Star Wars: War of the Dream Teams Rules Clarification Thread

[StarSquirrel]

I think the unit numbers you start with should be the cap. This would prevent camping.

 

I set the cap like this

3.3 Conquest Cap- A player can only receive Resupply (including bonuses) from 12 planets. They may, however pick and choose what planets to be resupplied from. Planetary bonuses gain this way must follow rules set here

 

It allows for a successful player whose allies die, to compete with an opposing alliance. Essentially one player gets supplied as two players combined would.

Edited May 15, 2013 by StarSquirrel

[tunewalker]

I think the unit numbers you start with should be the cap. This would prevent camping.

 

ok since we seem to like Star's I am going to move the plot armor rule here for people to read (it concerns actually using your command staff in a battle)

 

Power of Plot armor

 

1: You can never lose any member of your command staff nor your Flagship or your Station in any battle in which you win.

AMENDMANT you may still lose them in a fight in which you fight another players command staff (ex. champion vs champion) these will be decided in standard vs thread. Even facing another's command staff does not garentee a kill as it can end with 1 dieing or 1 escaping this will be decided by the council.

 

2. In a fight your command staff takes place in and you lose there is still a chance the command staff can escape but if you lose a fight in which your flagship or your station is present you lose them. I think this should be based on a die roll modified by the characters known ability for getting away and the availability of a way out (Ex. Flagship shuttle pod, personal starship) not sure how the die roll will be handled I am sure you council members can figure it out.

 

 

This is done to make the idea of this a bit more "cinematic" as well as making your command staff truly mean something, as they should be a major part of your strategy and a major part of your forces they should be much harder to take out and you should never truly be afraid of loseing them especially if you win the fight.

[tunewalker]

I set the cap like this

3.3 Conquest Cap- A player can only receive Resupply (including bonuses) from 12 planets. They may, however pick and choose what planets to be resupplied from. Planetary bonuses gain this way must follow rules set here

 

It allows for a successful player whose allies die, to compete with an opposing alliance. Essentially one player gets supplied as two players combined would.

 

its not the bonus's cap we are afraid of its the maximum cap.... if you gain half of your starting forces every turn then at the end of the 10 turns you will have 6 or more times your starting forces.... that should not be allowed.

[Aurbere]

I set the cap like this

3.3 Conquest Cap- A player can only receive Resupply (including bonuses) from 12 planets. They may, however pick and choose what planets to be resupplied from. Planetary bonuses gain this way must follow rules set here

 

It allows for a successful player whose allies die, to compete with an opposing alliance. Essentially one player gets supplied as two players combined would.

 

Alright.

 

Edit: I agree with your rules on command staff, tune.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Aurbere

[StarSquirrel]

its not the bonus's cap we are afraid of its the maximum cap.... if you gain half of your starting forces every turn then at the end of the 10 turns you will have 6 or more times your starting forces.... that should not be allowed.

 

Oh, (DANG IT I WAS GONNA USE THAT) alright I'll think of something, I dislike Aurbere's plan as it makes it difficult to conquer new territory, as you stretch yourself waaaayyy to thin. It would be impossible to completely kill some opponents I believe. We'd just constantly overextend, then get driven back, then attack the newly overextended guy, then overextend again ect...

Edited May 15, 2013 by StarSquirrel

[Beniboybling]

OK on a second reading I've managed to make some sense of this.

AMENDMANT 1: If you lack bonus's to any of your forces you gain 2% of base starting value each turn being deployed at what ever location you desire (ex. you have a force sensitive elite infantry but have LOST your academy you gain 10 every round deployable as you see fit, attacking limitation may or may not be applicable to this bonus) this is done for those that lose their resources or lack them to begin with are not at a severe disadvantage and may possibly recover.

OK so any infantry units that have not received bonuses receive a 2% resupply, and if you lose any of your planets that previously granted your forces bonuses your original resupply rate is lowered to this base level of 2%.

AMENDMANT 1.1: the 2% base value troops spawn at the location of your representative as s/he convinces the populace to give it all they got and take up arms to help you.

Is this really necessary? Given that your able to choose where your reinforcements can deploy can't you just do the same here? And will those resupply points be fixed? I'd suggest that they all 'spawn' at your military hub and if you lose that you have to allocate a new 'spawn' point.

AMENDMANT 1.2: The 2% value will be applied to UBER units but they will spawn at either your ECON center or your WAR FACTORY as they are the locations of your greatest wealth and factories and the place where your greatest assets are located.

I'm also not sure if this is necessary - it doesn't seem to add any benefits/restrictions but makes this necessarily complex. I'd suggest they 'spawn' at the military hub also.

AMENDMANT 2: Supplier Troop deployment

2a. 10% are available offensively assuming the Supplier is with the fleet, (and the rest spawn at the last controlled planet visited by supplier with no immediate usability).

2b. Meanwhile the full number are available defensively assuming the supplier is present, essentially providing a defender's bonus and preventing overpowering mobile attack spawns.

2c. If supplier is on world not under attack or he/she/it is attacking, then supplier troops are unusable for spawn turn.

The supplier will be stationary and unmovable. Only the Champion, Assassin and Military Commander can move. Essentially the supplier is more symbolic, he/she only has a location so he/she can be eliminated by the enemy. I'd suggest removing this clause for the sake of simplicity. I mean if we do introduce this it means we have to keep track of supplier movements as well, and make further calculations in each turn.

 

As a substitution, I'd suggest that when on the defense on any planet all forces can be used. And the idea of resupplying mid-battle? Well that's currently in dispute so I'll refrain from mentioning that here.

Control:

If you control the ground and enemy controls the space you still get the ground troops because that's what you control but you can not move the troops off the planet because you are cut off.

Naturally although not always. I think we'll leave this for the debate thread.

Maximum troop caps:

Your forces have a maximum cap based on the number of planets you have.

For control of 3 planets allows you to have a maximum double your starting value.

Control of 6 planets allows you to have a maximum triple your starting value.

Control of 12 planets allows you to have a maximum of quadruple your starting value.

Control of 24 planets allows you to have a maximum of quintuple your starting value.

No maximum bonus beyond controlling 24 planets

 

The purpose of this is that as you gain more planets you have to spread your forces out more thus having a larger cap means you can do this a bit more reliably thus you are rewarded for having more planets and not punished for it.

This seems fair, although I'd still suggest that all military forces spawn at your military hub - as essentially this in a real scenario is where they would be transported for training, orders etc.

Troop loss: All battles should be argued as to the ratio each team loses based on cannon fact and numbers/ship advantages as well as any command staff in the battle. (example if Thrawn has a numbers advantage against Nek and the council decides on a 1:1 ratio since Nek was known to beat the Thrawn simulator but the numbers advantage favors thrawn thus he has more weapons. This is a large battle with 20 ships from thrawn and 12 ships from nek so we decide that 1 round will not end the fight so they decide the loss should be 25% so both people should lose 3 ships.... the 25% being based off the lower number and the ratio being based off cannon advantage)

 

this will be so that hit and run tactics will be possible.

Battle's can go on indefintetly, so I see no reason to 'pause' them at any moment. Hit and run tactics are still possible, you just have to specify that in your scenario - nobody is forcing you into a full on invasion.

Ground escape troops in a full loss a number of troops based upon your medical unit will escape to a nearby planet you control if no planet is within 2 squares then no troops can escape.

Again I think we should leave this and other matters to the debate, this will not always be the case.

THE POWER OF PLOT ARMOR

 

You can never lose any member of your command staff nor your Flagship or your Station in any battle in which you win.

AMENDMANT you may still lose them in a fight in which you fight another players command staff (ex. champion vs champion) these will be decided in standard vs thread. Even facing another's command staff does not garentee a kill as it can end with 1 dieing or 1 escaping this will be decided by the council.

 

In a fight your command staff takes place in and you lose there is still a chance the command staff can escape but if you lose a fight in which your flagship or your station is present you lose them. I think this should be based on a die roll modified by the characters known ability for getting away and the availability of a way out (Ex. Flagship shuttle pod, personal starship) not sure how the die roll will be handled I am sure you council members can figure it out.

 

When the word "lose" is used here it means full loss not just a standard loss of troops as layed out in part 1.

 

 

This is done to make the idea of this a bit more "cinematic" as well as making your command staff truly mean something, as they should be a major part of your strategy and a major part of your forces they should be much harder to take out and you should never truly be afraid of loseing them especially if you win the fight.

I'm not sure why we would want to introduce something regarded with general disdain and only seen as necessary in movies to further plot. This is not a movie, so we do not have to use negative plot devices - they are not good, but bad. Not cinematic, unrealistic, cringeworthy etc. but sometimes just plain necessary.

 

In a debate, nobody should be given plot armour 'simply because'. In debate, I expect people to give reasons for why I cannot board Thrawn's flagship and shoot him in the head not: 'Oh he has plot armour, so there!' I'm afraid this directly contradicts outcomes being decided by canon fact.

[Aurbere]

Oh, (DANG IT I WAS GONNA USE THAT) alright I'll think of something, I dislike Aurbere's plan as it makes it difficult to conquer new territory, as you stretch yourself waaaayyy to thin. It would be impossible to completely kill some opponents I believe. We'd just constantly overextend, then get driven back, then attack the newly overextended guy, then overextend again ect...

 

If you are referring to my starting troop cap, that was to prevent people from camping. You still get the bonuses and resupply benefits from conquering. This encourages people to actually conquer space.

[tunewalker]

Oh, (DANG IT I WAS GONNA USE THAT) alright I'll think of something, I dislike Aurbere's plan as it makes it difficult to conquer new territory, as you stretch yourself waaaayyy to thin. It would be impossible to completely kill some opponents I believe. We'd just constantly overextend, then get driven back, then attack the newly overextended guy, then overextend again ect...

 

Which was put forth in my original plan with the max cap being based on the number of planets you own (you know I had all this in there lol) part of the reason I like my plan all of this was covered....

 

My other main issue with this is it still does not allow for hit and fades, fake out attacks, trying to occupy your enemies forces long enough for a partner or you to hit a less defended location and and then pull out (ALA THRAWN STYLE) or for siege warfare in a battle of attrition all of which... as you know would have been capable of with the way mine was layed out if you can do something to allow these I will back off.

[StarSquirrel]

Alright so will this

 

-------1.1.2 Forces Cap- Maximum troop caps:

Your forces have a maximum cap based on the number of planets you have.

For control of 3 planets allows you to have a maximum double your starting value.

Control of 6 planets allows you to have a maximum triple your starting value.

Control of 12 planets allows you to have a maximum of quadruple your starting value.

Control of 24 planets allows you to have a maximum of quintuple your starting value.

No maximum bonus beyond controlling 24 planets

 

Work? I can remove the 24 planet control if we feel that is too high.

Edited May 15, 2013 by StarSquirrel

[tunewalker]

If you are referring to my starting troop cap, that was to prevent people from camping. You still get the bonuses and resupply benefits from conquering. This encourages people to actually conquer space.

 

see the issue here is if you fought to gain that it means you lost some forces while you may be able to catch up the guy that did no fighting may have a much better advantage since you could lose a major force just to take a planet while he did nothing but gain I don't see the extra from conquest being as good as just sitting there building your forces. while every one else dooks it out and loses forces.

[Aurbere]

Alright so will this

 

-------1.1.2 Forces Cap- Maximum troop caps:

Your forces have a maximum cap based on the number of planets you have.

For control of 3 planets allows you to have a maximum double your starting value.

Control of 6 planets allows you to have a maximum triple your starting value.

Control of 12 planets allows you to have a maximum of quadruple your starting value.

Control of 24 planets allows you to have a maximum of quintuple your starting value.

No maximum bonus beyond controlling 24 planets

 

Work? I can remove the 24 planet control if we feel that is too high.

 

Do the planets under our control at the start count towards this cap?

[tunewalker]

OK on a second reading I've managed to make some sense of this.

OK so any infantry units that have not received bonuses receive a 2% resupply, and if you lose any of your planets that previously granted your forces bonuses your original resupply rate is lowered to this base level of 2%.

Is this really necessary? Given that your able to choose where your reinforcements can deploy can't you just do the same here? And will those resupply points be fixed? I'd suggest that they all 'spawn' at your military hub and if you lose that you have to allocate a new 'spawn' point.

I'm also not sure if this is necessary - it doesn't seem to add any benefits/restrictions but makes this necessarily complex. I'd suggest they 'spawn' at the military hub also.The supplier will be stationary and unmovable. Only the Champion, Assassin and Military Commander can move. Essentially the supplier is more symbolic, he/she only has a location so he/she can be eliminated by the enemy. I'd suggest removing this clause for the sake of simplicity. I mean if we do introduce this it means we have to keep track of supplier movements as well, and make further calculations in each turn.

 

As a substitution, I'd suggest that when on the defense on any planet all forces can be used. And the idea of resupplying mid-battle? Well that's currently in dispute so I'll refrain from mentioning that here.

Naturally although not always. I think we'll leave this for the debate thread.This seems fair, although I'd still suggest that all military forces spawn at your military hub - as essentially this in a real scenario is where they would be transported for training, orders etc.Battle's can go on indefintetly, so I see no reason to 'pause' them at any moment. Hit and run tactics are still possible, you just have to specify that in your scenario - nobody is forcing you into a full on invasion.Again I think we should leave this and other matters to the debate, this will not always be the case.I'm not sure why we would want to introduce something regarded with general disdain and only seen as necessary in movies to further plot. This is not a movie, so we do not have to use negative plot devices - they are not good, but bad. Not cinematic, unrealistic, cringeworthy etc. but sometimes just plain necessary.

 

In a debate, nobody should be given plot armour 'simply because'. In debate, I expect people to give reasons for why I cannot board Thrawn's flagship and shoot him in the head not: 'Oh he has plot armour, so there!' I'm afraid this directly contradicts outcomes being decided by canon fact.

 

OK so you agree to original put forth supply rules but not the amendmants made to it (that's why they were listed as amendmants so you could agree or disagree to them) you disagree with the loss's and you disagree with plot armor....

 

So far vote for resupply I put forth is 2 in favor barring some of the amendmants loss's seems to be a no and so far the vote for plot armor is 2 to 1

 

 

 

EDIT:

and the Plot armor rule is because name one instance in a battle the heroes won that a hero was lost by another means then an opponents hero your named command staff are the heroes of your army and if you want people to actually use them in battle then their needs to be something In place that they aren't scared to do so other wise no one will ever send a member of the command staff out, out of fear of losing them this should not happen your champion should be on the field of almost every major engagement he is after all your champion.

 

If you want to sneak aboard and kill a command staff member that will fall under a covert mission not an actual battle that's the difference.

Edited May 15, 2013 by tunewalker

[tunewalker]

Do the planets under our control at the start count towards this cap?

 

yes. it does. As it is the plan I put forth I think its got a 2 in favor vote on it so far since beni agreed to it.

Edited May 15, 2013 by tunewalker

[tunewalker]

Alright so will this

 

-------1.1.2 Forces Cap- Maximum troop caps:

Your forces have a maximum cap based on the number of planets you have.

For control of 3 planets allows you to have a maximum double your starting value.

Control of 6 planets allows you to have a maximum triple your starting value.

Control of 12 planets allows you to have a maximum of quadruple your starting value.

Control of 24 planets allows you to have a maximum of quintuple your starting value.

No maximum bonus beyond controlling 24 planets

 

Work? I can remove the 24 planet control if we feel that is too high.

 

Hey squirl maybe you should rewrite mine to be more legible since ours are so similar.....

[StarSquirrel]

So far vote for resupply I put forth is 2 in favor barring some of the amendmants loss's seems to be a no and so far the vote for plot armor is 2 to 1

 

I'm in favor of plot armor in case that wasn't recorded. Also, I'm withdrawing my vote on your resupply in favor on mine (sorry )

 

Mine is simpler and deals with garrisons and suppliers differently. I will however salvage any parts of yours I can to include into mine without being overly complicated.

Edited May 15, 2013 by StarSquirrel

[tunewalker]

I'm in favor of plot armor in case that wasn't recorded. Also, I'm withdrawing my vote on your resupply in favor on mine (sorry )

 

Mine is simpler and deals with garrisons and suppliers differently. I will however salvage any parts of yours I can to include into mine without being overly complicated.

 

ok probably will work that way I am laughing right now because it seems its very much in lines of mine already (I think the plan most are against is the loss's portion) I still wonder how hit and fades and sieges will be taken into account.

[StarSquirrel]

ok probably will work that way I am laughing right now because it seems its very much in lines of mine already (I think the plan most are against is the loss's portion) I still wonder how hit and fades and sieges will be taken into account.

 

probably by debate upon their effectiveness and then Council decision on outcome would be my guess.

[Beniboybling]

1.1 On this basis I suggest that the ‘reorganisation’ move encompassed this. Allowing players to dispatch forces from their military hub and shipyards to the necessary planets as well as reorganise forces already deployed. All of which will be complied in the command thread.

 

1.2 I think, to make this as simple as possible I think these should be fixed beforehand i.e. infantry units spawn at your military hub and ships spawn at your shipyards. This cannot be changed at any point and applies to everyone. Why? Because if for some reason somebody wanted to change halfway through we’d have to iron out were their just receive resupply bonuses go etc. and managing the numbers would become too complex. Also this is more realistic – you can’t just change respawn points will-nilly. For example in Empire at War, by fleets spawn at my major shipyard worlds and infantry and designated infantry producing worlds.

 

1.3 Again, I think the Supplier should remain stationery and in particular be based at the economic hub. I don’t think they should be movable or offer any special benefits for the sake of simplicity and the fact that the supplier is if anything just a symbol. Their presence is only there so they can be destroyed. And also in a real scenario the supplier isn’t a factory in themselves, just a rich fella with a lot of connections. It’s the factories not the supplier that produce the forces, and the factories don’t move with the supplier. So I’d suggest this clause be omitted entirely on the grounds it is unnecessarily complicating.

 

1.4 I don’t think garrisons should be optional. Drawing on Empire of War again I recall that if you conquer a planet but leave no forces/fortresses on the planet, it can be captured by an enemy force as if it were a neutral system. And as fortresses require garrisons to operate not leaving any force on a planet is effectively leaving it neutral.

 

2.1 I support this. I’d also note that in the event of a battle, it is possible that the attacker could win the naval battle, but lose the ground battle. If the defender is unable to repel the naval forces, such a blockade will be the result.

 

2.2 And vice versa. If the attacking party controls the space, naval reinforcements cannot deploy. And concerning the ship rule, as I have already said I think naval reinforcements should only spawn at the shipyards, never the military hub.

 

2.3 I think it should not apply regardless of whether the supplier is present on the basis of what I said above.

 

3.1 So they get the bonuses, but not immediately, only in the form of resupply. OK so I think we’ll also need someone updated the units page for reference concerning resupply.

 

3.2 Agreed, but only on the basis that ships can only be spawned from shipyards – not military hubs.

 

3.3 This would seem to conflict with the clause that resupply can only be received from the military hub and the shipyard hub. I think regardless of conquered planets, infantry should spawn and the military hub and navy at the shipyard hub. However I think when planets (which meet the requirements) are conquered, players should be able to change. But only immediately after conquering, and only once.

 

That’s all I have to propose. I think in general this is quite agreeable.

[tunewalker]

probably by debate upon their effectiveness and then Council decision on outcome would be my guess.

 

so would it be considered a covert move if I say made a huge attack someplace to pull forces away and then hit another local with a smaller but still powerful force argueing that the first would only need to hold forces for a short time while the covert attacks and then pull back out to the "covert" attack.

[Beniboybling]

EDIT:

and the Plot armor rule is because name one instance in a battle the heroes won that a hero was lost by another means then an opponents hero your named command staff are the heroes of your army and if you want people to actually use them in battle then their needs to be something In place that they aren't scared to do so other wise no one will ever send a member of the command staff out, out of fear of losing them this should not happen your champion should be on the field of almost every major engagement he is after all your champion.

 

If you want to sneak aboard and kill a command staff member that will fall under a covert mission not an actual battle that's the difference.

Outside of the fictional movie universe where reality and reason are allowed to come into play - I'm sure I can name many. This is just it, we are not in a movie people, so why should we be weighed down by negative devices like plot armour. I mean, name one instance when on these forums or anywhere for that matter the words 'plot armour' have been used in a positive sense. Where not in a movie people, break free!

 

The thing in place that makes them not scared to do it is the commanders personal power. I'm fine with putting Darth Cognus into battle because I know she can win and I no if she loses she can escape. However if someone put forward a really good argument for why she dies, I would not want to just say 'plot armour' and crap all over it. Nor would I want someone to do that to me.

 

And sneaking aboard, during a battle, will not count as a covert operation. Because its during the battle.

 

Anyway I'm generally opposed to introducing safety nets to this. Its not a game, its WAR!

[Beniboybling]

Another point that needs to be voted on by the Council:

 

Are we in favour or against 'freezing' debates midway and allowing reinforcements etc. to come into play during the interlude.

 

I am against - because I feel it leaves lose ends when this is not necessary and demands that we keep track of several debates at once. The reason for turn-based play is to remove this problem.

[tunewalker]

1.1 On this basis I suggest that the ‘reorganisation’ move encompassed this. Allowing players to dispatch forces from their military hub and shipyards to the necessary planets as well as reorganise forces already deployed. All of which will be complied in the command thread.

 

1.2 I think, to make this as simple as possible I think these should be fixed beforehand i.e. infantry units spawn at your military hub and ships spawn at your shipyards. This cannot be changed at any point and applies to everyone. Why? Because if for some reason somebody wanted to change halfway through we’d have to iron out were their just receive resupply bonuses go etc. and managing the numbers would become too complex. Also this is more realistic – you can’t just change respawn points will-nilly. For example in Empire at War, by fleets spawn at my major shipyard worlds and infantry and designated infantry producing worlds.

 

1.3 Again, I think the Supplier should remain stationery and in particular be based at the economic hub. I don’t think they should be movable or offer any special benefits for the sake of simplicity and the fact that the supplier is if anything just a symbol. Their presence is only there so they can be destroyed. And also in a real scenario the supplier isn’t a factory in themselves, just a rich fella with a lot of connections. It’s the factories not the supplier that produce the forces, and the factories don’t move with the supplier. So I’d suggest this clause be omitted entirely on the grounds it is unnecessarily complicating.

 

1.4 I don’t think garrisons should be optional. Drawing on Empire of War again I recall that if you conquer a planet but leave no forces/fortresses on the planet, it can be captured by an enemy force as if it were a neutral system. And as fortresses require garrisons to operate not leaving any force on a planet is effectively leaving it neutral.

 

2.1 I support this. I’d also note that in the event of a battle, it is possible that the attacker could win the naval battle, but lose the ground battle. If the defender is unable to repel the naval forces, such a blockade will be the result.

 

2.2 And vice versa. If the attacking party controls the space, naval reinforcements cannot deploy. And concerning the ship rule, as I have already said I think naval reinforcements should only spawn at the shipyards, never the military hub.

 

2.3 I think it should not apply regardless of whether the supplier is present on the basis of what I said above.

 

3.1 So they get the bonuses, but not immediately, only in the form of resupply. OK so I think we’ll also need someone updated the units page for reference concerning resupply.

 

3.2 Agreed, but only on the basis that ships can only be spawned from shipyards – not military hubs.

 

3.3 This would seem to conflict with the clause that resupply can only be received from the military hub and the shipyard hub. I think regardless of conquered planets, infantry should spawn and the military hub and navy at the shipyard hub. However I think when planets (which meet the requirements) are conquered, players should be able to change. But only immediately after conquering, and only once.

 

That’s all I have to propose. I think in general this is quite agreeable.

 

Supplier is a person they should be able to move just like you cant tell me I cant get up off my couch and walk out my front door. The supplier local stuff is so that the supplier actually plays a role in how your army is managed (gives your command staff something to do other then look pretty) and while he may not be a factory he has access to the stuff (every single one of our suppliers have some underworld contacts or spies or what not and thus even with a space blockade they could probably sneak some supplies to them)

I propose that the only change beni suggested be 1.1 its the only one that seems like it would be useful.

 

ALso beni I think you may have misread it you gain the bonus's the planets give but the location that the forces spawn is not changed with the gaining of other planets.

[StarSquirrel]

1.1 On this basis I suggest that the ‘reorganisation’ move encompassed this. Allowing players to dispatch forces from their military hub and shipyards to the necessary planets as well as reorganise forces already deployed. All of which will be complied in the command thread.

 

1.2 I think, to make this as simple as possible I think these should be fixed beforehand i.e. infantry units spawn at your military hub and ships spawn at your shipyards. This cannot be changed at any point and applies to everyone. Why? Because if for some reason somebody wanted to change halfway through we’d have to iron out were their just receive resupply bonuses go etc. and managing the numbers would become too complex. Also this is more realistic – you can’t just change respawn points will-nilly. For example in Empire at War, by fleets spawn at my major shipyard worlds and infantry and designated infantry producing worlds.

 

1.3 Again, I think the Supplier should remain stationery and in particular be based at the economic hub. I don’t think they should be movable or offer any special benefits for the sake of simplicity and the fact that the supplier is if anything just a symbol. Their presence is only there so they can be destroyed. And also in a real scenario the supplier isn’t a factory in themselves, just a rich fella with a lot of connections. It’s the factories not the supplier that produce the forces, and the factories don’t move with the supplier. So I’d suggest this clause be omitted entirely on the grounds it is unnecessarily complicating.

 

1.4 I don’t think garrisons should be optional. Drawing on Empire of War again I recall that if you conquer a planet but leave no forces/fortresses on the planet, it can be captured by an enemy force as if it were a neutral system. And as fortresses require garrisons to operate not leaving any force on a planet is effectively leaving it neutral.

 

2.1 I support this. I’d also note that in the event of a battle, it is possible that the attacker could win the naval battle, but lose the ground battle. If the defender is unable to repel the naval forces, such a blockade will be the result.

 

2.2 And vice versa. If the attacking party controls the space, naval reinforcements cannot deploy. And concerning the ship rule, as I have already said I think naval reinforcements should only spawn at the shipyards, never the military hub.

 

2.3 I think it should not apply regardless of whether the supplier is present on the basis of what I said above.

 

3.1 So they get the bonuses, but not immediately, only in the form of resupply. OK so I think we’ll also need someone updated the units page for reference concerning resupply.

 

3.2 Agreed, but only on the basis that ships can only be spawned from shipyards – not military hubs.

 

3.3 This would seem to conflict with the clause that resupply can only be received from the military hub and the shipyard hub. I think regardless of conquered planets, infantry should spawn and the military hub and navy at the shipyard hub. However I think when planets (which meet the requirements) are conquered, players should be able to change. But only immediately after conquering, and only once.

 

That’s all I have to propose. I think in general this is quite agreeable.

 

1.1- Agreed

1.2- Agreed

1.3- For In-Universe explanation. The wealth/resources of the supplier would allow for the different deployment of troops. Ultimately this clause was placed in to allow for campaigns that stretch far away from your main worlds (Like Aurbere attacking Wolf.) I am willing to remove it pending council vote.

1.4 Optional in the sense of a permanent garrison that gains defensive bonuses. You station troops (in order to benefit from planet you will have to) however those troops can be moved later whereas a garrison can not.

2.1 Agreed

2.2 Agreed

2.3 My argument for 1.3

3.1 Agreed

3.2 Agreed

3.3 The number of troop is the only thing affected by this clause, not the location of spawn. Agreed on your addition.

[tunewalker]

Outside of the fictional movie universe where reality and reason are allowed to come into play - I'm sure I can name many. This is just it, we are not in a movie people, so why should we be weighed down by negative devices like plot armour. I mean, name one instance when on these forums or anywhere for that matter the words 'plot armour' have been used in a positive sense. Where not in a movie people, break free!

 

The thing in place that makes them not scared to do it is the commanders personal power. I'm fine with putting Darth Cognus into battle because I know she can win and I no if she loses she can escape. However if someone put forward a really good argument for why she dies, I would not want to just say 'plot armour' and crap all over it. Nor would I want someone to do that to me.

 

And sneaking aboard, during a battle, will not count as a covert operation. Because its during the battle.

 

Anyway I'm generally opposed to introducing safety nets to this. Its not a game, its WAR!

 

Its just I see some one using say plo koon in a star fighter to help his space forces and people saying I focus fire your star fighter and blow Plo Koon up because he is in a ****** fighter....... I am sure people who chose champions that could pilot is so they wouldn't just be a ground force and with this their is no reason for the person siting the skill and the already multiple times that Plo Koon has avoided all of this stuff and how in a hectic battle focusing 1 fighter in which you cant even determine who is even in it would almost be ignored do to hey he is in a ****** fighter there is nothing to stop my fighter killer from decimating him... you lose Plo Koon to what I can refer to as nothing less then stupid.

Edited May 15, 2013 by tunewalker

[StarSquirrel]

hey he is in a ****** fighter there is nothing to stop my fighter killer from decimating him... you lose Plo Koon to what I can refer to nothing less then stupid.

 

^ This sums it up