May 18th Game

[James Eggleston]

Hey everyone, hope all are doing well.  Just wanted to make sure we were all set for the 18th - by my reckoning, we have Josh, Steve, Rich, and myself planning to play.  I was thinking we'd go 2v2 for the main event, which will be a mining operation.  To keep it interesting, the mining region will be hotly contested - and by 'hotly' I mean specifically 'the temperature of a durasteel hull reaches when attacked by large plasma cannons.'  So, bring ships to gather and return asteroids to base - Olympus (read: me) will be providing each 2-man team with a 16x16ish mining base.  Extracted resources and raw materials will have to be returned there for scoring.  Of course, there's always the low road - you could come back for the goods once the enemy's miners are smoldering wreckage. In short, come prepared as a team to do one or both.

I imagine we'll have a cap on fleet sizes for this game, and Josh, I'm afraid for logistical reasons, your SHIP will likely have to remain out of play since it'll be hard to accommodate it on Rich's tables.  Steve, you've put the most thought into your battle plans, so what class total are you planning to bring?  We'll probably go with something like 150% of that for each team's total.

I'm going to try and prioritize developing the game more for a release about this time next year - can we try and get another game on the calendar somewhere in late June/early July?  Enough after this one to do some work, and enough before BrickFair to hopefully not get into crunch-time.  Rambling follows, read on at your own peril.

Also, it was good to see folks at the RichLUG meeting earlier today - it helped me remember that I need to re-prioritize this game in the coming year.  It's been fun developing and playing it, but by about this time next year, I'd like to release these rules to the public.  (Particularly as the current core of RichLUG is facing a couple moves that summer.)  So, that said, I'd officially like to crystalize the rules as they stand today as a Beta release, and I guess we'll just call it beta-1 or something if need be.  Those will be the rules we're playing with on May 18 at the Lego Shack, but I will be working on beta-2 rules for our next game.

My aim with any major changes I make between b1 and b2 will be to make ships at the top of the heap appropriately powerful - I'll probably need some Richluggers to help playtest new ship-creation numbers that will beef up the larger ships and readjust the volume numbers.  (The volume numbers above 8ish have always been fairly speculative, so that's a long-needed change.)  If we have time/willingness, after our main game on the 18th, we'll run another one with a 1- or 2-stud unit to scale up our ships.  I'll have the standard battleship templates for each class written by then, and we can use very simple, direct-damage ships based on those to see how we like the new, improved ship creation rules.

Sorry I write so much guys!  Also, we haven't forgotten about the campaign we want to run.  Just plenty to do and not enough time to do it in - I suppose I can be more diligent in imagining and keeping you folks up to date on the goings-on of the Pantopians.  Hope to see everyone soon, hope to shoot your ships so full of holes they look like post-modern public-art sculpture garden, and hope you're all playing well!

-James

[SteveV]

So here's what I'm thinking for classes:

6 fighter groups per player

50 class points for everything above class 1-combat

20-30 class points for mining?

Here's my reasoning;

-as we currently allocate weapons, fighter groups can be outfitted to be comparable to larger class ships, weapon-wise.  Let's eliminate the potential for fighter swarms this time.

-50 class points-I think we should allow for larger class ships in this game. The largest ships I have are a class 7 and a class 6, plus a spread of smaller class ships.  I think we've shown that anything aside from fighter groups can be knocked out relatively quickly.  Let's allow for as much variation as possible in fleet combos.  50 class points each shouldn't clutter the table too much, while still giving latitude in fleet composition.

-mining- shouldn't be too easy a process.  There is significant cargo capacity, plus bonus for mining command modules.  I'm actually leaning towards 20 class points as a limit for mining.

Thoughts?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lego Microfleet" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lego-microfle...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[James Eggleston]

Well, if we're going to limit the possibility of fighter swarms, why not say something like '50 class points total, no more than half of that in fighters?'  Not suggesting we run with those numbers, but 'a fighter group' can be anything from a pair to a squad of a 6 fighters (or more, if you wanted to write your own cards.)

And I'm not sure I'd divvy up the points specifically between mining and combat - after all, your mining ships could be dual-purpose, or you could have a wave of missile ships with some asteroid-busters and some heat-seekers doing double duty.

So, all that said, what about...100 total class points per two-man team, with no more than 40 fighters per team?  Is that agreeable for everyone?

[Jaron Janson]

I thought we'd talked about limiting fighter squadrons or groups to 3 fighters in order to make them more vulnerable? We need to be able to shoot them down, with 6 to a group they have more hit points than capital ships and are a freaking pain to take out. 

_________________________________
Jaron Janson
435-669-1987
jaron....@gmail.com

[SteveV]

Ahhh, fighter groups of 3 fighters would be much more manageable.

How about 50 class points plus 6 fighter groups (of 3) per player?  Mining & combat allocated out of that (except for fighters). I need that quantity to try out tactics.  I'm certain that many vessels won't bog the game down, especially with limited fighter groups.

[James Eggleston]

That sounds fine to me.

I would like to point out that the question of 'how many ships do we put in a squadron?' is more a matter of 'how fast is the game going to run?' and less a question of 'fighters can be overwhelming.'  For example, imagine if I brought a class 5 miner, 3 combat squadrons of 3x Class 5s, and 3 wings of 6 fighters apiece?  It would take a while to shoot each individual group of ships down, but I would only move 7 things per turn - quick and easy.

I'm not advocating that we do that, but I would like to say that I'm envisioning Squadrons not just as a means to de-clutter the table and to avoid building hundreds of identical MOCs.  I view them more as a mechanism to combine units that are designed to operate together and simplify their management, with the added bonus of reducing clutter and such.  There's nothing that says we can only use squadrons to manage fighters, although that's the place where it makes most sense, obviously.  Anyway, just food for thought - what do you guys think of that usage?

[SteveV]

I see your point, however grouping larger classes into "squadrons" seems like folly to me; one well-timed noise jammer that can pace that group will knock off a significant amount of firepower.  

I think your two points on squadron levels are actually the same.  We greatly decreased play time by organizing fighters in squadrons but, like Jaron said, made them equivalent to larger class ships both in firepower and damage absorption.  (Obvious, I know)

As to your vision of squadron use, I see what you're saying but also see inherent weakness in grouping anything larger than, say, class 2s together.  They're effectively slaved together and cannot maneuver apart.  Perhaps it's just that I view fleet arrangements similarly to modern surface fleets.  There are probably inherent weaknesses in that arrangement too.

Besides, there's always the great equalizer that can foil the best laid plans:  roll for initiative...

[Rich Schoonover]

I think reducing the squadron size to 3 won't fix any thing.  I would just take twice as many squadrons.  I know these squadrons have fire power that is greater than a medium ship, but the fire power scales back as fighters are destroyed.  We weakened fighters recently by limiting armor and shields.  I think this a tactics issue.  If you put a class 12 ship out there and fail to protect it with enough fighter support or other fleet support you deserve to lose your class 12.  I think as we start down the road of crystallizing the rules  we should ensure that  we are not changing rules just to benefit the lack of tactical ability.  When people play chess or any other game for the first time or maybe 3 or 4 times, it is not uncommon to lose.  I have lost this game at least as many times as I have won.  Rules have been changed a lot over the last two years especially with fighters.  The ultimate fighter defense is fighters.  I think as a last defense we could implement a flak weapon.  It would cost 4 power and would do 4d6 to only small ships.  When targeting medium and larges it would only do 1d6.  It would be primarily a medium range weapon.  Max range of 12 more if extend its range for extra power cost.  We have needed a good anti fighter weapon for awhile.  What do you guys think?

Sent from my iPhone

[Rich Schoonover]

I also wanted to comment on putting mediums in with smalls as a squadron.  Visually, it would misrepresent what is taking place.  If you have 2 fighters and a medium put them on the table. Every one needs to see the fighters defending the medium or doing what ever it is they are there to do.  You always move them as a group as long as movement allows for it.  I also think that reducing squadrons to 3 will put us back to having more units on the table than needed.  Which will again slow the game down.

Rich

Sent from my iPhone

[Jaron Janson]

A flak weapon is a great idea, I believe we have talked about that before.

That's true, Rich, just changing the squadron makeup to 3 will just double the number of squadrons at the current price.  Something that might fix that is is raising the cost per fighter squadron and lowering the total hit count. Make the pricing based on the squadron not per fighter, raise the base cost and give them X slots for add-ons like armor, weapons, etc. Because right now they are sooooo much more efficient than any other ship. We should stop treating the fighters as individual ships and truly bundle them up. I still see little reason to play with class 2 to 4 ships with how the costs are currently priced.

[Rich Schoonover]

I think any easy way to fix that is to re scale the power chart.  We could make total power for a fighter 3 and increase power on a curve up as it approaches class 12.  We could also do the same with internal structure.  Class one would be 3 and class 12 could be like 90.

Sent from my iPhone

[James Eggleston]

Yeah, per the above, I'm working on re-balancing the power chart - hopefully we'll have time to run some tests with it after the main event on the 18th; maybe even before.  And I'd agree with Rich, we don't want to make all tactics equally effective, but right now, fighters are mathematically superior to other ships.  All the movement bonuses with none of the penalties, essentially.

We've tried a couple times to add in a dedicated anti-fighter weapon - first with chain guns, then with defense lasers, with a few iterations of tweaks and defenses between.  I think the ultimate problem is that when fighters or missiles are inbound, the big ships don't have enough chances to shoot back.  Right now, my proposed solution is that if a ship has a point defense weapon, you can choose not to fire it on your turn but instead prepare it to defend.  Once you've done that, any valid PD targets that enter its range - fighters, missiles, mines, drones... - get automatically fired upon.  The idea is basically like an Attack of Opportunity in DnD, for those of you who are familiar with them.  That change may very well swing the balance too far the other way - some of these PD weapons might be firing dozens of times per turn - but I'd like to test that and tone it down if needed.

Although now that I think about it, an area-effect flak rocket would be a pretty interesting (and cheap) defensive measure.  Hmm.

Anyway, yeah, just a thought experiment as far as squadron use - I probably wouldn't put larger ships together in that way, but I could see it happening in a larger fleet battle or once we got into nanoscale and started using destroyers more like we use fighters now.  And I wouldn't advocate putting things like fighters and a ship they're escorting together - just things that you'd only use together, because as Steve pointed out, you don't want to concentrate ships in every case and you generally do want the freedom to split off and move separately more often than not.

Anyway, back to work.

[Jaron Janson]

James, excellent point. The ability to defend really is a terrible disadvantage. The fighters get too many attacks and moves compared to the larger ships. Perhaps dedicated PD weapons as you explained would help to reduce this in a large measure. Definitely a good idea to test that out. 

_________________________________
Jaron Janson
435-669-1987
jaron....@gmail.com

[Steve V]

First off, I wasn't talking about making any long-term rule changes. The suggestions below (4-16-13, 11:10 AM) were for the next game only, since part of the conversation after last Saturday was to limit class size or points for the next game.  I'm actually loathe to change any of the rules without testing the existing ones again on the 18th.  The reason I suggested the class point levels I did was to afford a diversity of ship types to test TACTICS with; same reason I suggested not banning large classes from the next game.  I say leave all stats alone until after the game; we really have not tried them sufficiently enough with only one major game in the past several months.

"I think as we start down the road of crystallizing the rules  we should ensure that  we are not changing rules just to benefit the lack of tactical ability."  

"The ultimate fighter defense is fighters."  I agree with both of these statements, although I think I have figured out a way, tactically, to discredit the second.  Again, I am not, nor was I, suggesting changing rules, only providing ample points to test out various things.  There are a multitude of options as the rules and stats exist now.  I think the breakdowns I proposed (for the next game only) give a manageable spread for everyone to work with.  I'm pretty sure we played with more ships than that at our first major shack game, with dramatic playtime improvement since.

Steve

---

From: Rich Schoonover <rscho...@gmail.com>
To: "lego-mi...@googlegroups.com" <lego-mi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Lego Microfleet] May 18th Game

[SteveV]

Also, I agreed to Jaron's 3-fighter squadron suggestion since we'd be facing up to 72 fighters from each opposing side otherwise.  I am tactically prepared to face that many though....

[Jaron Janson]

An enhanced Point Defense weapon would probably be the most logical thing to test next time you play. It shouldn't be too destabilizing and won't rewrite the entire cost structure. I am against rewriting the whole games cost structure just because fighters are overpowered. I think it would add complication to an already difficult part of the game: ship building. I'm not sure I really understand the current system. 

_________________________________
Jaron Janson
435-669-1987
jaron....@gmail.com

[James Eggleston]

Well, I lost track of what we're talking about quickly.  So, let's break stuff up into numbered points!

1) "How about 50 class points plus 6 fighter groups (of 3) per player?" - Is this agreeable to everyone?  My caveat is that I'd change 6 groups of 3 fighters to just 18 fighters, feel free to squad them up however you want, but that's not really a big deal either way.

2) Again, I don't want to change the rules for next game, hence, we're playing with the rules as they stand now and as they stood for last game.  So, no learning curve for this game.  I'd add that I'm also not in favor of major changes just to balance fighters or for the sake of change or any other minor reason.  But I'll be the first to admit that a great many of our ship creation numbers have never been really examined and they were born of pure guesswork when we first started this game.  I fully expected that at some point, experience would likely dictate that numbers - especially above class 6 or so - would need tweaking.  In my opinion, the bigger a ship gets under the current rules, the more under-powered it becomes.  Would you all agree with that assessment?  If so, how severe would you say the problem is/how do you think it should be addressed?

3) That said, I think there is some progress to be made with the rules, and not just balancing for newer/less tactics-savvy players.  Part of the reason I'd like to playtest some changes within the same day would be to make it easy to compare & contrast.  Additionally, if we already have a decent group together, we can get several different viewpoints - maybe some will prefer the changes, maybe some won't.  Most likely, there will be some changes most like and some that obviously don't work/aren't needed.  My plan is to write out standard battleships under the current rules, adjust ship creation numbers, and then write out standard battleships under those rules.  Hopefully, this will let us do a good apples-to-apples comparison (assuming we have time for a quick shootout after our mining game.)

4) I'm pushing myself to work through my To-do list by this game; so I should have some proposals for what to do with point defense by then.  Right now, I'm leaning towards something based around giving unfired PD weapons automatic attacks on anything that enters their range on that ship's off-turn.  Does that sound good/bad to you guys?  What other solutions do you think we should consider?  Should we just work within what we have?

5) Ship creation is certainly the most confusing part of the game, you're right.  Or, at least, the most decision-intensive.  Over the last day or two, I've been working on a ship-creation walkthrough that will hopefully clarify things.  I'll have that done within another day or two (minus illustrations and such) and pass it around for everyone's consideration.  I'll also be working on the ship creator spreadsheet; I'll be adding a sheet that asks some basic questions and lays out a suggested build for a ship type.  That sounds like a good project for tonight.

Anyway, I'm stoked for playing some games next month; hope you guys are too!  Steve, I'll be getting with you soon about tactics and stuff.  Looking forward to seeing what happens, and working with you guys to make this game all it can be!

[Steve V]

1) I'm good with this.  So mining & combat ships (or whatever combo you have planned) out of the 50 total?  18 fighters sounds good too; not sure why I was hung up on 6 groups.

2) I agree that the classes above 6 or 7 need work, but then again, we haven't had a ton of experience with the larger classes.  If we have time to run a second game at nanoscale, let's test out whatever revised stats you have then.  

3) See above.

4) I'm interested in exploring off-turn PD more.  Perhaps we could test this with the nano-fight?

5) I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

I know this weekend is booked, but will let you know what availability I have after I check our calendar at home.

Steve

---

From: James Eggleston <egglest...@gmail.com>
To: lego-mi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:26 PM

[Rich Schoonover]

I think point defense should be strictly used only when fired upon.  It should be a defensive weapon not offensive.  The Flak cannon and Flak missiles, rockets, or torpedoes could be fired as offensive weapons.  This would give players a double edged defense against fighters.

[YourCure]

I like that idea Rich.

[James Eggleston]

Yep, mining and combat both come out of the 50.  And I'd be okay with teams saying 'we have 100 total, it's a 40/60 split' or something.  Everything else, I'll bring you (and you all) what I've come up with next time we get together.

I suppose you have a point, Rich - rules about off-turn PD would have to be somewhat explicit so you can't load up an anti-fighter ship, move it up against a bunch of fighters, and then cut through them on your off turn just because they're in range.  I don't personally see such a problem with offensively using something like flak rockets, provided that they don't have unlimited range like missiles currently do.  We've talked about adding in a time-limit on missiles, do we want to mess with that or is that just more book keeping that we don't want?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Steve V <jovian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Rich Schoonover]

I think we should test play off turn defenses in the future, it could be our answer to some of balance problems in the game.  I also think flak rockets should be at a range of like 6 units.   They can only target smalls.  

Something with missiles occurred to me the other day.  We should set how far missiles can travel.  In general smaller missiles have shorter range. For instance the old AIM 9 sidewinder was close range missile and because it was a heat seeker it had to be fired at close range so that it could find its target.   The AIM 7 is radar guided and could fired from a much greater distance, but required a target lock it also is bigger and has a much greater range.  That said we could adjust range relevant to size and missiles can only launch if they have a lock otherwise they are just dumb fire rockets.  This could make chaff and flare more powerful defenses as well.

Rich

Sent from my iPhone

[Jaron Janson]

Are we trying to make missiles the big anti-fighter weapon? I have reservations about that for 2 reasons: 

1st. Missiles are an extremely limited commodity in the game as you have to allocate points for each one. I just don't see carrying enough to make it worth it without incentivizing players to almost just create Flak Roacket Cruisers (though that sounds really cool when I think about it...). I don't have a problem with flak rockets i just want to see a flak cannon too that can fire at the fighters consistently. Though having a big difference in range of a cannon and rocket is a really cool way to layer defenses. I think I want to make a ship that is a decked out anti-fighter cruiser now...

2nd reason I would not want to rely solely on flak rockets is that missile rules are not one of the more simple rules of the game and I worry that such an essential weapon would needlessly complicate the game for noobs. 

A close in cannon and the farther out rockets seem like a great way to balance the fighters though. I just want variety, so I'm not contradicting anything just wanted to pipe up with some concerns.

_________________________________
Jaron Janson
435-669-1987
jaron....@gmail.com

[Rich Schoonover]

I mentioned missiles and their differences for the reason that they didn't have a defined difference.  They had another name and each had a counter measure, but other wise they were identical.  I wanted to show that this ordinance is not the same, and that even though are powerful they have limits and counter measures.  Some early testing with fighters that only had missiles on them and not much else were determined to be mini death blossoms.  I squadron of six could essentially deliver 24 heat seekers in one pass and destroy a large target.  The fighters after that pass would be essential useless at that point, but could return to a carrier for a reload.  With these rule changes I have proposed it would limit the range at which they could deliver a heat seeker payload which would make the squadron vulnerable.  Then the next line of thought is to use long range radar guided missiles.  They require a target lock in order to launch.  If jamming were used properly they would not be able to launch in guided mode.  They would have launch dumbfire at close range in order to attack.  Another tactic could be using clouds of chaff and flare to protect a fleet from missile attacks.  I personally don't think missiles will ever be a great defense for fighters when delivered from a medium or a large.  They are too costly to carry and not enough can be carried to defend yourself.  I do think they could be effective from ship to ship.  Flak adds defense we haven't had yet.  I think FLAK and Point defense should be used only in what we have been calling off turn defense.  Flak cannons could have a range of 4, Flak rockets could have a range of 6, and point defense could have a range of 2.  I think the cost on all of these defense should be 1, and they can only be mounted on mediums and larges.  I think it was confused about how the rockets would work though.  They can only be used if you are being attacked by smalls that are in range of the weapon.  It may be beneficial for the defense weapon to fire first so that the full benefit of fighter kill is realized.  Other wise fighters would swoop in shoot kill the big ship and then take there licks or not if the ship was destroyed in that pass.  This should help reduce the power of fighters.

Rich

[Steve V]

Here are some thoughts on the previous 3 posts:

Ranges for different missile types:

I really like this idea, particularly your analogy to the AIM missiles Rich.  Heat Seekers and Radar Guided should have different max firing ranges since they acquire targets differently.  The only thing I'm not sure about is requiring a target lock for the radar guided missiles; don't beepers and seekers fulfill this already?  Wouldn't restricting the maximum firing range fulfill the lock requirement?  Requiring closer firing ranges would help to even out the odds if someone wanted to load up and dump missile barrages, particularly against larger ships.  Make them enter into the kill zone of the larger vessels if missile salvos are to be used.  Some thoughts on ranges are:

-Heat Seekers- max 6-8 units range for target acquisition

-Radar Guided- max 10-12 units for target acquisition

-Beepers- possibly 8-10 units max range, since once they hit a target, it's painted for the duration.  Do we have duration limits for beepers?  I don't see them in the rules.  Seekers could follow the Radar Guided rules?

Flak:

-This is an interesting idea, although I think flak should be line of sight only, or at least have dumb-fire missiles if that's the route chosen.  Limited range is a must IMO, but maybe having a blast radius at the range limit would work?

Off turn PD:

I'm not sure this would be a positive change for game play.  I understand the desire to protect the big ships, but allowing off-turn firing, particularly if the off-turn defense is allowed to fire first, would swing the pendulum too far towards the big ships and make them impenetrable fortresses.  Here are some thoughts on why:

-Don't we already have point defense capabilities?  The PD Lasers and Chain Guns already fire twice if in defense, and can be staggered in range depending on size of laser.  Perhaps we could remove the half-damage penalty on the chain guns if firing against missiles?

-IMO, allowing for off-turn firing rewards poor tactics.  There are already a slew of defenses that can be used against fighters and to bolster large ship defenses; mines, shield projectors, chaff/flare clouds.  In real fleets, the larger vessels have dedicated, smaller supporting defense vessels.  A class 2 or 3 dedicated to each large ship can provide an array of defensive capabilities to augment the ship it's escorting (mine ship, shield ship, chaff/flare ship).  

-Perhaps boosting the hull points, or adding defensive bonuses, for the med-lg vessels would be more helpful, by allowing larger ships to tack on some extra defenses.  I know it's particularly disappointing to outfit a big ship with the long-range, heavy hitting guns they were made to carry, only to realize there's only a few points left for armor or other defenses.  Adding a few extra points for defensive measures, while limiting the firing distance for missiles would help to equalize the discrepancies we have now.

-I think this was also part of the rational for limiting squadron size; to prevent death blossoms of missiles against the larger ships.  Besides the first game, we've had class limits on all the subsequent games.  If someone wants to load up on fighters, they'll soon learn the limitations inherent in that.

-Allowing for off-turn point defense also automatically eliminates several unconventional tactics that can be used against med-large vessels, since getting anywhere close to them would result not only in being automatically fired upon, but being fired upon before it's your turn, on your turn!  That seems incredibly unfair to me.  A good layered defense is the best offense against fighters.  Isn't that part of the game play; you have to balance offensive and defensive capabilities?  There should be some kind of weakness or vulnerability for each class range.  Plus, we've really only barely scratched the surface of tactical variations in our current rules.

Just some food for thought...

Steve  

---

From: Rich Schoonover <rscho...@gmail.com>
To: "lego-mi...@googlegroups.com" <lego-mi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:45 AM

[SteveV]

Soooo.... thread's pretty quiet for a pre-game week.

Are we still on for Saturday?  Any thoughts on starting/gathering time?  I'm available to start any time Saturday am, earlier the better so we might have a chance to fit in a nano-scale skirmish if anyone's up to it.

Steve

[Rich Schoonover]

Steve

As far as I know we are still on.  You are welcome to come as early as you like.  We can play some nano or skirmish until others arrive if they can't make it real early.

Rich

Sent from my iPhone

[James Eggleston]

I'm still on.  I'll poke Josh on flickr since he's got the longest drive; I'm basically good to start as early as you guys are.  I guess ideally we could try and do setup/planning before lunch, maybe get started playing after?  But yeah, if anyone's early, I'd love to do some nano- or pico- skirmishing.

Steve and I had a chance to get together last week and talk over some rough strategy - I like our plans, hopefully we're able to bring the noise on Saturday.  The dastardly Droogs and Yourcurian aggressors deserve no less than the full might of the Dudewizards.

By the by, I've been tweaking around with some proposed changes to the power levels for each class.  The main change is for a less linear progression - right now, each class has +5 power compared to the class below; I'm thinking of making it more of a curve with larger power gains for larger ships.  The numbers I'm working with now would mean a loss of power for everything smaller than class 8 and a gain for class 9-12.  Would you rather I only add power to the larger ships or are you okay with most of our ships retooling for less power?

[SteveV]

Would 9:30 work to get together?  Skirmishes or nano sound great.  I'm fine with starting battle around lunch too.  

James, I'm thinking that if changes are made, you should just boost the larger classes.  The power levels we have at the lower classes now are pretty effective.

[Jaron Janson]

So what's the difference between nano and skirmish?

[Rich Schoonover]

9:30 is good for me?

Sent from my iPhone

[Rich Schoonover]

Nano is different scale. It is much smaller like one unit equals one stud.  Skirmish is just s few ships and a short game for testing tactics.

Rich

Sent from my iPhone