PDA

View Full Version : Clean Slate Questions



Sumor Rayial
Apr 18th, 2002, 02:05:07 PM
Come up with a few questions about how some of the ol'standby's would be different now with the new rules.

1) Are there going to be any rules in terms of building? Or is just going to be that we assume that any ships that are new (ie the ones not currently in fleets) have been built and that we are all mature enough not to suddenly have 400 new ships in 3 days or something unbelievable like that.

2) Is there going to be some sort of minor rule to say who can and can't build. Something like "X" number of planets just to say that a group has the ability to build ship and repair ships.

Dovi Jod
Apr 18th, 2002, 02:23:57 PM
1. We should be mature enough to be able to judge what is "too much" in the same way that we would in a jedi vs sith duel...so no rules should be needed in terms of building.

2. The only rule I can think of is that more unique members in a faction should be proportional to the power of their fleet. Instead of the 5 member minimum, just say that perhaps a 7 unique member group might have a little more punch than maybe a 4 member group. It shouldn't make or break a fight, but just give a little bit of reference to it. This should make personal fleets feasible, yet still unable to compete with larger forces.

TAD-7
Apr 18th, 2002, 03:06:06 PM
Well, if someone has 400 new ships in 3 days, how would we know? Since the clean slate precludes bean counting.

Would this rule make all shipyards forums useless?

Charley
Apr 18th, 2002, 03:16:02 PM
essentially yes. Counting ships really wouldn't come into play except for a fight, or some other thread where the number of ships in a given area is revealed.

So while you really don't keep track of any numbers, you have a "general idea" of what a sensible number is. So if the Empire were to assault the Cizerack, they would send roughly 3 star destroyers and varying support ships. And the Cizerack would be able to field perhaps an equal number of smaller Korri battlegalleons, and their limited-range interdictor craft. It allows a "fudge factor" to be given, which if needed, can be discussed between the involved parties. If a disagreement ensues, a consensus or a moderator review could be done.

Garrett Blade
Apr 18th, 2002, 04:15:00 PM
Give me two Mon Calamari Cruisers, three Corellian Corvettes, a gunship or two, two frigates and a Dreadnaught, complete with two escort carriers-worth of fighter support and I'll take on an Imperial Fleet of 12 Imperial Star Destroyers with full TIE support. I may lose, but it'll be one helluva fight!

Chaos Alexander
Apr 18th, 2002, 08:56:19 PM
My turn for questions.

I believe it may have been said that Group Homeworlds are off limits (I may be wrong) for take over. I remember when the Jedi lost Dagobah(s/p). It was the planet the Jedi hade their base on, but the attack the Sith did was great and well played. We lost the battle, but I loved it. It was like a real role play. Does this mean stuff like that will never happen again? No group is going to say "yes, take our planet". A few people will, but not the whole group. What will happen about stuff like that? Like with TSO. They control Corrila (again s/p. I am tired and it is late), but if TSE can organize an attack and take it, it should be theirs. Same with GJO and Yavin 4 and the other groups. Can you explain this a little to me?

Sumor Rayial
Apr 18th, 2002, 09:05:49 PM
Well TSE wouldn't do that cause they don't have a fleet anymore, though the Conclave or the NR might try it.

As for the Dagobah thread, glad you liked it, just wanted to say that it really wasn't as organized as you might have thought. It took a lot of back channel negotiating to not have it completely trashed from near the beginning.

As for your thing about the home planets. I think that it's basically like all the other planets owned by groups. They have to agree to let you attack and then you can attack. THe only difference between home planets and other planets is that most groups are pretty attached to their home planets, doesn't mean that one can't negotiate to attack it though.

Sanis Prent
Apr 18th, 2002, 10:55:19 PM
Precisely as Sumor said. Its the permission rule. Not that it won't ever happen, just has to be good enough to warrant permission.

Chaos Alexander
Apr 21st, 2002, 01:15:04 PM
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.