PBW: New Game Star Trek Final Frontier IV - Page 3

userx · #21 April 23rd, 2004, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
I'd drop the neutrals. It's just a chance for those close to them to exploit them.

If we can place them, then it's cool as there is a distance between them and the major powers on the map.

Atrocities · #22 April 23rd, 2004, 06:20 AM

You would gain no technology from neutrals. If anything they will add flavor to the game.

Intel is out. Even with revised rules explotation is still possible if a player makes a mistake. Intel is just to .... problamatic for SEIV.

If the majority wants intel in the game then we will have it. If the majority does not want neutrals then we will ditch them.

I am game either way we go.

Tnarg · #23 April 23rd, 2004, 07:10 AM

How often are you planning to do these weekened turn fests. Cause it is summer time

, and I don't think that I am going to be home EVERY weekend. If this is a problem, I'll drop. If you don't mind my absence now and then I would be greatful to still be in.

Any one know of a website that you can get cheap used, two or three year old laptops, hell I'll even take a five or six year old one as long as it has enough juice to run SEIV and a good wordprocessor. This would solve all my problems. I have about a handful of dirt to pay for it.

[ April 23, 2004, 06:12: Message edited by: Tnarg ]

Atrocities · #24 April 23rd, 2004, 10:27 AM

I will be away over many weekends so not very often Tnarg. At best guess here and there will most likely more often than not be the choice at hand.

Really I just want a nice game and turn fest + mIRC are a load of fun and you can really get into the RPG of the race. You should read some of our logs from when we played Last. Most stimulating.

GAME ISSUE - Do we want weapons of mass destruction or not? We had them Last time and they were used much to the displeasure of the Federation.

What about mines and Fighters. If it were up to me mines are ok, but I would like to leave out fighters and just use Support Craft. (Small shuttle and Smaller Shuttle)

Just a though.

Without WOMD Intel can work fine so long as we agree to certain rules before hand. No planet capture intel projects or like.

userx · #25 April 24th, 2004, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
If the majority wants intel in the game then we will have it. If the majority does not want neutrals then we will ditch them.

I am game either way we go.

I'm ok with no Intel but I want Neutrals. I hate feeling along in the galaxy with just enemies

userx · #26 April 24th, 2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

GAME ISSUE - Do we want weapons of mass destruction or not? We had them Last time and they were used much to the displeasure of the Federation.

What about mines and Fighters. If it were up to me mines are ok, but I would like to leave out fighters and just use Support Craft. (Small shuttle and Smaller Shuttle)

Just a though.

[/QB]

The Federation does not mind WMD when they are not being used against it.... lost my best fleet to Romulan system buster!!! Support craft are fine.. .... hell, everything is fine by me. The more of everything the better.

[ April 24, 2004, 05:26: Message edited by: userx ]

userx · #27 April 25th, 2004, 09:20 PM

Atrocities · #28 April 25th, 2004, 11:55 PM

Looks like it just might be the four of us playing.

Three more days until the dead line.

I need everyones YES or NO on these:

1. 3 Planet Start
2. Low tech Start
3. Low Tech Cost
4. No Intel Or
4a. Have intel but no sabotage)
4b. Have complete intel
5. No Fighters - just support craft
6. WMD ok

Also what kind of map do you all want to use?

Captain Kwok · #29 April 26th, 2004, 04:57 PM

My votes:

1. 3 planet start - YES
2. Low Tech start - NO (Medium)
3. Low Tech cost - NO (High)
4a. Espionage Intel - YES
4b. Sabotage Intel - NO
5. Fighters - YES (At least as an option)
6. Stellar Manipulation - Can it be set so that allows planet destroying, but not star destruction?

BTW, is the problem with remote mining fixed? Or does it at least decrease the value of asteroids?

[ April 26, 2004, 15:58: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

userx · #30 April 27th, 2004, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
My votes:

1. 3 planet start - YES
2. Low Tech start - NO (Medium)
3. Low Tech cost - NO (High)
4a. Espionage Intel - YES
4b. Sabotage Intel - NO
5. Fighters - YES (At least as an option)
6. Stellar Manipulation - Can it be set so that allows planet destroying, but not star destruction?

BTW, is the problem with remote mining fixed? Or does it at least decrease the value of asteroids?

Agree with everything except I would prefer 1 planet start especialy if we use my Star Trek Map but I'll be happy with majorety rule.

Also, would like Minor races... it's nice to have friend or two when the Klingons and Romulans are attacking you.

Speaking of the Star Trek map, it's done but this is looking more and more like a 4 player game ... maybe I should modify it more for 3 or 4 player game.