Secrets and Simulations Archive

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Lessss?

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 08:45 pm: Edit

What I use is a laminated sheet that has the tournament SOP steps on it(SOP card). With check boxes for each step.

When at range(or after all weapons have been fired in a turn) players can of course agree to zip along calling movements until a certain range or impulse to speed the game along...

Once that range or impulse is reached they begin to use the SOP Card...

Once an impulses movements are called both players quickly check mark the FIRST sop step to be executed that impulse, if any, on the card and then they quickly slide down what they are using to cover the SOP card revealing the stages until a checked box is revealed.. then that step is executed.

For a cover to the laminated card a thick piece of paper positioned perpendicular to the card and folded over both sides works well enough.

If the players choose to they can of course VOLUNTEER info to speed up the process if they so choose. like no actions before step ____ or execute up to step _____ but are of course not required to.

If they wish to know of a lack of a specific action by their opponnent (say drone launch) they can check mark THAT step to stop the SOP at that STEP to rethink and or change there unreveiled steps ( like say launch WW step).

If a SOP step is executed then either player can change their following SOP steps but not the SOP step revealed.

Example Player A checked fire step but B checked launch drones... the drone launch is revealed and executed, either player can change their following SOP check marks then they continue to reveal them. Player A(or B) upon seeing the drone launch may for instance check mark(or uncheck) launch shuttle step... which would be the next step revealed if B had no other boxes checked but A did.

The onus here is on yourself to STOP the SOP at the appropriate steps where you wish to think upon following SOP steps. If you might fire on a lack of an opponnnent's action like drone launch then you need to stop the SOP at that action stage, or at least before the stage you wish to execute depending on that

lack of launch, like fire stage, so stop at a preceding step like launch shut step. Taht will give you the info that no drone launch is happening and leave fire stage not executed yet allowing you to change or keep your current unrevealed fire order.

Players upon mutaul agreement may of course use whatever procedures they wish, but if either player wants it this should be the default method for executing complex impulses.

This will eliminate the metagaming aspects of me too fire and calling for fire for no other reason than to make your opponnnet think you are going to fire when you don't. Or revealing the step where you do wish to perform an action and thuss triggering a mee to action or cancelation of an action that may otherwise have simultaneously occurred. With this method ANY impulse might be an impulse of fire and should INCREASE the nail biting tension as you close inside overload ranges. The reason it will be more intense is your opponnent won't be given information leakage that you ARE calling for a specific step.

This method will keep secret and simultaneos of B2 intact, not revealing what STEP you plan to preform an action on.

Now there are two ways to handle what SOP steps ARE checkmarked. First. Once the step is revealed you both write down your order on a slip of paper then simul revel it

Or

Second Have a line or lines on the SOP card to write out the orders being executed at that SOP step.

If one player checks launch drones step and the other doesn't, ONLY the player that checked the step may perform that step. Becasue this knowledge that your opponnent ISN'T performing that step may change what is performed (launched) the second method with lines for the orders is preferred. However the distortion of the first method isn't any more horrific than the "got Launch action?" "No" "Well I do." method.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:20 am: Edit

Quote:

Chris: Why shouldn't I ask for the next impulse? Would it be better if I asked "did you have anything else to do this impulse?" Or should I

instead always let my opponent be the one to ask for the next impulse, as otherwise I risk having a tell on when I'm going to fire?

Calling the next impulse is in fact saying you have nothing else to do on the current impulse. Actions to be taken on the ended impulse are then at your opponent's indulgence. I always ask my opponent to call impulses. It doesn't seem to hurt anyone.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:43 am: Edit

Allocating reserve energy for expenditure on future impulses is done after direct fire resolution. The results of these decisions are recorded but not announced. If I am told the impulse is over I am within my rights to deny any further announcements of direct fire. I have already taken subsequent action.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:47 am: Edit

So reading the 2nd post do you have any ideas to improve FTF play to avoid this situation?

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:58 am: Edit

Less is more.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 02:07 am: Edit

Players can not be prevented from cheating in other ways, so idiot-proofing secret-and-simultaneous seems like holding back the Atlantic with a broom. Try to get along with people who are doing their best to kill you.

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 02:23 am: Edit

Chris: I'm not saying I hae nothing left to do, I'm asking if they have anything left to do. What I will do is already decided and recorded. But like I said, I tend to play with people I trust who also trust me, which makes things flow a lot smoother.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 02:43 am: Edit

Yeah, playing against your buddies is less complicated than fighting someone new.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 02:51 am: Edit

At first glance I interpreted surprise revelation of secret fire orders as a legalistic loophole to be closed. Thus my post on a legalistic counter. Upon reflection it seems a legitimate method as long as you never fail to reveal gunplay orders based on unauthorised information (I wrote down 'fire alpha' but my opponent held fire so I'll just wait and see).

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 03:39 am: Edit

>>Stephen: Why does the same impulse matter? Assuming you both look at each others' notes at the end of the game there's no concerns about somebody

cheating with it. Yeah, you could write it down and decide not to do it later, just cross it out and put "nevermind" next to it.

>>There shouldn't be anything binding about the note, because it's a plan, not a contract. Plans change under fire.

If it's a fire plot, it's necessarily binding at some point. If it's a plan, it's not a fire plot. The problem I have is when one uses the same documentation space to fulfill both roles. Then, after the game when I look at the ad hoc mixture of plans and plots, I have to rely upon my opponent's word about which was a plan and which was a plot and also when exactly a particular plot got a "nevermind" written next to it (before it should have been announced, or afterwards, which would be a huge "me too" advantage). Using this modus operandi, you obviously can't shoot unless you write it down, but it's very easy to write it down and elect not to shoot, say, after your opponent announces he's only firing a phaser 3 at some drone or something.

It's not that I would be anal about it and spend all of my time worried about my opponent cheating in this way, but this whole discussion started over a concern for "me too" firing that I just don't see in the normal "fire plot" procedure (i.e. calling for a fire plot).

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 09:05 am: Edit

In our games, we usually just say "pause for fire" when we need to think. Everybody who's in a position where they might want to fire then writes down whether or not they're firing and if so, what. We reveal it, resolve it, and move on.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 10:30 am: Edit

Stephen wrote: >>Peter: What's wrong with "aha, but I am?" It's not like I'm playing mind games, I'm just getting my opponent to commit to being done with their fire declaration step. There's little difference between that and bugging them every impulse with "anyfire... anyfire... anyfire?" >>

If you are trying to avoid "me too" fire (i.e. someone deciding to shoot based on their opponent calling for fire, assuming they are doing that 'cause they are going to shoot something) as you think that it causes questionable activity, "Aha! But I am!" fire that comes from waiting till your opponent effectively confirms that they are *not* shooting, at which point you flip over a previously written fire order is essentially the same thing--it is deciding your fire order based on information from your opponent, rather than actually secretly and simultaneously deciding.

Saying "Any IA? Ok. Any DF?" and jotting a note down on important imulses takes virtually no significant time and gives both players the opportunity to

consider fire information without any extra info from their opponent (i.e. know that they are or are not firing at that perticular moment).

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 10:37 am: Edit

Troy wrote: >>In our games, we usually just say "pause for fire" when we need to think. Everybody who's in a position where they might want to fire then writes down whether or not they're firing and if so, what. We reveal it, resolve it, and move on.>>

If you haven't been following this crazy discussion across three different threads, this exactly what I've been saying all along--what you describe is how I figure most people play (and is how pretty much how everyone I have ever played FTF with has played). The issue that caused this is that the SFBOL interface doesn't seperate between IA and DF like FTF play does--if you are to use the interface as designed, you need to plot your DF orders (which is time consuming) before you see if your opponent has speed changes or launchyes seeking weapons to avoid missing a firing opportunity.

In FTF play, simply calling for DF during each of the 4 or 5 impulses where significant fire is likely and spending 30 seconds jotting a note down ("2.24. Nothing" or "2.24. 4OL, 5P1 @ ship 1 P1 at drn 1") is simple, easy, not time consuming, does not require special equipment, does not encourage "me too" fire, and clearly seperates the IA segment and the DF segment of a given impulse.

-Peter

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 11:06 am: Edit

Note to Peter:

Stephen's not saying the things you say he is

By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 11:20 am: Edit

>>>Saying "Any IA? Ok. Any DF?" and jotting a note down on important imulses takes virtually no significant time and gives both players the opportunity to consider fire information without any extra info from their opponent (i.e. know that they are or are not firing at that perticular moment).

Not to mention that this is absolutely 100% in the spirit of the rules, even if it is technically not within the letter of the rules.

This DOES NOT slow down the game to any appreciable extent, if the players

acknowledge that this is how they are going to do it.

Another good way to do it is to use the command cards (FIRE ALPHA STRIKE, FIRE SOME WEAPONS, DEFENSIVE FIRE, etc.) and some players I know have made their own from index cards. Once I even played against a Fed player in a tournament who make an index card sized diagram of his ship with all the weapon SSD boxes on it and had it laminated. He would take a grease pencil and check the weapons he was firing (or fake it) when fire was called for. Seemed like a cool idea to me.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Stephen wrote: >>Stephen's not saying the things you say he is>>

Fair enough. As I mentioned earlier, it may not have been your intention to be saying what I thought you might have been saying, but it kinda looked like you were. But apparently not. Ok.

-Peter

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Actually Peter, you were attributing James McMurray's quotes to me. Just want to make sure credit is given where it's due, especially since I have been arguing

steadily alongside you against all of those points

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Stephen,

Holy crap. You are completely correct. Darn that jump from one forum to the other.

Sorry about that :-)

-Peter

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Saying "Any IA? Ok. Any DF?" and jotting a note down on important imulses takes virtually no significant time and gives both players the opportunity to consider fire information without any extra info from their opponent (i.e. know that they are or are not firing at that perticular moment). Glad you agree with my SOP card procedure this is Exactly what it does. Except it does it without the information leakage and mee too ability that they way asking the question does.

The issue that caused this is that the SFBOL interface doesn't seperate between IA and DF like FTF play does

There is no such distinction in the SOP rules, every step is equally seperate. We need to eliminate this seperation in FTF not put it into SFBOL. This topic is to suggest ways to do that.

if you are to use the interface as designed, you need to plot your DF orders (which is time consuming) before you see if your opponent has speed changes or launchyes seeking weapons to avoid missing a firing opportunity. No, you don't. You merely have to STOP the SOP before fire stage is executed. You could do this in a tourney room for example by stopping at disdev step or at did drone hit dogfighting fighter step just type in stopping to think. This is NO DIFFERENT than In our games, we usually just say "pause for fire" Once you see the lack of action by your opponnnet you then restart the SOP and execute fire step. I say lack of action here becasue if your opponnent HAD an action the SOP would have stopped at that step already.

If you are flying a ship with no plasam and you want to confirm that your opponnnet didn't launch plasma, you can simply highlight the plasma SOP step, and that will stop there. This is no different that asking you have plasma launch and having your opponnent say no... except that it doesn't provide information leakage that asking the question would, and doesn't provide the mee too opportunity.

He would take a grease pencil and check the weapons he was firing (or fake it) when fire was called for. Seemed like a cool idea to me. Michael does this mean you like the SOP card idea?(see post at top of topic).

So does anyone have any better ideas on how to improve the FTF play than my suggestion at the top of this topic?

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 03:34 pm: Edit

SVC can you put a header post on the topic.

Any ideas on how to improve on SOP procedures in FTF play to maintain B2 secret an simultaneous?

Or something to that affect.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Les wrote: >>Glad you agree with my SOP card procedure this is Exactly what it does. Except it does it without the information leakage and mee too ability that they way asking the question does.>>

Unless you go through this process *every impulse*, there is going to be just as much information leakage as with the commonly used "Any IA? Call for Fire" system. Unless you fill out that card every impulse, then you have the exact same

information leakage--you start filling out that card, you are clearly doing something. Information leakage. And again, unless someone indicates that they want to stop in the disdev step, to see all the other IA that has gone before they plot their DF, you are asking people to plot fire before they see speed changes and drone launches, which is not the intention of the rules.

>>There is no such distinction in the SOP rules, every step is equally seperate. We need to eliminate this seperation in FTF not put it into SFBOL. This topic is to suggest ways to do that.>>

The same seperation is between every SOP step. And according to the rules, you see every step in order before you have to decide what to do in the next step. You see *all* of the IA steps up till the DF before you have to plot fire. The SFBOL system (and apparently the system you seem to advocate here) effectively demands that you plot DF before you see other IA steps. Unless you plot to stop every IA stop just to see what happens then. Which is silly and time consuming. So playing the game with a call for IA followed by a call for DF is both perfectly within the realm of the rules, and a practical way to do everything you need to do.

>>No, you don't. You merely have to STOP the SOP before fire stage is executed.>>

There is currently no effective way to do this in SFBOL other than by bastardizing the disdev step. In the FTF game, there is an effective way to do this--say "call for fire". It lets both players know that all other IA is done, and that you are stopped in the fire phase.

>>This is NO DIFFERENT than In our games, we usually just say "pause for fire" Once you see the lack of action by your opponnnet you then restart the SOP and execute fire step. I say lack of action here becasue if your opponnent HAD an action the SOP would have stopped at that step already. >>

And this is no different than how the game works everywhere else, too. By asking for IA, and then by asking for DF.

>>So does anyone have any better ideas on how to improve the FTF play than my suggestion at the top of this topic?>>

Leaving it working the way it currently does, as it works just fine?

-Peter

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 05:43 pm: Edit

There's a famous and wise saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

FTF works fine - stop trying to break it, Les.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Unless you fill out that card every impulse, then you have the exact same information leakage

No it's not, it's simply executing the SOP. Nothing says you actually HAVE to check mark a ____ thing if you insist on using the SOP Check box procedure that impulse. Nor does it reveal WHAT SOP step it is you wish to execute so you don't know that I want to stop at launch dornes or launch shuttles or land shuttles.

And again, unless someone indicates that they want to stop in the disdev step, to see all the other IA that has gone before they plot their DF, you are asking people to plot fire before they see speed changes and drone launches, which is not the intention of the rules.

No, that player is simply saying that he has orders that are not dependant on what his opponnent does or doesn't do if he fills out his exact orders as soon as the SOP procedure is executed. Again if they wish to see a lack of actions or even just to stop and think at a crertain point they can clearly and easily do so. This procedure simply and correctly puts the onus on your decision making for what you wish to do in the SOP on you and not on information leakage from your opponnent.

The same seperation is between every SOP step. Absolutely right.

And according to the rules, you see every step in order before you have to decide what to do in the next step. Absolutely correct, and you can see that order when the SOP is stopped and that step is executed- - -THEN the SOP is restarted (after an order change by you if you so wish.) Noone is saying you have to lock in orders and you are unable to change them if your opponnent changes speed. The assumption is that your order will be executed as is UNLESS your oppoonnent does something, so the assumption is that your opponnnet isn't doing anything until he stops the SOP to so it.

You see *all* of the IA steps up till the DF before you have to plot fire. Absolutely corect, however what you DON'T get to know is if your opponnnet wishes to do something in a SOP Step that has not been executed yet. And again( and you don't seem to be acknowledging this point) if your opponnent does something (instead of the assumed nothing) the SOP will stop at that action, therefore you KNOW that that SOP step was executed.

The SFBOL system (and apparently the system you seem to advocate here) effectively demands that you plot DF before you see other IA steps.

DEAD Wrong. It asks you to plot your orders as if your opponnnet did nothing, unless you wish to stop the SOP at a certain point to CONFIRM this lack of actions by your opponnent. Again it is assumed he is going to do nothing unless he does do something.

Unless you plot to stop every IA stop just to see what happens then. Wrong again. It's only asking you to stop at the specific step which you are concerned about and to ignore teh ones you don't care about.

Which is silly and time consuming. It would only be time consuming if you wish to be a jerk and stop the SOP at every step every impulse which is clearly an intention to stall the game and be a jerk. nobody is going to need that level of SOP stopping.

So playing the game with a call for IA followed by a call for DF is both perfectly within the realm of the rules, and a practical way to do everything you need to do.

Except it does give away information. Got any IA? well the next step is obviously to identify WHAT stage you have IA at... lets do launch drones step... well Gee you were planning on launching drones but since you now know he is too you can instead not launch drones and go to plan B and launch a WW to remove his drones THEN later launch your own.. this way yours won't drop withyour WW.

Got DF? No... well I do. So now you've locked out your opponnent from firing as he said no, and of course up until the second he said no you also had no intension of firing but as soon as you heard him say no you realized you can blow off some of his weapons before he has the chance to fire. If he then sayys well I guess I'll fire too , you can say sorry, no Me too firing, you just said your not going to fire.

The problem is that "secret" also applies to the SOP step your opponnent wishes to execute, not just what he is executing in that step.

If this means the onus is on you to Stop the SOP where you want it stopped, too bad. It's well worth placing the responsibility for a players action on that player if it removes the advantage of information leakage away from the controller or questioner. Frankly this isn't a change of responsibility, the responsibility has always been on you to make sure what you want to execute is executed in the proper step of the SOP.

The only place there is a change(yes I admit it is a change albiet a minor one to what you are used to) is in the case where your action is based SOLELY on the LACK of an action by your opponnent, because in every other instance YOU see the SOP step is executed and you ALWAYS have the right to change following SOP steps when an earlier SOP step occurs.

This is such a NORROW and rare situation where this change occurs that quite frankly it's not worth the time to think about it as the solution of stopping the SOP where you wish easily compensates for it.

Just because 50% of the people out there may not use the mid turn speed cap doesn't make ignoring it correct. B2.4 does give it's intention but notes it may be time consuming to write everything every impulse - -the Sop card boils it down to simply ticking a check mark.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Isn't it interesting how others see themselves as your master? Let me put something straight. Andy you are not the master of me and I shall do what I like in terms of posting to this topic until such time as ADB says the issue is closed or they ask me to stop posting.

If ADB though I was out in left field SVC would not have created the topic.

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Peter: "it is deciding your fire order based on information from your opponent"

You're assuming that I'm letting their decision affect mine. My fire order was decided long before the impulse started. You're coming into it assuming I'm being dishonest, which is mildly insulting. I can understand paranoia, so if I'm ever playing against you I won't use use this method.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 06:20 pm: Edit

James wrote: >>You're assuming that I'm letting their decision affect mine. My fire order was decided long before the impulse started. You're coming into it assuming I'm being dishonest, which is mildly insulting.>>

No, no, you clearly misunderstand what I'm saying here--my point is simply that if the system you are talking about exists to combat "me too" fire, assuming that someone will use the "call for fire" decleration as information to determine whether they shoud shoot or not, then using a system that theoretically lets you use "I got nothing this impulse" as information to determine whether you shoot or not isn't really an improvement at all.

I'm not saying that *you* are using this for dubious ends, but I'd figure that you can see how someone might see how it could be, especially in the light of it being used to avoid "me too" fire situations.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Les wrote: >>No it's not, it's simply executing the SOP. Nothing says you actually HAVE to check mark a ____ thing if you insist on using the SOP Check box procedure that impulse.>>

The information comes from picking up the sheet at all. Unless I use the sheet every impulse, picking up the sheet is saying "I have IA" just as much as me saying "I got IA" is. If saying "I got IA" is "information leakage" that you are trying to combat, then picking up the sheet and marking something on it is just as much "information leakage". Unless you fill it out every impulse of the whole game. Which is unreasonable to expect to happen. So the whole venture of the special SOP sheet doesn't actually do anything that saying "I got IA" does. But a lot more complicatedly.

>>Nor does it reveal WHAT SOP step it is you wish to execute so you don't know that I want to stop at launch dornes or launch shuttles or land shuttles.>>

Me saying "I got IA" doesn't reveal any of this either.

>>Absolutely corect, however what you DON'T get to know is if your opponnnet wishes to do something in a SOP Step that has not been executed yet.>>

At no point in the "I got IA" system does this information come out either. I'm yet to see the improvement.

>>It would only be time consuming if you wish to be a jerk and stop the SOP at every step every impulse which is clearly an intention to stall the game and be a jerk. nobody is going to need that level of SOP stopping.>>

Like, I'm currently only focusing on your suggestion of how to improve FTF IA/DF procedures. And as far as I can tell, your improvement is "use a plastic sheet to mark off you IA instead of a piece of scrap paper, but for all other purposes, unless you fill out the plastic sheet every impulse of the game to avoid leaking information, it is identical to saying "Any IA? Ok. Call for Fire".

>>Except it does give away information.>>

It doesn't give away any more information than saying "Got any IA?" "Got any IA" could very well be "Got any drone launch"? (which in reality, sometimes it is).

>>Got DF? No... well I do.>>

I don't know how things work where you are from, but that isn't how it works in any game I have ever played. A general impulse goes like this:

-Move -"Any IA?" If there is any, or a possibility of any, someone jots a note. The note is just as likely to be "nothing" as "launch 4 drones". -"Any DF" Players jot a note down. This note is just as likely to be "nothing" as it is "4OL, 4P1".

>>So now you've locked out your opponnent from firing as he said no,>>

Umm, how do you figure that? One of us calls for fire. We plot our fire. We reveal our fire. Saying "Any DF?" is not literally asking someone to verbally declare their fire at my request. It is shorthand for "let's secretly and simultaneously plot any fire now".

>>the Sop card boils it down to simply ticking a check mark.>>

And saying "IA?" boils down to simply jotting a note. I'm not seeing the vast improvement.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Les wrote: >>Isn't it interesting how others see themselves as your master? Let me put something straight. Andy you are not the master of me and I shall do what I like in terms of posting to this topic until such time as ADB says the issue is closed or they ask me to stop posting.>>

Combative much?

I can say with fair certainty that Andy is saying "The system works fine. There is no need to improve it." not "Les! I demand you stop posting!" Big difference.

-Peter

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 07:06 pm: Edit

-"Any IA?" If there is any, or a possibility of any, someone jots a note. The note is just as likely to be "nothing" as "launch 4 drones".

Really, and if my note says speed change and your note says launch 4 drones, then how is that not revealing that you are planning on launching drones when we get to launch drones stage? Your interrogation method of asking questions by it's very nature requires subsequent questions to narrow down the step you wish to execute, if you don't do that or volunteer the info of what step, then you will run into one player revealing an earlier step as you reveal a later step out of sequence.

So the whole venture of the special SOP sheet doesn't actually do anything that saying "I got IA" does. But a lot more complicatedly. It preserves if the step is "fire" or "drone launch" or "plasma launch", and again isn't needed every impulse just once you reach certain ranges or impulses.

Picking up the sheet doesn't reveal you have ANYTHING at all you wish to do, it can be as much a bluff as stating in your interrogation system of asking got fire, or saying lets execute a simul fire reveal.

Saying "Any DF?" is not literally asking someone to verbally declare their fire at my request. It is shorthand for "let's secretly and simultaneously plot any fire now". ... and the problem with that is not everyone will interpret it that way. I have seen people use it as a way of getting their opponnent to reveal an intention to fire so the interrigator can then make his decision regarding fire.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Combative much? Absolutely.

.. and go back and read what he actually posted. FTF works fine - stop trying to break it, Les. Yes it was a demand I stop posting. "Break it" equates to no longer continuing in the conversation.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Bakija incoming emial

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Les. Suffice it to say that you read things from my post that were not there.

By Peter Thoenen (Eol) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 09:48 pm: Edit

I have to side with Les on broken FTF (per long arguments made with Peter

elsewhere). Just figured I would pipe in a give you some support Les

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Thanks EOL, question though is do you have any ideas to fix it, or do you like or hate my suggestion top of this topic?

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 08:15 am: Edit

Fix what? You don't wait till someone asks "IA?" before you announce your speed change. You do it as soon as everything is done moving that impulse because it's not really IA, it's the end of movement. Then if you're close enough for it to matter you say "seeking weapons?" everyone writes stuff down. "Shuttles?" everyone writes stuff down. "Direct Fire?" You get the idea. I admit I've only been playing 5 or 6 years, but I've never seen a ftf game, no

matter how unfamiliar with each other the players are, or how little they trust each other, that devolved into the kind of thing you're trying to stop.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 09:44 am: Edit

Les wrote: >>Really, and if my note says speed change and your note says launch 4 drones, then how is that not revealing that you are planning on launching drones when we get to launch drones stage?>>

The guy with the speed change says "I got a speed change" as soon as you are done writing, 'cause both players know speed changes are pretty much the first thing that happens. So the drone guy doesn't actually reveal the drone launch. And if important, can then go back and change it. And if either player is worried about revealing too much information during a complex impulse, they go through the steps--"Any speed change? Tractors? Plasma? Drones?" etc.

>>Your interrogation method of asking questions by it's very nature requires subsequent questions to narrow down the step you wish to execute,>>

It is not an "interrogation". It is "Call for IA". (scribble notes) "Speed change? Tractors? Seeking weapons?" The phrase "Any IA?" is not a request for your opponent to reveal their intentions to you. It is shorthand for "I wanna plot IA now. Let's write secret notes."

>>Picking up the sheet doesn't reveal you have ANYTHING at all you wish to do, it can be as much a bluff as stating in your interrogation system of asking got fire, or saying lets execute a simul fire reveal.>>

At which point, I ask myself "how is this an improvement over the standard system?" And other than it being slightly better organized, what with the check off list and all but balanced by the need to have a second piece of unusual equipment at hand, it doesn't strike me as any better at all.

>>... and the problem with that is not everyone will interpret it that way. I have seen people use it as a way of getting their opponnent to reveal an intention to fire so the interrigator can then make his decision regarding fire.>>

And that is cheating, and not really covered under this discussion. People can cheat in any number of ways, and any system anyone comes up with is just as prone to cheating as any other. You need to assume that people are *not* cheating and go from there, as otherwise, the game doesn't work. It is very easy to cheat in this game--lose points of power, "accidentally" mis write your speed plot, change the sheild your rienforcement is on after it becomes apparent that you have it on the wrong sheild, whatever. Assuming that someone is using the "call for fire" aspect of the game to cheat and changing it to try and prevent this is silly, as there are so many other ways to cheat that you can't fix.

I've been playing FTF tournament SFB for many years at a very competetive level. I have never once been in a situation where the standard FTF system for calling for IA and then DF has been a problem such that I feel it requires fixing.

-Peter

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:22 pm: Edit

"I've never seen a ftf game, no matter how unfamiliar with each other the players are, or how little they trust each other, that devolved into the kind of thing you're trying to stop. "

I have to second this. I've never had a problem with it in over ten years of playing. If I did play with someone for whom it became a problem, I'd just stop playing with them. If it was a round in a tournament or there was some other reason I couldn't just stand up and say "thatnks for the game" then I'd go ahead and let them call for fire, IA, or whatever.

Generally the people that feel the need to cheat are the ones that suck at the game, so if you pay attention to everything that's going on, take a bit of time to think through every important move, and refrain from moving on until you're ready (i.e. don't get hurried by their questions), then you're more than likely still going to win, even if they do know that you want to fire before they decide if they want to fire.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Watching this discussion, I have been thinking about how I have always handled the SOP in FTF games. I would have to say that I don't have any problem with it, but as I think through it, I realize there are a fairly large number of conventions and informal principles my friends and I use. Even in FTF tournament play, against an unfamiliar opponent, these principles seem to hold:

- To do things entirely correctly (i.e. go through every step, simultaneously record actions secretly, simultaneously reveal them) would render the game unplayable.

- The vast majority of the time, there is no need for the secret-simultaneous procedure.

- There are many cases where announcing what you are doing ahead of sequence does not give your opponent any advantage, but does speed game play. A couple examples:

A. My opponent, at range 14, is moving slower than I am. Several of my drones are at close range to him. On an impulse we both move, he is mulling over where to go. I go ahead and move my ship, even though technically I move after him, because I don't care where he moves, and I don't think knowing my move gives

him any advantage. If my turn mode is not satisfied, and I have just slipped, and we're not in a situation where a HET would be reasonable (or maybe even possible), then I will generally move immediately, without waiting on anyone, so I can get back to thinking about the rest of the impulse.

B. After moving, I announce, "I'm launching drones." My opponent says, "Wait, I have a speed change to announce. I'm going up to 17. I'm also going to tractor the top drone (in the stack launched launched last turn) and then throw a lab on the other two." I say, "OK, go ahead," and go back to writing down drone records and pulling counters while he adjusts the impulse chart and grabs some dice.

Now, we could have screwed around for a couple minutes going through the steps of the SOP. But the fact is, my launch should not be a shocker. I did jump ahead by announcing my launch, but it's no trouble to back up and let him do his thing. We are still following the SOP - e.g. he can't lab the drones that I am launch this impulse. It's understood that I could change my launch decision based on his retroactive announcement.

In both of these cases, I am giving up something. In case A, I am giving up the movement advantage from my higher speed. In case B, I'm basically letting my opponet know right after movement that I plan to launch drones later in the impulse. In both cases, I consider the loss worth it to speed the game along. With that said, a few things should be noted:

- If the sequence becomes important, I'll use it. If it matters where my opponent moves, I'm not going to give up movement precedence. If my opponent is a plasma ship at range 1, I want to know if he is launching before I decide whether or not to launch drones, and so on.

- It is understood that I can't deny my opponent the opportunity to take any activities by blurting out an action. If I have jumped ahead, my opponent can ask to back up.

Actually, in the case of drone launch, what I would do in most cases is say, "Got anything prior to drone launch?" If my opponent says no, then I announce my launch. At that point, we are not backing up. (I might be nice if he made a genuine goof like forgetting to announce a plotted speed change, but he is at my mercy at that point.)

- It is understood that my announcement is not binding if we have to go back to some prior step in the SOP. If my opponent takes some action, I can react to that action in any step that follows.

- It is understood that my opponent will not declare an action in a prior step in reaction to my announcement. This can get a little fuzzy sometimes. It does require good sportsmanship from my opponent. On the other hand, if it really was

the case that my announcement gave away some crucial piece of information, then I was foolish for just announcing it without taking the trouble to go through the steps.

- Writing stuff down is only worthwhile for steps where a) we both have an option for some meaningful action, and b) knowing what the opponent is going to do has the potential to affect the decision in that step. Asking for secret-simultaneous announcement of drone launch is silly if my opponent has no drones to launch. And I really don't care if my opponent does a "me-too" announcement on labbing of seeking weapons. There are cases where it matters, and we write stuff down, but outside of fire phase, these cases are fairly rare.

- There is a wide range of granularity that we can use for the sequence of play. We adjust as appropriate from:

A. Call movement (stop me if you want to do anything). B. Move, then call for impulse activities. C. Movement, "Anything prior to fire phase?", fire. D. Movement, "Early activities?" (i.e. prior to launch phase), launch, "Anything else before fire?", fire. E. Go through all the major steps. F. Go through all the steps.

Usually, we are at level A or B. On the battle pass, C or D. The only time we would go to E or F would be cases like, it's impulse 1 and we're at range 1, and so forth.

- In tournaments, I am a little more formal and careful with all of the above. A lot more stuff gets written down.

There are probably a lot of other informal conventions that I have forgotten to mention above. But the thing is, about everyone I have ever played with understands and follows these conventions. They work.

In cases where they don't work, the problem is more likely to be with the sportsmanship of a player than with these conventions.

Does using them leak information to the opponent? Sure. Have I ever gained information about my opponent's intentions based on his call for fire, in effect, doing some "me-too" fire? I'll have to admit it has happened to some extent. Has my opponent ever taken advantage of the fact that I called for activity in a certain step, rather than using some more cumbersome method that preserved secrecy? Definitely.

Is using some more formal system that preserves more secrecy but slows down the game worth it? I don't think so.

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:38 pm: Edit

This is certainly rehash, but the problem with the rules is that they specifically allow for skipping parts of the turn, since adhering to the entire SOP each impulse would obviously be completely unnecessary and extraordinarily taxing and this whole discussion revolves around how it is appropriate to reintegrate the letter of the SOP rules when it is appropriate.

I believe that if you are going to play certain segments (Impulse Activity, Direct Fire), they should be called out and both players should have an opportunity to act. If you are going to fire, you should call for a DF segment and follow the appropriate steps, the first of which is the Fire Decision Step, where *all* players secretly and *simultaneously* (i.e. not 2 impulses ago) decide if and what they will fire. If nobody fires, the rest of the segment is moot and you move on.

I would argue that if players do not follow the procedure of the Fire Decision Step, the Fire Declaration Step cannot happen, because no fire was legitimately decided (secretly and simultaneously).

Nobody who plays by this "alpha strike ambush" method has ever been negatively impacted by an opponent who calls for fire plots, but a player who is used to playing through fire plot declaration will definitely be caught off guard by the ambush player the first time it happens and surely one might appreciate how a fire plot player may perceive this as unsportsmanlike, regardless of the intent.

And besides the S&S argument, I still have a problem with people writing DF down impulses in advance of the impulse they will fire, because it is unaccountable. Say I am a disruptor ship that inadvisibly calls an alpha strike down on my closing opponent, also a disruptor ship, at Range 4. Maybe he decided to shoot at that range too, but since I announced, he realizes he can really jam it to me in close if he doesn't fire, so he just keeps his mouth shut and later on "neverminds" his fire for that impulse. Since he only reveals if he actually does fire, then it is very easy to do this.

If, on the other hand, we both plotted fire, we both have a known written record that we will both immediately reveal and we are both fully accountable as a result. There is no room for abuse in this system, beyond maybe a few extra dummy fire plots, but the ambush system is ripe for cheating and other misuse. Now I am of course in no way impugning the character of any individuals who advocate this method, but it has to be acknowledged that it does leave the door wide open for that kind of abuse.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:48 pm: Edit

So now you are changing your stance that clarifying questions will indeed be required to narrow down what step to simul.....

The guy with the speed change says "I got a speed change" as soon as you are

done writing, 'cause both players know speed changes are pretty much the first thing that happens. So the drone guy doesn't actually reveal the drone launch. And if important, can then go back and change it. And if either player is worried about revealing too much information during a complex impulse, they go through the steps--"Any speed change? Tractors? Plasma? Drones?" etc.

Where previously you denied that this would be required.

>>Except it does give away information. Got any IA? well the next step is obviously to identify WHAT stage you have IA at... lets do launch drones step... well Gee you were planning on launching drones but since you now know he is too you can instead not launch drones and go to plan B and launch a WW to remove his drones THEN later launch your own.. this way yours won't drop withyour WW. ****** Nor does it(SOP SHEET) reveal WHAT SOP step it is you wish to execute so you don't know that I want to stop at launch dornes or launch shuttles or land shuttles.>>

Me saying "I got IA" doesn't reveal any of this either.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Les wrote: >>So now you are changing your stance that clarifying questions will indeed be required to narrow down what step to simul...

Changing stance? What? Where have I ever said you don't need to sometimes go through steps? Sometimes, you need to go through steps. Sometimes you don't. What--are you trying to catch me up in some impenitrible web of logic now? Dude, cummon.

>>Where previously you denied that this would be required.>>

I did no such thing. I said "you call for IA. Then you call for DF.". Sometimes calling for IA includes walking through the steps, especially in complicated impulses (i.e. two ships full of seeking and DF weapons at R1). I never claimed otherwise.

-Peter

By Peter Thoenen (Eol) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Les: My point of view (while I haven't thought of a soultion) is that FTF can be mod'ed to play like SFBOL does currently with everything secretely plotted. I just don't see it slowing the game down either once people adapt to it. After getting used to it on SFBOL, I find it plays much faster than c4f games.

Everybody else: Maybe it is just me or the people I have played with in the past (even friendly fleets game) but I noticed me2 items all the time. Like a range 28 drone launch and then your opponents goes "oh yeah, I also have a launch". Give me a break, you are telling me we both thought it was a good idea to launch a drone wave at range 28 and not lets say 29 or 27.

Andy: You are correct on this is how most games are played out (especially at long ranges) BUT when you get under range 15 (dis), range 10 (plasma), or range 8 (everybody else) you really need a way to do secret and sim EVEN if it slows the game down. Me2 can you kill you here and this is the range where it matters. I could really care less if you me2 an alpha ph1 volley @ range 25.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Peter II wrote: >>Les: My point of view (while I haven't thought of a soultion) is that FTF can be mod'ed to play like SFBOL does currently with everything secretely plotted.>>

Everything already *is* secretly plotted--"call for IA" (plot secretly/reveal in appropriate order); "Call for DF" (plot secretly/reveal). Unless you are playing fast and loose (which some people do, but generally by mutual agreement).

>>I just don't see it slowing the game down either once people adapt to it. After getting used to it on SFBOL, I find it plays much faster than c4f games.>>

But it is also wrong--the DF step and the IA step are two different steps. DF is not just an IA step. It is a distinct and seperate step in the impulse. You go through IA. See what happens in IA. Then you go on to DF. That is how the impulse goes. Plotting DF secretly before you see drone launch and whatever isn't just a bad idea, it is also wrong.

>>Everybody else: Maybe it is just me or the people I have played with in the past (even friendly fleets game) but I noticed me2 items all the time.>>

If you are playing in a friendly fleet game, who cares? If it is a problem, then you play stricter rules. The capability already exists without inventing new ones.

>>Like a range 28 drone launch and then your opponents goes "oh yeah, I also have a launch". Give me a break, you are telling me we both thought it was a good idea to launch a drone wave at range 28 and not lets say 29 or 27.>>

That is 'cause you are playing fast and loose, even though you might not have agreed to. You should probably discuss how you want to run the impulse with your opponent.

In tournament play, this doesn't happen. You say "I have IA" and scribble a note. And then reveal the note. When it turns out you have launched drones, your

opponent can't then go and launch drones, as the step is past.

>>Andy: You are correct on this is how most games are played out (especially at long ranges) BUT when you get under range 15 (dis), range 10 (plasma), or range 8 (everybody else) you really need a way to do secret and sim EVEN if it slows the game down.>>

There is a way. And it is what people use. "Call for IA" (plot/reveal in appropriate order); "Call for DF" (plot/reveal). It doesn't slow the game down much. And only ever is gone through in a detailed way in a small number of impulses.

I'm getting the feeling that you seem to think that what Andy and myself are talking about is akin to "I've got drone launch!" and your opponent saying "Oh! Me too!". That isn't how things work. You call for IA. You plot some notes. You reveal in the appropriate order as needed (most impulses, it isn't really an issue. Some impulses, like when both ships are at R1 and full of seeking weapons, shuttles, tractors, and DF weapons, you walk through each step as needed). It is a quick, simple, and painless method. That works fine.

-Peter

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 04:46 pm: Edit

But it is also wrong--the DF step and the IA step are two different steps. DF is not just an IA step. It is a distinct and seperate step in the impulse. You go through IA. See what happens in IA. Then you go on to DF. That is how the impulse goes. Plotting DF secretly before you see drone launch and whatever isn't just a bad idea, it is also wrong.

There is ONE impulse prcedure, There happen to be 5 sections not 2. All of which are equally seperate.

...and again the default assumption is that there is NO actions on your opponnents part - - -if there are any you can decide to - - perform a following step action - - modify that action - -or keep it the same.

Ther is NO REQUIREMENT to plot anything before the fire step is executed. However since the default is the opponnent does nothing you can plot your fire by that default if you so choose, becasue if it turns out NOT to be the default - - - you can- - perform a following step action - - modify that action - -or keep it the same.

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Stephen: I object to the term "alpha strike ambush" because it brings negative (i.e. dishonest) connotations to mind. But I will agree with one thing:

It can definitely throw somebody off gaurd when it happens.

So what? If I say "call for fire" then I've given away that I may want to fire, possibly comepletely changing their perception of the match. Perhaps they thought I was going to move in to range 4 and launch plasmas, but I'm instead bolting at range 10. As soon as I start calling for fire their mindset may go down an entirely different path.

If they really want to fire, they'll call for fire themselves, or do the same thing I do. If not, I haven't ambushed them, I've simply kept my intentions hidden until the last possible moment.

All that said though, against you in a game I'll happily call for fire every impulse where fire might be an option, if that's how you prefer it to work. Doing otherwise (IMO) gives too much away.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Les wrote: >>There is ONE impulse prcedure, There happen to be 5 sections not 2. All of which are equally seperate.>>

Correct. First you move and do everything that happens in the move step (6A). Then you do IA and do everything in that step (6B). Then you do dogfighting (6C) (unlikely to come up that often). Then you do direct fire (6D). Then you do the post combat segment (6E).

Asking someone to plot their fire before they see the IA step plotted out is just like asking someone to plot their fire before movement is over.

>>Ther is NO REQUIREMENT to plot anything before the fire step is executed.>>

No, there isn't. But you aren't required to plot fire till step 6D, which doesn't come around till after step 6B is finished. And till you *know* step 6B is finished.

>>However since the default is the opponnent does nothing you can plot your fire by that default if you so choose, becasue if it turns out NOT to be the default - - - you can- - perform a following step action - - modify that action - -or keep it the same.>>

Sure. But you aren't required to even *think* about direct fire till after the IA segement (6B) is finished. And an IA procedure that suggests that you do, and then back up and fix it if it turns out that your opponent had a speed change or launched a drone, isn't a good procedure.

-Peter

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 05:15 pm: Edit

A few good (IMO) side effects of this method:

1) Turns progress rapidly, no matter how many people are in the match. You jot a few notes down and then each impulse is just "30, 18, and 12 move. anything else?"

2) Hidden t-bomb / NSM placement is better hidden. If people are jotting notes about all sorts of things, you get to where you don't mentally note their hex every time it happens. In other situations, hidden placement is one of the rare times you'll be writing notes outside of the fire and launch phases.

3) As I said above, sometimes you get really surprised by an opponent's plan.

Recently I played against a buddy of mine I hadn't played with for years (5+). He was playing Roms, and he always launches and then hides. Or at least he used to. Imagine my surprise when he dropped the "I've got fire" bomb at the end of the impulse. He proceeded to rape me because it never crossed my mind he wouldn't launch and hide. If he'd stopped to call for fire the idea may have entered my head, sounded like a great idea, and I may have fired too, which would have totally changed the game because of one seemingly innocuous question.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 05:36 pm: Edit

The same procedure should be used for for 2 players games as for 8 player games. The Interrogation method has does and probably always will be a furball when trying to sort out who wants to execute what with that many players. The SOP Card method would also smooth that out as well.

The word "REQUIRE" to plot Y before you know about X is a misleading and an obfuscating statement and is not true. There IS NO SUCH requirement. The requirement is that the player Stop the SOP so he can execute the step he wishes to. This is not a change to B2.4 .

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Les wrote: >>The same procedure should be used for for 2 players games as for 8 player games.>>

Sure. But as this is the *tournament* discussion thread, I'm only talking about two ship games.

>> The Interrogation method>>

You mean the "call for IA/call for DF" method I'm talking about? I'm not quite sure I know what an "interrogation" method is.

>>has does and probably always will be a furball when trying to sort out who wants to execute what with that many players. The SOP Card method would also smooth that out as well.>>

I'm sure it would. But I'm not talking about 8 player games, what with this being a tournament discussion thread and all.

>>The word "REQUIRE" to plot Y before you know about X is a misleading and an obfuscating statement and is not true.>>

A system that asks you to plot fire before seeing IA is essentially asking you to do this. Conversely, a system that goes through Impulse Activity and then goes through Direct Fire only after you know IA is over (as the SOP actually instructs you to do), doesn't do this.

-Peter

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 06:04 am: Edit

James wrote: >>Stephen: I object to the term "alpha strike ambush" because it brings negative (i.e. dishonest) connotations to mind. But I will agree with one thing:

As I said, James, I'm not accusing you of being dishonest or anything - I've no intention of that whatsoever. My assessment is entirely directed at the approach itself and it does have negative connotations for me.

James wrote: >>It can definitely throw somebody off gaurd when it happens.

If it throws someone off guard simply because that person is not anticipating that style of impulse SOP management, it accomplishes its end for what I believe is the wrong reason (thus, the negative "ambush" description).

James wrote: >>So what? If I say "call for fire" then I've given away that I may want to fire, possibly comepletely changing their perception of the match.

That you've shown up on the other guy's doorstep has given away the fact that you want to fire, so I don't believe you will fundamentally alter your opponent's perception of you by calling for a fire plot at various points. As you close in, it is perfectly sensible to call for fire plots as you get closer, regardless of whether or not you shoot. In that case you are not trying to sucker your opponent into shooting necessarily, you are simply adhering more diligently to the more detailed

SOP to which you should always theoretically adhere, but for which rules-accepted realities allow you to curtail.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 09:48 am: Edit

Stephen (actually this time:-) wrote: >>That you've shown up on the other guy's doorstep has given away the fact that you want to fire, so I don't believe you will fundamentally alter your opponent's perception of you by calling for a fire plot at various points.>>

Exactly. When two ships loaded for bear, both going high speeds, cruise into R8, someone is going to shoot at some point. No one is surprised by this. When you get to that point, there is probably a 4-5 impulse period where the two ships are closing where either might fire in any given impulse. During this tense period, it makes perfect sense to call for fire (and by "call for fire", I mean "It is the start of step 6D. Let's secretly and simultaneously plot our direct fire decisions.") in each of these 4-5 impulses. It adds about 30 seconds to each impulse, unless there is a lot of thinking involved, but that is always a possibility. In each of these impulses, both players jot a note and expose them. Most of the time, the note will be "2.23. Nothing". But doing this does not give away any information (other than that you might shoot, and both people already know this) and does not leave either player in a questionable spot.

At some point, one or both players will fire. Things will break. After this, the impulses likely become simple again--either one guy shot most of his weapons and the other didn't (so the "am I going to fire or not this impulse" isn't really much of a mystery) or both guys shot most of their weapons (same as above). Maybe someone saved a couple phasers for a follow up volley--there is little mystery there, as well (I shot you with all my weapons but for 2P1s on Impulse N; on N+1 I'm still facing the same down sheild. I'm probably shooting those other two phasers.)

It is a system that works fine. Yeah, if two ships wander into R8, and no one calls for fire at all till R4 or whatever, that might give up information. But for 4 or 5 impulses of tense action, call for fire every impulse. It isn't particularly difficult. Nor does it take much time.

-Peter

By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Out of some morbid curiousity, how many people have ever lost a game that mattered for anything because their opponent gleaned some me too fire knowledge?

I have lost a slew of games to Moose, and none of them had anything to do with any info he got from me.

I have a good record versus Paul and Norm, and I know of no game where any "me too" decision meant anything whatsoever. (And in alot of those games, we spent a huge amount of all the games at point blank range)

I guess I just doubt if it really matters. Personally, I woudn't do anything that added one second to the game, as most games take generally way too long as it is. Besides, those jugs are Origins only last me one game as it is, don't make me jog across the street in the middle of a freaking game as well.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 04:08 pm: Edit

We love you Spydaer. Peter is just talking because otherwise his brain will start to work. Lesss has an agenda to make me use his system for doing stuff I've always done without it. The other dudes have various reasons for involvement in this cluster foul-up. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Tim wrote: >>Out of some morbid curiousity, how many people have ever lost a game that mattered for anything because their opponent gleaned some me too fire knowledge?>>

Very few, which is one of the points I have been making all along (i.e. that "me too" fire is mostly irrelevant in terms of actual game play, and that trying to impose more rules/systems on the game in the name of reducing "me too" fire possibilities is unecessary).

>>I guess I just doubt if it really matters.>>

I doesn't. But as much as I keep trying to convince people of this, they keep being unconvinced.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Chris wrote: >>We love you Spydaer.>>

Must...get...rid...of...

>>Peter is just talking because otherwise his brain will start to work.>>

No, no. *I'll* start to *do* work...

>>Sound and fury signifying nothing. >>

You've, ya know, been to the internet before, right?

-Peter

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 08:19 pm: Edit

"That you've shown up on the other guy's doorstep has given away the fact that you want to fire"

Wow, if that's not a completely useless statement I don't know what is. That I've bought the game has given away the fact that I want to fire. The difference is in granularity. To use my earlier example (in which case I was "ambushed" but loved the game because of it):

- 2 ships, neither of which are direct weapons heavy, are flying towards each other jockeying for the best launch setup for their plasmas. - Suddenly, player 2 calls for fire at range 12 (because you don't want to start doing it just on your fire impulse or you've "given too much away." - Player 1 looks down at his sheet, confused, and suddenly remembers that bolting at range 10 is a tactic sometimes used.

Now let's try it the way it worked out:

- 2 ships, neither of which are direct weapons heavy, are flying towards each other jockeying for the best launch setup for their plasmas. - Suddenly, player 2 flops a written note at range 10, bolting his plasmas and securing victory.

In situation 1 the entire outcome ofa game changed because of calling for fire. In situation 2 the jotted note method secured victory. There was much wailing of teeth and mashing of women.

To answer someone else's question: there are a few games that I've played that calling for fire has given something away. That's why my group started (sometimes) using this method. It works for us. But no, in the vast majority of games "me too" hasn't played a role, primarily because we're a bunch of guys looking to have fun. We'll try and con you, trick you, and otherwise deceive you into screwing up within the framework of the game, but if you get to the point where you had to lie to win all you've done is wasted your time and that of your opponent.

And now that I've given that moral high ground speech, would anyone care to wager some money on their ability to pick which cup the marble is under?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 09:22 pm: Edit

James wrote: >>- Player 1 looks down at his sheet, confused, and suddenly remembers that bolting at range 10 is a tactic sometimes used.>>

It isn't a *good* tactic. And calling for fire at 10 is surprising enough...

>>- Suddenly, player 2 flops a written note at range 10, bolting his plasmas and securing victory.>>

I mean, I realize that this is just an example and all, but no one is going to secure victory by bolting plasmas at R10. In any situation. Well, in any two ship duel situation.

>>In situation 1 the entire outcome ofa game changed because of calling for fire. In situation 2 the jotted note method secured victory. There was much wailing of teeth and mashing of women.>>

Again, surprise bolting at R10 isn't securing victory. And even if player 1 said "It's range 10! I might bolt!", the "me too" response is unlikely to have much impact at all.

I mean, again, I realize it is just an example. But it is a *really* bad example. Try a different one, and then maybe there is going to be room to examine the point you are trying to make.

I mean, like, if I have a down sheild facing someone at R10, and they can bolt plasmas at me from R10 through my down sheild and not lose by doing so, then them bolting at R10 isn't going to be a surprise. But in general, the "I surprised my opponent by bolting at R10!" isn't really a good example to bolster up an argument.

Like, I'm not trying to be a jerk here or anything, but really, not a good example.

-Peter

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Actually, Peter Bakija, it is a perfectly valid example, and you are making a slight error. Bolts HAVE won games. Your assumption is two healthy ships, when the situation James McMurray is probably describing was a late game fight when both ships have serious damage. James might have still had a wild weasel, while his opponent had his last re-armed plasma-S. He bolted, smacked James with 15 points of damage through a shield that was down, taking away two of James last three phaser-1s and his oveloaded disruptor, while James opponent was still closing with his own three phaser-1s.

However, James McMurray is wrong as well. If I suddenly called for fire at range 12, and James went "hunh? Oh, yea, plasma-Bolts" and Bolted his own plasma, allowing me to close to range five before bolting mine (better damage), or launch them in his face (even more damage), I win.

The problem is that your opponent can still be trying to trick you by calling for fire even if all he has is plasmas, i.e., as per the above, he is thinking "if I jog James's memory about plasma bolts . . . maybe he will fire his preemptively".

James example thus works both ways and is not a valid debate point.

I now return you to your discussion.

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 11:31 pm: Edit

It wasn't a tournament duel, so you probably don't care about it in light of the current thread subject. The situation was 3 romulan cruisers vs. 3 gorn cruisers. I was playing the Gorn, we were both going high speed, with me jumping speed later to hopefully grab him. He bolted at ten with all three ships, seriously damaging my command cruiser, then turned off. At our speeds my launched plasmas could never reach them, and his jump in ECM meant I couldn't do anything with a return bolt either. The floating map also meant I wasn't going to corner him. It probably wasn't assured victory, but we decided to move to another game instead of me chasing him for several turns.

Yes, he could have been trying to trick me into bolting early, but in the situation it would just have meant that I was the one running from him with high ECM. It also gets into that "head game" problem people were complaining about earlier. Asking for fire on anything but every impulse is either:

1) giving away info you shouldn't give away, or

2) trying not to give away info because you plan on doing something soon, just not now (which in and of itself gives away info), or

3) Trying to feel out or trick your opponent.

None of those are options my group enjoys, so we'll sometimes jot down fire for a few impulses in the future to avoid the whole issue.

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 04:13 am: Edit

James wrote: >>Wow, if that's not a completely useless statement I don't know what is.

Even moreso was your one-paragraph invective against it.

James wrote: >>And now that I've given that moral high ground speech, would anyone care to wager some money on their ability to pick which cup the marble is under?

This has nothing to do with morality; if you want to walk that road, you are at a

disadvantage, because your method allows for unaccountability and cheating and it relies upon what I personally consider to be unsportsmanlike and petty behavior to obtain advantages outside the scope of the normal competitive components of the game. Now I'm sorry if I come across harshly here, but I also don't appreciate attacks, such as the one above.

I honestly don't care so much when you plot your fire, but it should always be revealed within the context of an actual fire plot. That is a defined stage in the game and you are making use of it while excluding your opponent from doing so and that to me is unfair and even underhanded.

You may argue that you are not excluding your opponent, because he also could have plotted something at some point, but realistically you are merely skipping that step of the fire phase and going directly to fire. An easy way to defend against it would be simply to write "alpha strike" each impulse and write "nevermind" afterwards each time, until your opponent springs his attack on you, at which point you reveal your pre-plotted alpha strike, instead of "neverminding" it. If that's not a serious case of "me too" firing, I don't know what is and your method leaves the door wide-open to this kind of unaccountability. It is certainly "me too" well beyond anything that would ever happen with a normal fire plot.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 07:49 am: Edit

Steve wrote: >>Actually, Peter Bakija, it is a perfectly valid example, and you are making a slight error. Bolts HAVE won games.>>

Oh, certainly. Bolts can be handy. But surprising someone by firing them at R10 is unlikely to be that significant of an issue--either:

A) There is an up sheild, and they probably aren't going to be that significant to the point that they need to be a "surprise".

B) There is a down sheild, and bolting through it might very well win the game, but your opponent clearly has already forgot that the bolts are an issue (or is risking them by design), and possibly tipping your hand by calling for fire at R10 isn't really giving anything away, as you are already at R10, and already facing a down sheild.

>>He bolted, smacked James with 15 points of damage through a shield that was down, taking away two of James last three phaser-1s and his oveloaded disruptor, while James opponent was still closing with his own three phaser-1s.>>

Sure. Perfectly possible. But "surprise" isn't going to have much of an impact on this--this discussion is in the light of "does calling for fire" in and of itself give away too much information. James was using the example of how calling for fire ar exactly 10 might give away information that you are bolting. But calling for fire

at exactly 10, as noted above, is unlikely to have an impact on much other than you firing at 10--if it is an up sheild on a perfectly healthy ship, it isn't going to cause "me too" fire; if it is on a down sheild on a crippled ship, the firing at 10 isn't/shouldn't be a surprise, and the opponent probably can't do much in response any way.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 09:46 am: Edit

James wrote: >>It wasn't a tournament duel, so you probably don't care about it in light of the current thread subject.>>

Not an unreasonable statement, but in terms of absolute "call for fire" issues, it isn't totally invalid.

>> The situation was 3 romulan cruisers vs. 3 gorn cruisers. I was playing the Gorn, we were both going high speed, with me jumping speed later to hopefully grab him. He bolted at ten with all three ships, seriously damaging my command cruiser, then turned off.>>

Sure, but when he got to R10, he could have just called for fire, and you would have been like "Huh. Maybe he is going to bolt? Maybe he isn't? Should I bolt? Wha?" and no extra information would have been provided. I mean, like, I figure if you are playing the Gorns, you *know* plasmas get good-ish at bolting at R10, so it isn't like the concept is totally foreign to you. So in the instances when you are playing in a game where a plasma race might bolt at 10 (like a fleet game where someone could mass the fire of half a dozen ships and actually do some damage at R10), it isn't out of the realm of useful to simply call for fire at 10, just as it is a possibility, much like you'd do the same in a duel at R8 (or in a fleet game with Feds when all the Feds suddenly end up at R12, where the Proxes jump to useful).

>>It also gets into that "head game" problem people were complaining about earlier. Asking for fire on anything but every impulse is either: 1) giving away info you shouldn't give away, or>>

There are certain situations where factors significantly change, and it is just good form to call for a fire impulse. They usually are:

-Moving into R15 vs disruptor ships. -Moving into R12 vs a group of photon ships. -Moving into R10 vs a group of plasma ships. -Moving into R8 vs pretty much anyone. -Moving into R5 vs pretty much anyone.

Doing so just avoids the whole issue of "giving away too much information".

>>None of those are options my group enjoys, so we'll sometimes jot down fire for a few impulses in the future to avoid the whole issue.>>

Sure. If it works for your group, it works for your group. Which is fine. It just strikes me (and likely Stephen) as not such a good idea to suggest as a general method of play.

-Peter

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Stephen: don't make useless statements and they won't get called useless. Saying that playing the game is giving away that you want to fire is like me saying waking up in the morning is giving away that I want to breathe. It's true, but has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

"If that's not a serious case of "me too" firing, I don't know what is and your method leaves the door wide-open to this kind of unaccountability. "

Again, I guess it's a case of trust amongst peers. If I find myself playing against someone as distrustful (and presumably therefor untrustworthy) I'll be more than happy to call for fire every impulse in order to ensure that the proper steps are followed. The rest of the time, I'll do what works.

Peter: if people only played with people they trusted, it would be the best possible method for general play, as it doesn't slow anything down at all, ever. There is no possibility of me too firing, or of giving away too much information (or indeed any information). Unfortunately not every group has that option.

I'm not saying that call for fire is horrible, just that my group doesn't like the amount of intel it can give, or the fact that it slows things down if done at every conceivable opportunity. It may not be much (an extra 30 seconds per impulse for 10 impulses is only 5 minutes, but we like to cram as many games into our time as possible, and the more ships and/or players, the longer and longer that 30 seconds get).

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 04:44 pm: Edit

James wrote: >>Stephen: don't make useless statements and they won't get called useless.

James: that is an asinine statement. You want to talk about useless statements, batter up:

[the fire plot example] >>- Suddenly, player 2 calls for fire at range 12 (because you don't want to start

doing it just on your fire impulse or you've "given too much away." >>- Player 1 looks down at his sheet, confused, and suddenly remembers that bolting at range 10 is a tactic sometimes used.

Perhaps you should consider playtesting fire plots against adults; you might be surprised that bolting at range 10, especially in a massed non-tourney setting (which incidentally has nothing whatsoever to do with this TOURNAMENT topic), typically occurs to most people beyond the age of five. Do you just hold court, blowing up all the little neighborhood kids? Try playing real SFB players, you may find that they are a little less susceptible to such gross oversights.

[the unethical ambush example] >>- 2 ships, neither of which are direct weapons heavy, are flying towards each other jockeying for the best launch setup for their plasmas. >>- Suddenly, player 2 flops a written note at range 10, bolting his plasmas and securing victory.

If that is the level to which you must stoop to secure victory against kindergarteners, then so be it. I prefer to feel like I've earned my victories by playing in a gentlemanly manner against skilled competition.

>>Again, I guess it's a case of trust amongst peers.

Incorrect. Rules systems and their application do not exist for this purpose, they exist to ensure fair play and accountability. Your system breaks down immediately outside of a small circle of friends and people WILL take it the wrong way in a tournament. If it truly is about trust among peers, then, in the spirit of pushing statements beyond their logical conclusions into the fairytale land of absurdity as you are so fond of doing, why even write anything down at all? Just announce your fire freely and your good-natured friend will be trust-worthy enough to announce his own fire, making sure not to take into account anything that had to do with your fire announcement and you will trust in his decision completely.

>>There is no possibility of me too firing

I've already demonstrated the flaw in this logic.

>>it doesn't slow anything down at all, ever.

I realize that you will probably take this the wrong way and insist that the purchase of the game is what ultimately slows it down, but when people close on each other, the game does tend to slow down. Calling for fire plots doesn't slow the game down any more so than the ambush.

>>we like to cram as many games into our time as possible, and the more ships

and/or players, the longer and longer that 30 seconds get

What part of "Tournament Zone" do you not understand? Useless statement: something that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the topic being discussed.

By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 06:30 am: Edit

Just for the record....

If people thought calling for fire at range 12 would somehow make or influence their opponent to bolt at range 10, wouldn't they be jumping up and down in glee?

The weird thing is, is that if me and Pete are playing a game against each other, (and we have), we are 'sortof' calling for fire every impulse anyway. It's just that in 24 imps or so out of 32, (guesstimation), we not only do not have fire ourselves, but we do not care one iota if the opponent fires or not. I may have fusion fire at range 10, he may have disrupters at 15 or 8, I might have gatlings at drones, he may be blowing away fighters.....more often than not, I just don't care what he does. So, we are admitting that there could possibly be fire, and the opponent can fire if we wish, it's just a 'silent' and 'fast' call for fire. It's not me-too fire, we are calling go-ahead fire.

Now, there are some select impulses in which we do care. In those instances, we go ahead and 'formalize' the call for fire, and either person can request it.

I can state it is my belief that pretty much everyone, if not everyone, who has benefitted from me-too fire, would have been better off not firing at all and waiting until they got closer or shot at rear shields anyway. If you don't have a firm grasp of when you should be firing, at a range that is optimum for you, then you would be far better off losing a HW and 2 phasers or whatever their alpha does to you and smoking them on the rears or at closer range anyway.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 07:06 am: Edit

Tim wrote: >>If you don't have a firm grasp of when you should be firing, at a range that is optimum for you, then you would be far better off losing a HW and 2 phasers or whatever their alpha does to you and smoking them on the rears or at closer range anyway.>>

That's what I keep saying--you are better off shooting someone at R2 with 3OLs and 5P1s then you are ar R4 with 4OLs and 6P1s. So rather than worrying about what your opponent is doing, have a plan and go with it.

-Peter

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 01:08 pm: Edit

I can honestly admit that when I am on an approach to an armed enemy, I have already decided what range I am going to fire.

Can the enemy's actions modify that decision? Sure.

If I am going for a range four strike, and my opponent fires an overloaded photon and a couple of phasers when I hit range eight, then my plans may change. If the photon hit, I will probably not change my plan. If the Photon misses, I might decide to go for range 3 where my phaser-2s become effective because I can now be certain of 16 points of damage I will not take. If he blows of his full alpha strike at range eight, I will probably be changing my plan from a battle pass to an overrun (no matter how well or poorly his alpha strike damaged me).

But I literally do not care when my opponent fires, and literally do not care if he does "me-too" simply because I will have taken his actions into account, and if he "me-toos", then he is fighting the battle AT MY RANGE, and I have the initiative.

Does not mean that he will not get lucky and do more damage, or hit more key systems, than I might have liked. (Like many here, I have lost battles because of deplorable die rolls on my part and godlike die rolls by my opponents. I have often noted that my luck with photon torpedoes is such that I generally do my best not to fire them at any range greater than one . . . as I HAVE missed with four out of four at range two a few times too many . . .).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 02:04 pm: Edit

The "Me Too" issue has always been something that is of tactical use to me so long as the "what" of what is being fired is secret. That is to say, when I call "I have fire on the board", it is fine with me if my opponant then thinks a bit and adds either "Ya, me too" or "No. No fire."

The technobabble for me is "We've just been locked by weapons, Captain!". A ship may maintain general lock-on all the time but just before firing each weapon varifies its target and this can be sensed a moment before it actually fires; not by how many weapons or by what mounts just that a weapon(s) has locked on for an impending fire or launch.

Now, how this is tactically usefull is that I may be trying to get my opponant to fire his wad and my fire that I just called is only one phaser. Alternatively, he may be goating me into firing more than I planned by stating he will fire too and as such he only fires one phaser while I Alpha (or whatever) at a longer range.

It's a poker game and has a place in adding to the realism of battle.

In the end to play smart you have to play like SPP mentions above. Follow your own plan and not your enemys plan.

"Me Too" fire announcement should be THE RULE (with secret and simultaneous fire designation). This also hastens overall game play by eliminating the constant need for SOP step checking. However, if you DO call fire you have to fire SOMETHING; a phaser-3, the who kit-n-kabootle or anything between as long as it's something fired in the DF fire step. Same goes for the Launch Step.

To carry it a bit further we allow inner-impulse back stepping to the point that it is not allowed beyond another used step (you can't decide to launch a drone after fire has been conducted). This means we just state out loud, "Impulse activity?" just before calling the next impulse number and moving on. (In many cases we skip that too until this are obviously getting complex).

Heck, at long range we will call out four impulses at a time.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Amen, Loren.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Boy that needed editing but still says the same basic thing.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Here's an example, I'm lined up right down the FA line with my Fed TC on a Romulan KRT. At R8 I call fire.

What am I doing?

Am I going to alpha and turn off to run from an impending plasma launch? Perhaps the Romulan panicks and calls "Me too."

His fire, two S-Bolts.

My fire, one Ph-1. My next move, I turn into him a get the R2 shot. Of course I have to manage a couple Pl-F's but I've save my turn and slips to put them on another shield.

OR

He guessed right, I do launch all my photons thinking he will launch his S-EP's because I'm pretty sure he knows that I plan to turn into him since I've done it before.

OR...

This is the beauty of SFB.

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Stephen: someone put a crab in your panties? I never said my statement had any

worth. I also fully explained why it caught me by surprise. It had nothing to do with what standard tactics are, or the fact that the person I was playing aganist was only 3 years old. It had everything to do with my knowledge of the player and his tactics. I went into it lazily because I knew how he thought.

You'll laso note that I've never said my group ha a problem with me too fire. We just don't like to give info away or slow things down. This method works great for us.

I've also said that in a tournament I would do things differently, so your "someone will take exception to it in a tournmanent" is another useless comment. Keep 'em coming! you're on a roll!

"What part of "Tournament Zone" do you not understand? Useless statement: something that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the topic being discussed. "

What part of "I've acknowledged this is the tournament zone and decided to keep posting, with the given assumption that you may not care" do you not understand? But since you're constantly replying, it's obvious that you do indeed care. And I have bad news for you. You'll never win this discussion. :-)

By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 03:18 pm: Edit

*calls for fire*

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Aha! Now you've given away your entire plan! By calling for fire it's obvious that you want the major participants in this discussion to shoot themselves and/or one another. Because I now know that, I'm putting away my gun until later.

You really should just have shown up at our doorsteps guns ablazin' and maintained the surprise factor.

Les LeBlanc asked for a place to discuss ideas on how to improve on SOP procedures in FTF play to maintain the secret and simultaneous concept of rule B2.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 05:06 pm: Edit

I will throw in the following--I can see, in theory, how the "me too" element has a certain level of significance in fleet game play: if your opponent gets to whatever range and starts shooting enough weapons that he is going to outright vaporize one of your ships that fire phase, then yeah, whether or not you fire that impulse (and whether or not you do so based on thinking *he* is going to fire) could make a significant difference (although, say, the Klingons getting to R8 from the

Feds, firing everything and vaporizing a cruiser, if the Feds hold fire and get to R4 or R5 for the return volley, they'll be better off, even a whole cruiser down...)

That being said, this *is* the tournament discussion board, and it is unlikely that such an occurance will, ya know, occur. So much less of an issue.

-Peter

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 07:42 am: Edit

James wrote: >>Stephen: someone put a crab in your panties?

No James, I simlpy don't care for it when someone keeps shooting back that my statements are useless, especially when that someone insists upon twisting them into something entirely different from the black and white I originally used to produce them. For instance:

>>Saying that playing the game is giving away that you want to fire is like me saying...

Perhaps, but then that's not what I said, is it? It's what you conjectured, after running it through your own personal overloaded bombast amplifier.

>>I've also said that in a tournament I would do things differently, so your "someone will take exception to it in a tournmanent" is another useless comment.

Lets see, "someone will take exception to it in a tournmanent" pertains to this TOURNAMENT thread, your continuing insistence upon discussing things that are outside the tournament do not. Which of these is useless again? C'mon, be a man, show some consistency and judge it by your own standards as expressed above. Otherwise anytime I say anything whatsoever in response to your non-tournament musings, it automatically receives the "useless" label from you. The air is thick with hypocrisy here.

>>You'll never win this discussion. :-)

That may be, but so long as you continue to take pot shots, I'll keep me-too firing

back atcha Perhaps we'll need to setup a separate cage match discussion thread. I can definitely see where this wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable if we simultaneously plotted our vitriol. But then again, this isn't a tournament game...

By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 06:51 pm: Edit

L

O

L

At what point did I say everything I was speaking of was meant for tournament games. in fact, I said the exact opposite. If you don't care for the discussion, stay out of it.

I'm pretty sure that had it been an actual problem, a moderator would have requested that I take it to another thread. However, it seems to be just you who wants to throw a hissy fit (or whatever it is you prefer to call what you're doing).

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:45 pm: Edit

James wrote: >>At what point did I say everything I was speaking of was meant for tournament games.>>

Which is all well and good, but this is the tournament discussion thread. So the basic assumption is that you are discussing tournament play (much like myself and Stephen are doing).

Just throwing that out there.

-Peter

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 06:42 am: Edit

James wrote: >>At what point did I say everything I was speaking of was meant for tournament games. in fact, I said the exact opposite. If you don't care for the discussion, stay out of it.

At the exact point that you clicked on the following set of links:

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Tournament Zone:

You're hijacking a tournament discussion and inundating it with all these non-tournament examples, so perhaps you should consider staying out of the discussion, if you can't focus. No moderator has come forward to call you on it, but nobody else has exactly offered a ringing endorsement of this behavior either. Doing this is worse than useless, it is counter-productive to the whole point of this specific discussion.

James wrote:

>>However, it seems to be just you who wants to throw a hissy fit (or whatever it is you prefer to call what you're doing).

"Righteous, altruistic wrath" would be preferable, given the choice.

Peter, in his very tactful way, has noted on multiple occasions that this is a tournament discussion thread, but you just ignore that, because he's polite about it.

If you want to continue to offer up suggestions about how you think the game should be played, fine, that's what this discussion is for, but keep it within a tournament context, or at least stop backing your arguments with examples that are completely inapplicable to the tournament setting.

I've said this so much I feel like an infomercial, but tournament solutions are what matter here, not hacks for speeding up an impulse that is grossly over-laden with 4,000 BPV and nearly as many counters on the board.

Balanced, systematic transparency of process is what matters here, and it is an extremely important consideration for tournament play. Obviously your concern seems to be how to prevent two massive fleets colliding like galaxies from turning impulses into epochs. Fair enough, but beside the point here.

By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 07:58 am: Edit

So it's relevant to demand that SFBOL change it's procedures because it doesn't match FTF, but it's not ok to mention non tournament and point out how the FTF procedures won't work for it, yet the Cry is for FTF and tourney to be the SAME procedure because there should be but one procedure. However bring non touney into it and...

Yeah there is just too much intellectual dishonesty going on here.

By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 09:13 am: Edit

Les wrote a bunch of things: >>So it's relevant to demand that SFBOL change it's procedures because it doesn't match FTF...

Yes, but not simply because the two don't match. Rather because they are too restrictive to reflect the stops necessary in a normal impulse. Also, nobody's been arguing about SFBOL here lately.

>>but it's not ok to mention non tournament and point out how the FTF procedures won't work for it...

No, this is a tournament thread. SFBOL applies to tournaments, non-tournament

games do not. The whole issue arose due to a problem in an SFBOL tournament game and that opened a whole separate discussion about what is the appropriate way to handle the impulse procedure and the thrust of the discussion to date, even among the non-tourney participants, has been more geared towards FTF procedures, as the discussion header would indicate: "Les LeBlanc asked for a place to discuss ideas on how to improve on SOP procedures in FTF play to maintain the secret and simultaneous concept of rule B2."

>>yet the Cry is for FTF and tourney to be the SAME procedure because there should be but one procedure.

This is a bookend of your first sentence above. Once again, yes, but not simply because the two don't match.

>>However bring non touney into it and...

...you're probably then barking up the wrong thread.

>>Yeah there is just too much intellectual dishonesty going on here.

If you say so.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 09:37 am: Edit

Les wrote: >>So it's relevant to demand that SFBOL change it's procedures because it doesn't match FTF,>>

In the SFBOL interface discussion thread, yes, yes it is relevant.

>> but it's not ok to mention non tournament and point out how the FTF procedures won't work for it,>>

It's not ok build arguments about how one doesn't think the current system for IA/DF doesn't work in the tournament discussion forum by using examples from non-tournament play in the *tournament* discussion forum--this is the tournament discussion forum. The base assumption is that you are discussing tournament play. you, Les, started this thread, and apparently specifically started it in the tournament forum. I figured that you knew it was focused of tournament play.

>>However bring non touney into it and...>>

...you find yourself discussing something that is not covered by the discussion forum we are in.

Much like the discussion of FTF vs SFBOL belongs in the SFBOL thread, discussion

of non tournament play belongs in a non tournament discussion.

The base assumption in this discussion is that we are talking about tournament play. Sure. Non tournament play has different issues (although the standard FTF IA/DF procedure works just as well in non tournament play as in tournament play) around it. And different solutions. Which is all well and good. But *this* particular discussion is about calling for IA/DF and how it works in tournament play. Otherwise, the thread would be somewhere else.

>>Yeah there is just too much intellectual dishonesty going on here.>>

Sigh.

-Peter

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 01:46 pm: Edit

What there is going on here is a few people becoming entrenched in a "my way or the highway" mentality rather than intellectual dishonesty. Tone it down, treat each other with courtesy, or drop the discussion.

No body is being dishonest, but some are refusing to see the other side's point of view on the issue, and EVERYONE HAS A POINT OF VIEW. Try to broaden your minds and accept some honest disagreement. Debate with integrity, but do not be so rigid that points of view with which you disagree are simply anathema.

A calm voice with reasoned discourse can win converts. (It may not, but it can, whereas . . .)

A shrill voice with aggressive taunts will only solidify those you are attacking against you no matter how valid you think your points are.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Friday, April 01, 2011 - 08:56 pm: Edit

deleted