21 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Military forces cannot be loaned or trade hands. They are always in the creating player's control. However, if enough people insist, I may allow ground forces to be transported by allies. That does however require more bookkeeping, in that I will have to keep track of which GF belong to whom. The reason I am not allowing military forces to change hands is that it enables players to simply build and then hand over to their allies, thereby hardly even playing the game.

OH... I did not get this memo...

Waiting on order clarifications from:

@clontroper5

@FortyInRed

@Ling27

@GhostofNobodyInParticular I have sent my clarifications.

28 minutes ago, Ling27 said:

@GhostofNobodyInParticular I have sent my clarifications.

Awaiting a final clarification before Turn 2 can begin.

GNIP - if a planet is captured we will need you to let us know if it DOUBLE BUILT the turn it was captured.

Just as a friendly reminder.

7 hours ago, clontroper5 said:

OH... I did not get this memo...

Yeah team republic is gonna be affected by this

Have you guys been cheating again? Tsk tsk.

SAD.

GNIP - are you letting us transport allied GF? Asking for a friend...

5 hours ago, LTD said:

GNIP - if a planet is captured we will need you to let us know if it DOUBLE BUILT the turn it was captured.

Just as a friendly reminder.

Ah, yes, good point.

2 hours ago, LTD said:

GNIP - are you letting us transport allied GF? Asking for a friend...

No. I want each player to have a balanced involvement in the battles. If transporting allies is allowed, then those with Training Grounds/Droid Factories would just spend their credits to pump out CF/DF, and their fleets would atrophy.

On 8/1/2019 at 9:51 PM, LTD said:

@Lord Preyer

@Matt3412

@BiggsIRL

@Darth Veggie

Your presence is requested.

Sorry, that I am only able to answer so late. But life is a bit hectic this month. So, sorry, I am out.

Double post

27 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

Double post

Also this game started a week ago...

13 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Military forces cannot be loaned or trade hands. They are always in the creating player's control. However, if enough people insist, I may allow ground forces to be transported by allies. That does however require more bookkeeping, in that I will have to keep track of which GF belong to whom. The reason I am not allowing military forces to change hands is that it enables players to simply build and then hand over to their allies, thereby hardly even playing the game.

In past games we've been allowed to just give units to another player by sending the unit to a planet owned by that player and having it surrender. From a player's perspective, that worked well and I hope it wasn't too hard on the GM. That might be easier than having to keep track of whose GF are on whose ships.

Also, it allows us to have "roles" on each side; banker, army, navy, etc. Personally I think this allows for a fun twist

23 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

In past games we've been allowed to just give units to another player by sending the unit to a planet owned by that player and having it surrender. From a player's perspective, that worked well and I hope it wasn't too hard on the GM. That might be easier than having to keep track of whose GF are on whose sh  ips.

Also, it allows us to have "roles" o  n each side; banker, army, navy, etc. Personally I think this allows for a fun twist

True, but last games there were no teams, which meant everybody was forced to be balanced to survive. No player could only build GF and hope to win a 1vAll. Here, the burden of building ships for that player is passed to a team mate, which makes everybody only doing one thing.

Granted, there are games where such a thing exists ( The African Campaign [ North African Campaign? ] as an example), but this has not nearly that scale or complexity. If enough people think it would be fun, I'll allow it, as there is no point enforcing a Rule that reduces the fun for the players, but I believe it is necessary to add a level of complexity and careful thinking/planning to the game.

4 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

True, but last games there were no teams, which meant everybody was forced to be balanced to survive. No player could only build GF and hope to win a 1vAll. Here, the burden of building ships for that player is passed to a team mate, which makes everybody only doing one thing.

Is that a bad thing though?

1 minute ago, clontroper5 said:

Is that a bad thing though?

Only insofar as it results in less strategic/tactical thinking, and 'dumbs down' the game.

1 minute ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Only insofar as it results in less strategic/tactical thinking, and 'dumbs down' the game.

Does it though?

8 minutes ago, clontroper5 said:

Is that a bad thing though?

Y’all are just salty because you broke the rules and now your people are marooned...

6 minutes ago, clontroper5 said:

Does it though?

In my opinion. And as it is only an opinion (having done no research on it), I am willing to change it if at least half the players (and not all from one side) vote in favor of doing so.

23 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Y’all are just salty because you broke the rules and now your people are marooned...

No rules were broke in the making of this complaint

21 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

In my opinion. And as it is only an opinion (having done no research on it), I am willing to change it if at least half the players (and not all from one side) vote in favor of doing so.

That's fair, I vote to change it! But if we decide not to I will rest my case...

I object to a change! There is no proof !

Yeah I will vote to change as well

I too vote to allow transfer of units and credits between players.

I say "players" and not "teams" here intentionally. Though nothing comes to mind right now, if a situation requires a credit transfer between players (the price of a peace treaty?) I'm ok with that.

The Republic Votes yes!