4 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:I'm an American, but I still don't understand why Ohio is a part of the "Midwestern" United States.
Draw a line across the map roughly across the Appalachian Mountains.
Everything West of that (fat) line is the Mid-West, and that definitely includes Ohio.
Pittsburgh, where I live, is at once sorta Mid-West, sorta Appalachia, and sorta-East-Coastish.
Orders in!
A clarification: blockades cancel any naval forces in production. The nature of a disrupted project remains secret.
11 hours ago, LTD said:Orders in!
That was quick.
8 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:That was quick.
That’s what she said...
Oh wait. Never mind.
On 5/19/2019 at 4:59 PM, BiggsIRL said:Current plans:
Monday - drive to Lake Placid
Tuesday - hike Mt Marcy, drive to MA
Wednesday - hike Mt Graylock, drive to CT, hike Bear Mountain. Camp in the backcountry.
Thursday - Hike Mt Frisell. Lunch with family, night with other family.
Friday - drive to NH, get RI highpoint on the way. Night at hotel near base of Mt Washington.
Saturday - hike Mt Washington. Back to CT for night.
Sunday - Drive home, get NJ on the way.
##Vote BiggsIRL
Premeditated Scummarining
Edited by Matt3412On 5/19/2019 at 8:11 PM, LTD said:That's pretty cool.
We also have "New England" and I've hiked in bits of it. Armidale, Tamworth, Gunnedah... lovely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_(New_South_Wales)
I got my Masters at the University of New England (but it was all by distance).
I've been to Olde England, but never the US version.
I knew I recognized that run from somewhere:
On 5/20/2019 at 12:03 AM, The Jabbawookie said:A clarification: blockades cancel any naval forces in production. The nature of a disrupted project remains secret.
What about unenforced blockades by units with "no shoot" orders? Stands to reason that production should be allowed to continue unimpeded
On 5/19/2019 at 5:30 PM, The Jabbawookie said:New mission: Are You Not Entertained?
Emerge victorious in a naval battle involving 3 or more factions (excluding the Malarian Brood.)
Are the rules for a three-way battle the same as @LTD 's rules in the last game?
"In the case of multiple fleets arriving in the same location on the same turn, combat will be resolved with the two largest fleets fighting first, loser retreats. Then the next two largest and so on until only one fleet remains in orbit. The other fleets all retreat.
In the event of equal sized fleets a random event device will be employed. "
Edited by Bertie Wooster
5 hours ago, FortyInRed said:What about unenforced blockades by units with "no shoot" orders? Stands to reason that production should be allowed to continue unimpeded
No production disruption there.
3 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:Are the rules for a three-way battle the same as @LTD 's rules in the last game?
"In the case of multiple fleets arriving in the same location on the same turn, combat will be resolved with the two largest fleets fighting first, loser retreats. Then the next two largest and so on until only one fleet remains in orbit. The other fleets all retreat.
In the event of equal sized fleets a random event device will be employed. "
I’m very glad you asked. Each combatant will be randomly paired up. Any odd fleet out takes damage by rolling against the average size of the other fleets.
This is to de-incentivize fleets sized to game the system (“I could probably take on the largest fleet after it endures two rounds of fighting,”) and prevent phyrric victories or harsher than normal defeats for the largest fleet.
52 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:No production disruption there.
I’m very glad you asked. Each combatant will be randomly paired up. Any odd fleet out takes damage by rolling against the average size of the other fleets.
This is to de-incentivize fleets sized to game the system (“I could probably take on the largest fleet after it endures two rounds of fighting,”) and prevent phyrric victories or harsher than normal defeats for the largest fleet.
OK. So what happens if fleets A, B and C enter a battle, and A and B have no-shoot orders on each other? Would each fleet participate in combat?
48 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:OK. So what happens if fleets A, B and C enter a battle, and A and B have no-shoot orders on each other? Would each fleet participate in combat?
Fleets with hold-fire orders are not paired against each other, and such “allied” fleets are not taken into account when computing an average. So in that example:
Either fleet A or B squares off against C.
The odd fleet out sustains damage by rolling against the average, which is in this case just C.
Whichever two fleets sustained the most casualties must withdraw.
The main ramification is that an alliance is likely to take more overall casualties when fighting together.
This can be circumvented by lending ships beforehand, if you trust them enough.
Owing to a few current scenarios, as well as some projected scenarios, I'm curious if people want a rework to the alliance system.
Proposed changes:
Multiple allied fleets may stay in the same location without forcing a retreat.
Allied fleets are treated as one fleet for the purposes of naval combat and bombardment.
Implementing either or both of these changes is dependent on consensus.
Other thoughts or suggestions are welcome.
Vote for No Change while this game goes on.
Vote for ALLIED FLEETS ARE ONE for future games.
BETTER PLAN for future games:
Allied fleets are one, but suffer a 10% force penalty due to not being under a unified command. 20% if both Rebel / Imperial tech is working together (thus more than just flavor and whether you are spamming Peltas or Quasars.)
20 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:Vote for No Change while this game goes on.
Vote for ALLIED FLEETS ARE ONE for future games.
I agree however I think the 500 combined cap should be in effect,
46 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:Multiple allied fleets may stay in the same location without forcing a retreat.
If no more than 500 points total can remain in one location, I don't see a problem with it.
46 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:Allied fleets are treated as one fleet for the purposes of naval combat and bombardment.
I don't like the sound of it. My opinion is that being in an alliance, and not being in an alliance, should each have its own advantages. I think this rule would tip things too strongly in favor of alliances.
1 minute ago, Bertie Wooster said:If no more than 500 points total can remain in one location, I don't see a problem with it.
I don't like the sound of it. My opinion is that being in an alliance, and not being in an alliance, should each have its own advantages. I think this rule would tip things too strongly in favor of alliances.
Not to worry. As it is a consensus, the modifications will not be made at this point.
@Drasnighta good game friend! Hoping you'll join the next one too
Farewell @Drasnighta , it was great playing with you. That was an unlucky roll. X(
My orders are in. No more automatic orders for me this turn
My orders are in as well.
GG @Drasnighta Thank you for sparing the Droid collective in the south
We waiting on someone or life just not agreeing with plans?
Just curious, no worries.
Just now, idjmv said:We waiting on someone or life just not agreeing with plans?
Just curious, no worries.
I think Ard's out for real life stuff. I'll be taking control of the bugs and will begin processing.