort.  That as a given, it doesn?t make sense to buy the darned things until its time to clean up the live bad guys at the end of the campaign.  By that time, you?ll have saved enough prestige in your light cruiser to buy two dreads to go hunting with.

   In fact, I?d say put the bulk of your guys in light cruisers.  At least put your best captains in them.  Let the new guys run around in the big ships.  They need the extra firepower.  Let your best guys have the equipment that does the most damage when campaigning.  At most, put a few great players in heavy cruisers.  And if your enemy wants to buy dreads for every guy in his fleet, wish him well and hope he buys two dreads apiece for each one of them!  Those will double his mission times again!  The bottom line is this; all things being equal and going mathematically, 10 good captains in light cruisers will out-campaign a fleet of 20 dreads in a week every time.

   On a related note, EVERY ship in the list has a use.  Some are ?campaign type? ships that run good fast missions and some are ?Player v. Player? ships that excel in personal combat.  It is an EXTREMELY rare boat that can do both well.  (The closest thing to a perfect balance I?ve ever seen, and I?ve flown them all, is the Klingon C7V.  You won?t make any money in it running fast missions, but it is the only heavy cruiser that can consistently run 3 to 4 minute missions while occasionally running the odd 2-minute mission, which can then turn around and whack out a human piloted BCH in the very next mission.  The Romulan KHK is a close second but the 3 turn recharge time on the plasmas slow the missions somewhat).  Take the time to get to know ALL the ships in your ship list in terms of campaigning and player v. player roles so you?ll know what is the right ship for the job at hand.

F. HIT THEM WHERE THEY AIN?T

Go kill the enemy AI where there aren?t enemy players to draft and slow you down.  This is especially good if you can get in their backfield and rummage around!  If they show up to defend in force, go somewhere else.  Run around causing confusion and havoc!  Five good light cruiser captains can tie down entire races if they hit quickly where least expected, do tangible damage, and move to a new target as a unit.  You don?t always have to grab a planet.  Just flip a bunch of hexes where they don?t anticipate you being!  It will drive them batty!  If they are undoing what you did yesterday today, you?re killing them today.  Use the multiple targets as feints to draw the enemy to one area while you reorient and pounce on another.

G. DON?T LOSE PERSPECTIVE

Remember the goal is to win the campaign.  Don?t let some loudmouth in general chat distract you from this goal.  Let him brag about how he killed your frigate with his dread.  So what?  While he?s typing, you?re flipping more hexes.  I never met a warrior who won an entire campaign by merely thumping his chest.  Eventually, someone is going to whack his butt.  It doesn?t have to be today, tomorrow or even next week, but the time WILL come for him to get a butt kicking.

H. KEEP IT QUIET

Let me level with you.  I LOVE IT when they chase me around the map and yell at me how I stink.  I LOVE IT when they get on the Taldren boards and cry about ?unfair? and ?rules changes? and ?cheese.?  First, while their typing, I?m flipping hexes!  Second, I KNOW I?M IN THEIR HEADS!  I?ve taken them out of their game plan and they are fixated on ?GET SOCKY!?  While they?re all busy trying to bash me into a grease spot, my team is flipping hexes.  Losers whine and make excuses.  Winners do something about it.  And whatever they are crying about, you?d better believe I?m going to do A LOT MORE OF IT JUST BECAUSE IT GETS THEIR COLLECTIVE GOATS SO BADLY!  Mad about droners?  Now everyone on my team has one!  Don?t like deep strikes?  You?re Homeworld is next!

Be that little bastard defensemen on the hockey team that sticks his elbow in the opponent?s ribs.  Didn?t react to that?  How about a nice whack on the wrist?  Didn?t react to that?  How about a little jab in the ribs with the butt of a stick along the boards?  Never SAY anything.  You don?t want to draw the ref?s attention.  Goad them into doing something stupid like hitting you back.  Never hit them back when they hit you.  Flop on the ice and moan for a penalty.  And now you know their ribs are tender so guess what they?re getting the next time they go in the corner!
   Now they?re chasing you around the ice trying to hit you and you?re leading them a merry chase!  Suddenly they look up at the scoreboard and there are 30 seconds left to play and they?re down two goals!  Hehe!  You win!  Scoreboard says so!  Hope they enjoyed their stay in the penalty box for ?hitting? you!

   Besides that, all plans are much more effective when you can ?spring? it on them.  If they don?t see it coming, your plan will be twice as effective.

I. DO IT TOGETHER

Hey, its about speed remember?  Get as many people in the target area as possible without hurting your other objectives and pig pile on it!  If everyone can run a solo mission, so much the better.

J. DEFENSE

This is my least favorite topic.  That is why it is last.  Until recently I lived by the adage ?you can?t play defense in the Dynaverse.?  That?s not exactly true anymore.  You CAN do it and there are three ways.

A. Play Offense

Go attack him somewhere and make your attack more effective than his attack.  Force him to redirect his resources to stop your offensive.  Real simple.  The best defense is a good offense.  Go play in his sandbox!  When he comes to defend your thrust with enough force to stop you cold, go run up the DVs on the hexes you?re defending.

B. Flank ?em

Get behind him and cut his line of supply.  Force him to turn resources around and rebuild his LOS.  While he?s doing that, run up the DV of the hexes you?re defending.

C. Out mission ?em

Pour your guys in light cruisers into the area and just run defensive missions faster than he can run assault missions.  Nothing is more frustrating than going into a mission on a planet with a DV of 15 and coming out of an 8 minute base assault (which is a scorching mission time for a base assault) and finding the DV up to 18 after your mission reports to the server.  Just run the DVs up faster than they can run them down.

V.   CONCLUSION

   So that?s it!  I know you?re now sitting there thinking, ?I knew that!?  Hey, I didn?t promise any amazing revelations.  I just was the first to write it all down so as you could read it and say, ?I knew that!?  However, if you knew that already, why didn?t you do it?

   If you get nothing else from this manual, take this with you.  1) Have a plan.  2) Seize the initiative.  3) Do it fast.  4) Buy light cruisers.  5) Keep your eyes on the prize and your mouth shut.  Do these five things, and you?ll be tough to beat.

Good luck and kick butt!

Sockfoot


That's all folks :)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 09:51:22 am

Also know as 'How to Fight a War Without Actually Fighting the Enemy"   :lol:

Thank God for the disengagement rule and other improvements (yes, I said improvements) that D2 has seen.


EDIT:   About 90% of this is really good advise and still relevant.   Good post, but I had to get my "hex-muncher" jab in.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: 762_XC on July 14, 2004, 09:56:11 am

After reading that, all I can think is "thank God for the Disengagement Rule".

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Lepton on July 14, 2004, 11:44:27 am

Almost every single thing in that manifesto is exactly what is wrong with the D2 and despite the disengagement rule, the hex-flippers still win by being where others are not and avoiding contact with anyone.  Also, despite the disengagement rule, you can still tie up players and run missions under them, which to me makes it barely different from the past regime.

I have been saying this stuff since I got here, and here is a person who bases their whole strategy upon it.  Now tell me I'm wrong again.  I can't think of a more damning indictment of the D2 than this document.  The whole of the manifesto exactly undermines why anyone would actually like to play this game, as it basically asks one to spend as little time in the actual game engine as possible and to play using the same ship and using the same tactics for hours on end.  What is the point??  I AM NOT AN AUTOMOTON AND I WON'T PLAY IN A WAY THAT MAKES ME ONE!!!  This is board game strategy and I am not a colored paper counter on a hexogoned cardboard map nor is the outcome of my efforts equivalent to a die roll.

Ooo!  That was fun!  Rant over.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 14, 2004, 11:55:50 am

<S'Cipio reads post>

<S'Cipio looks for Lepton1>

<S'Cipio starts counting>

1

2

5

Quote from: Lepton on July 14, 2004, 11:44:27 am

Almost every single thing in that manifesto is exactly what is wrong with the D2

Damn!  Didn't even make it to, "three, sir!"

 :rofl:

-S'Cipio

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 12:02:42 pm

Quote from: Lepton on July 14, 2004, 11:44:27 am

. . .the hex-flippers still win by being where others are not and avoiding contact with anyone. 

Geez Lepton what is wrong with you?   This is only a problem when the Federation flies like that  :lol:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 14, 2004, 12:13:37 pm

Wow, I think I first read that post two years ago.  Mr. Gook, you are hereby officially appointed as the historian of G'hdar.  (No need to change allegiance or genus; we Bruce are an open-minded lot.)

It's amazing how well most of that document stands up to the passage of the ages.  At the time, that was a masters work by the much-missed Sockfoot.

However, it does show wear in a spot or two.

PvP *is* much more important now than it used to be.  This is strictly a result of the evolution of VC's.  In the olde days, taking key points of territory was all that mattered.  These days, you actually score points for killing certain ships, and the disengagement rule makes planets harder to assault.  I believe that the last few campaigns have all ended with margins of victory that were inside the difference in PvP score (RDSL certainly did) and thus it can be argued that PvP *did* win the campaign.  If "Captain Lucky" hadn't killed "Captain Targetboy", the victory result would have reversed.

But killing the enemy's economy and disrupting his lines of supply -- and launching distracting sneak attacks -- are still big parts of the game.  Not to mention that they are parrts of the game that I love.

-S'Cipio

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Capt Jeff on July 14, 2004, 12:24:56 pm

Yes, I'm glad all of these "Improvements" have kept sooo many people playing....I mean Gook and I loved our private chat we had this morning.....when we were the only two on the server.  Then  he left me alone for about 1/2 hour until one other person showed up.

Ahhh, the good ole days, when even at 6am, there were 40+ people on.   PvP just about anywhere you wanted it, and fun and comradery of all those guys on voice chat...

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 12:32:40 pm

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 14, 2004, 12:24:56 pm

Ahhh, the good ole days, when even at 6am, there were 40+ people on.   PvP just about anywhere you wanted it, and fun and comradery of all those guys on voice chat...

yes, making the game into more of a contest of who can press the "z" key the quickest sure is the reason that a 4 year old game full of bugs has a lower player-base.   i think you're on to something :rofl:

Had the D2 BS been addressed earlier, we'd still have Romulans, Hydrans, and Lyrans.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 14, 2004, 12:37:09 pm

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 14, 2004, 12:24:56 pm

Yes, I'm glad all of these "Improvements" have kept sooo many people playing....

So, as long as we are waxing nostalgaic about the differences between the olde days and the now days, which "improvements", specifically, do you think are actually detriments?

For my next campaign, some of the old-school stuff actually makes sense.  I might (or might not) want to take some of your thoughts on board.

-S'Cipio the Herr Burt

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Hexx on July 14, 2004, 01:04:45 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 12:32:40 pm

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 14, 2004, 12:24:56 pm

Ahhh, the good ole days, when even at 6am, there were 40+ people on.   PvP just about anywhere you wanted it, and fun and comradery of all those guys on voice chat...

Had the D2 BS been addressed earlier, we'd still have Romulans, Hydrans, and Lyrans.

<coughs discreetly>

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: 762_XC on July 14, 2004, 01:11:51 pm

He meant good ones Hexx.

<snicker>

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: TotensBurntCorpse on July 14, 2004, 01:44:30 pm

TotensFriedFeline Reporting sir !

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 01:52:45 pm

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 14, 2004, 01:44:30 pm

TotensFriedFeline Reporting sir !

That makes 1 1/2 lyrans <SNICKER>

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 14, 2004, 03:21:18 pm

I keep hearing about improvements, don't see any, really. Played 2.5 of the new "Improved" Dyna's, was I wowed? not really. Lets see we have everybody meeting at a prearranged choke point for 2-3 weeks of jousting. Just to make sure everybody turns up at the right place at the right time, VCs are published for all! No longer to RMs get secret objectives and the other guy has to work out what you are up to, you get told so you don't miss the slugfest over no mans land.

On top of that we now all have to fly effectively the same ships all the time, can only fly them in certain areas, and woe betide anybody who dares question the Emperors new wclothes. The Vocal few acclaim from on high how much better it is now than in the bad old days where they cheated by playing ships other than BCHs, didn't do what they were "supposed" to and generally had fun. The Espirit de Corps of many fleets and even races has departed. The Politiking has gone and yes so has the spying (but publish VCs for all instead!), but Rommies are supposed to do that Just like Kzin are supposed to use drones. If you know something is likely make contingencies. Hell the Coalition couldn't even find a SAC until Julin volunteered himself!

Not being able to catch a DSer seems to occupy many minds, I could live with EITHER disengagement rule (similar to older anti patrol bug rule but twice as long) or he has to stay and fight, but both is just unjustifiable. Not being able to flip a hex without LOS, why??? It means you have a secure flank you don't have to watch and pile more into the jousting arena.

We even had the really sad sight of AI being nerfed because it was to hard for the people who wanted more AI by having multiple AI in missions!

Now all the above would mean nothing if the player base had stopped shrinking, and people returned to the fold with renewed vigour,and  new blood was being absorbed to make up any natural wastage. Is that happening? No. If it is not the rules, then perhaps the interminable DLs, have you read some of the threads with new guys trying to get on, its like having to have a computing degree sometimes, no wonder the player base dwindles.

Guys the game has to be as enteratining as possible for as many as possible. What we know is that at least 50% of the current player base want less regulation, and more old time laissez faire, but to hear the comments of some you would think there had been no plebiscite and that they had actually been in the majority.

Then we are confronted with the idea that spacewarfare is more akin to land warfare than naval warfare, why? because there are contiguous hexes on a map! Suddenly parsecs of space become like some imagined maginot striding accross the Galaxy, its all frankly to absurd, if I hadn'r read and heard it being propunded with my own ears, I never would have believed it.

Now some of the old stuff is bad, but not all, and not nearly as much as is made out, and not all that is new is good. One persons way of wanting to play is just that, and should not be foisted on others who want to play differently. Just read some of what has been said about AF, some bad, some very bad, but way more good memories which many would like to recreate, but as soon as any one deviates from the alleged accepted orthodoxy, howls and sniping are rampant, as though if you repeat yourself more times than the other guy or shout louder, you are right. There is no right and wrong way to play, some want BCH fest, some want Commando cruisers, some want escorts, some want drone boats, some want fleets, some want affordable CVs,DNs, even BBs what we have a progression of Command vessels usually culminating in a BCH, with every effort to make anything else as unplayable as possible, as that migt interfere with the joust.

Can we just stop trying to enforce "balance" or whatever metaphore is current and let people play what they want, and have fun. At the very least have alternate servers.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: SSCF-LeRoy on July 14, 2004, 03:35:29 pm

I agree with the Gook. There's no wrong way to play the game. When someobody has a random brain fart about how to run a D2 campaign, they oughtta be able to throw up there on the net and let people vote with there participation without a bunch o' badmouthin' from the peanut gallery. If the D2 gits stuck in a rut on how a campaign should be conducted, then it ceases to be interesting. All approaches should be considered. There, that's my $0.02 (http://members.surfbest.net/sfb76279@surfbest.net/Images/Smilies/smirk.gif)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: 762_XC on July 14, 2004, 03:50:04 pm

You weren't around then LeRoy. Gook's vision of D2 is exactly what I remember from 2 years ago, and it sucked compared to what we have today. Just MHO.

D2, in my eyes, has matured like a fine wine. Disengagement rule, FM rules, and single ship rules have rescued it from chaos.

To each his own.

BTW Jeff and Gook, the playerbase is smaller now because the game is 4 years old, not because dyna sucks with more rules.  :skeptic:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 03:57:20 pm

Quote from: Gook on July 14, 2004, 03:21:18 pm

Can we just stop trying to enforce "balance" or whatever metaphore is current and let people play what they want, and have fun. At the very least have alternate servers.

Your idea of "fun" is a big snorefest to many of us.  I think it sucks.

What you want is clearly what many do not.  it is not fun for all, I'd hate it.  

The changes made never would have made if the majority of people believed that "cheesing" your way across the map in a DF was a fun.  Many of us do not.  I will go as far as saying we have lost more because because changes were not made soon enough.

Have fun fighting AI, i'll play a real game.

A server admin can do whatever the heck they want.   Players can do whatever the heck they want and will vote with their feet.  Your idea of a perfect server is less interesting than internet porn.  Not worth waisting my time.

EDIT:   Sweet sig pic Leroy, you do that yourself?

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: SSCF-LeRoy on July 14, 2004, 04:18:06 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 03:57:20 pm

A server admin can do whatever the heck they want.   Players can do whatever the heck they want and will vote with their feet.

 

My sentiments exactly. I like playing on both highly structured campaigns and "lazes faire" servers. "Lazes faire" fun servers provide a breath o' fresh air after the conclusion of structured serious servers and the serious servers are a welcome change after cheese fest fun servers. Anybody should be able to put up whatever kind of server they want and the people can vote just by playin' or not playin' without resortin' to hate mail or flame wars.   

Quote

Sweet sig pic Leroy, you do that yourself?

Yepper, I did (http://members.surfbest.net/sfb76279@surfbest.net/Images/Smilies/grin.gif)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 04:21:14 pm

Quote from: SSCF-LeRoy on July 14, 2004, 04:18:06 pm

. . .  without resortin' to hate mail or flame wars.   

Oh, this ain't a flame war.   If you want to see flame wars, you should have seen the posts people made when "that" kind of server was the norm.   brez versus Dizzy anyone?

Gook and I actually get along, we just disagree as to what is "fun."

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2004, 04:26:18 pm

mew?

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 04:32:02 pm

... lol I always remebered Dagger's *hit stirring activities on the boards, we used to have roaring bonfires back then, not little flames. anyway...

Quote

Have fun fighting AI, i'll play a real game.

I think you're missing Gooks point here... as I see it there used to be more emphasis on map strategy and less on tactical battles. You werent here for those old servers right? We werent fighting AI on the map by any stretch of the imagination - it was usually a tense strategic battle... more of an F&E game than an SFB game...

Back in the days of CW3,4 RT etc... I used to argue for the removal of AI from the D2 game altogether - if no enemies are logged in then there will be no battles happening - PvP only... but this can't be done without the source. I see it differently now.

I'm still kind of torn on this issue... funnily enough there is a "AllowHumanToHumanMatching" parameter in the gfs, we can set a server to AI battles only (untested I think) but not the converse... if we could, this whole discussion would be moot we could have servers with AI and servers without.... now wheres that source? ;)

Me, I'm for a good OoB, fleets according to CnC (we're missing out on a large part of the game flying single ships IMO)

I'm not so keen on the disengagement rule as it favours nutters... I think if the disengagement rule is to be used then there HAS to be a "slot" where casual players can affect the game.

Everything Socky said above was true, and still is. Make no mistake, he was a hex muncher but an excellent PvP pilot as well.. (can't count how many times he tractored me off the map, lol... he set the standard for conduct back then, in my opinion) - and his partner in crime Squiggy too... As nutters they always had bigger ships than me, but at least I could keep coming back and trying... one of the things missed today is keen observation and strategy - those guys would never leave a key hex unattended (no running missions over them...) not so hard to do...

I played on many servers where hex munching was key, and to be honest I ended up in more PvP battles than I do with the setups on current servers... inevitably hex munching goals collide...

I think I had more to say about this... Oh yea, thanks for posting this Gook, I think it will stir some productive debate and brought back some good memories... (I may have more to say later...)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 14, 2004, 04:40:12 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 04:32:02 pm

I'm not so keen on the disengagement rule as it favours nutters... I think if the disengagement rule is to be used then there HAS to be a "slot" where casual players can affect the game.

I think you got this backwards. It actually allows casual players to HAVE an affect on the game.

I wasn't to clear on what Gook meant by disengagement rule with fight to the death combined? Did he mean deep strike rule?

In any case, I think the disengagement rule is essential going forward, and may in fact be the thing that allows the deep strike rule and single ship rule to be scraped. A good CnC (like GZs PBR) is important for making multiple ship fleets viable again though.

VCs are good, mixing in some secret VCs along with the public ones would add strategic value as well.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 04:47:44 pm

Quote from: Kroma on July 14, 2004, 04:40:12 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 04:32:02 pm

I'm not so keen on the disengagement rule as it favours nutters... I think if the disengagement rule is to be used then there HAS to be a "slot" where casual players can affect the game.

I think you got this backwards. It actually allows casual players to HAVE an affect on the game.

I don't think so... "Nutter X" sits on my goal in a DN or BB waiting to be drafted, in my light cruiser I inevitably have to run away or be destroyed, and can't come back for over an hour, "Nutter X" can then move out of the hex, allowing his hex flipping teammates to enter the hex one at a time to boost it up to full DV, comes back in and waits for other enemy light cruisers to come along... ergo: nutter is favoured...

Anyway, I'm ok with the disengagement rule as long as there is a "slot" where I can have an effect.

edit: as I understood it the disengagement rule is in place so that large ships have meaning in terms of occupying/dominating that region of space... which is not necessary with careful "hex tending" as described above...

Quote

A good CnC (like GZs PBR) is important for making multiple ship fleets viable again though.

Oh yeah!  :rwoot:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Age on July 14, 2004, 04:59:06 pm

Quote from: SSCF-LeRoy on July 14, 2004, 04:18:06 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 03:57:20 pm

A server admin can do whatever the heck they want.   Players can do whatever the heck they want and will vote with their feet.

 

My sentiments exactly. I like playing on both highly structured campaigns and "lazes faire" servers. "Lazes faire" fun servers provide a breath o' fresh air after the conclusion of structured serious servers and the serious servers are a welcome change after cheese fest fun servers. Anybody should be able to put up whatever kind of server they want and the people can vote just by playin' or not playin' without resortin' to hate mail or flame wars.   

Quote

Sweet sig pic Leroy, you do that yourself?

Yepper, I did ([url]http://members.surfbest.net/sfb76279@surfbest.net/Images/Smilies/grin.gif[/url])

I liked your sig from RDSL .I am not sure why you didn't stick with it .You just had to remove RDSL from it.I think the pennant number is one that belongs to the F-BCE and I don't think the number goes high.It is a nice jop though.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 14, 2004, 05:11:12 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 04:47:44 pm

I don't think so... "Nutter X" sits on my goal in a DN or BB waiting to be drafted, in my light cruiser I inevitably have to run away or be destroyed, and can't come back for over an hour, "Nutter X" can then move out of the hex, allowing his hex flipping teammates to enter the hex one at a time to boost it up to full DV, comes back in and waits for other enemy light cruisers to come along... ergo: nutter is favoured...

Well my experience as a casual player on the last couple of serious servers (GW1 & 2) is the exact opposite of this. I didn't fly a DN or BCH in either of those. I have never been forced to fly a CL or smaller do to not enough PP (I have flown them, but by my own choice). CAs, CCs  & CCHs are as affordable as CLs if you play more than 10 missions verses the AI in friendly space. I was able to seek out enemy pilots in hex munchers and drive them off in 1v1s and I was able to ambush enemies in BCHs and DNs with the help of a wing man in another small/affordable ship. I was also able to play the role of hex filpper in the small ship, and if forced to disengage, there were plenty of other PvP hotspots or tasks that needed doing. Thus I am saying that the disengagement rule didn't prevent me from having an effect do to RL reducing my playing time. It only does that if you are unaware of the bigger picture and overall battle plans and objectives of your team. The only type of casual player it would effect is one in which the term "casual" is meant to mean lazy and stupid.

J/K about lazy and stupid, really just mean one dementional in how one thinks about how and where a casual player can have an effect.

Another thought too, is that how and to whom DNs are assigned (and whether they can be easily reassigned) could effect even the casual players ability to effect the campaign in that one dementional (going to the hottest hex on the map) way.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 05:25:26 pm

I take issue with the assertation that modern D2 is not strategic.

God forbid you should actually be forced to fight the enemy  :lol:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Mog on July 14, 2004, 05:34:03 pm

Gook, as one of the principal advocates of making pvp more prominent in D2 play when was the last time you saw me in a BCH, participating in these "jousts"? Time after time you generalise this, and frankly I'm getting tired of it.

Instead of going on and on and on about it, design AF Revisited and prove your points with a campaign, rather than incessant wistful reminiscing over the past.

The reasons we have a small player base nowadays are many. Some were driven off by constant blue plague arguments, others by droners are cheesers arguments, others by not being allowed to fly fleets, or DNs or BBs, others by other rules, some because RL demands too much of their time, some because their race was made ineffectual in a hex munching environment. Need I continue?

I agree with DH. Change was needed, and I suspect it came too late.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 05:39:50 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 05:25:26 pm

I take issue with the assertation that modern D2 is not strategic.

God forbid you should actually be forced to fight the enemy  :lol:

I guess you missed where I said I ended up in more PvP on the "old style" servers, than on the new where the disengagement rule prevents small ships from affecting strategic areas.

Quote from: Kroma

Well my experience as a casual player on the last couple of serious servers (GW1 & 2) is the exact opposite of this. I didn't fly a DN or BCH in either of those. I have never been forced to fly a CL or smaller do to not enough PP (I have flown them, but by my own choice). CAs, CCs  & CCHs are as affordable as CLs if you play more than 10 missions verses the AI in friendly space. I was able to seek out enemy pilots in hex munchers and drive them off in 1v1s and I was able to ambush enemies in BCHs and DNs with the help of a wing man in another small/affordable ship. I was also able to play the role of hex filpper in the small ship, and if forced to disengage, there were plenty of other PvP hotspots or tasks that needed doing. Thus I am saying that the disengagement rule didn't prevent me from having an effect do to RL reducing my playing time. It only does that if you are unaware of the bigger picture and overall battle plans and objectives of your team. The only type of casual player it would effect is one in which the term "casual" is meant to mean lazy and stupid.

J/K about lazy and stupid, really just mean one dementional in how one thinks about how and where a casual player can have an effect.

I am always fully aware of all the strategic areas on a map, I just don't always have the time or PP to forfeit my way there and end up running nothing but missions against AI in ineffectual areas... I still say the disengagement rule favors nutters and creates less opportunity for the PvP that so many desire. (including me...)

Also if I see it as strategic, rest assured the enemy nutter will as well and can "tend" the hex waitning for the arrival of the likes of me... (making the disengagement rule unecessary in my view).

There, I've repeated myself enough.  I guess it depends on your perspective and experiences.

Quote from: Mog

I agree with DH. Change was needed, and I suspect it came too late.

One word: "SFC3".

Perhaps you missed Sockys statement: "Every race has a light cruiser that will run two to three minute missions over and over and over.  Yeah, even the early era Gorn and Romulan."
- I do not disagree with him.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Mog on July 14, 2004, 05:53:50 pm

SFC3? What's that got to do with the price of chips? Methinks you're mistaking me for someone else, as I don't play or even own SFC3.

I'm also not getting your second point. Only Gorn early era CL that I know of is the G-CL. Having flown that, I know it's not a 2- 3 minute mission maker. Roms, I suppose the WE qualifies as a CL, it can just about reach the enemy in that time, could possibly take a similar sized ship out in one pass, but unlikely.

So, you're saying that the Rom players that have departed because they believed themselves ineffectual in D2 hex munching are wrong? Damn Roms, never tell the truth, do they.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Age on July 14, 2004, 06:05:57 pm

    I don't think the average player base has much say when putting a server together.This I speculate is mostly up to the Admins.They petty much have contol on what goes on a server and doesn't.This where the D2 community needs to change as it is already happening in D3.The server Admins need to listen to everyone.I agree with what Mog said as well as DH (I am not sure what he meant by blue plague).I not sure how to make this better?I know I am not in D2 yet but when I do I would like it if those putting a server together would listen to some of average and new players comment or suggestions.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 06:08:06 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 05:39:50 pm

Perhaps you missed Sockys statement: "Every race has a light cruiser that will run two to three minute missions over and over and over.  Yeah, even the early era Gorn and Romulan."
- I do not disagree with him.

Sockfoot is full of p00p.

Now, Romulans can be effective in a modern D2.  I think I'm malking a difference on this server.   In a pure hex-munching situation I might as well not even show up.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 06:08:27 pm

No, no...Mog,  I wasn't addressing you as an SFC3 player (I know better ;)) what I was saying is that a good portion of players were probably lost to SFC3 as that was closer to what they wanted/expected, also that we probably lost some who were disgusted with Taldren/Activision over SFC3. (I very nearly said to heck with it myself, I was so grossed out by SFC3). i.e. I think SFC3 has more to do with a decreasing D2 playerbase than any D2 rules or lack thereof.

The reference to Gorn and Rom hex flippers was in response to the part of you post that read:
" some because their race was made ineffectual in a hex munching environment.".. i.e.: I think anyone who left over an inability to figure out how to hex munch with their race gives up too easily... (fair enough if they just don't like hex munching though...)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 06:11:33 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 06:08:06 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 05:39:50 pm

Perhaps you missed Sockys statement: "Every race has a light cruiser that will run two to three minute missions over and over and over.  Yeah, even the early era Gorn and Romulan."
- I do not disagree with him.

Sockfoot is full of p00p.

Now, Romulans can be effective in a modern D2.  I think I'm malking a difference on this server.   In a pure hex-munching situation I might as well not even show up.

I guess I'll have to stabilise my hastily constructed "Race" server config and try running it again, I'm confident that analysis of the mission data will show otherwise.

wrt to Roms vs Klinks on LB5, inital base distribution has everything to do with it... (clever trick Fluf!)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: SSCF-LeRoy on July 14, 2004, 06:19:02 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 04:21:14 pm

Quote from: SSCF-LeRoy on July 14, 2004, 04:18:06 pm

. . .  without resortin' to hate mail or flame wars.   

Oh, this ain't a flame war.   If you want to see flame wars, you should have seen the posts people made when "that" kind of server was the norm.   brez versus Dizzy anyone?

Gook and I actually get along, we just disagree as to what is "fun."

I wasn't refering to this thread, but was speaking more in general. I was thinking back to all the grumblings about servers like RDSL and GW2

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 06:24:28 pm

One idea I like is let people fly whatever they want, but excempt vannilla ships from the disengagement rule if killed in combat.

I think we'd see the amount of specialty ships flown drop drasticly.  People could alos return to a hot spot for more PvP quicker.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Lepton on July 14, 2004, 06:35:08 pm

I don't see how Gook can call for a more strategic type atomsphere in a D2 and claim that our current system restricts player choices when his D2 poster boy Socky's manifesto claims that there is basically no strategy except flipping hexes and advocates for only flying the most effective CL hex flipping ship.  I can't imagine anything more boring. 

The D2 community has addressed realism from an F&E and SFB perspective which seems totally valid to me.  The idea of the OoB was intend to create a more realistic distribution of ships as opposed to everyone flying NCDs, MDCs, D5Ds, etc, etc. or DNs and BCHs.  As to the idea of an LOS and the strategic map in general, while I do not think there is a specific LOS requirement in F&E, I am pretty sure there is a requirement to be in supply or at least a penalty for not being in supply based upon the distance from supply points.  The corollary to that in the D2 is LOS.  Just because the concept has been used in ground-based strategic endeavours doesn't mean that it has no place in space-based environment.  In fact, I think if you were to set up as stock D2 server you'd find that there are mandatory missions in neutral and enemy hexes.  This in fact seems to imply an intent on the part of the designers to in fact have LOS as part of D2 strategy in general.

Finally, this suggestion that the current system is somehow restrictive on playing styles is ridiculous.  In fact Stocky's suggestions here would put everyone in hex-flipping mode with absolutely no PvP.  The current system gives people a hex-flipping/PvP choice although to my mind it is still the hex-flippers that win the day.

Personally, I view this trip down memory lane as a mere campaign to set up servers that hex-flippers can win again as I have seen little real critical commentary by the presenter.  I say, "Death to hex-flippers".  Go fiddle with the single player campaign if all you want is to trounce the AI.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 08:04:50 pm

I'll say it again, I had way more PvP battles on the old "hex-flipping" servers.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Laflin on July 14, 2004, 08:13:53 pm

Mogster, I agree that change was needed, but I think that in the process a lot of the fun went out of the game and the constant bickering over what seemed to us <non-SFB fanatics> as inconsequential details soured many on the entire D2 experience.  Lepton, I guess that you could set up a nice sterile server where each move is countered by another move, much like an exciting game of ...zzzz... chess, but your server is going to have a mighty small population unless some elements of F U N are involved, and I don't see that happening at any time in the future.  You speak of ai and balance, but how many times in a GSA environment have you taken a CL up against a BB and actually pushed it, hoping against hope to somehow gain some kind of advantage against a superior ship?  That WAS one of the virtues of D2 play, IMO, but nowadays pvp seems to be a faint shadow of what it was on the earlier servers.  I'll stick with this game until the end, but believe me, something has been lost in the process.  :-X

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: SSCF-LeRoy on July 14, 2004, 09:27:52 pm

Perhaps what is called for is an AF-like server that runs perpetually (is that possible?) that would provide a diversion when there aren't any other severs running or no servers running that appeal to a given person's taste. A simple, straightforward server with minimal rules and downloads that could form the basis of a persistant universe that could also be a nifty RP tool as well. We could still have our structured, mission-specific theme servers like RDSL, LB5, KCW, etc. while we constantly run a general purpose universe where anything can happen.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: SPQR Renegade on July 14, 2004, 09:36:19 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 06:08:06 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 14, 2004, 05:39:50 pm

Perhaps you missed Sockys statement: "Every race has a light cruiser that will run two to three minute missions over and over and over.  Yeah, even the early era Gorn and Romulan."
- I do not disagree with him.

Sockfoot is full of p00p.

Now, Romulans can be effective in a modern D2.  I think I'm malking a difference on this server.   In a pure hex-munching situation I might as well not even show up.

I have to agree with DH on this one (excuse me while I wash out my mouth  :P ). Given the stock shiplist, stock missions, and typical server settings (old servers, I've been out of the loop for a while), there is only one ship that can run 3 minute missions without relying on the dreaded PFs. The KRC. The only way it can kill another CA in one pass, is to take an alpha on the nose, anchor the AI, spend all it's mines in an overrun, then return to base for resupply before returning for the next fight. If you wanna talk PFs, then the CH, KDP, &Sea-E (?) are expensive, but can hold their own in late. The Gorn are in the same boat, and the Lyrans and ISC are in a boat not far from us.

In a campaing that's designed around painting void space in your chosen color, you can bet there won't be much green or brown on the map. In a campaign that's designed around controling small specific areas of space or set up such that ship loss hurts (be it VCs, PP cost, or availability of replacements), we'll do as well as player hours will allow. It's always been that way, and until R/G/I/L have boats that can turn out the damage/turn/bpv numbers of a small drone armed ship, it will stay that way.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 11:52:53 pm

I'm drunk so bear with me . . .

What if CERTAIN romulan ships, only a few, got a really low BPV drop that were set assssisde specificly to be  'hex-munchers?"  For example, take the Sparrohawk mauler and give it a BPV of like 75.  This ships should be able to compete with the D5Ds of the world in Hex-munching but won't cause a disturbance in PvP balance.

In SGODev, the small Romulan/Gorn Plasma-fighter carrieres also fill this kind of a role.

My mission times in an R-SUK were not that bad against CCs, 3-4 minutes.   I can live with that.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 12:24:14 am

Quote from: Laflin on July 14, 2004, 08:13:53 pm

Mogster, I agree that change was needed, but I think that in the process a lot of the fun went out of the game and the constant bickering over what seemed to us <non-SFB fanatics> as inconsequential details soured many on the entire D2 experience.  Lepton, I guess that you could set up a nice sterile server where each move is countered by another move, much like an exciting game of ...zzzz... chess, but your server is going to have a mighty small population unless some elements of F U N are involved, and I don't see that happening at any time in the future.  You speak of ai and balance, but how many times in a GSA environment have you taken a CL up against a BB and actually pushed it, hoping against hope to somehow gain some kind of advantage against a superior ship?  That WAS one of the virtues of D2 play, IMO, but nowadays pvp seems to be a faint shadow of what it was on the earlier servers.  I'll stick with this game until the end, but believe me, something has been lost in the process.  :-X

Three points:

1.  I have no idea what you are talking about here.  I would never set up a server nor do I have any idea where you think I have characterized some kind of server setup or that you are even describing something coherent here.

2.  Again, there is absolutely nothing to prevent one on a D2 server from running headlong in a CL into a ship that outclasses you but it most likely won't be a BB on any recent server, so I have no idea what exactly what you are trying to say here.

3.  Finally, if something has been lost since those early servers and if you have an opinion on what it is, you haven't expressed it here in any coherent manner.  I'm not sure you even know what you mean, except that you used to like things better back then for some reason (I chalk it up to nostalgia and the newness of the game at that time), and now it doesn't seem as good as it was (I chalk that up to boredom with something that is so familiar you could play it in your sleep).

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: likkerpig on July 15, 2004, 12:39:36 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 14, 2004, 11:52:53 pm

I'm drunk so bear with me . . .

I hear ya brother....
hic

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Mog on July 15, 2004, 02:16:34 am

Ok, Bonk, I see what you meant about SFC3 now, though I can't think of many who have gone over to it permanently.

As to the Rom situation, see Renegade's post. He sums that situation up succinctly. I've flown those races myself and I concur with him.

Damn, running out of time to finish this, will probably post more at work.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 15, 2004, 03:45:02 am

Lots of good points, good one guys.

The principal problem is shrinking player base, yes its a 4 year old game, but people don't fly it for pretty graphics (though if produced a they are a bonus). The Alleged changes for thre good have not arrested the shrinking player base. I know for a fact that they have prevented at least 10 potential returnees I contacted, who showed an interest in returning, but when setups and changes were explained it was, "so long and thanks for all the fish". New peeps have horendous problems with DLs and you really have to be a fanatic to get on now. I would have left the game again by now if I did not really want it to work. The game can produce all those facets of conflict other than PvP, we have seen it in the past. That is what makes the game different from 100 other space/wargame progs, that and the deeply ingrained TOS/TNG programming every SFC player has.

We know there is a pretty even split between the types of game on the existing player base. I also know  that no system will be perfect, but we should try and cater for a majority most of the time rather than the just plain loud :) ( I shout a lot because I see very little constructive arguement and lots of snappy one liner put downs).

I actually want to play the game for good PvP as well as ALL the other stuff (insert Lep's reply here :) ).

You know the one of the first thing I noticed after my return from enforced retirement due to RL issues, that was a sense of gloom, a lack of cameraderie, even in the fleets. A sense of homogonization rather than a revelling in the differences and strengths and weaknesses of the races. Read the AF intercepts, morale was sky high, if there was a problem, they didn't whine, they dealt with it, the can do attitude which seems to have dissipated, and to and extent has been replaced by arguements akin to counting angels in pin heads.

The reason I kept posting all the old stuff was to counter the inaccurate description of the "bad old days" which were incessantly mentioned. they were not bad, they were fun, they had their problems, anything to do with human interaction does (trust me I'm a lawyer I know this stuff :) ). Not everything new is bad, but it is not all good either. What I see is little attention paid to anything other than the sacred cow of PvP, which is now the be all and end all. The funny thing is PvP means much more when the associated stuff is around.

I have under my name some awards, they mean nothing to all but a few, but they mean stuff to me and I am very proud to have be honoured by them, it enhanced my game experience as well as flattering my overblown ego. So When Kor awarded me the Order of the Black Star and made me, a scabby old Pussy a member of the House of Kor the Klingon Chancellor, pride swelled in my breast. When Dogmatix awarded me the Star of Kahless,  a Klingon battle honour I was speechless (yes really), when Steel Claw awarded me the Most Trusted Ally award I was humbled and when I got the Order of the Wendigo (which I am prevented from discussing by organisational NDAs but some of you know what it is on your Stetsons ;) ) It MEANT something, not to many, but it did to me. Now Poopoo the medals all you want, the people who gave them did not make worthless gestures, they did so because they wanted to make a point in gameterms. Now I am not suggesting we go all weepy and award each other medals, they are just examples of game enhancement which need no rules and just happen when people are having a good time.

No one is right or wrong here, but we do need to listen and try and cater to the many, lest a few more slip away from the game, largely unnoticed.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Mog on July 15, 2004, 06:47:28 am

Gook, while these posts of yours are, hmm, educational for the newer members, you are omitting one thing. Your solution. How do you propose we bring the old players back without alienating the current 50% that like the way things are?

Having been one of those who have battled to get more relevance for pvp in campaign terms, I am not interested in abandoning that aspect, and, despite what you say about the "200 late slugfest", which I still maintain isn't 100% accurate, Sockfoot's post states pvp is basically meaningless in that campaign style.

I also have no desire to see the return of unlimited DNs and BBs, or squadrons of 3 carriers (for fairness to the non-drone uising races I would include 3 drone ship squadrons too, but personally I enjoyed fighting and defeating those with one ship), which I'd hope you'd agree with. Sadly, a decent OOB is too awkward to implement without SQL, hence we have the way it's done now with CnC and FM rules. If you can suggest a better way of achieving OOB, please let us know.

I also have to say that the prospect of a huge map that is mostly neutral space, requiring several weeks of repetitive ai bashing, before the empires can make contact just doesn't appeal to me one iota. RT3 and AOTK had the best maps imo.

You mention downloads being a problem. I agree on that. I'm fed up with having to download stuff for campaigns, even though I'm on cable; it's a pain.

Laffy, I can't put my finger exactly on what you perceive as being missing. Lack of meaningful forum activity? - ie the long roleplaying threads no longer seem to be around, when one is started it seems to fizzle out. I dont know.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

Quote from: Scipio_66 on July 14, 2004, 12:37:09 pm

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 14, 2004, 12:24:56 pm

Yes, I'm glad all of these "Improvements" have kept sooo many people playing....

So, as long as we are waxing nostalgaic about the differences between the olde days and the now days, which "improvements", specifically, do you think are actually detriments?

For my next campaign, some of the old-school stuff actually makes sense.  I might (or might not) want to take some of your thoughts on board.

-S'Cipio the Herr Burt

1.  Secret VC's.   Make some secret !!  Keep the enemies guessing as to what you want.  SS2 had both static and secret VC's.   If possible, set them up so that the sides will have to cross paths to get their points, thus creating PvP zones.  Makes both sides happy as hex munchers can continue towards goal, while PvP'ers can protect your goals.

2.  LOS.   ELIMINATE LOS RULES !!!  The only rule regarding LOS should be that you can't place a base unless there is LOS.  Why someone shouldn't be able to deepstrike and take a enemy planet is beyond me.

3.  Deepstriking.   Should be allowed.  I could see a "fight to the death" rule if deepstriker is in enemy space.

4.  OOB.   I like the LB5 set up soooo much!  No admin hassles trying to get a FM a ship or anything !   I'd say 1 BB/DNH, 1 DN, and 3 BCH per race, or LESS at any given time.  Make them affordable so almost anyone could fly one by server end so it's not elitest.

5.  Fleets.  Admins decision.  I myself can do with fleets allowed or not allowed.

6.  Disengagement rule should stay.   Probably the single truely needed rule to help the slower, less munching races.  Though, I'd like to see less punishment of those who fight to the death....maybe 10 turns if run off, and 2 if killed?

7.   Downloads.   Small as possible, and a installer for the computer impaired...

8.  DV shifts.   Make neutral (outer reaches) very low DV so there will be a honest tug of war.

Probably more, but I got one burnin and I need some munchies...

This will not take us back to the old days, but I think it is more of a compromise to keep some of the good that has come along, while letting players explore different aspects of warfare then just the trench style we've been playing in lately...


Lastly,  with all due respect for the SPQR, GDA, GPF, and other non-drone/fighter race players....
I think the largest amounts of people to leave this game ARE they drone races.  The Gorn, Lyran, and Roms never had a huge playerbase, and it's true that they are all but gone, but what about the Feds, Klingons, and Mirak?   Yes there are some left, but huge amounts of those players are gone now.  Probably twice as many as the Roms, Gorn, and Lyrans ever had to begin with.  Why?   I would bet all the rules, regulations, and limitations put into place to help the one group alienated a even larger group of the others.

My $.02...  and that I love all the races and all you guys...  ***Jeff, put down the joint and step away from the computer***

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 15, 2004, 07:15:02 am

Mog,

I don't think the two camps are polarised at the extremes, there may be some at both ends who are, but I guess the majority will fall somewhere in the middle.

Instant solution alternate servers, one restrictive and one without restrictions. Play what you want. The problem there is another split in the community that way, and we have had EAW/OP/D3 to fragment us enough. Probably a better solution would be have the Big background server as stock or whatever stock becomes, which gets slowed down or taken down whenever there is a time limited campaign on. It would give us a backdrop and allow for the more esoteric servers to be planned properly as there would not be the constant howls for the next one to come up.

As for OOBs etc I would happily sacrifice them for more fun, more involvement more heroic stands (yep just like your on GW1, which I hope becomes part of SFC lore and is quoted into the far future). The thing is while everyone (genralisation, I mean many) want to fly the biggest and best ship permitted by a given set of rules for PvP they will, unless there are viable alternatives, whether that be CVs, Droneboats, fleets or commando ships, or whatever is perceived as interupting the joust collecting VCs for same boat actions is a squash ladder, nothing against them, just don't play them myself. I just think if you fly the ABC ship you should be able to deal with everything, whether that's 3 drone boats (which really shouldn't be a problem, 3 CVs, or 3 PFTs) and if you can't you fly off, simple.

I generally fly a DWD, I have no problem about leaving the board when there is no chance of me winning, I have no expectation of winning every fight, I don't expect every fight to be equal.

The best PvP I have had has come out of those servers where there was more than  a dozen hexes that were worth fighting for and which spread the action over the entire map, CW6 is a classic example, tunnelling, a weeks heavy action, retrenchment, another attack elsewhere, more action etc etc.

Now you say how do I keep you happy, and everyone else, I can't, but we can keep more people happy than we do, if we don't a big dyna will just be a six sided IP game. Funnily enough, I know 762 and DH and I are a lot closer in what we want than is apparent on the boards, I guess at a push you and I would  see eye to eye on 90% of stuff, we just gotta work on the 10% ;)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 08:05:51 am

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

1.  Secret VC's.   Make some secret !!  Keep the enemies guessing as to what you want.  SS2 had both static and secret VC's.   If possible, set them up so that the sides will have to cross paths to get their points, thus creating PvP zones.  Makes both sides happy as hex munchers can continue towards goal, while PvP'ers can protect your goals.

Yes.  A good idea.  Jjust makes sure the sides actually get the corret VCs at the begining of every round  :P

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

2.  LOS.   ELIMINATE LOS RULES !!!  The only rule regarding LOS should be that you can't place a base unless there is LOS.  Why someone shouldn't be able to deepstrike and take a enemy planet is beyond me.

LOS should stay.   For one thing, it give people who aren't up for front-line action something to do.  Best thing about LOS for "strategic" players is they can be cut.  Removing LOS makes D2 less strategic, not more.

No, a solo CW taking a homeworld without supply is retarded. 

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

3.  Deepstriking.   Should be allowed.  I could see a "fight to the death" rule if deepstriker is in enemy space.

Yes, the SS2 deepstriking rules were/are perfect.  Good to see J'inn adopted them on GW.

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

4.  OOB.   I like the LB5 set up soooo much!  No admin hassles trying to get a FM a ship or anything !   I'd say 1 BB/DNH, 1 DN, and 3 BCH per race, or LESS at any given time.  Make them affordable so almost anyone could fly one by server end so it's not elitest.

Pray for SQL, we will never get a decent OOB system working without it.   I like the build points system from GW2, but i would like to see ships more easily transfereable, BCHs could be transfered on that server but DNs could not. 

Yes I am being an SFB-grognard here, but BCH ships are supposed to be AS rare as DNs.   BCHs are not super-cruisers, they are mini-DNs.  We need to remember this if/when any OOB is setup

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

5.  Fleets.  Admins decision.  I myself can do with fleets allowed or not allowed.

I love flying fleets, I have adapted to one-ship-per pilot.  Fleets can come back with good CnC, unlimited cheese is dumb.   SG3 had the best CnC rules, 2 ships only and the second ship had to be vannila.  Hard to do a cheesey combo with that but it gives people more options.

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

6.  Disengagement rule should stay.   Probably the single truely needed rule to help the slower, less munching races.  Though, I'd like to see less punishment of those who fight to the death....maybe 10 turns if run off, and 2 if killed?

Run off = 100 minutes
Killed = 50 minutes
Killed in a Vannilla ship = 10 minutes

People in cheese/"PvP" ships need to still pay if they get killed.   There is not point in having a disenagement rule is a hex-flipper can simply fly a 500-1000 PP ship kamikaze-stylel.

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

7.   Downloads.   Small as possible, and a installer for the computer impaired...

No kidding!  Thank God for FS and Pesty.

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

8.  DV shifts.   Make neutral (outer reaches) very low DV so there will be a honest tug of war.

100% agree.   This is done on GW.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Mog on July 15, 2004, 08:33:50 am

Sorry, but I am 100% against multiple carrier/tender squadrons being allowed. It's simply ludicrous to allow players to fly that setup. 3 drone boats, I can live with, but there is no way a single ship could possibly take on 36 or more fighters or 12 pfs plus motherships. All that does is require everyone to be flying the same combination, which is no different from your perceived 200 late joust, which then just degenerates into who's ai behaves better, lol. No skill involved in that I'm afraid.

PvP VCs. I've always advocated VCs for killing ships of CL class and greater. Use RDSL's system - is a simplified version of one I proposed a couple of years ago. It gives casual players flying the smaller ships more of a chance to contribute VCs. Limiting pvp VCs to the big guns isn't enough, imo.

I've never asked for equal battles. Ask around, I'm usually outhulled (Mav will tell you that I ought to be in ships 2 hull sizes smaller than everyone else lol. I think that's a bit OTT myself, I'm often 1 hull size down). For me, flying the smaller ships and trying to defeat larger ones is the most exciting part of the game. It's why I never got into ladder play and always preferred to be here - the mismatches (to an extent, see first paragraph) make it more fun. On that we agree.

AOTK was a blast for pvp. That was spread all over the map - Kitty front, the middle neutral zone and the Fed front was virtually non-stop pvp. GW1 wasn't just confined to one area either. In fact, i cannot recall a server where pvp was limited to just one area.

I've said I'd hate to see a huge map with neutral areas like AF map. I'd play on it, but probably not until just before the empires meet. I have single player for beating on ai, with no chance of having the dreaded "you have been disconnected from the server" message, after spending over an hour on a planet or starbase assault.

We all want, essentially, the same thing. We want a fun, thriving place to play in, hopefully with long lost brethren returning (just not too bloody many Feds please ;) ). My main concern is returning to Sockfoot's diatribe up there regarding pvp. It should count.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 09:19:43 am

Quote from: Mog on July 15, 2004, 08:33:50 am

Sorry, but I am 100% against multiple carrier/tender squadrons being allowed. It's simply ludicrous to allow players to fly that setup. 3 drone boats, I can live with, but there is no way a single ship could possibly take on 36 or more fighters or 12 pfs plus motherships. All that does is require everyone to be flying the same combination, which is no different from your perceived 200 late joust, which then just degenerates into who's ai behaves better, lol. No skill involved in that I'm afraid.

Curious as to your opinion to what was allowed on SG3. One command, one vannila. 

I don't think anyone really thinks allowin 3 carrier/tenders is a good idea. 

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Mog on July 15, 2004, 09:30:40 am

DH, if I could live with people flying 3 drone boats (don't really like that idea but I could live with it), then I can live with your proposal also. As long as I, as a single ship player, am not toally cheesed out of the game, I'm fine.

I wouldn't be so sure on your last sentence.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: SSCF-LeRoy on July 15, 2004, 09:48:05 am

Quote from: Gook on July 15, 2004, 07:15:02 am

Probably a better solution would be have the Big background server as stock or whatever stock becomes, which gets slowed down or taken down whenever there is a time limited campaign on. It would give us a backdrop and allow for the more esoteric servers to be planned properly as there would not be the constant howls for the next one to come up.

Yes!!!

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 15, 2004, 10:46:31 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 08:05:51 am

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

1.  Secret VC's.   Make some secret !!  Keep the enemies guessing as to what you want.  SS2 had both static and secret VC's.   If possible, set them up so that the sides will have to cross paths to get their points, thus creating PvP zones.  Makes both sides happy as hex munchers can continue towards goal, while PvP'ers can protect your goals.

Yes.  A good idea.  Jjust makes sure the sides actually get the corret VCs at the begining of every round  :P

Agreed.

Quote

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

2.  LOS.   ELIMINATE LOS RULES !!!  The only rule regarding LOS should be that you can't place a base unless there is LOS.  Why someone shouldn't be able to deepstrike and take a enemy planet is beyond me.

LOS should stay.   For one thing, it give people who aren't up for front-line action something to do.  Best thing about LOS for "strategic" players is they can be cut.  Removing LOS makes D2 less strategic, not more.

No, a solo CW taking a homeworld without supply is retarded. 

Agreed.

Quote

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

3.  Deepstriking.   Should be allowed.  I could see a "fight to the death" rule if deepstriker is in enemy space.

Yes, the SS2 deepstriking rules were/are perfect.  Good to see J'inn adopted them on GW.

Disagree. With the disengagement rule and a LOS rule for flipping hexes, this is really unnecessary, as there is only so much havoc a deepstriker can make.

Quote

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

4.  OOB.   I like the LB5 set up soooo much!  No admin hassles trying to get a FM a ship or anything !   I'd say 1 BB/DNH, 1 DN, and 3 BCH per race, or LESS at any given time.  Make them affordable so almost anyone could fly one by server end so it's not elitest.

Pray for SQL, we will never get a decent OOB system working without it.   I like the build points system from GW2, but i would like to see ships more easily transfereable, BCHs could be transfered on that server but DNs could not. 

Yes I am being an SFB-grognard here, but BCH ships are supposed to be AS rare as DNs.   BCHs are not super-cruisers, they are mini-DNs.  We need to remember this if/when any OOB is setup

I too would rather see FM spots more portable, as this would allow more folks to fly the big boys.  I would make the FM spots for BCHs/DNs completely transferable at a moments notice, I would NOT have any "special" VCs for killing these ships (a general VC scheme for any PvP killls would be fine though). If you get killed or driven off in an FM ship then the disengagement penalty stays with the ship as well as the particular pilot (thus no transfering the FM spot just to allow your teams BCH/DN back into a hex. Also if you are killed in a FM ship you should be restricted from being assigned as the FM for say 24 hours. The rational for removing the VC penalty is so that RMs are freer to spread the FM wealth without worrying over much about the risk of giving such a valuable asset to a less experienced pilot, or assigning it to a pilot that might not be on as much thus making that assignment a waste since it can't be transferred.

If you still wanted to simulate attrition of BCH/DNs you could possibly designate a time that the FM ship becomes irreplacable, say after the first few days it has been available. This way the RMs still have a period of time in which they can risk passing the FM slots around to all players, but also allow for the BCH/DNs to be removed from play over time.

Quote

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

5.  Fleets.  Admins decision.  I myself can do with fleets allowed or not allowed.

I love flying fleets, I have adapted to one-ship-per pilot.  Fleets can come back with good CnC, unlimited cheese is dumb.   SG3 had the best CnC rules, 2 ships only and the second ship had to be vannila.  Hard to do a cheesey combo with that but it gives people more options.

I would still go for 3 ship fleets with a good CnC that limits all specialty ships to no more than 1 per fleet. Maybe it could be have if you have a CA or larger in the fleet it is limited to 2 ships but if you go with CLs or smaller 3 ship combos are allowed, with tight CnC (GZ PBR is good for this).

Quote

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

6.  Disengagement rule should stay.   Probably the single truely needed rule to help the slower, less munching races.  Though, I'd like to see less punishment of those who fight to the death....maybe 10 turns if run off, and 2 if killed?

Run off = 100 minutes
Killed = 50 minutes
Killed in a Vannilla ship = 10 minutes

People in cheese/"PvP" ships need to still pay if they get killed.   There is not point in having a disenagement rule is a hex-flipper can simply fly a 500-1000 PP ship kamikaze-stylel.

I too think the disengagement rule is a must. At first your idea of allowing vannilla ships return from a kill faster was appealing, but the issue it might pose is that some races vannilla ships can run missions many times faster than others vannilla ships, which creates a situation identical to simply reducing the Killed (in any ship) penalty to 10 minutes as far as racial balance is concerned.

Quote

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

7.   Downloads.   Small as possible, and a installer for the computer impaired...

No kidding!  Thank God for FS and Pesty.

K.I.S.S.

Quote

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

8.  DV shifts.   Make neutral (outer reaches) very low DV so there will be a honest tug of war.

100% agree.   This is done on GW.

Agreed.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 15, 2004, 11:06:38 am

Quote from: Mog on July 15, 2004, 06:47:28 am

... hence we have the way it's done now with CnC and FM rules...

CnC? What CnC? I don't recall a campaign that allowed more than one ship per player in recent history... I've been arguing for allowing fleets with proper SFB style CnC rules for ages now... I tink we miss a lot of the game flying single ships.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 15, 2004, 11:14:26 am

Quote from: Bonk on July 15, 2004, 11:06:38 am

Quote from: Mog on July 15, 2004, 06:47:28 am

... hence we have the way it's done now with CnC and FM rules...

CnC? What CnC? I don't recall a campaign that allowed more than one ship per player in recent history... I've been arguing for allowing fleets with proper SFB style CnC rules for ages now... I tink we miss a lot of the game flying single ships.

Totally agree. GZs PBR is a very good SFB style CnC.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 11:20:29 am

I love this revisionist history.  From what I know people started leaving this game because of the bad old day problems, not the new-hotness solutions to those problems.  And if people can't manage to get the DLs working for the current set of campaigns, then they must be certified idiots and should not be permitted to own a computer.  I mean, this isn't rocket science. It's a GUI-based operating system.  Server DLs now include installers that do it all for you, and before these installers, all I ever had to do to play on a download-required server was to swap out the shiplists and fighterlists.  How hard is that?  Copy and paste.  Go back to the home, grandpa.  It's apple sauce time.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 11:25:53 am

I would propose this...(as IMHO it had the best overall fun factors)

1) OoB for BCH n higher with VC kills
2) Disengagement rules, but if u die in a vanilla ship one size down u dont have to leave
3) Secret and public VCs
4) Strong DV and Econ but physically small home starting space, with weak econ and DV neutral hexes
5) Starting in neutral space a sprinkling of medium DV planets
6) Deepstriking anywhere on map but only to neutrality, LOS needed to flip hexes
7)  Deepstriking beyond more than 2 enemy hexes in any direction is fight to the death if caught
8) Heavy iron is cheap but has item 1) attached
9) Multi ship fleets (2 ships) but one ship MUST be Vannilla (ie run of the mill FF DD CL CA, with BC and bigger NOT BEING VANNILLA)
10) Lead ship MUST be one size class bigger than the wing ship in a two ship fleet
11) STANDARDIZATION on either mission pack or shiplists with models (i love the FS OP pack with models, too bad it dont get used much, if ppl just down load it ONCE and the shiplist and fighter list were based around this model pack I would be a happier camper)
12) Bases are resonably priced but destroyable, needing a LOS to place (if a ring of defensive belt was placed around it then deepstriking the kill would be dicey for the attacker), can only be placed with a one hex gap to the next nearest base, possibly make a modified Star Base as the only base, ie bigger than a battlestation but smaller than a true Star Base
13) Bring back G ships, I havent seen commando boats in the klingon yards for ages, but most other races still have commando boats.  What gives?
14) CnC on fighters/PFs for all races, flying with a hull full of the top of the line fighters/PFs is IMHO frankly retarded.  A true carrier would have a mix of them rather than one type only.  ie PFL+s maybe nice to have but operationally there is only ONE PF LEADER per flotilla not 4.
15) VCs per round (say a week or every two weeks) should be something that particular races can actually "ACHIEVE".  If a race is being toasted then they should be given a "LIFT" and given for the next round more attainable VC conditions.  I for one am not a fan of peeing in the wind, its boring, frustrating and a major morale killer.
16) FINALLY my last retarded suggestion...
Given we all admit we are on a declining player base, would anyone be interested in a purely DRAFT campaign where all players are "picked" from the hat to play either coalition or alliance.  One problem we have now is we still have the causual player base and the nutter player base.  We all know who are reputed to be the historic nutters.  If we have too many nutters on one side the above suggestions would for the most part fall thru.

17) Another FINNALLY...
And this would be something from RDSL that I think was a very innovative way to do Heavy Iron...
POSSIBLY set up a Loknar account at the campaign start with a crap load of PP, one per race.  This account cand be used to both BUY bases, and be the basis for the fleets Fielded Heaviest Iron.  IE only the Loknar account can fly the races DN, DNH or BB.  This account would be shared by the race and the RM/ARM would be responsible to make sure ALL PLAYERS of that race get a shot at flying the ship, there will be no favorites there for who gets to fly the ship.  The account would have sufficent PP in it to buy 10+ such ships, but every time one is lost that race gives up VC points.  At least every day a NEW pilot must be selected to fly the ship, to prevent a great pilot from being "stuck" in the ship.  That race would rotate thru the player list.  This worked on RDSL and I think would be a useful trial addition to any future campaigns.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: 762_XC on July 15, 2004, 11:32:28 am

I can think of several reasons why multi-ship fleets would be problematic.

First, with the disengagement rule, it FORCES you to fly them. Not everyone likes to.

Second, it increases lag and decreases connection reliability. More bad loads and bugged missions? No freaking thanks.  :thumbsdown:

Third, it benefits different races unequally, as fleet control works much better for some races than others.

Just say NOES to multi ship fleets!

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 11:42:32 am

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 11:25:53 am

15) VCs per round (say a week or every two weeks) should be something that particular races can actually "ACHIEVE".  If a race is being toasted then they should be given a "LIFT" and given for the next round more attainable VC conditions.  I for one am not a fan of peeing in the wind, its boring, frustrating and a major morale killer.

I agree with most of what you are propsing, this point diffinately rings true.  but doesn't it conflict with the concept of stic VCs?

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 11:50:14 am

Quote from: Kroma on July 15, 2004, 10:46:31 am

I too think the disengagement rule is a must. At first your idea of allowing vannilla ships return from a kill faster was appealing, but the issue it might pose is that some races vannilla ships can run missions many times faster than others vannilla ships, which creates a situation identical to simply reducing the Killed (in any ship) penalty to 10 minutes as far as racial balance is concerned.

You may be right, maybe 20-30 minutes instead of 10?  i really would like to see some more incentive to fly line ships since workable and user-friendly OOB is still in the womb.  The SGODev list gives non-varient hulls 5 more spare parts, that may be enough.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 15, 2004, 11:52:14 am

More good stuff guys keep it coming.

My tuppence on fleets, allow them but they must be commanded by a command ship of at least equal hull size, and say you have to be Captain rank to do so. I am not a fan of multiple CV or PFT fleets but if some one really wants one, let them have it, then 2 players gang up on him, replacing all that lost PP especially if they were bigger CVs would cost a fortune, also just running the damn things cost a lot.

Deep striking Having a LOS to flip completely defeats the object of the DS, and you effectively end up with no DS apart from nussiance value. Allow DS anywhere, but if caught have either the disengagement rule OR the fight to the death rule but not both. DSing a planet is not easy, and grabbing supplies and repairs from AI ships before you detonate them is the only way to keep going after around 6 or so missions (in a droner anyhow) and in a droner you only have 4 shots so using them on AI is usually means it won't work. To DS a planet or base with no supply in a droner you really need 3 guys working in concert. If you add in multiship missions succesful DSing will be VERY tricky on anything other than plain hexes. The point about having DSers is you do not have a secure flank and those on the server have to keep watching news or potentially lose something big.

Those that doubt Socks words with regard to what you have to kill, it doesn't matter whether you flip a hundred hexes once or one hex a hundred times you still have to flip, so whether you are fighting PvP over 6 hexes or taking great swathes of space, it still boils down to flipping.

Removing LOS to flip does not make the campaign less strategic, removing the ability to inderdict does.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 11:58:44 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 11:42:32 am

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 11:25:53 am

15) VCs per round (say a week or every two weeks) should be something that particular races can actually "ACHIEVE".  If a race is being toasted then they should be given a "LIFT" and given for the next round more attainable VC conditions.  I for one am not a fan of peeing in the wind, its boring, frustrating and a major morale killer.

I agree with most of what you are propsing, this point diffinately rings true.  but doesn't it conflict with the concept of stic VCs?

No here DH I mean why not make the private secret VCs something that this particular race can achieve and is adjusted to keep the players engaged. such as instead of taking two planets for a VC condition it is reduced to ring the planets with hexes to "blockade" the planet.  the VC payout is the same but it becomes a VC that the race can achieve instead of sitting back and feeling overwealmed

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 15, 2004, 12:18:33 pm

Quote from: Gook on July 15, 2004, 11:52:14 am

Deep striking Having a LOS to flip completely defeats the object of the DS, and you effectively end up with no DS apart from nussiance value. Allow DS anywhere, but if caught have either the disengagement rule OR the fight to the death rule but not both.

Well it does still allow you to soften hexes and if SBs or BATs are destroyable, it allows for that as well. I would dump the fight to the death rule but keep the disengagement and at least a LOS rule for flipping Planets/Bases (if not destructable), while possibly allowing the flipping of empty hexes.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 12:25:03 pm

Quote from: Gook on July 15, 2004, 11:52:14 am

My tuppence on fleets, allow them but they must be commanded by a command ship of at least equal hull size, and say you have to be Captain rank to do so. I am not a fan of multiple CV or PFT fleets but if some one really wants one, let them have it, then 2 players gang up on him, replacing all that lost PP especially if they were bigger CVs would cost a fortune, also just running the damn things cost a lot.

Deep striking Having a LOS to flip completely defeats the object of the DS, and you effectively end up with no DS apart from nussiance value. Allow DS anywhere, but if caught have either the disengagement rule OR the fight to the death rule but not both. DSing a planet is not easy, and grabbing supplies and repairs from AI ships before you detonate them is the only way to keep going after around 6 or so missions (in a droner anyhow) and in a droner you only have 4 shots so using them on AI is usually means it won't work. To DS a planet or base with no supply in a droner you really need 3 guys working in concert. If you add in multiship missions succesful DSing will be VERY tricky on anything other than plain hexes. The point about having DSers is you do not have a secure flank and those on the server have to keep watching news or potentially lose something big.

Those that doubt Socks words with regard to what you have to kill, it doesn't matter whether you flip a hundred hexes once or one hex a hundred times you still have to flip, so whether you are fighting PvP over 6 hexes or taking great swathes of space, it still boils down to flipping.

Removing LOS to flip does not make the campaign less strategic, removing the ability to inderdict does.

2 ship fleets max, one ship must be vanilla, command ship must be one size bigger than the 2nd, one carrier per fleet (as listed as a CV/PFT) - else u have dozens of mindless phaser G's or Plazma F's chasing you about, and call that fun

Being a vetran DSer, I am a fan of LOS to flip.  Much can be done deepstriking without flipping hexes, such as scouting, base busting, assasinations, softening up targets, and ambushes.  On bigger maps watching the news then the map can become a full time chore, I am here to play, I will read the news offline.  So NO LOS does NOT COMPLETELY invalidate the use of deepstriking, only flipping hexes.  I find it conceptually idiotic that one ship behind the lines should be able to flip control of enemy space.  To me if your caught behind the lines a given distance (eg 2 hex move in any direction to get to neutral or friendly space) then your SOL and must fight to the death, think of it as fuel conservation for operating so far from supply.

I have DS planets and bases myself in droners, CV's CA's u name it, it really comes down to determination (ahh the good old battlestar miraktica)

So which is it?  DS is hard to do or easy?  Watching the news to see you lose something big doesnt ring true because with limited replacement parts and mandatory missions in enemy space DSing can be come suicidal.  Why flip if you cannot DV build?

Who said anything about removing the ablility to interdict operations, hell if that goes I go!  Why play the game if I am not allowed to actually attack something?????

IMHO removing LOS or some form there of DOES make the game less strategic, as the last time I checked it actually took some coordination between hex munching, PvP fighting and base/planet flipping to make a LOS in the first place.  Is this not STRATIGIC in the normal sense of the word.

HOWEVER, interdiction is IMHO PvP battles, which in the end is TACTICAL level combat.  SFC is a great TACTICAL game, D2/3 needs help to be a great STRATEGIC game.  Dont confuse the two.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 15, 2004, 12:28:11 pm

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 11:58:44 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 11:42:32 am

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 11:25:53 am

15) VCs per round (say a week or every two weeks) should be something that particular races can actually "ACHIEVE".  If a race is being toasted then they should be given a "LIFT" and given for the next round more attainable VC conditions.  I for one am not a fan of peeing in the wind, its boring, frustrating and a major morale killer.

I agree with most of what you are propsing, this point diffinately rings true.  but doesn't it conflict with the concept of stic VCs?

No here DH I mean why not make the private secret VCs something that this particular race can achieve and is adjusted to keep the players engaged. such as instead of taking two planets for a VC condition it is reduced to ring the planets with hexes to "blockade" the planet.  the VC payout is the same but it becomes a VC that the race can achieve instead of sitting back and feeling overwealmed

This is a very important point Toten, keeping the players interested by adjusting the VCs of a race, in secret, to what the player base for that race will realistically allow/be achievable. First class point.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 01:11:33 pm

Let me ask you something.  Where are these deepstrikers getting their supplies from??  If I were a Kzin who decided to go deepstrike Lyra for instance, don't you think I might use up my drones getting there?  But, I don't think that actually happens in the game, because SFC gives you a default outload of drones even if you go down to zero in-game in the previous mission.  The idea of an LOS is exactly that, a line of supply, one that is necessary to replenish expendables and remain within good communication with headquarters, so to speak.

By your reasoning, Gook, the vast space that makes up a hex on a D2 map could not possibly be swayed in terms of ownership by some modest squad-sized battles.  The fact that the map is hexed at all suggests that the area is bounded in some sense whether or not that seems reasonable. It's the logic of a hex-based map.  That the hex, this vast space of parsecs and parsecs,  may be owned suggests that it is controllable in some sense and that ownership of that hex means something more than having fought a few squad-sized battles in it since one derives defensive and economic benefits from ownership, essentially an infrastructure.

Instead on 5 or 10 DV hexes on these "secured" flanks that you suppose exist with an LOS rule on a server, imagine 100 dv hexes, ten miliion dv hexes.  A 100 dv hex to me means just that, a hex that is very well defended and has an infrastructure for its defense.  How could one deepstrike passed a 100 dv hex?  There should be bases and capital ship all over that hex to represent a 100 dv value.  Those hex dvs mean something.  There aren't just numbers to make go up and down.  To me, a dv means there are forces there and a defense infrastructure that will be sufficient to defend the hex. That's why you get mandatory missions in enemy space.  There are defenses there to meet you and will not allow you to pass.  Otherwise, why is it called a defense value?  So to move on the map, one must defeat the defenses that are in each hex.  They can't just be bypassed.  Otherwise, what do these numbers really mean?

To me, deepstriking is non-sensical on such a map with a system of defense values on it and no flank is secure if you can merely make an LOS to it.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 15, 2004, 01:15:22 pm

I liked the idea I saw a while ago that would allow the fast battle cruisers to be either exempted from the deepstrike rule or simply being the only ones allowed to deep strike.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 01:45:38 pm

Quote from: Kroma on July 15, 2004, 01:15:22 pm

I liked the idea I saw a while ago that would allow the fast battle cruisers to be either exempted from the deepstrike rule or simply being the only ones allowed to deep strike.

ONLY if controlled via OOB, in F&E they were very rare and as expensive as a BCH.  Fast Cruisers have too much values as PvP boats to be given any other benefits.

Now cloaked ships on the other hand . . .

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 15, 2004, 01:47:49 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 01:45:38 pm

Quote from: Kroma on July 15, 2004, 01:15:22 pm

I liked the idea I saw a while ago that would allow the fast battle cruisers to be either exempted from the deepstrike rule or simply being the only ones allowed to deep strike.

ONLY if controlled via OOB, in F&E they were very rare and as exspensive as a BCH.  Fast Cruisers have too much values as PvP boats to be given any other benefits.

makes sense, designated deepstrikers.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 15, 2004, 01:50:16 pm

Leppy,

Most of space is EMPTY, no line of forts ina continous line marching like pylons across parsecs of space.

Supplies well in game you can steal supplies from AI ships (spare parts), if you have finite drones well you have to be careful with them.

Food, isn't that what the replicators do?

I'm no scientist on dilithium engineering, but evreything I have played or read suggest that refuelling a warp driven starship doesn't happen very often, a bit like a Nuke sub but better.

Toten

As for taking a planet with one ship or whatever it depends what is in the Hex, if there are no ships, bases, or  planets then its easy. Think of the DV value as a unit of combat currency, we can't represent all the minutae of the hexes defences so its represented by a value. Think 19th century Gunboat diplomacy, an armoured cruiser steams into Cassablanca harbour, the city defenceless against the beast does as its told, same with Shanghai, HongKong and a dozen other places, when it move off things may revert. 200 spaniards and 15 horses versus the mighty Inca Nation who would have given odds on the Spaniards. Consider a single shuttle and 21st century earth, it has shields and a phaser , puny by 23rd century standards, but enough to take out earth in its current state of development. Now consider a warp driven Man o War entering a system or series of systems, unlees there is something comparable it is GOD.

What might be considered conceptually difficult to deal with is the sheer number of AI we blow up every campaign, literally Hundreds of ships per player, but it is accepted as it forms part of the currency of conflict and way of representing difficulties encountered in the game.

So I have no difficulty in conceptulising a starship vanishing into the vastness of space (albeit 2 dimensional in this game) and not being spotted, amongst the nebulae, stars, planets, asteroids and above all sheer scale of where it is.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 01:52:07 pm

Quote from: Gook on July 15, 2004, 01:50:16 pm

Supplies well in game you can steal supplies from AI ships (spare parts), if you have finite drones well you have to be careful with them.

yes, but people get Free reloads of some drones and to some degree, free fighters.  These supplies do not appear magicly (except for Photon casings . . .)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 15, 2004, 02:27:48 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 01:52:07 pm

Quote from: Gook on July 15, 2004, 01:50:16 pm

Supplies well in game you can steal supplies from AI ships (spare parts), if you have finite drones well you have to be careful with them.

yes, but people get Free reloads of some drones and to some degree, free fighters.  These supplies do not appear magicly (except for Photon casings . . .)

Well photon casing are taken as a Given they're Fed ;)

But seriously you only use them up because there is so much AI and DVs which are the currency, lets face it anybody who has sunk more than one vessels is a hero in History, if you sank a thousand in three wekks jeez, you would be God. The supplies arguement is a none starter when even the longest mission and applying special relativity lasts about the same length of time there is between commercial breaks on TV.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 02:51:04 pm

Quote from: Gook on July 15, 2004, 02:27:48 pm

The supplies arguement is a none starter . . .

Only because it shoots your arguement to hell  :rofl:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 03:22:01 pm

Quote from: Gook on July 15, 2004, 01:50:16 pm

Toten
As for taking a planet with one ship or whatever it depends what is in the Hex, if there are no ships, bases, or  planets then its easy. Think of the DV value as a unit of combat currency, we can't represent all the minutae of the hexes defences so its represented by a value. Think 19th century Gunboat diplomacy, an armoured cruiser steams into Cassablanca harbour, the city defenceless against the beast does as its told, same with Shanghai, HongKong and a dozen other places, when it move off things may revert. 200 spaniards and 15 horses versus the mighty Inca Nation who would have given odds on the Spaniards. Consider a single shuttle and 21st century earth, it has shields and a phaser , puny by 23rd century standards, but enough to take out earth in its current state of development. Now consider a warp driven Man o War entering a system or series of systems, unlees there is something comparable it is GOD.
What might be considered conceptually difficult to deal with is the sheer number of AI we blow up every campaign, literally Hundreds of ships per player, but it is accepted as it forms part of the currency of conflict and way of representing difficulties encountered in the game.
So I have no difficulty in conceptulising a starship vanishing into the vastness of space (albeit 2 dimensional in this game) and not being spotted, amongst the nebulae, stars, planets, asteroids and above all sheer scale of where it is.

I do on the other hand - ex the Star Trek 6 - Doos vogg a nu REN - who are u over? - klingon listening post to the "covert" enterprise trying to get to rhura pente.  A single fed CA gets nailed as it crosses the border.  So now explain months of deepstriking with a FF to subdue an entire planet???? for example

Wishful thinking on...
Our map should really have been not a hex map but a string map.  What I mean is earth should have been a point on the map.  to get there you had to move from point to point along a string.  each point in the string is a potential combat point.  combat only occurs at the foci points.  empty space is well empty.  no one stops there. no one fights there.

ever notice on ST SW B5 or just about anyother SF show that all ship figting occurs around some geographical location in space, a planet, a star, a nebula etc.  is this for back drop effect or is it that the defenders actually want to defend something tangable and the attackers attack some thing tangleble.

wishful thinking off...

IMHO DSing only makes sense for the above reasons I mentioned, but NOT hex flipping, LOS is needed to flip a hex.  Everything else just plainly doesnt make sense for several reasons...
1) the compliment of a CA cannot garrison a planet
2) the whole point of taking a planet is to secure it, not bomb it back to the stone age
3) empty hexes can be conceptualized to contain critical shippling lines for convoys Econ dependent (it was one point I suggested for IDSL to promote tunneling LOSs)
4) blowing up a base station is a single shot missions and as such it is a defeatable target, hence i support destroyable bases that can be DS killed, BUT now try to garrison/patrol the hex for your empire surrounded by enemy forces who are out for revenge
5) poorly manned races become the carcass to pick over by a strong deep strike force ( I know this one as I did it myself way back when )
6) A basic but lost premise in the game is that the point in taking hexes is to get the econ value for your empire.  Clearing a shipping lane is far different than securing a shipping lane.  Since you bring up other gun boat diplomacy ever hear of the USS panay?  Or understand the difference between the U-Boat war vs the USN Pacific Sub war.  The atlantic had convoys, the pacific did not.  The atlantic was secured, the pacific was not.  Brittish supplies got thru, Japanese supplies went to the bottom.  To me this is DSing at its best, in both oceans subs sank ships, but in one ocean the hex was flipped with LOS on both sides, the other it was not.  The flipped hex was the atlantic between the EMPIREs with the DSer being unable to secure the hex.
7) DSing should allow you to "disrupt" the econ and defence of a hex to render it almost or completely useless to the enemy, cf operation tannerbaum in ww2, but the enemy should be able to regain this control with use of forces.  To be able to convert the hex to friendly control deep inside enemy defence lines is IMHO frankly stupid.
8) Embassys - Much to our chagrin LB5 does not allow for this right now.  What I mean is that normally each race has at least one hex inside each others domain for supply.  If a base is on this embassy hex it can be deep striked to death, causing severe travel and agony to the losing race.  Which in game terms results in long treks for supplies.  Being able to take this hex doenst make sense also.
9) Free reloads between missions is another beef for me.  Some races cannot do DSing without a handy resupply point.  Other races can operate indefinitely on DSing.  This primarily to me has to do with how much one shot firepower is on the hull vs the AI u draft.  In this line nothing beats a heavily armed droner with heavy missiles, Nothing.  Be it the klink E4D/F5D/D5D/D6D etc, mirak SDF/DF/CD/MDC etc, fed NCD/CAD etc., the stand off fire power vs BPV kileed is retarded and the mission times are equally insane.  At least with fighter/pf ships u eventually lose them in attrition and have to withdraw.  Not so with missile boats.
10) Ok maybe no retreat maybe excessive but maybe a far longer disengagement penalty is in order, say 50 turns.  Think of it as you have to make sure the coast is clear before you begin DSing again as your engines canna take da stain of high warp without some overhauling for extended periods.

In the end, IMHO, you should NOT be allowed to DS a hex to your side.
You should be allowed to DS it to neutrality but no more.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 03:25:16 pm

  Toten for President!!!!! 

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 03:29:32 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 03:25:16 pm

  Toten for CHANCELLOR thats what the hairless monkey meant

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 15, 2004, 03:36:54 pm

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 03:22:01 pm

7) DSing should allow you to "disrupt" the econ and defence of a hex to render it almost or completely useless to the enemy, cf operation tannerbaum in ww2, but the enemy should be able to regain this control with use of forces.  To be able to convert the hex to friendly control deep inside enemy defence lines is IMHO frankly stupid.

Sounds like an arguement to make the hexes next to a planet worth a lot of econ, but make the planets themselvs worth nothing.  Then let deep-strikers flip empty (high-econ) hexes, but not fligt planet (low-econ) hexes.  You could use deep-strikers to wreck an enemies economy, but you wouldn't be able to suddenly start up a shipyard right next to his capital.

I've pondered this approach before, and may still try it.

F&E allowed this to an extent.  You could devastate a planet without staying to cpature it.  You didn't gain the consttruction and resupply facilities on the planet, but you did cost the enemy a lot of economy until he invested resources (missions in home space) to rebuild his infrastructure.

This would also allow the Lyrans (who I think STINK at planet assaults) have a strategic role on the map without actually having to conquer a planet hex.

SFB history is replete with dee-strike examples.  But most of them were of the devastate variety rather than the conquest variety.

-S'Cipio the deep-strike fan

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 03:41:29 pm

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 03:29:32 pm

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 03:25:16 pm

  Toten for CHANCELLOR thats what the hairless monkey meant

Hariless?   Are you going to force me to post a picture of my back?

Great idea Scippy, I like it a lot.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 03:49:51 pm

That is why I have been a purponent of shipping lanes.

Planets are low econ and low dv.

Lines of sight between planets and other geographical features such as asteroid hexes / black holes / nebulas are slightly higher in econ but not dv than the planets would be.

eg the planet x and planet y are together worth 200 econ, however the 10 hexes on line of sight between them are worth 400 econ, the remaining 100 hexes around the general area of these two planets are only worth 500 econ

sooo we would have...

each planet about 100 econ
each shippling lane hex about 40 econ
all other hexes are only 5 econ each

soooo it becomes important to keep the shippling lanes clear of wolfpack deepstrikers

it equally becomes important to take specific "routes" thru all the empty space Gook alludes to to build up ur empire,

so the neutral planet W may be 10 hexes distant and depending on the route you advance on you could get either say 10 x 40 econ + 100 for planet for 500 econ OR
say 10 x 5 econ + 100 for planet for 150 econ

Maximization of new econ can in itself become a VC condition that would make deep striking a valid and worth while endevour, both on the new LOS "trade route" as well as the internal to the empire "trade route".

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 15, 2004, 04:23:05 pm

Quote from:

And if people can't manage to get the DLs working for the current set of campaigns, then they must be certified idiots and should not be permitted to own a computer.  I mean, this isn't rocket science. It's a GUI-based operating system.  Server DLs now include installers that do it all for you, and before these installers, all I ever had to do to play on a download-required server was to swap out the shiplists and fighterlists.  How hard is that?  Copy and paste.  Go back to the home, grandpa.  It's apple sauce time.

 :rofl:  Hear, hear!

As I've suggested in the past, perhaps a thourough and clearly posted tutorial on the use of the windows explorer and winzip would help here. Lots of people like to play games but don't havve the first clue about file management.

Quote from:

I can think of several reasons why multi-ship fleets would be problematic.

First, with the disengagement rule, it FORCES you to fly them. Not everyone likes to.

Second, it increases lag and decreases connection reliability. More bad loads and bugged missions? No freaking thanks.

Third, it benefits different races unequally, as fleet control works much better for some races than others.

Just say NOES to multi ship fleets!

Re: the disengagement rule,a fleet gives you half a chance against a nutter... in fact it nearly eliminates the nutter factor altogether.

It does not increase lag and connection relaibility in my experience, (possibly if the host or any of the player PC are underpowered it may produce lag, but not connection issues). (I have played many games with theree to four players each with three ships no trouble at all...)

It does not benefit different races differently (ie Hydrans ;)) just don't let the AI control a carrier...

Also, I think I need to clarify for some: when I say SFB style CnC I mean SFB style CnC:
if you want a D5L then you must have two D5s, if you want a carrier you must have an escort... if you want an escort you must have a DN or a carrier, and of course no triple BB or bombardment ship fleets - that is totally illegal according to SFB CnC.

I say SFB style because exact SFB CnC is not possible with SFC's three ship limitation, I think that according to strict SFB CnC no DNs or BBs would be allowed in such small fleets.

It is called "StarFLEET Command" based on "Star FLEET Battles" - the name does not come from the Federation "Starfleet Command" but rather "Star FLEET Battles"... again I emphasise the word FLEET.
FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET, dangnabbit!

I would love to see SFC handle 9 ship fleets instead of just 3, would be closer to SFB...

I'll fly hydran on any server that allows fleets to prove it...

edit: not to mention that fleets will minimise the hex-munching factor...

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 15, 2004, 04:30:32 pm

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 03:22:01 pm

Quote from: Gook on July 15, 2004, 01:50:16 pm

Toten
As for taking a planet with one ship or whatever it depends what is in the Hex, if there are no ships, bases, or  planets then its easy. Think of the DV value as a unit of combat currency, we can't represent all the minutae of the hexes defences so its represented by a value. Think 19th century Gunboat diplomacy, an armoured cruiser steams into Cassablanca harbour, the city defenceless against the beast does as its told, same with Shanghai, HongKong and a dozen other places, when it move off things may revert. 200 spaniards and 15 horses versus the mighty Inca Nation who would have given odds on the Spaniards. Consider a single shuttle and 21st century earth, it has shields and a phaser , puny by 23rd century standards, but enough to take out earth in its current state of development. Now consider a warp driven Man o War entering a system or series of systems, unlees there is something comparable it is GOD.
What might be considered conceptually difficult to deal with is the sheer number of AI we blow up every campaign, literally Hundreds of ships per player, but it is accepted as it forms part of the currency of conflict and way of representing difficulties encountered in the game.
So I have no difficulty in conceptulising a starship vanishing into the vastness of space (albeit 2 dimensional in this game) and not being spotted, amongst the nebulae, stars, planets, asteroids and above all sheer scale of where it is.

I do on the other hand - ex the Star Trek 6 - Doos vogg a nu REN - who are u over? - klingon listening post to the "covert" enterprise trying to get to rhura pente.  A single fed CA gets nailed as it crosses the border.  So now explain months of deepstriking with a FF to subdue an entire planet???? for example



Wishful thinking on...
Our map should really have been not a hex map but a string map.  What I mean is earth should have been a point on the map.  to get there you had to move from point to point along a string.  each point in the string is a potential combat point.  combat only occurs at the foci points.  empty space is well empty.  no one stops there. no one fights there.

ever notice on ST SW B5 or just about anyother SF show that all ship figting occurs around some geographical location in space, a planet, a star, a nebula etc.  is this for back drop effect or is it that the defenders actually want to defend something tangable and the attackers attack some thing tangleble.

wishful thinking off...

IMHO DSing only makes sense for the above reasons I mentioned, but NOT hex flipping, LOS is needed to flip a hex.  Everything else just plainly doesnt make sense for several reasons...
1) the compliment of a CA cannot garrison a planet
2) the whole point of taking a planet is to secure it, not bomb it back to the stone age
3) empty hexes can be conceptualized to contain critical shippling lines for convoys Econ dependent (it was one point I suggested for IDSL to promote tunneling LOSs)
4) blowing up a base station is a single shot missions and as such it is a defeatable target, hence i support destroyable bases that can be DS killed, BUT now try to garrison/patrol the hex for your empire surrounded by enemy forces who are out for revenge
5) poorly manned races become the carcass to pick over by a strong deep strike force ( I know this one as I did it myself way back when )
6) A basic but lost premise in the game is that the point in taking hexes is to get the econ value for your empire.  Clearing a shipping lane is far different than securing a shipping lane.  Since you bring up other gun boat diplomacy ever hear of the USS panay?  Or understand the difference between the U-Boat war vs the USN Pacific Sub war.  The atlantic had convoys, the pacific did not.  The atlantic was secured, the pacific was not.  Brittish supplies got thru, Japanese supplies went to the bottom.  To me this is DSing at its best, in both oceans subs sank ships, but in one ocean the hex was flipped with LOS on both sides, the other it was not.  The flipped hex was the atlantic between the EMPIREs with the DSer being unable to secure the hex.
7) DSing should allow you to "disrupt" the econ and defence of a hex to render it almost or completely useless to the enemy, cf operation tannerbaum in ww2, but the enemy should be able to regain this control with use of forces.  To be able to convert the hex to friendly control deep inside enemy defence lines is IMHO frankly stupid.
8) Embassys - Much to our chagrin LB5 does not allow for this right now.  What I mean is that normally each race has at least one hex inside each others domain for supply.  If a base is on this embassy hex it can be deep striked to death, causing severe travel and agony to the losing race.  Which in game terms results in long treks for supplies.  Being able to take this hex doenst make sense also.
9) Free reloads between missions is another beef for me.  Some races cannot do DSing without a handy resupply point.  Other races can operate indefinitely on DSing.  This primarily to me has to do with how much one shot firepower is on the hull vs the AI u draft.  In this line nothing beats a heavily armed droner with heavy missiles, Nothing.  Be it the klink E4D/F5D/D5D/D6D etc, mirak SDF/DF/CD/MDC etc, fed NCD/CAD etc., the stand off fire power vs BPV kileed is retarded and the mission times are equally insane.  At least with fighter/pf ships u eventually lose them in attrition and have to withdraw.  Not so with missile boats.
10) Ok maybe no retreat maybe excessive but maybe a far longer disengagement penalty is in order, say 50 turns.  Think of it as you have to make sure the coast is clear before you begin DSing again as your engines canna take da stain of high warp without some overhauling for extended periods.

In the end, IMHO, you should NOT be allowed to DS a hex to your side.
You should be allowed to DS it to neutrality but no more.

That was done for the scenario, a small ship with half a dozen marines could take out the listening post, most of the SFB scenarios made no sense, they were just vehicles.

1. see examples given, you don't need to garrison, the threat of desrtuction is enough to compel compliance

2. see one above

3. not sure what you do with the rest of space and even a shippling lane isn't wall to wall escorts

4. Again you don't need to the threat of reprisal is enough

5. I don't think we have enough peeps for anything other than 2 sides any more, unless the board is huge and its very long term

6. not until 1943 and the Japs used their subs all wrong too, US did the job properly, but even in the Atlantic ships were still lost until the end, as for DS what about the Royal Oak and scapa Flow? I am familair with WW2 ;)

7. Exactly my point if they use forces they should be able to regain control if they don't then no.

8. Not sure what you mean by this, embassies are evacuated on the out break of war. (Beligerant ones)

9. see my comments on number of ships killed and supplies. Your WW2 sub carried say 18 torps, it didn't need more as if each one was a kill that was a fantastic return ratio, we kill thousand of ships per server.

10. the problem is simulating the raider being run down by the fast warship, I have no problem with either solution just not both.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 15, 2004, 04:39:34 pm

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 15, 2004, 03:49:51 pm

That is why I have been a purponent of shipping lanes.

Planets are low econ and low dv.

Lines of sight between planets and other geographical features such as asteroid hexes / black holes / nebulas are slightly higher in econ but not dv than the planets would be.

eg the planet x and planet y are together worth 200 econ, however the 10 hexes on line of sight between them are worth 400 econ, the remaining 100 hexes around the general area of these two planets are only worth 500 econ

sooo we would have...

each planet about 100 econ
each shippling lane hex about 40 econ
all other hexes are only 5 econ each

soooo it becomes important to keep the shippling lanes clear of wolfpack deepstrikers

it equally becomes important to take specific "routes" thru all the empty space Gook alludes to to build up ur empire,

so the neutral planet W may be 10 hexes distant and depending on the route you advance on you could get either say 10 x 40 econ + 100 for planet for 500 econ OR
say 10 x 5 econ + 100 for planet for 150 econ

Maximization of new econ can in itself become a VC condition that would make deep striking a valid and worth while endevour, both on the new LOS "trade route" as well as the internal to the empire "trade route".

Now we are cooking.

More like this. I like this.

 :goodpost: :ufo: :ufo: :ufo: :goodpost:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 15, 2004, 04:44:09 pm

Sorry, but what is DSing?

nm, figured it out... DSing = Deep Striking.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: 762_XC on July 15, 2004, 04:48:39 pm

You just reminded me of 2 more reasons Bonk!

4th, the AI SUCKS and tends to get your extra ships killed and supplies wasted, costing you billions and billions of pp to maintain your crappy fleet, no matter how good you are at fleet control (you mentioned Hydran fleets, which are REALLY good at this, even though I wasn't even thinking of Hydrans with my first post).

5th, the fleet control panel BREAKS and DOES NOT WORK about 20-30% of the time, meaning whatever formation you choose to set for your little sucky-AI controlled fleet will be ignored, making your expensive little fleet borderline WORTHLESS.

fl33tz0rs = teh NOES!!!!!!111!!!!!1!!!1!!

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 15, 2004, 05:02:18 pm

Quote from: 762_XC on July 15, 2004, 04:48:39 pm

You just reminded me of 2 more reasons Bonk!

4th, the AI SUCKS and tends to get your extra ships killed and supplies wasted, costing you billions and billions of pp to maintain your crappy fleet, no matter how good you are at fleet control (you mentioned Hydran fleets, which are REALLY good at this, even though I wasn't even thinking of Hydrans with my first post).

5th, the fleet control panel BREAKS and DOES NOT WORK about 20-30% of the time, meaning whatever formation you choose to set for your little sucky-AI controlled fleet will be ignored, making your expensive little fleet borderline WORTHLESS.

fl33tz0rs = teh NOES!!!!!!111!!!!!1!!!1!!

Good points, to address them:

#4 - lower prices, simple.

#5 - can't argue that the fleet formation control only works occasionally, the rest of it does.

I just like the massive carnage and simliarity to SFB, I'm getting bored flying single ships, much more can happen in a battle with fleets - I'll leave it at that. When I play direct tcp/ip games I almost always fly fleets against opponents who enjoy it too, I can always get my fleet fix there. I enjoy creating a good fleet and seeing what my opponent comes up with, much like the ship customisation in SFC3...

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: 762_XC on July 15, 2004, 05:37:00 pm

Every time you reply I think of more reasons.  ;D

#6) Fleets make the campaign more defensive oriented. Unlike single ships fleets cannot effectively operate far from supply.

I just gave myself an idea. Allow fleets on a server with sparse planets (like every 30 hexes or more) and destructable bases. See how many planets change hands on THAT server.

Also, if you lose one of your ships in PvP then the disengagment penalty applies.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 15, 2004, 05:56:04 pm

Interesting idea, just create a server that does not favour fleets but allow them. I'm game for such a compromise. (I'd want to fly Gorn though... ;) I have some NASTY legal gorn fleets...) What you propose sounds like a fun challenge. One would have to be creative to mount a sucessful attack (which of course would include using easily sustainable single ships or careful use of optimum fleets for offensives far from home without supply... I like the sound of it, I must be sick... lol).

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 06:46:42 pm

OK, I'll make fleet suggestions here that I have made before.

1. Require people to fly in fleets, i.e. large class size ships cannot be flown without a human escort.

2. Give fleet control of allied ships to the players via the mission scripts.  EEK missions with fleet control are effectively ready-made free fleets.

And BTW, Gook, despite space being empty, the premise of the game, the hex map, and the DVs is that that space can be defended and is defended ipso de facto.  Whatever listening posts, scanning technologies, or other defense infrastructures need to exist for one to ever have any missions.  I mean, if the enemy weren't detectable, how could you run into them in the vastness of space to be in firing range?  Did you just stumble upon them? Oh, hello, in the midst of hundreds of parsecs, "strangers in the night, exchanging glances, doo bee, doo bee, doo".

Anyway, this is of course alot of conjecture and storytelling.  We've had LOS for awhile and deepstrike rules for awhile and I don't sense any ill-effects due to their presense.  At worst, it telegraphs your intentions, but that would happen as soon as the first hex flipped.  At best, it keeps people from using stratgies that would seem silly in the context of hexes actually having defense values.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 06:55:31 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 15, 2004, 05:56:04 pm

Interesting idea, just create a server that does not favour fleets but allow them. I'm game for such a compromise. (I'd want to fly Gorn though... ;) I have some NASTY legal gorn fleets...) What you propose sounds like a fun challenge. One would have to be creative to mount a sucessful attack (which of course would include using easily sustainable single ships or careful use of optimum fleets for offensives far from home without supply... I like the sound of it, I must be sick... lol).

I like this to.   Allow fleets but optomize the setupo for single ships . . .

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Corbomite on July 15, 2004, 07:30:19 pm

I didn't have time to read all of this so forgive me if this has been offered already.

Couldn't we allow a limited number of "fleet" players just by adding the option and a few slots to the FM's? Allow FM's to have the choice of flying one large restricted ship or a fleet of smaller ships (defined to everyone's satisfaction), add a couple slots to the number of "base" FM's and define/restrict the number of each type (single large or smaller multiple) that can be fielded to make sure no race can go too top heavy one way or the other.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 15, 2004, 07:53:45 pm

Quote from: Corbomite on July 15, 2004, 07:30:19 pm

I didn't have time to read all of this so forgive me if this has been offered already.

Couldn't we allow a limited number of "fleet" players just by adding the option and a few slots to the FM's? Allow FM's to have the choice of flying one large restricted ship or a fleet of smaller ships (defined to everyone's satisfaction), add a couple slots to the number of "base" FM's and define/restrict the number of each type (single large or smaller multiple) that can be fielded to make sure no race can go too top heavy one way or the other.

That is a frigging great idea. Allow a couple FF/DD squadrons, maybe a CL/CA squadron per side. Transferable FM assignment.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 07:58:15 pm

Quote from: Kroma on July 15, 2004, 07:53:45 pm

Quote from: Corbomite on July 15, 2004, 07:30:19 pm

I didn't have time to read all of this so forgive me if this has been offered already.

Couldn't we allow a limited number of "fleet" players just by adding the option and a few slots to the FM's? Allow FM's to have the choice of flying one large restricted ship or a fleet of smaller ships (defined to everyone's satisfaction), add a couple slots to the number of "base" FM's and define/restrict the number of each type (single large or smaller multiple) that can be fielded to make sure no race can go too top heavy one way or the other.

That is a frigging great idea. Allow a couple FF/DD squadrons, maybe a CL/CA squadron per side. Transferable FM assignment.

Is this going more in the "elitist" direction that was are trying to avoid?

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 09:46:00 pm

Heh ... I haven't sat in a captain's chair in two years and I can still make people wet the bed.   ;D

Frankly I don't know what's changed about the D2.  Seems not a lot has changed.  You've got the same problem, just in different wrapping.  The game mechanics are fuxxored so you have to draft a nice thick rule to address the shortcomings of the game mechanics.  Like any law, such a rule is drafted by committee and anything drafted by committee is by definition cumbersome and byzantine.

I've gotten spoiled by the other games I play now.  D2 rules were set up to deal with real or preceived deficiencies in the game mechanics.  The games I play now lack bugs and have a company that actively patches them so the rules are more "conduct" based (i.e. you must Role Play on this server or no swearing etc).  In my humble opinion, what hurt the Dynaverse is it was free, so there was no incentive for Taldren to get the game into a playable form.

I see some old schoolers out there.  They will tell you that nothing got the Dynaverse buzzing like when The Black Mist crew showed up.  And it wasn't all "droning" or "deepstriking".  Lafin and I and Capt. Jeff and I fought some damn tight PvP battles.  I can remember one with Laflin where he came and tracked me down while I was messing around in the backfield there and we slugged it out for 30 minutes or more.

Yeah, if you got beat by me or Squiggy or other Black Mist guys, more than likely we'd tractor your ship and tow you off the map.  It was just our style.  And you could count on us to Self Destruct our ships if some game bug saved them from destruction and we got beat.  Same for guys like Laflin and Jeff.

PvP came with the deep strike raid.  When one hex went red in an ocean of green hexes, believe me everyone knew who it was and they call came running as fast as they could to get a piece of me and my Troopers.  Believe it or not, we had a code of honor.  We fought our way in and we fought our way out.  If you watched the overview map, you could see us taking missions and lowering the DVs of hexes as we went in.  If we got drafted, we fought.  Sometimes we won and got away, sometimes we came home on our shields, but we never rolled over even if it meant taking our lowly G2Cs up against a DNH.

That was the POINT of a deep strike raid.  It made the enemy move to where you wanted them to be instead of where they wanted to be.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is called "strategy".

Yeah that's right.  I flew the G2C on deepstrike raids.  If you don't think that takes a little skill, try it out sometime.  And I flew CLs and CVAs or whatever else tickled my fancy.  Versitility was the hallmark of all my Troopers no matter what race they played.

Back in CW6 some of the most intense PvP you could ever want happened around a planet that Toten nicknamed "The Alamo".  The whole server tottered back and forth for weeks in that area.

CW6 is where Moggy coined the phrase "Gorn Cheese Fleet" and went around with a flotilla of PFs that would darken the skies.  No one cried over it.  And he was strictly a hunter killer unit.  He would go about hunting down enemy players and blowing them up.  No one had to force PvP.  It happened in the normal course of campaigning.

Heh ... and who could forget the LAN games we had during server crashes.  If you think my Black Mist boys couldn't go head to head, you obviously never played them in one of those.

And in case you forgot, I was the guy that flew all the races and posted his findings about each ship and race he flew.

I left because of the shiplist crap.  That was a world class cluster f##k.

Point being that I'm proud that when I logged in and everyone saw my name on the list of active captains, their ears perked up.  They might not have liked what I did, but me and my boys made everyone sit up and pay attention and that made it exciting for everyone.  While I was stealing your planets and bases, it might have sucked, but when it was over, if you fended us off or not, you had to look back and say, "those were some good times."  It gave the game a lot of color and if nothing else, people turned up to stand in line for a chance to get a bite out of me and my guys.  You knew we were out there, you just didn't know where, but you knew we'd turn up eventually and you'd have to deal with us.

If me and my guys made those memories for folks by being merely "hex chewers" then so be it.  What's missing isn't more or less rules.  What's missing is style and flair.

But that's just this old space pirate's opinion and I never expect everyone to agree with me.  I could be wrong after all.  I'm just here to have fun.  Hope you enjoy the ride too.

 ;)

Captain Sockfoot
Commanding the IKV Wendol
Klingon Imperial Navy, Deep Space Fleet
The 69th Space Cavalry, The Black Mist
Order of the Wendigo

Night is falling and the Mist is settling on the field, so be warned.  Sleep with one eye open, young ones, for I am the Thief of Lyra and I and my troopers stalk the eternal night of space.  We're coming soon to a homeworld near you.   ;)

P.S. Squiggy sucks.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: likkerpig on July 15, 2004, 09:50:48 pm

Shocky!
*burp*
 :drink:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 09:54:02 pm

<sniff>

Piggy did you forget to wipe your feet before you came inside again?   ;D

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: likkerpig on July 15, 2004, 09:58:39 pm

Quote from: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 09:54:02 pm

<sniff>

Piggy did you forget to wipe your feet before you came inside again?   ;D

Nah, just haven't changed my underwear since CW6.
You just visiting Socky or you gonna try it out for a bit?

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 10:11:05 pm

Just visiting.  Killing time until Blizzard releases World of Warcraft, whenever the hell that will be.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 15, 2004, 10:16:22 pm

Far out!

Quote from: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 09:46:00 pm

I left because of the shiplist crap.  That was a world class cluster f##k.

Care to elaborate? Which shiplist? What were the issues? Inquiring minds want to know!

Quote from: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 09:46:00 pm

P.S. Squiggy sucks.

 :rofl:

From SFC to Warcraft!???!?!?!?! <shakes head... who can click the fastest and has the highest resolution...>

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 10:38:58 pm

Bonk,

It was the first serious attempt to modify the shiplist after CW6.  Trouble was that we tried to accomodate everyone and have everyone design their own race's ships.  It was like giving the kids the keys to the toy store and it rapidly degenerated into name calling and quitting.  That's when guys like Squggy and I decided the game was over for us and we went out looking for other stuff.

Bunch of the Troopers and I made the jump to MMORPGs and other "head to heads" after SFCII.  Funny thing is, we used the same strategies there to kill hordes of players that we used in SFCII ... hit where you're least expected, move, hit again where you're least expected, circle, killl the rezzers, rinse and repeat.  Everyone hated it there too when we were doing it, but it gave a lot of people their best in game memories when they look back after its over.   ;)

You are right though.  The MMORPGs are set up to favor sets of abilities and cookie cutter toons.  And a Boffo 'puter helps in any game.

World of Warcraft is actually looking good in Beta.  Got an Adventure Follies bro in the Beta.  He can't say much but we can hear him drooling.

Games like CnC give me the "head to head" fix now.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 10:41:19 pm

Time for my nap.  I'm feeling old all of a sudden :)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Max Power on July 15, 2004, 10:54:23 pm

Quote from: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 09:46:00 pm

Back in CW6 some of the most intense PvP you could ever want happened around a planet that Toten nicknamed "The Alamo".  The whole server tottered back and forth for weeks in that area.

Personally, I prefer the point when we occupied vulcan. But that's just me :)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 11:27:51 pm

Please fill in some standard response to one tooting his own horn in response to Sookfoot.  I'm too lazy to articulate my nausea.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Squiggy on July 15, 2004, 11:29:56 pm

Sockfoot is a noob who radars4tehwin!!!!!!one1!!!!!11!

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 11:38:52 pm

Quote from: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 11:27:51 pm

Please fill in some standard response to one tooting his own horn in response to Sookfoot.  I'm too lazy to articulate my nausea.

 :rofl:

Lepton, please do not ever change.  You always crack me up.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: likkerpig on July 15, 2004, 11:51:22 pm

Oy, first Socky, now Squiggy. Who next? Brezgonne? Dagger? Gow?
How's the land of little chairs Squiggy?

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Laflin on July 16, 2004, 12:07:37 am

Quote from: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 12:24:14 am

Quote from: Laflin on July 14, 2004, 08:13:53 pm

Mogster, I agree that change was needed, but I think that in the process a lot of the fun went out of the game and the constant bickering over what seemed to us <non-SFB fanatics> as inconsequential details soured many on the entire D2 experience.  Lepton, I guess that you could set up a nice sterile server where each move is countered by another move, much like an exciting game of ...zzzz... chess, but your server is going to have a mighty small population unless some elements of F U N are involved, and I don't see that happening at any time in the future.  You speak of ai and balance, but how many times in a GSA environment have you taken a CL up against a BB and actually pushed it, hoping against hope to somehow gain some kind of advantage against a superior ship?  That WAS one of the virtues of D2 play, IMO, but nowadays pvp seems to be a faint shadow of what it was on the earlier servers.  I'll stick with this game until the end, but believe me, something has been lost in the process.  :-X

Three points:

1.  I have no idea what you are talking about here.  I would never set up a server nor do I have any idea where you think I have characterized some kind of server setup or that you are even describing something coherent here.

2.  Again, there is absolutely nothing to prevent one on a D2 server from running headlong in a CL into a ship that outclasses you but it most likely won't be a BB on any recent server, so I have no idea what exactly what you are trying to say here.

3.  Finally, if something has been lost since those early servers and if you have an opinion on what it is, you haven't expressed it here in any coherent manner.  I'm not sure you even know what you mean, except that you used to like things better back then for some reason (I chalk it up to nostalgia and the newness of the game at that time), and now it doesn't seem as good as it was (I chalk that up to boredom with something that is so familiar you could play it in your sleep).

Lepton, it has become clear to me that you have your own agenda from reading your past posts and that you have no hesitation in being a prick to further it.  I can see that you enjoy being a boor, but then again so do I, occasionally.  I look forward to butting heads with you, but even more than that, I look forward to wiping the map with your butt when I get back.  Thanks for the incentive, you have helped to break up the monotony of my day.  Make sure you practice - you have about an 8 month window to get yourself ready.  You have helped me to realize what I was missing from the old days - a knucklehead to focus all of my attention on.   ;D

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Laflin on July 16, 2004, 12:11:55 am

Speaking of knuckleheads, How ya doing, Squig and Sock?  Good to see you old farts.  Sorry I ddidn't reply earlier but I was distracted.  Fond memories of pvp wit you two, but I don't know if we could do it today, cause the BPVs don't match... ;)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Mog on July 16, 2004, 02:09:19 am

"CW6 is where Moggy coined the phrase "Gorn Cheese Fleet" and went around with a flotilla of PFs that would darken the skies.  No one cried over it.  And he was strictly a hunter killer unit.  He would go about hunting down enemy players and blowing them up.  No one had to force PvP.  It happened in the normal course of campaigning."

Socky, your memory has gone. I played Klingon for a while on CW6 before heading off to work on SG2 server (when I did try to return I discovered my account with 100k prestige was dead), and wouldn't be seen dead in any cheese fleet, lol. Perhaps you meant Iaidoka?

Edit:

Hmm, thinking about it more, I spent much of my time on that server flying a G2C, running mission after mission after mission shoring up defences. Had 3 pvp games in the 2 weeks or so I spent on there. Pretty sure that was the server where I finally decided I hated doing ai missions and went much more into pvp mode.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 16, 2004, 03:37:15 am

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, wonder where Squig and Sock came from ;)

Good Hi-jack Sock, please continue posting, they think I talk a lot, some of them have obviously not seen you in action :)

 :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 16, 2004, 03:49:36 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 07:58:15 pm

Quote from: Kroma on July 15, 2004, 07:53:45 pm

Quote from: Corbomite on July 15, 2004, 07:30:19 pm

I didn't have time to read all of this so forgive me if this has been offered already.

Couldn't we allow a limited number of "fleet" players just by adding the option and a few slots to the FM's? Allow FM's to have the choice of flying one large restricted ship or a fleet of smaller ships (defined to everyone's satisfaction), add a couple slots to the number of "base" FM's and define/restrict the number of each type (single large or smaller multiple) that can be fielded to make sure no race can go too top heavy one way or the other.

That is a frigging great idea. Allow a couple FF/DD squadrons, maybe a CL/CA squadron per side. Transferable FM assignment.

Is this going more in the "elitist" direction that was are trying to avoid?

Exactly DH we are trying or at least some of us are to avoid more regulation or server tweaking to one camp or another. Does anyone genuinely think that everybody will suddenly start flying fleets? I certainly don't, very few actually did it in the past compared to the number of single pilots, I only do it when I know extended PvP will happen and even then not always , depends on the tactical situation. It is easier for some than others to run fleets, but then the game isn't equal in all departments, and as I have said, if you get a fleet person 1v1 which you can't defeat, leave get a pal come back and cream the SOB.

Personally I think the fleet thing is way overblown and will prove top be a storm in a teacup as I can't see many, if any doing it, but the option of being able to do so is what counts. 3 ship fleets are inefficient at hex flipping compared to singles, they tend to sit around growling at people from one or two hexes until 2 players show up and blow them to bits. If they are destroyed, getting another fleet together and equiping and running it is very expensive.

Lets not try and pile rules on where they are probably not needed. Lets try and avoid tweaking ship lists and missions to try and accomodate personal foibles.If the fleets become a real problem they can be looked at again.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: KAT Chuut-Ritt on July 16, 2004, 05:55:42 am

Socky, Squiggy, hmmmmm

Gook did you forget to lock the door of the old folkes home after you escaped?

J/K

Great to see you guys, hope all is well. 

Best wishes Chuut

P.S.  Hope to see you on the Dyna again sometime, preferably as allies.

Final Note:   Squiggy there is a young upstart named Maverick who claims to be the ultimate T-bomb God, please teach him what it means to challange the master.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kor on July 16, 2004, 06:07:26 am

Hey all ... Thought I'd pop my head in here since it seems to be 'Old Folks' week. ;)

Anyway, I'm not going to say I'm for this or for that - I don't play anymore, so I really don't have a say.

I left the game because two of my good friends left (Sock and Squig), my loyal friend and wingmate left (Gow), and my leader and mentor had to scale back his time in-game (Dogmatix).  Not that there weren't still plenty of good folks in the game, but these guys were part of our solid group and without them .. I could definitely feel the hole left behind.  Add to that, our numbers were on the decline.  Not to mention the whole fubar'd shiplist project...

Anyway, Squiggy and Sock found a game they liked that allowed for not just 30, 60, or even 100 people to play together ... this game allowed for 1000's to interact with each other in some form or another.  I tried it out and liked it instantly.  The best part was that I was back playing with two of my 'brothers,' and that wily ol' Kat, Gook, was there, too.

Going back to the dwindled player base with its new list of rules and this download/that download .. it was just too hard to do.  Don't get me wrong, I loved SFC.  Recalling the capture of Lyra in CW5, the Rainbow Trail to Earth in CW3 .. the defense of the ISC/Gorn border in CW6 (and yes, the Hydran taking of Vulcan in the same campaign .. loved seeing that), facing Dogmatix in my F-BCF in CW2 .. I miss those days big time.

I don't know what point I was trying to make, or if I even had one.  I guess I just thought I'd share my story and say 'Hi' to the old gang. :)


PS.  Hey Laffy, you need a wingman for that? ;)


Kor
Former Klingon Chancellor
Proud wearer of a black Stetson with red trim

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: C-Los on July 16, 2004, 06:33:00 am

Quote from: Squiggy on July 15, 2004, 11:29:56 pm

Sockfoot is a noob who radars4tehwin!!!!!!one1!!!!!11!

Squiggy....You "whipper-snapper"     ;D

You better be taking good care of my CVA.... :P

Good to see ya Bud !!


ROFL


How bout we set up an old time server like before and you all come back to play it.... ;)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Capt Jeff on July 16, 2004, 06:41:56 am

Hey Socky, Squiggy, Kor.....  Nice to see you guys.

And Sockfoot, there are still troopers out there wreaking havoc where their enemies (or even their allies on Teamspeak) least expect them.    ;D

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 16, 2004, 06:56:26 am

Quote from: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 11:27:51 pm

Please fill in some standard response to one tooting his own horn in response to Sookfoot.  I'm too lazy to articulate my nausea.

Whatever, obtuse negativity for its own sake impresses no one.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Max Power on July 16, 2004, 07:30:22 am

Quote from: likkerpig on July 15, 2004, 11:51:22 pm

Oy, first Socky, now Squiggy. Who next? Brezgonne? Dagger? Gow?
How's the land of little chairs Squiggy?

We can do without Dagger thank you. Must have been a uprising at the school, hehe...

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 16, 2004, 07:30:31 am

Quote from: Kor on July 16, 2004, 06:07:26 am

Hey all ... Thought I'd pop my head in here since it seems to be 'Old Folks' week. ;)

Anyway, I'm not going to say I'm for this or for that - I don't play anymore, so I really don't have a say.

I left the game because two of my good friends left (Sock and Squig), my loyal friend and wingmate left (Gow), and my leader and mentor had to scale back his time in-game (Dogmatix).  Not that there weren't still plenty of good folks in the game, but these guys were part of our solid group and without them .. I could definitely feel the hole left behind.  Add to that, our numbers were on the decline.  Not to mention the whole fubar'd shiplist project...

Anyway, Squiggy and Sock found a game they liked that allowed for not just 30, 60, or even 100 people to play together ... this game allowed for 1000's to interact with each other in some form or another.  I tried it out and liked it instantly.  The best part was that I was back playing with two of my 'brothers,' and that wily ol' Kat, Gook, was there, too.

Going back to the dwindled player base with its new list of rules and this download/that download .. it was just too hard to do.  Don't get me wrong, I loved SFC.  Recalling the capture of Lyra in CW5, the Rainbow Trail to Earth in CW3 .. the defense of the ISC/Gorn border in CW6 (and yes, the Hydran taking of Vulcan in the same campaign .. loved seeing that), facing Dogmatix in my F-BCF in CW2 .. I miss those days big time.

I don't know what point I was trying to make, or if I even had one.  I guess I just thought I'd share my story and say 'Hi' to the old gang. :)


PS.  Hey Laffy, you need a wingman for that? ;)


Kor
Former Klingon Chancellor
Proud wearer of a black Stetson with red trim

Kor, Chancellor, my Leige Lord, I will fly with you when ever and wherever you command. Your Humble warrior awaits your bidding.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 16, 2004, 07:34:11 am

Quote from: Bonk on July 16, 2004, 06:56:26 am

Quote from: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 11:27:51 pm

Please fill in some standard response to one tooting his own horn in response to Sookfoot.  I'm too lazy to articulate my nausea.

Whatever, obtuse negativity for its own sake impresses no one.

But it can be damn amusing when you're stuck in an office for 8 hours.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 16, 2004, 08:06:23 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 07:58:15 pm

Quote from: Kroma on July 15, 2004, 07:53:45 pm

Quote from: Corbomite on July 15, 2004, 07:30:19 pm

I didn't have time to read all of this so forgive me if this has been offered already.

Couldn't we allow a limited number of "fleet" players just by adding the option and a few slots to the FM's? Allow FM's to have the choice of flying one large restricted ship or a fleet of smaller ships (defined to everyone's satisfaction), add a couple slots to the number of "base" FM's and define/restrict the number of each type (single large or smaller multiple) that can be fielded to make sure no race can go too top heavy one way or the other.

That is a frigging great idea. Allow a couple FF/DD squadrons, maybe a CL/CA squadron per side. Transferable FM assignment.

Is this going more in the "elitist" direction that was are trying to avoid?

Not if handled correctly. If the FM spots for OOB ships and Fleets is freely transferable without any VC effects then there is nothing preventing the spots from being offerred at some point to every pilot that wants one.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 16, 2004, 08:31:32 am

Quote from: Kroma on July 16, 2004, 08:06:23 am

. . . is freely transferable without any VC effects . . .

By this do you mean remove PvP VCs?  Just clarrifying.   My opinion on this issue is undecided.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 16, 2004, 09:42:03 am

Sockfoot posts!

Wow, my interest in this game just doubled, even though he's not playing.

Squiggy posts!

Squigalishous!  Wow, my interest in this game just quadrupled, even though he's not playing.

Kor posts!

Wow!  my interest in this game just...... umm.....ummm..... <looks at fingers>  Hey!  I can't count that high!  <starts pulling off boots....>

-S'Cipio

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Laflin on July 16, 2004, 10:04:30 am

Quote from: Kor on July 16, 2004, 06:07:26 am

Hey all ... Thought I'd pop my head in here since it seems to be 'Old Folks' week. ;)

Anyway, I'm not going to say I'm for this or for that - I don't play anymore, so I really don't have a say.

I left the game because two of my good friends left (Sock and Squig), my loyal friend and wingmate left (Gow), and my leader and mentor had to scale back his time in-game (Dogmatix).  Not that there weren't still plenty of good folks in the game, but these guys were part of our solid group and without them .. I could definitely feel the hole left behind.  Add to that, our numbers were on the decline.  Not to mention the whole fubar'd shiplist project...

Anyway, Squiggy and Sock found a game they liked that allowed for not just 30, 60, or even 100 people to play together ... this game allowed for 1000's to interact with each other in some form or another.  I tried it out and liked it instantly.  The best part was that I was back playing with two of my 'brothers,' and that wily ol' Kat, Gook, was there, too.

Going back to the dwindled player base with its new list of rules and this download/that download .. it was just too hard to do.  Don't get me wrong, I loved SFC.  Recalling the capture of Lyra in CW5, the Rainbow Trail to Earth in CW3 .. the defense of the ISC/Gorn border in CW6 (and yes, the Hydran taking of Vulcan in the same campaign .. loved seeing that), facing Dogmatix in my F-BCF in CW2 .. I miss those days big time.

I don't know what point I was trying to make, or if I even had one.  I guess I just thought I'd share my story and say 'Hi' to the old gang. :)


PS.  Hey Laffy, you need a wingman for that? ;)



Kor
Former Klingon Chancellor
Proud wearer of a black Stetson with red trim

I would be honored, sir.  :)  I sincerely hope that all has been and is going well for you.  Now all we have to see is a post from that old grouch Gow to really scare the hell out of me  :P

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Kroma BaSyl on July 16, 2004, 10:47:56 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 16, 2004, 08:31:32 am

Quote from: Kroma on July 16, 2004, 08:06:23 am

. . . is freely transferable without any VC effects . . .

By this do you mean remove PvP VCs?  Just clarrifying.   My opinion on this issue is undecided.

Yes potentially, maybe a small VC for any PvP kill (1 or 2 points) but nothing special for BCH/DNs or Fleets. That way RMs won't feel restricted to assigning them to lessor skilled pilots, since the VC risk to the team is no different than if they were flying vannilla.

Althoug personally I think allowing anyone to fly a 2 ship fleet if one of the ships is CA or larger and the other vannilla plus allowing PBR restricted CL and smaller 3 ship fleets is cool too.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: KAT J'inn on July 16, 2004, 11:12:43 am

API - Washington - 7/16/2004    -    In an odd story, it is reported from the New York area that several ?residents? of the Schlotnick Home for Delusional Elderly Dynageezers have recently escaped.   A bed count performed yesterday revealed that several of the plastic wrapped cots were empty. 

Further reports of a recent spat of robberies only seems to confirm the report as several drug stores have reported the theft of large quantities of Ensure and Metamucil.

The New York area public is warned to be on the lookout for several elderly men with a glazed look in their eyes mumbling anything about ?drones.?   If you run into any of these sad people please call the police right away.   They are to be considered dangerous and extremely incontinent.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 16, 2004, 11:16:12 am

Quote from: J'inn on July 16, 2004, 11:12:43 am

API - Washington - 7/16/2004    -    In an odd story, it is reported from the New York area that several ?residents? of the Schlotnick Home for Delusional Elderly Dynageezers have recently escaped.   A bed count performed yesterday revealed that several of the plastic wrapped cots were empty. 

Further reports of a recent spat of robberies only seems to confirm the report as several drug stores have reported the theft of large quantities of Ensure and Metamucil.

The New York area public is warned to be on the lookout for several elderly men with a glazed look in their eyes mumbling anything about ?drones.?   If you run into any of these sad people please call the police right away.   They are to be considered dangerous and extremely incontinent.

 :woot: :woot: :woot: :dance: :dance: :ufo: :ufo: :ufo: :ufo: :woot: :woot: :woot:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 16, 2004, 11:22:30 am

Quote from: Sockfoot on July 15, 2004, 10:38:58 pm

It was the first serious attempt to modify the shiplist after CW6.  Trouble was that we tried to accomodate everyone and have everyone design their own race's ships.  It was like giving the kids the keys to the toy store and it rapidly degenerated into name calling and quitting.  That's when guys like Squggy and I decided the game was over for us and we went out looking for other stuff.

Indeed, very sad. Bad idea to open it to everyone, inevitable the crap you describe will happen - especially back then. Design by committee is destined to fail.

We have some good lists on the go now handled mostly by individuals (FireSoul, Capt Jeff, DieHard, myself...). These shiplists produced by unbiased individuals have worked out quite well. Check FireSoul's OP+ corrections threads for the leading example. No muss, minimal fuss.

Things have changed, we're all a bit older, as J'inn has so humourosly posted above.    :lol:

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: TotensBurntCorpse on July 16, 2004, 12:10:04 pm

Gook

Quote

That was done for the scenario, a small ship with half a dozen marines could take out the listening post, most of the SFB scenarios made no sense, they were just vehicles.
1. see examples given, you don't need to garrison, the threat of desrtuction is enough to compel compliance
2. see one above
3. not sure what you do with the rest of space and even a shippling lane isn't wall to wall escorts
4. Again you don't need to the threat of reprisal is enough
5. I don't think we have enough peeps for anything other than 2 sides any more, unless the board is huge and its very long term
6. not until 1943 and the Japs used their subs all wrong too, US did the job properly, but even in the Atlantic ships were still lost until the end, as for DS what about the Royal Oak and scapa Flow? I am familair with WW2 ;)
7. Exactly my point if they use forces they should be able to regain control if they don't then no.
8. Not sure what you mean by this, embassies are evacuated on the out break of war. (Beligerant ones)
9. see my comments on number of ships killed and supplies. Your WW2 sub carried say 18 torps, it didn't need more as if each one was a kill that was a fantastic return ratio, we kill thousand of ships per server.
10. the problem is simulating the raider being run down by the fast warship, I have no problem with either solution just not both.

Quote

1) You run on the assumption that the host race wont send a relief flottilla to drive away the gun boat diplomacy ship.  One ship can blockade a planet, but the blockade would eventually be relieved by the owning race.
2) see above
3) The low DV hexes off the shipping lanes would become the open battle ground that is easy to take and easy to retake.  Shipping lanes by the nature of higher DV and higher Econ would by default mean that they are garrisoned more heavily, why else would you have to do more missions to flip one.
4) Threat of reprisal also has a time limit on it.  As I will only allow you to hold a gun to my head for so long before SWAT shows up and puts a bullet in your head.  Reprisal can get a short term demand done, Long term you only allow the people you are extorting to retaliate.  cf your gun boat diplomacy analogy, didnt japan subsequently declare war to remove the extortion, isnt china now a belligerent.
5) sorry what i meant here is that.... in mirak space there should be a hydran embassy hex with a base in it or low econ planet so the hydrans can be supplied from a same side race.  didnt mean a 3 or 4+ way fight.  just embassys
6) did the germans get any economic benefit from the atlantic war NO they did not.  Did they INTERDICT the allies econ of course they did.  Did they ever have control of the atlantic no they did not.  did the allies end up with control of the atlantic yes they did.  hence i would call the german effort interdiction and thus deep striking.

As to the comment about Scapa Flow then you agree with me that one shot distruction of TARGETS is good but flipping the hex is not.... as i dont think Gunther Prein had any intention of trying to actually CAPTURE scapa flow, other great examples of interdiction assissination type missions are... Pearl Harbour, Taranto, Dieppe, Killing Admiral Yamamoto, Ploesti Oil Field Raids, Dam Busters in the RHurr, Miriannas Turkey Shoot, Midway  and most dramatically Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Actual long term gains required ground pounding GIs with lots of LOS !!!!!!!!!!

Japanese subs were used well for their doctrine.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed at the time.  We still use some elements of this doctrine today for modern sub operations, Look up the standard contingent for a US Battle Carrier Group.  You will find that 2 - 4 Hunter Killer subs are part of the screening fleet.  The Japanese had the right idea Just the wrong sub technologies and era.  Remember that the Yorktown was actually lost at Midway ultimately due to I-168 boat blowing out her bottoms.  If the japanese had the subs the germans were working on late in the war then midway could have become a japanese slaughter.  The slower diesel boats couldnt effectivly attack fleets only convoys, but IJN doctrine didnt focus on these targets.  Also the US supply couldnt be severely interdicted this way.  As it is hard to torpedo land gasoline lines in texas.  The peroxide subs the germans were working on late in the war could have been devastating to the allies.

7) Ever hear of resistance fighting.  Also IMHO I think it is idiotic and game wise dangerous to allow flipping of home space hexes without LOS.  Again this would be from the carcass picking analogy.  Right now on LB5 I am one of two lyrans.  IF the coalition tried to DS lyran space we would not be able to stop them at all, where is the fun in that?

8) Embassies were to be single hexes of another friendly empire within your home space.  That could be used for resupply for that race.

9) D2/3 IMHO is intended to be a strategic game that is driven by tactical combat.  Resupply is a tool to force reasonable strategic advances.  Tactically I could deepstrike your homeworld from you, but strategically it makes no sense.  Imagine market garden but done only on berlin.  It would be a slaughter once the defenders mobilize.

10)  For DSing I would really propose a long disengagement penalty from that hex, to simulate increased patrols to disway the DSer.  If not then I envision poorly represented races being picked clean by DSers in short order.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Lepton on July 16, 2004, 12:15:09 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 16, 2004, 06:56:26 am

Quote from: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 11:27:51 pm

Please fill in some standard response to one tooting his own horn in response to Sookfoot.  I'm too lazy to articulate my nausea.

Whatever, obtuse negativity for its own sake impresses no one.

Oh, Bonk, don't rag on me.  You're one of my favorite people here.  If you are personally offended, that is your issue, but I have no truck with petty tyrants.  I play this game for fun, not the exercise of other's delusions of grandeur.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 16, 2004, 01:30:44 pm

Quote from: Lepton on July 16, 2004, 12:15:09 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 16, 2004, 06:56:26 am

Quote from: Lepton on July 15, 2004, 11:27:51 pm

Please fill in some standard response to one tooting his own horn in response to Sookfoot.  I'm too lazy to articulate my nausea.

Whatever, obtuse negativity for its own sake impresses no one.

Oh, Bonk, don't rag on me.  You're one of my favorite people here.  If you are personally offended, that is your issue, but I have no truck with petty tyrants.  I play this game for fun, not the exercise of other's delusions of grandeur.

Cool, sorry if I ragged on ya, I woke up cranky today. I  usually appreciate your candor, much like Cleaven's.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Gook on July 16, 2004, 01:56:55 pm

Quote from: TotensBurntCorpse on July 16, 2004, 12:10:04 pm

Gook

Quote

1) You run on the assumption that the host race wont send a relief flottilla to drive away the gun boat diplomacy ship.  One ship can blockade a planet, but the blockade would eventually be relieved by the owning race.
2) see above
3) The low DV hexes off the shipping lanes would become the open battle ground that is easy to take and easy to retake.  Shipping lanes by the nature of higher DV and higher Econ would by default mean that they are garrisoned more heavily, why else would you have to do more missions to flip one.
4) Threat of reprisal also has a time limit on it.  As I will only allow you to hold a gun to my head for so long before SWAT shows up and puts a bullet in your head.  Reprisal can get a short term demand done, Long term you only allow the people you are extorting to retaliate.  cf your gun boat diplomacy analogy, didnt japan subsequently declare war to remove the extortion, isnt china now a belligerent.
5) sorry what i meant here is that.... in mirak space there should be a hydran embassy hex with a base in it or low econ planet so the hydrans can be supplied from a same side race.  didnt mean a 3 or 4+ way fight.  just embassys
6) did the germans get any economic benefit from the atlantic war NO they did not.  Did they INTERDICT the allies econ of course they did.  Did they ever have control of the atlantic no they did not.  did the allies end up with control of the atlantic yes they did.  hence i would call the german effort interdiction and thus deep striking.

As to the comment about Scapa Flow then you agree with me that one shot distruction of TARGETS is good but flipping the hex is not.... as i dont think Gunther Prein had any intention of trying to actually CAPTURE scapa flow, other great examples of interdiction assissination type missions are... Pearl Harbour, Taranto, Dieppe, Killing Admiral Yamamoto, Ploesti Oil Field Raids, Dam Busters in the RHurr, Miriannas Turkey Shoot, Midway  and most dramatically Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Actual long term gains required ground pounding GIs with lots of LOS !!!!!!!!!!

Japanese subs were used well for their doctrine.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed at the time.  We still use some elements of this doctrine today for modern sub operations, Look up the standard contingent for a US Battle Carrier Group.  You will find that 2 - 4 Hunter Killer subs are part of the screening fleet.  The Japanese had the right idea Just the wrong sub technologies and era.  Remember that the Yorktown was actually lost at Midway ultimately due to I-168 boat blowing out her bottoms.  If the japanese had the subs the germans were working on late in the war then midway could have become a japanese slaughter.  The slower diesel boats couldnt effectivly attack fleets only convoys, but IJN doctrine didnt focus on these targets.  Also the US supply couldnt be severely interdicted this way.  As it is hard to torpedo land gasoline lines in texas.  The peroxide subs the germans were working on late in the war could have been devastating to the allies.

7) Ever hear of resistance fighting.  Also IMHO I think it is idiotic and game wise dangerous to allow flipping of home space hexes without LOS.  Again this would be from the carcass picking analogy.  Right now on LB5 I am one of two lyrans.  IF the coalition tried to DS lyran space we would not be able to stop them at all, where is the fun in that?

8) Embassies were to be single hexes of another friendly empire within your home space.  That could be used for resupply for that race.

9) D2/3 IMHO is intended to be a strategic game that is driven by tactical combat.  Resupply is a tool to force reasonable strategic advances.  Tactically I could deepstrike your homeworld from you, but strategically it makes no sense.  Imagine market garden but done only on berlin.  It would be a slaughter once the defenders mobilize.

10)  For DSing I would really propose a long disengagement penalty from that hex, to simulate increased patrols to disway the DSer.  If not then I envision poorly represented races being picked clean by DSers in short order.

1. No that's exactly the presumption I work on, UNTIL the defenders show up the Gunboat will have control

2. See above

3. Even with a convoy system there is by it's nature a mobile envelope of defence not a static one, forces are concentrated around the convoy not dissiapted in empty ocean

4. See 1.

5. I see yep  agree, whether it would have base status may be more open to discussion but certainly CnC capability

6. Exactly, the game can't show the difference so the game Currency of DVs comes into play. Gunther was prolly not a good example for holding ground, but a deep strike into the most heavily defended base on the planet at the time AND sinking a Battleship AND getting away it was fine. Pretty good effective DS.

More than happy to discuss WW2 sub strategy, but I'll leave it here.

7. Funnily enough resitance is not the norm a brief scan of History from Egypt onwards shows few examples of resistance, the most usual reaction was when the ruling sect was removed the masses carried on under new leaders, their lot did not change. History of colonisation of the planet favours the aggresive colonisers until they wax oand wane in power. 30,000 Macedonians destroyed the Acheamenid Persian Empire of Darius, they didn't even cisit most of it and certainly only left garrsions in very major supply areas, but the Persians were gone until the Parthians overthrew the Selucids and Ptolemies 2 centuries later, who were in turn replaced by the Sassaniad's etc etc etc. 

9. Arhnem was tried because they they thought it was a "soft" area, intel failed to point out 2 SS panzer Divisions refitting prior to departure to the East. No you Don't DS Berlin, unless Berlin is Undefended. My point in this whole thing, is if the enemy leave the gate open with no defences or fail to react to attacks on the capital then they deserve to lose it, the ground is undefended and open.

10. I can live with that, I said eithe,r or, not both.


DV is the only currency of conflict which we can measure and being denied access to large parts of it I think is plain wrong.

Toten you and have both DS'd in the past we both know 15 hexes behind the lines its tricky, especially in a drone boat, low reloads means you have 4 shots nad if you have no back weapons its even more tricky doingit and avoiding to much damage is not as easy as is made out. Taking a planet on your own is just not feasible, other boats can do it but take longer, the amount of time the defenders have to react is immense. I can't really see a problem being allowed to flip on a DS, or drop a base, or do we have to have a Solomon Islands discussion :)

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Dagger on July 16, 2004, 06:31:29 pm

Hi everybody!  ;D

I see the old timers are back.  Since Kor, Sockfoot and Squiggy are going to be playing, I've decided to start up again.

See you soon!

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Bonk on July 16, 2004, 07:16:36 pm

/me blinks

/me blinks again...

 8) Welcome back!

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Max Power on July 16, 2004, 07:27:59 pm

[http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163343216.30.html

For old history week....

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: Dagger on July 16, 2004, 10:22:39 pm

If you don't want me here, fine.  I'll quit.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 19, 2004, 04:07:14 pm

Quote from: Capt Jeff on July 15, 2004, 06:58:03 am

Quote from: Scipio_66 on July 14, 2004, 12:37:09 pm

So, as long as we are waxing nostalgaic about the differences between the olde days and the now days, which "improvements", specifically, do you think are actually detriments?

For my next campaign, some of the old-school stuff actually makes sense.  I might (or might not) want to take some of your thoughts on board.

-S'Cipio the Herr Burt

1.  Secret VC's.   Make some secret !!  Keep the enemies guessing as to what you want.  SS2 had both static and secret VC's.   If possible, set them up so that the sides will have to cross paths to get their points, thus creating PvP zones.  Makes both sides happy as hex munchers can continue towards goal, while PvP'ers can protect your goals.

2.  LOS.   ELIMINATE LOS RULES !!!  The only rule regarding LOS should be that you can't place a base unless there is LOS.  Why someone shouldn't be able to deepstrike and take a enemy planet is beyond me.

3.  Deepstriking.   Should be allowed.  I could see a "fight to the death" rule if deepstriker is in enemy space.

4.  OOB.   I like the LB5 set up soooo much!  No admin hassles trying to get a FM a ship or anything !   I'd say 1 BB/DNH, 1 DN, and 3 BCH per race, or LESS at any given time.  Make them affordable so almost anyone could fly one by server end so it's not elitest.

5.  Fleets.  Admins decision.  I myself can do with fleets allowed or not allowed.

6.  Disengagement rule should stay.   Probably the single truely needed rule to help the slower, less munching races.  Though, I'd like to see less punishment of those who fight to the death....maybe 10 turns if run off, and 2 if killed?

7.   Downloads.   Small as possible, and a installer for the computer impaired...

8.  DV shifts.   Make neutral (outer reaches) very low DV so there will be a honest tug of war.

Probably more, but I got one burnin and I need some munchies...

This will not take us back to the old days, but I think it is more of a compromise to keep some of the good that has come along, while letting players explore different aspects of warfare then just the trench style we've been playing in lately...

Thanks for the honest feedback, Jeff.

As it happens, with piracy warfare being a different animal than total warfare, Eco War may very well have you covered on the above points.  The only thing I hadn't really covered was secret VC's and they are easy to convert.  Which means many people won't like Eco War, of course, but you might.

But more on that as launch date gets closer.

-S'Cipio

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix_XC on July 22, 2004, 12:50:11 pm

Quote from: 762_XC on July 14, 2004, 03:50:04 pm

You weren't around then LeRoy. Gook's vision of D2 is exactly what I remember from 2 years ago, and it sucked compared to what we have today. Just MHO.

D2, in my eyes, has matured like a fine wine. Disengagement rule, FM rules, and single ship rules have rescued it from chaos.

To each his own.

BTW Jeff and Gook, the playerbase is smaller now because the game is 4 years old, not because dyna sucks with more rules.  :skeptic:

Exactly.


Few have been bigger SFC die-hards than I an even I am starting to get tired of the game itself (nothing to do with how it's played...just that it's played at all).  Sure...RL keeps me away from the game more and more, these days...but I sure feel the sting of missing out on what's going on a lot less as time goes by.

I honestly believe I could walk away right now and never come back.  I couldn't have said that at any point in the past up to this point.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix_XC on July 22, 2004, 01:00:59 pm

Quote from: Kor on July 16, 2004, 06:07:26 am

Hey all ... Thought I'd pop my head in here since it seems to be 'Old Folks' week. ;)

Anyway, I'm not going to say I'm for this or for that - I don't play anymore, so I really don't have a say.

I left the game because two of my good friends left (Sock and Squig), my loyal friend and wingmate left (Gow), and my leader and mentor had to scale back his time in-game (Dogmatix).  Not that there weren't still plenty of good folks in the game, but these guys were part of our solid group and without them .. I could definitely feel the hole left behind.  Add to that, our numbers were on the decline.  Not to mention the whole fubar'd shiplist project...

Anyway, Squiggy and Sock found a game they liked that allowed for not just 30, 60, or even 100 people to play together ... this game allowed for 1000's to interact with each other in some form or another.  I tried it out and liked it instantly.  The best part was that I was back playing with two of my 'brothers,' and that wily ol' Kat, Gook, was there, too.

Going back to the dwindled player base with its new list of rules and this download/that download .. it was just too hard to do.  Don't get me wrong, I loved SFC.  Recalling the capture of Lyra in CW5, the Rainbow Trail to Earth in CW3 .. the defense of the ISC/Gorn border in CW6 (and yes, the Hydran taking of Vulcan in the same campaign .. loved seeing that), facing Dogmatix in my F-BCF in CW2 .. I miss those days big time.

I don't know what point I was trying to make, or if I even had one.  I guess I just thought I'd share my story and say 'Hi' to the old gang. :)


PS.  Hey Laffy, you need a wingman for that? ;)


Kor
Former Klingon Chancellor
Proud wearer of a black Stetson with red trim

I'm a bit late in responding.....but it's good to hear from ya again, Kor.  I miss you guys immensely.  I've had a good run and a good time playing this game since the SFC1 pre-release days, but my time in the early days of D2 when we built the Klingon Empire into a significant force and, more importantly, a close-knit brotherhood of players was absolutely the zenith of my experiences in this game.  I've had some very good times since you guys left...and have made lots of really good friends since then but I really miss our time together.


Probably the biggest disappointment I feel about this game when I look back on it was that we weren't able to stay together.

Title: Re: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG
Post by: FVA_C_ Blade_ XC on July 22, 2004, 01:09:50 pm

Quote from: Dagger on July 16, 2004, 10:22:39 pm

If you don't want me here, fine.  I'll quit.

Clean slate here Dagger.

New place to make friends. :drink: