FG: Galactic Overlord III Signup

[Ljube]

The third option, although tempting, is somewhat unrealistic due to the lack of supply for these ships. Option one and two is the same, except perhaps as regards the order of battle used.

I think my suggestion is the best because it differentiates the effect of a spy and a shield on an attacking fleet.

However, if I have to choose between the three, I choose number one - recapture.

[Skanky Burns]

I vote for recapture too.

The difference between #1 and #2 is that with #2, the person attacking the shield-attacker faces the shield-attacker's entire fleet, as though they had enough time to fly out, abort their attack, make it back to base and go back into formation in the same time as the other attack fleet took just starting their attack run.

With #1, the attacker fights against the defence force left behind, then can prepare for the retaliatory assult of the returning shield-attacker force. The fight is done piecemeal, two attacks for the same system in the same turn rather than one all-out battle. It makes more sense to me.

[joncha]

How about:

3a) The fleet continues to exist, but it loses all BP, spies and shields (even if stockpiled). It then must find a way to capture a base (any base) or it loses 10% (based on "original" fleet size, not recalculated) of its ships each turn.

[GeoModder]

Mercenary fleet!!!

[GeneralTacticus]

joncha's idea looks pretty good to me... any objections?

[Kassiopeia]

Ooh, attrition. I like that. No objections here.

[:) Smiley]

to fleet being able to roam around without bases, essentially that's what happens when a player gets 1 captured base but loses at home.

Sign me up.

Another way of picturing our abstracted combat:

Fleets engage in a horizontal line of six squadrons, and fight simultaneously. As a result, a squadron primarily kills what it is directly fighting.

For example, MarkG and DanQ have identical OOBs of TTFFLL. Mark has 10 each of torpedos, fighters, and lasers. DanQ has 30 fighters.

DanQ's 30 fighters deal 20 x2 =40 damage to MarkG's 10 fighters. 20 pts of damage destroy Mark's fighters. The remaining 20 pts are halved to 10, and used against the rest of Mark's fleet in the final calculation.

Mark's 10 torps and 10 lasers deal a total of 10 x 4 = 40 damage. These points are halved to 20 and dealt against Dan's fleet.

[GeoModder]

Except that this example can't happen anymore. OoB's in groups of 3, remember?

As for Joncha's proposal, thumbs up!

[Chaunk]

Joncha's proposal is good, but so long as the fleet can still be attacked by other Overlords - quite why they'd want to is somewhat beyond me, but otherwise the floating fleet is invincible

Can we clarify rules regarding transfering of bases and craft etc?

[Ljube]

cooperative victories
invincible floating fleets

I want a formal ban on cooperative victories

[GeoModder]

Such a fleet disassembles itself in due time, thus it doesn't really matters. But ok, let rogue fleets be attackable.

[joncha]

I guess we could make fleets attackable, but attacking them would be a ridiculous move.

Maybe we can adjust the attrition rate, but whether it's 10% or 25% the fleet will disappear eventually, and be irrelevant long before that.

[Skanky Burns]

I don't like invincible fleets just sitting around. I suppose attrition will do something to counter that, but still...

[GeoModder]

When do we have ignition?

[GeneralTacticus]

When we agree on the rules to use. IIRC:

- We've agreed to adjust fleets during battle every three rounds.
- We've agreed to split the OOBs into two groups of thre,e each of which must contain one of each weapon type.
- We've agreed to limit shield and spy stockpiles to three each.
- We've agreed that, when two non-allied people attack someone else, the order they strike in should be randomised.
- We've agreed that ships that attack, hit shields, and come back to find their home bases captured will continue to exist but will suffer rapid attrition.
- The status of co-op victories is yet to be decided.

Did I miss anything?