1 hour ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Because   A and B have higher odds of winning the fight together than apart. In return (and as a check on alliances), they'll take more damage than C would dish out  alone

Note: I'm not suggesting that we change the rules mid-game as we already agreed not to do this.

This doesn't sit well with me. I'm ok with a nerf on alliances, but I don't think this is the best approach because the "real life" explanation doesn't seem to make sense to me. A bigger force should have a higher chance of winning on paper. I think there are ways you can accommodate that in game without one side fighting a ghost force.

Personally, I think the suggestion @idjmv laid out makes a lot more sense (sequential combat).

But if you have a stated goal of nerfing alliances, then you may not want this as written.

Either way, can we revisit after the game is over?

One approach I've been mulling about in my head is something like an "overwhelming force" rule. The idea is that only 500 points worth of ships, whether from a single player or an alliance, can participate in a battle on one side at one time. So in the scenario @idjmv laid out above, we would each contribute a proportional amount of forces to a 500 point fleet to battle @Bertie Wooster , even though we have "reserves".

So in a new example (A and B allied against C) let's say force A is 400 points, force B is 200 points, and force C is 500. A and B are allies but can only bring 500 points of shared units.

So A contributes 333 points and B contributes 167. Casualties are the apportioned accordingly (2 damage dealt to A units for every 1 damage dealt to B).

The "fluff" explanation may be that in a universe dominated by line-of-sight weapons, there are only so many ships that can be in firing range without blocking others' fields of fire.

You nerf alliances and also have a simple mechanic to handle the situation, should it arise.

Thoughts (for implementation in a later game)?

2 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

Note: I'm not suggesting that we change the rules mid-game as we already agreed not to do this.

This doesn't sit well with me. I'm ok with a nerf on alliances, but I don't think this is the best approach.

Personally, I think the suggestion @idjmv laid out makes a lot more sense (sequential combat).

But if you have a stated goal of nerfing alliances, then you may not want this as written.

Either way, can we revisit after the game is over?

One approach I've been mulling about in my head is something like an "overwhelming force" rule. The idea is that only 500 points worth of ships, whether from a single player or an alliance, can participate in a battle on one side at one time. So in the scenario @idjmv laid out above, we would each contribute a proportional amount of forces to a 500 point fleet to battle @Bertie Wooster , even though we have "reserves".

So in a new example (A and B allied against C) let's say force A is 400 points, force B is 200 points, and force C is 500. A and B are allies but can only bring 500 points of shared units.

So A contributes 333 points and B contributes 167. Casualties are the apportioned accordingly (2 damage dealt to A units for every 1 damage dealt to B).

The "fluff" explanation may be that in a universe dominated by line-of-sight weapons, there are only so many ships that can be in firing range without blocking others' fields of fire.

You nerf alliances and also have a simple mechanic to handle the situation, should it arise.

Thoughts (for implementation in a later game)?

I agree that I feel like this has a huge negative on alliances, but at the same time, I feel like without it, the whole game would devolve into a "SuperFleet" combat where one half of the players are allied against the other half, in essence creating 2000-3000 point fleets, that get increasingly stronger as the other get increasingly weak. We were starting to get to that point in FTARQ, where it was a split between the South and North, with seemingly no end to the battles.

@The Jabbawookie who are we waiting on still?

15 minutes ago, idjmv said:

@The Jabbawookie who are we waiting on still?

Me to get home. Armada capping off a busy day, but I’ll be done processing late tonight.

I’d like to commend Jabba here - 7 weeks and 17 turns - at this point in a game I’m GMing I’m usually looking for the off-ramp.

Good work sir! We salute you!

Everyone's orders are processed. It's 3AM, so I'll roll the actual dice first thing tomorrow morning.

@FortyInRed and @idjmv , I don't blame you if you're having second thoughts about doing the three way battle. The current rules seem kinda harsh on alliances taking damage, and if you win the battle but take more casualties it's kind of a Pyrrhic victory.

The reason we aren't doing it the way idjmv described anymore, is because the person with the smallest fleet (499) is at the biggest advantage, which doesn't make sense to me or Jabba.

@FortyInRed I think I like the sound of your battle system. I don't think it makes alliances too powerful; there's no danger of 1000 points vs. 500 points (which would almost guarantee a victory for the alliance.) If I understand correctly, if A and B both have 500 point fleets, they haven't actually increased their odds of winning by combining, because of the cap. But (compared to the current system) they're not in as much danger of taking major losses after the battle. Calculating casualties after battle might get more complicated for the GM though.

My other idea for a 2 vs. 1 scenario for a later game (if you want to hear about a 3rd or 4th alternative) is to keep it Jabba's way, but because A and B are in an alliance, the dice are rolled twice. Whichever dice roll benefits the alliance, that's the battle result. The alliance has better odds of winning, possibly could take 0 casualties, but also has more to lose if both rolls go badly (or even average).

For example: A vs. C, B vs. imaginary C. A and B are the attackers. A, B and C all have 500 points each.

A vs. C. First roll is a 7. Second roll is a 3. The 3 is kept. A takes 10% casualties, C takes 75%.

B vs. Imaginary C. First roll is a 6. Second roll is a 12. The 6 is kept. B takes 20% casualties.

A is left with roughly 450 points, B with 400, C with 125. A wins the battle and the other two must retreat.

I'm not sure if this makes alliances too powerful, but in my opinion, when two fleets are fighting one, the allied fleets should have some advantage.

20 hours ago, FortyInRed said:

Note: I'm not suggesting that we change the rules mid-game as we already agreed not to do this.

This doesn't sit well with me. I'm ok with a nerf on alliances, but I don't think this is the best approach because the "real life" explanation doesn't seem to make sense to me. A bigger force should have a higher chance of winning on paper. I think there are ways you can accommodate that in game without one side fighting a ghost force.

Personally, I think the suggestion @idjmv laid out makes a lot more sense (sequential combat).

But if you have a stated goal of nerfing alliances, then you may not want this as written.

Either way, can we revisit after the game is over?

One approach I've been mulling about in my head is something like an "overwhelming force" rule. The idea is that only 500 points worth of ships, whether from a single player or an alliance, can participate in a battle on one side at one time. So in the scenario @idjmv laid out above, we would each contribute a proportional amount of forces to a 500 point fleet to battle @Bertie Wooster , even though we have "reserves".

So in a new example (A and B allied against C) let's say force A is 400 points, force B is 200 points, and force C is 500. A and B are allies but can only bring 500 points of shared units.

So A contributes 333 points and B contributes 167. Casualties are the apportioned accordingly (2 damage dealt to A units for every 1 damage dealt to B).

The "fluff" explanation may be that in a universe dominated by line-of-sight weapons, there are only so many ships that can be in firing range without blocking others' fields of fire.

You nerf alliances and also have a simple mechanic to handle the situation, should it arise.

Thoughts (for implementation in a later game)?

I’d be the first to admit the current system is thematically questionable, and warrants revisiting after the game. Your suggestion could be a good solution.

@The Jabbawookie @idjmv @Bertie Wooster another thought on my "overwhelming force" idea - what if you just treat the allied fleets as two smaller fleets engaging a single, larger fleet?

Dice rolls would be applied as normal, but only a part of the allied fleets are "exposed" to risk.

For example, player A (400) and B (200) attack player C(500).

Player A only may bring 333 pts into battle, player B brings 167.

Note that you don't have to fidget with ship/fighter combinations adding up to those point values yet. We're just talking straight numbers for now.

You then roll dice and assign damage as needed.

So player A could only lose 333 pts worth of units and Player B could only lose 167, at most.

When it's time to assign damage, that's when you multiply the dice output % times how many points each player has exposed, then fidget with casualties that come close to that number.

If for example the dice roll makes them take 20% damage, then they lose 20% of whatever they brought into combat. The rest is untouched.

I hope that makes sense. Lmk if it does not?

Also, all the coordination between allies to avoid tripping over each other is a nerf in itself. I have to telegraph where I'm going for the whole world because private messages are not allowed. So anyone who is paying attention just needs to not go where I said I'm going.

21 hours ago, idjmv said:

I agree that I feel like this has a huge negative on alliances, but at the same time, I feel like without it, the whole game would devolve into a "SuperFleet" combat where one half of the players are allied against the other half, in essence creating 2000-3000 point fleets, that get increasingly stronger as the other get increasingly weak. We were starting to get to that point in FTARQ, where                              it was a split between the South and North, with seemingly  no end to the battles. 

You know I was actually kind of hoping we'd have some massive battle at the end. I didn't see it being a 2000 on 2000 but more of several 500 on 500 point battles simultaneously.

I felt in that game, and feel the same way here, that there has yet to be a single target worthy of throwing that much power against. If your fleets are anything like mine, I never have as many ships available as I really want to I have to make tough decisions on what to defend and what to expose. Because I expect I'm not alone here, I'd rather attack four planets with 500 pt fleets than a single one with 2000. The risk of "guessing wrong" when sending fleets around is just too high here. See last turn where I guessed wrong where Bertie was going and saw my capital get sacked.

My only real regret from F'TARQ was the wording of the alliances. Because of the mutual defense nature, it slowed the whole game down towards the end (and that's my fault). In hindsight, @Matt3412 should have just stayed out of my war with @The Jabbawookie and @The Jabbawookie should have just killed me when he had the chance. @Bertie Wooster could have just swept in and cleaned us all up. Oh wait, that happened anyway haha

Just now, FortyInRed said:

I felt in that game, and feel the same way here, that there has yet to be a single target worthy of throwing that much power against.

Why would you when repeat tag-team gets you what you want?

13 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

Also, all the coordination between allies to avoid tripping over each other is a nerf in itself. I have to telegraph where I'm going for the whole world because private messages are not allowed. So anyone who is paying attention just needs to not go where I said I'm going.

Exactly. That's why I was able to defeat you, Matt and Jabba in the last game. I took Matt by complete surprise because I didn't communicate what I was doing, even to my allies.

I think your system sounds good. I hope it's clear from my above post that I don't think allied combat needs to be super nerfed, but I think there should still be risk involved for both sides.

16 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Why would you when repeat tag-team gets you what you want?

You know from our PM chat that I didn't like how that went down either. I offered you two ceasefires, and I hope I didn't just misinterpret your response, but I gathered that you didn't want peace. I don't recall you asking for help from anyone else either and honestly I just thought you had some secret plan to hit us from behind.

I really do wish you were still in the game, which is why I suggested adding you back in if a player had to leave early.

13 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Exactly. That's why I was able to defeat you, Matt and Jabba in the last game. I took Matt by complete surprise because I didn't communicate what I was doing, even to my allies.

I think your system sounds good. I hope it's clear from my above post that I don't think allied combat needs to be super nerfed, but I think there should still be risk involved for both sides.

Hey, no one could have predicted that I had built that planet up to so ridiculous high in income production

😅 😂 👍

6 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

You know from our PM chat that I didn't like how that went down either. I offered you two ceasefires, and I hope I didn't just misinterpret your response, but I gathered that you didn't want peace. I don't recall you asking for help from anyone else either and honestly I just thought you had some secret plan to hit us from behind.

I really do wish you were still in the game, which is why I suggested adding you back in if a player had to leave early.

I wasn't meaning specificly as such, but Overall... There's really no need to lump forces together when its better to erode and erode... It did appear this game that things were seemingly more all or nothing deadly with rolls compared to the last I watched. So maybe that was the counterpoint, and we didn't just see much of it thusfar.

Don't put everything together, you're likely to lose it all... Piece it out until you get a good roll on your side.

1 minute ago, Matt3412 said:

Hey, no one could have predicted that I had built that planet up to so ridiculous high in income production

😅 😂 👍

Yeah, that was a pleasant surprise for me. I targeted you because of your -2 ground combat advantage...I didn't actually have a huge number of GF.

28 minutes ago, Matt3412 said:

Hey, no one could have predicted that I had built that planet up to so ridiculous high in income production

😅 😂 👍

Out of curiosity, what was your plan here?

It may have just been the way the planets shook out but I always had way more credits than I needed and was always starving for IC. So when I had the chance, I would upgrade IC instead

23 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

Out of curiosity, what was your plan here?

It may have just been the way the planets shook out but I always had way more credits than I needed and was always starving for IC. So when I had the chance, I would upgrade IC instead

The economic VP's from having a high credit production would have put me one space battle VP away from victory.

So I essentially would have claimed it and then launched all my fleets at the closest targets the next turn to just get that last VP

3 hours ago, Matt3412 said:

The economic VP's from having a high credit production would have put me one space battle VP away from victory.

So I essentially would have claimed it and then launched all my fleets at the closest targets the next turn to just get that last VP

Got it, makes sense. Bad luck then I guess!

@LTD and @The Jabbawookie rule clarification on retreating please - do you HAVE TO jump to a friendly world or can you chill in deep space?

I'm envisioning a circumstance in which I assault a world, and am forced to retreat. Can I await reinforcements in deep space?

In my version, yes.

You just have to jump or be destroyed. Destination is not a problem.

21 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

Got it, makes sense. Bad luck then I guess!

@LTD and @The Jabbawookie rule clarification on retreating please - do you HAVE TO jump to a friendly world or can you chill in deep space?

I'm envisioning a circumstance in which I assault a world, and am forced to retreat. Can I await reinforcements in deep space?

You can be adjacent except the location you must retreat from.*

*Within all normal jump constraints.

11 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

You can be anywhere except the location you must retreat from.

Really? Cool. *jumps from X1 to dsM* Man, getting hurt in battle really helps our hyperspace drives!

The 500 point cap doesn't apply if I'm sending something to generic "deep space," correct?

Real life got weird. @Matt3412 - you are almost eliminated, right? Want HK-47 to... uh... take over translating for CP9-J?

To be clear I am offering for you to take over the wookies. You might need to "fix" turn 17, which uh... didn't get processed at all?