FG: Go 16: Sign up thread

[joncha]

I'd add an E option, but I'd probably just get yelled at by the option-A fundamentalists.

[Ljube]

I don't understand why some people find it so difficult to vote within the set parameters. Hercules is the extreme case, but what about civman for instance? His votes are useless because he didn't clearly indicate which option he supports. I think such unclear votes should not be counted.

[joncha]

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought civman was commenting entirely on the second question.

Having re-read it, I would count his votes as A on the first question and spoiled ballot on the second.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Ljube
I don't understand why some people find it so difficult to vote within the set parameters. Hercules is the extreme case, but what about civman for instance? His votes are useless because he didn't clearly indicate which option he supports. I think such unclear votes should not be counted.

My vote was perfectly clear. I voted A on #1, and voted negatively against D on #2, if that's to be allowed. If negative votes are not allowed, then my vote on #2 is obviously to be ignored.

[Ljube]

Your vote on issue No. 1 is now clear, but honestly civman, have you ever heard of a negative vote?

[snoopy369]

Any vote on the second one other than D would be considered a negative vote on D. I suspect that D won't win, though, so I wouldn't worry about it

[Hercules]

I was only trying to cover for the situation we had a game or so ago about an order to attack without an OoB but against a defenceless base.

There are 2 parts to an OoB: the actual order of battle (eg MLL- TTF) and the formation and range, dimension.

So a player A in, say, round 5 could give a defence OoB:
(eg MLL-TTF) and a formation and range order, such as close in, spread out);
or an OoB (eg MLL-TTF) , default;
or an OoB (eg MLL-TT) and nothing,
or no OoB defence whatsoever ( because all the fleet is elsewhere) or forgot.

So what if the player A is attacked by thoughtless/ forgetful players(B and later C).

If B attacker has a fleet but no OoB or range or formation detail against an empty base, the attacker wins. (earlier precedent).

The question is:
If the base is defended, and the attacker gives no OoB, should we use the last known attacking instructions, of the attacking player, in the current game, as the player's default instruction.

And if there is no last known formation and range instructions, should we use neutral, neutral or worst case scenario against the known defence.

Again, if no defence OoB battle provided, the presumption would be worst case.

So it could end up with worst case defence against worst case offence, situation. May the best worst case win.

More work for the GM perhaps but as has been said earlier it is a question of spreadsheet formula.

[Ljube]

Hercules, that issue is solved. The issue here is whether to do away with defaults. I think we shouldn't because some people could be away due to life or work obligations or something, so I think defaults should be allowed.

[Jaguar]

UDWOT! UDWOT! UDWOT!

[snoopy369]

Go make a guess at hangman or something

[Spaced Cowboy]

My vote is A on the first issue and no vote on the second although I think default oobs should be allowed, no oob should be defined as UDWOT.

Wow, spaced is hammered.

[Skanky Burns]

1) C
2) B


If someone can't be bothered putting enough effort into converting their opinion into a letter, then their opinion should not be taken into account.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Sorry, spaced had more than 6 beers, and three is my limit.

[Jonny]

1) A
2) C

[GeneralTacticus]

1) A.
2) A.