I am interested, if people don't mind getting defeated for the third time in a row. ☺️

1. The only allowed out-of-thread communication between teammates is submission of orders and clarification on orders, correct?

2. Let's say the grand admiral notices that his teammate submitted orders and forgot to put in hold-fire orders. It's close to the deadline and he doesn't want to wait for clarification. Can the grand admiral correct his teammate's orders without asking? Or could teammates come to an agreement about this potential issue ahead of time?

I could play either side (I'm actually not that familiar with clone wars, canon or legends). I think I prefer the Republic though.

Edit: I also strongly prefer objectives.

3 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

I am interested, if people don't mind getting defeated for the third time in a row. ☺️

Yes.

3 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

2. Let's say the grand admiral notices that his teammate submitted orders and forgot to put in hold-fire orders. It's close to the deadline and he doesn't want to wait for clarification. Can the grand admiral correct his teammate's orders without asking? Or could teammates come to an agreement about this potential issue ahead of time? 

The way I see it, if the team has agreed beforehand that hold-fire orders should be in place, the GA has the authority to do that unless specifically told not to. Basically, the GA is in charge of collating orders, and filling in the orders of those teammates who are unable. If the team agrees, the GA may modify orders.

3 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

I could play either side (I'm actually not that fami  liar with clone wars, canon or legends). I think I prefer th   e Republic though.

OK. Since you and Jabba both are fine with either, but you have a slight leaning toward Republic, I'll make you Republic and @The Jabbawookie CIS.

3 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Edit: I also strongly prefer objectives.

OK. Objectives it is. What do you think of the current ones?

1 hour ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

OK. Since you and Jabba both are fine with either, but you have a slight leaning toward Republic, I'll make you Republic and @The Jabbawookie CIS  .

Kckckckckck — Excellent . I look forward to liquifying these soft, pink loyalist fools on the fields of battle. Teebee, call up intelligence on mid rim troop movements. We’re going hunting.

7 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

1  . The only allowed out-of-thread communication between teammates is submissio  n of orders and clarification on orders, correct?

What about an initial, private discussion to coordinate overall strategy for each team? Some players might not want two private conversations for the whole game, but it would be nice to have coordinated deployment that still comes as a surprise.

Alternatively, having private faction threads allows the IC thread to focus on pure flavor and turn reports.

36 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

What about an initial, private discussion to coordinate overall strategy for each team? Some players might not want two private conversations for the whole game, but it would be nice to have coordinated deployment that still comes as a surprise.

Alternatively, having private faction threads allows the IC thread to focus on pure flavor and turn reports.

If you guys prefer private team chats, I can set it up in a Google Doc, like the Mafia chats. In which case, as all the team members are discussing strategy in one place, they can post their orders there, and I can collect them. At which point the GA is responsible solely for submitting orders for absentee players, not for the intermediate step of gathering orders and sending them to the GM.

I think this is good - otherwise the GA would have to know everything in order to give orders for an absent member - or worse, a substitute for the GA.

Of course, the problem with having private chat is OVER coordination - it can stop being a team game and become a 1v1 game with team members sitting idle.

It is a pickle.

31 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

If you guys prefer private team chats, I can set it up in a Google Doc, like the Mafia chats. In which case, as all the team members are discussing strategy in one place, they can post their orders there, and I can collect them. At which point the GA is responsible solely for submitting orders for absentee players, not for the intermediate step of gathering orders and sending them to the GM.

I'm in favor of this for sure

24 minutes ago, LTD said:

I think this is good - otherwise the GA would have to know everything in order to give orders for an absent member - or worse, a substitute for the GA.

Of course, the problem with having private chat is OVER coordination - it can stop being a team game and become a 1v1 game with team members sitting idle.

It is a pickle.

We'll see. If people stop contributing and it turns into a 1v1, I'll disable team chat.

Team chat is A-okay with me!

6 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Yes.

The way I see it, if the team has agreed beforehand that hold-fire orders should be in place, the GA has the authority to do that unless specifically told not to. Basically, the GA is in charge of collating orders, and filling in the orders of those teammates who are unable. If the team agrees, the GA may modify orders.

OK. Since you and Jabba both are fine with either, but you have a slight leaning toward Republic, I'll make you Republic and @The Jabbawookie CIS.

OK. Objectives it is. What do you think of the current ones?

Cool. @clontroper5 and I will be teammates again!

I like the objectives, but maybe you could add a squadron-related objective? Otherwise I'm afraid squadron type won't make much of a difference in this game.

For example, Convoy: transport a squadron from Point A to Point B without jumping through hyperspace more than X number of times.

For ease of reference, I named the Objectives.

48 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Cool. @clontroper5 and I will be teammates again!

I like the objectives, but maybe you could add a squadron-related objective? Otherwise I'm afraid squadron type won't make much of a difference in this game.

For example, Convoy: transport a squadron from Point A to Point B without jumping through hyperspace more than X number of times.

I admit that at this point squadrons are basically used to round off a fleet to the nearest 10, but I am not sure what objectives I can create to encourage their use for their own sake. The Convoy one you suggest seems a bit superficial, i.e. only there for the sake of being there. . . I want something 'meaningful', in terms of why it exists. All the current objectives mark significant events, whether strategic in the fiction ( Industrialist ) or for the game ( Better Luck Next Time ). I want something like ' F ighter Ace : if a player's fleet including a V-19 Torrent Squadron defeats a fleet fielding 5 Vulture Droid Squadrons, with the result that all 5 Squadrons are eliminated, that player's team gains 2 Victory Points'. The only problem is, what incentive is there in this case for any CIS player to field 5 Vulture Droids? If I reverse it, faction wise, it's still 1v5, so anybody would just field the one in each of their fleets, and nobody would get the objective. I would have to make a complementary objective (' They're All Over Me! : if a player's fleet including 6 or more Vulture Droid Squadrons defeats an enemy fleet that suffers casualties such that all its Squadrons are eliminated, that player's team gains 2 Victory Points.' And, at this point, I am making objectives purely to enable other objectives to be met. If you don't mind that mutual dependency, I can include both of those examples as objectives.

11 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

For ease of reference, I named the Objectives.

I admit that at this point squadrons are basically used to round off a fleet to the nearest 10, but I am not sure what objectives I can create to encourage their use for their own sake. The Convoy one you suggest seems a bit superficial, i.e. only there for the sake of being there. . . I want something 'meaningful', in terms of why it exists. All the current objectives mark significant events, whether strategic in the fiction ( Industrialist ) or for the game ( Better Luck Next Time ). I want something like ' F ighter Ace : if a player's fleet including a V-19 Torrent Squadron defeats a fleet fielding 5 Vulture Droid Squadrons, with the result that all 5 Squadrons are eliminated, that player's team gains 2 Victory Points'. The only problem is, what incentive is there in this case for any CIS player to field 5 Vulture Droids? If I reverse it, faction wise, it's still 1v5, so anybody would just field the one in each of their fleets, and nobody would get the objective. I would have to make a complementary objective (' They're All Over Me! : if a player's fleet including 6 or more Vulture Droid Squadrons defeats an enemy fleet that suffers casualties such that all its Squadrons are eliminated, that player's team gains 2 Victory Points.' And, at this point, I am making objectives purely to enable other objectives to be met. If you don't mind that mutual dependency, I can include both of those examples as objectives.

This is probably a bit complicated but you could make "hit and run" rules exploiting fighters... Somthing to the effect that when a force attacks it may perform a "hit and run" attack, if it does all bonuses from fleet size are removed however casualties are suffered as normal (30‰of the smaller force etc.) , and the attacker is always forced to retreat (even if they are otherwise victorious)

Only fighters may be counted towards the power of the attackers using "hit and run"

Incase my wording is weird, basaclly the attacking force would send only its fighters to attack the (presumably stronger) defenders and the roll would then be a even roll instead of receiving bonuses from size desparity.

I. E. A fleet with 100 points of fighters attacks a 500 point fleet and they roll so both side take 30‰ causalties and then both lose 30 points of stuff, as opposed to the small fleet being wiped out.

18 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

For ease of reference, I named the Objectives.

I admit that at this point squadrons are basically used to round off a fleet to the nearest 10, but I am not sure what objectives I can create to encourage their use for their own sake. The Convoy one you suggest seems a bit superficial, i.e. only there for the sake of being there. . . I want something 'meaningful', in terms of why it exists. All the current objectives mark significant events, whether strategic in the fiction ( Industrialist ) or for the game ( Better Luck Next Time ). I want something like ' F ighter Ace : if a player's fleet including a V-19 Torrent Squadron defeats a fleet fielding 5 Vulture Droid Squadrons, with the result that all 5 Squadrons are eliminated, that player's team gains 2 Victory Points'. The only problem is, what incentive is there in this case for any CIS player to field 5 Vulture Droids? If I reverse it, faction wise, it's still 1v5, so anybody would just field the one in each of their fleets, and nobody would get the objective. I would have to make a complementary objective (' They're All Over Me! : if a player's fleet including 6 or more Vulture Droid Squadrons defeats an enemy fleet that suffers casualties such that all its Squadrons are eliminated, that player's team gains 2 Victory Points.' And, at this point, I am making objectives purely to enable other objectives to be met. If you don't mind that mutual dependency, I can include both of those examples as objectives.

I don't like either objective, for the reason you mentioned--there's no incentive to take those squadrons then.

3 minutes ago, clontroper5 said:

Incase my wording is weird, basaclly the attacking force would send only its fighters to attack the (presumably stronger) defenders and the roll would then be a even roll instead of receiving bonuses from size desparity.

I. E. A fleet with 100 points of fighters attacks a 500 point fleet and they roll so both side take 30‰ causalties and then both lose 30 points of stuff, as opposed to the small fleet being wiped out.

It's an intriguing idea, but then what's to stop someone from sending in a small ship with a lone Y-Wing against a player's 500 point fortress, and doing it repeatedly?

1 minute ago, Bertie Wooster said:

It's an intriguing idea, but then what's to stop someone from sending in a small ship with a lone Y-Wing against a player's 500 point fortress, and doing it repeatedly?

That lone ywing is only capable of inflicting 10 points of damage on a perfect roll

Causlties would still be capped by the smaller force size. It would just make is so the roll wasnt modified

Just now, clontroper5 said:

Causlties would still be capped by the smaller force size. It would just make is so the roll wasnt modified

Oh I missed that. It's based on the smaller force. I think I like it!

Another alternative to make fighters relevant is give them a separate fleet cap. I. E. A fleet has 400 points cap on ships and 100 cap on fighters

That way you couldn't reach the full 500 power fleet without fighters

9 hours ago, clontroper5 said:

Another alternative to make fighters relevant is give them a separate fleet cap. I. E. A fleet has 400 points cap on ships and 100 cap on fighters

Given the prevalence of fighters in the CW era, this is acceptable. Bertie agrees, what about @LTD and @The Jabbawookie ?

1 minute ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Given the prevalence of fighters in the CW era, this is acceptable. Bertie agrees, what about @LTD and @The Jabbawookie ?

I would be alright with this decision.

Do we need 2 more to start then?

A surprise to be sure...

Perhaps just make the rule 400 points of ships max, and any amount of fighters.

24 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Do we need 2 more to start then?

Optimally. We could do just 4, but 6 is better.