7 hours ago, clontroper5 said:

I act like am twelve sometimes, does that count? (Although I seriously appreciate trying to avoid unnecessary profanity)

As do I.

I have orders from all - but Friday night plans. Sorry. I think we have one battle at Pentok. I might be able to process in a few hours, otherwise there will be an 18 hour delay (blame Forty).

Cheers folks.

On 3/13/2019 at 10:54 PM, BiggsIRL said:

@GhostofNobodyInParticular - @The Jabbawookie :

No hard feelings guys. My actual feelings in this is more; "At last! Some conflict!"

Good luck to both of you. I'm not going to make this easy.

@BiggsIRL I want you to know how conflicted you made me. Under ordinary circumstances I'd be like "2 on 3? Sure. Do or die".

It's only because I'm the guy who made the treaty that I said no. I'd feel like a jerk creating something then breaking it when it suits me. Also considering that I gave @Matt3412 **** for trying to backstab me earlier, I didn't want to be a massive hypocrite. This game I'm being Hank the Hugsy Drunk. Next game I'll be Hank the Angry Drunk.

In hindsight I slowed the game way down for everyone by basically making the whole Southeast corner a "piss us off and die" zone, my bad. Next time I'll try to be less sweeping in my in-game diplomacy.

I'm having a blast and hope you all are too

47 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

@BiggsIRL I want you to know how conflicted you made me. Under ordinary circumstances I'd be like "2 on 3? Sure. Do or die".

It's only because I'm the guy who made the treaty that I said no. I'd feel like a jerk creating something then breaking it when it suits me. Also considering that I gave @Matt3412 **** for trying to backstab me earlier, I didn't want to be a massive hypocrite. This game I'm being Hank the Hugsy Drunk. Next game I'll be Hank the Angry Drunk.

In hindsight I slowed the game way down for everyone by basically making the whole Southeast corner a "piss us off and die" zone, my bad. Next time I'll try to be less sweeping in my in-game diplomacy.

I'm having a blast and hope you all are too

Don't worry. I like fighting. Just happened to be I made a mistake very early on that has now crippled me.

1 hour ago, FortyInRed said:

@BiggsIRL I want you to know how conflicted you made me. Under ordinary circumstances I'd be like "2 on 3? Sure. Do or die".

It's only because I'm the guy who made the treaty that I said no. I'd feel like a jerk creating something then breaking it when it suits me. Also considering that I gave @Matt3412 **** for trying to backstab me earlier, I didn't want to be a massive hypocrite. This game I'm being Hank the Hugsy Drunk. Next game I'll be Hank the Angry Drunk.

In hindsight I slowed the game way down for everyone by basically making the whole Southeast corner a "piss us off and die" zone, my bad. Next time I'll try to be less sweeping in my in-game diplomacy.

I'm having a blast and hope you all are too

I was very much expecting to hand you some new toys and have us renew the fight.

Everyone is too... LEGAL.

41 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

I was very much expecting to hand you some new toys and have us renew the fight.

Everyone is too... LEGAL.

Well stay alive until my treaty expires and perhaps I will

13 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

Well stay alive until my treaty expires and perhaps I will

Speaking of which, we should talk about the Southern alliance we have going. I have independent and ongoing treaties with the Syndicate and the Berserkers, but not with you. Are you interested in a peace agreement or extension of the existing pact?

1 hour ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Speaking of which, we should talk about the Southern alliance we have going. I have independent and ongoing treaties with the Syndicate and the Berserkers, but not with you. Are you interested in a peace agreement or extension of the existing pact?

I see no reason why we should be enemies.

Edit: though I should add that I think our four-way treaty is slowing the game down too much, so I'm not inclined to renew it as written

1 minute ago, FortyInRed said:

I see no reason why we should be enemies.

Which is a good reason to remain allies. I propose the following agreement:

Overcouncil and Consortium forces shall not enter each other’s space without a notification and hold fire order.

Consortium and Overcouncil forces shall issue mutual hold fire orders in systems nearby each of their respective territories or where contact is likely.

Consortium and Overcouncil forces shall not allow a force hostile to the other party access through their territory, nor falsely claim accountability for deep space jumps if asked by their co-signer.

Basically, we don’t facilitate or attempt assaults in each other.

@The Jabbawookie & @FortyInRed - you should probably take this to the IC thread. . .

1 hour ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

@The Jabbawookie & @FortyInRed - you should probably take this to the IC thread. . .

Yep agreed. I'm not trying to circumvent anything.

@The Jabbawookie I'm signing off for the night but will plan to post something about our future partnership in the IC thread tomorrow.

My apologies. I have been travelling over the weekend. I will try to process now.

Please hold.

@LTD For turn 11, I would like to claim the following objective: I have completely destroyed an enemy fleet.

4 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

@LTD For turn 11, I would like to claim the following objective: I have completely destroyed an enemy fleet.

Well, technically... yes.

But does a lone z95 squadron really count as a fleet?

I thought I had stated it explicitly somewhere but I cannot see it - your standing orders to fire or not fire need to be repeated in each set of orders. I’m not going to remember orders given ten turns ago, nor am I going to reread three pages of orders every turn.

At the very least your standing orders should be in your google sheet in an obvious location.

38 minutes ago, LTD said:

Well, technically... yes.

But does a lone z95 squadron really count as a fleet?

If one X-wing can destroy the Death Star, one Z-95 can destroy a battlegroup.

4 minutes ago, LTD said:

I thought I had stated it explicitly somewhere but I cannot see it - your standing orders to fire or not fire need to be repeated in each set of orders. I’m not going to remember orders given ten turns ago, nor am I going to reread three pages of orders every turn.

At the very least your standing orders should be in your google sheet in an obvious location.

Ah, OK. Thanks.

@clontroper5 once again, I am very sorry. I can't provide IC to repair the vessels at the moment, but if you stick around above D for a little I can take P this turn and potentially press on after which you can send the ISD to P where I will can provide IC and credits for its repair.

4 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Question about this @LTD

STANDING ORDERS

A player may set some standing orders for all or some fleets to attack or not attack certain players forces if encountered. A player with a no-shoot order that is attacked will suffer a modifier of 1 to their disadvantage in space combat.

What is meant by "standing orders"? I'm not a military guy, so I consulted Merriam Webster: " an instruction or prescribed procedure in force permanently or until changed or canceled."

Once we set orders not to fire upon a certain player, are they "permanent until changed or canceled", or are they switch-on and switch-off every turn? (I've been typing them in every turn.)

Edit: Ninja'd!

Not a military man either but yes I think you have it correct.

In @LTD 's defense, I don't think it's fair to ask him to remember who is/is not shooting whom.

So with that in mind, perhaps thinking of them as "reoccurring" orders might be most appropriate. I just copy my "Turn X" tab, and rename it "Turn X+1", so my orders for each turn are clear.

Speaking of which, maybe we can share our spreadsheets after the game so we can review different formats to see what works best?

PS - user error is how I accidentally fired upon @BiggsIRL however many terms ago so it's not just you

50 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

Not a military man either but yes I think you have it correct.

In @LTD 's defense, I don't think it's fair to ask him to remember who is/is not shooting whom.

So with that in mind, perhaps thinking of them as "reoccurring" orders might be most appropriate. I just copy my "Turn X" tab, and rename it "Turn X+1", so my orders for each turn are clear.

Speaking of which, maybe we can share our spreadsheets after the game so we can review different formats to see what works best?

PS - user error is how I accidentally fired upon @BiggsIRL however many terms ago so it's not just you

Yea im up for sharing my sheet at the end. I switched some stuff around and made a GF combat reference chart

6 minutes ago, idjmv said:

Yea im up for sharing my sheet at the end. I switched some stuff around and made a GF combat reference chart

Yeah I ended up making one chart for ship statistics, a second for the map (as far as I can tell), and then 11 other sheets, one for each turn so far.

On 3/15/2019 at 4:28 AM, LTD said:

As do I.

I have orders from all - but Friday night plans. Sorry. I think we have one battle at Pentok. I might be able to process in a few hours, otherwise there will be an 18 hour delay (blame Forty).

Cheers folks.

Check your PMs. You missed a move.

Thank you. Please continue.

/random, for anyone wondering why I didn't name our new alliance the Southern Confederacy - while this more accurately describes the political dynamic, as an American Southerner, I can't in good conscience add a name with that historical weight into a game meant for fun. War guilt and all

@LTD rule clarification please.

Let's assume that Player 1 is at war with Player 2, and that Player 1 successfully invades one of Player 2's planets.

If Player 3 enters the conflict and invades Player 2's planet with the intent of liberating it, what happens?

Can Player 3 just say "give this planet back to Player 2", or does Player 2 have to go back and re-invade?

If it matters, this is a non-Capital planet so if let unoccupied, will rebel.

IIRC, Player 2 would have to re-invade, because they need at least 1 GF of their own on the planet, in order to control the planet.

Step 1: Player 1 invades the planet. All GF on the planet are Player 1's.

Step 2: Player 3 invades the planet. All GF on the planet are Player 3's.

Step 3: Player 2 needs to re-invade the planet with their own GF. If Player 3 and Player 2 are cooperating, I think there's a way for Player 3 to "surrender" to Player 2. @clontroper5 and @idjmv did something like this with planet F.

Edit: I don't think it's possible to leave a planet "unoccupied," I believe the rule is you have to have at least 1 GF on a non-Capital planet.