Star Fleet Battles Open Community

I personally don't have a strong feeling about it, though I'll admit I did at one point. Using CFF more completely simulates what happens in f-t-f. That used to be pretty important to me, but I'll admit that it no longer is. I play f-t-f so rarely anymore (basically once a year) and not using CFF speeds up the game and feels more natural. Plus for those times I wanted to think about fire only after I knew the rest of the impulse is completed, I just go to Dis Dev step and type in "thinking on fire". As a result, I personally see no need for the encumbering extra step of requiring fire be called for.

In my experience most players decide to fire/not fire independently of their opponent's decision. Sure there are times that you need time to think about it but don't want to hold up activity that occurs before fire, but a solution exists for that (see Paul's suggestion above).

Of course I'm biased becuase I learned by playing folks who do not use C4F. But it seems to me that it adds an unnecessary step.

Having said that, if my opponent wants to use it I will always accomodate them. But making it a requirement? Nah, don't agree.

C4F is fine with me other than slowing the game somewhat through extra Activity button usage. I really dont think there's a major gameplay difference between that and straight Activity.
C4f does tip your hand a bit more than straight activity, but this can be offset a bit by calling for fire without having any intention of firing. I say if your opponent wants to use C4F, then this is acceptable.

that in order for bluff to be totally unpredictable it need to be 50% of all C4F events. I doubt that is the case.

I usually don't play C4F, but I'm not vehemently against it . I don't mind going the way a buddy wants to play, or an opponent politely expresses a preference, but when someone comes in heavy-handed about C4F, I admit don't like it.

Of course, the debacle that was the "forced C4F" in one revision of SFBOL just meant I didn't update my SFBOL for a while, until that was well out of the system.

I do know some players that are strongly against C4F. When forced to play with it, I've seen 'em use it each and every impulse, slowing the game to hell - even when there's clearly no fire - to "annoy" their opponent.

Overall, it seems to be a big bone of contention. I remember the last "big blowout" on the ADB BBS saw some players question Ken Lin's personal integrity over it, which was stupid, and drove Ken out of SFB for a while. Ken's a stand-up guy, and for anyone to take potshots at his honor over C4F just shows how deep opinions run.

I play a moderate amount of tourney SFB.

I vastly prefer 'natural fire declaration' using the superior tools in SFBOL to Call For Fire. I'll do C4F for my opponent's sake, if they need that sort of crutch to remind them that I might, perchance, want to shoot the crap out of them.

But I was in the "We have better tools now" camp. And I don't just dabble in tournament SFBOL.

I design my games around secret and simul decision making and give people better tools to use them with and I think C4F is clunky.

Like 2 people caused the most controversy and I have only ever rarely seen them play online. And yet their hostility drove away at least one of the best players who played all the time and has never to this day participated online the way he used to. Funny that.

that is not mandatory C4F. Under a mandatory C4F system what happens with the following:

Player 1 just enters his fire via the interface and does not use the C4F button (or dis dev step announcement) to alert his opponent that he is thinking about fire.

Player 2 hits "No Activity" because he had nothing he considered Impulse Activity. He could either be a person who (a) wasn't really thinking about fire, but had he been prompted by his opponent to think about it, would have realized it was a good time to do so -or- (b) someone who mistakenly believes fire is special and not part of IA at all.

Now a bunch of fire gets listed. Player 2 cries foul. What happens?

Presumably under a mandatory C4F, Player 1's actions are "illegal" and Player 2 gets to insist on a redo of the fire step.

For me, I think that is a terrible rule. I am sympathetic to Player 2 in situation (b) since it is an interface understanding error or a game mechanic error (and possibly an error reinforced by ADB's SFBOL C4F policy). It would only ever happen once, after which Player 2 would start doing what Peter does or adapt to what I do (generally enter it as IA, but occasionally use the dis dev step if I don't even want to think about fire until all other IA is done).

I am not at all sympathetic to Player 2 in situation (a). I think the mandatory C4F rule just allows bad players to be less bad. I am, personally, not that worried about it since a player like Player 2 situation (a) is unlikely to be a threat for other reasons anyway. But that doesn't change that the rule is bad.

Fire is part of IA. No one should be forced to tell their opponent "I am thinking about fire now, so you might also wish to think about fire." Voluntarily, like Peter suggests he plays, is totally fine. Any player can, for any reason, choose to select any IA step and type "thinking" into the instructions. No player, how ever, should be FORCED to stop immediately before any IA step and tell his opponent that he is now ready for that particular IA step. This is as true of fire as it is of any other step.

Peter you mean you argued for the C4F rules because "What I don't like about the "natural" (is that the appropriate term?) fire system is that I don't want to plot fire before I see if my opponent has a speed change or a drone launch."?
So thus force the rest of us to have to call for fire all the time?
Tnx, not ;)

Your position is exactly where I was, umm, 8+ years ago. F-t-F was more important than online and there were not good methods to do fire (or any other step) in f-t-f without announcing the step first. the problem is that this applies to EVERYTHING, not just fire.

Want to launch a shuttle in f-t-f? what do you do?

"Do you have anything before shuttle launch step?"

But in SFBOL we don't mandate that a player stop immediately before shuttle step and say "I am going to think about shuttle launch now, you may wish to do that as well."

Fire, frankly, isn't even the most important place to have true S&S. That step is almost certainly speed change. In f-t-f we say "thinking about a speed change"; in SFBOL we just do it.

The odd thing, to me, is not making one system or the other. When SFBOL was first created, Gregg and I had no option for any step. You had to do it just like in f-t-f, then use the Activity or Fire button to record the S&S action. that's fine. It's also fine (and imo much better) to do it the way Paul Franz has it now in SFBOL. However picking out one IA of many and declaring "This IA step, and only this IA step, you must tell your opponent you are thinking about it before you do it" is just plain stupid.

If your argument is that "but it's how it's done in f-t-f" then you need to be consistent and demand that the IA interface not be used at all. You announce in text what you are thinking of doing. Your opponent tells you if he is thinking on some earlier step. Once both of you determine the earliest step, you use the S&S button to enter your actions. No one seems to care to mimic f-t-f except for fire. I have no idea why this is the case.

would have been a better title for the above post. You suggest that somehow in f-t-f C4F is used. It's not. Fire is no different than any other IA step. Only in SFBOL RATs is there a mandatory rule that treats fire differently from all other IA steps. "Natural" play on SFBOL has everything, fire and non-fire alike, as truly S&S. In f-t-f NOTHING is truly S&S. Whether it is fire or any other IA, a player needs to announce to his opponent that he is thinking on that step and both players can record it. In some cases, in f-t-f, I'd say that "me too" is even the norm. Drone and plasma launch, for example.

The only exception to the general rule that fire is just like every other step in IA is found in the mandatory rule to C4F in SFBOL RATS.

>>Your position is exactly where I was, umm, 8+ years ago. F-t-F was more important than online and there were not good methods to do fire (or any other step) in f-t-f without announcing the step first. the problem is that this applies to EVERYTHING, not just fire.>>

Sure. But DF is where it is most important, really, to know that all the other IA steps are done. And in the Impulse Activity procedure, it is a completely different, discrete step than IA.

>>However picking out one IA of many and declaring "This IA step, and only this IA step, you must tell your opponent you are thinking about it before you do it" is just plain stupid.>>

I disagree on that point. Calling for fire is an important aspect of the game, again, not 'cause I want to know that my opponent is shooting at me, but 'cause I want to know if my opponent has changed speed, launched drones, or launched shuttles, before I start to think about shooting someone.

>>If your argument is that "but it's how it's done in f-t-f" then you need to be consistent and demand that the IA interface not be used at all.>>

I'd be ok with that. But I doubt that anyone else would :-)

>>No one seems to care to mimic f-t-f except for fire. I have no idea why this is the case.>>

'Cause firing guns is the part of IA that tends to be the most complicated. Especially on SFBOL, what with the pull down menus and check off boxes and whatever. In a game of tournament SFB, the IA steps that tend to matter are:

-Speed change. Either you are or are not. Not a huge complication, except when you might unplotted SC, but as it is, like, the first thing that happens in an impulse, not much unforseen information that will impact this decision.

-Tractor. Again, early. Either you are tractoring something already on the map, or you aren't. The only thing that might impact this is speed changes. But luckily, speed changes tend to be automatic anyway.

-Lab. Either you will or you won't. Not much will change between the movement phase and the lab phase that will impact this decision. Very cut and dry.

-Seeking weapons. The only thing that might impact your seeking weapon launching is likely speed changes. So generally, either you will launch or you won't launch based on what happens during movement or the auto speed change. Again, fairly cut and dry decision.

-Shuttles. Here things get sticky, as the shuttle launch phase is very dependent on the seeking weapons phase. But still, you often had decided to launch a shuttle during the movement step. Or will decide to launch a shuttle after the seeking weapon step.

-Shooting. Your decision to shoot things is completely dependent on what happens in *all* of the above steps--did your opponent change speed? Tractor you? Did you ID something? Were seeking weapons launched? Were shuttles launched? All of these have a very direct and concrete effect on your ability to plot fire. Consequently, knowing that all of these things are done before plotting fire makes complete sense. 'Cause plotting fire, and then seeing your opponent change speed, and then replotting fire, and then seeing them tractor you, and then replotting fire, and then seeing them launch drones, and then replotting fire, and then seeing them launch a shuttle, is just silly.

When I first put this up here, I think I really had no strong opinion on it. When I really put thought into it though, it is obvious to me that separating fire from the rest of IA is completely ridiculous. I think the people that call for fire every impulse of every game are probably in the right as long as this rule specific to SFBOL RATs exists.

This whole discussion probably happened when I was not permitted by ADB to play in the RATs. Let me ask - is it convention in the RATs to discuss at the start of the game whether or not to use the C4F kludge?

If you are concerned with knowing that IA is completed before you go to fire, that is already 100% in your control. Use the Dis Dev step as you suggest you do.

If you are concerned about not permitting your opponent to fire unless (s)he first tells you that (s)he is thinking about firing, then your C4F system is needed.

In other words, the only thing you need C4F for is to prohibit your opponent from firing without first alerting you to it. C4F does not otherwise gain you any additional information you cannot already gain using tools completely under your own control.

Is the ADB enforced reminder to the opponent required to be announced immediately after all other IA has ended or does the rule envision that I only need to remind my opponent that I might fire (and thus he should also think about firing) on the impulse, turn, game in question?

I assume, for example, that my starting the game with "I may choose to fire on any impulse, so be prepared" is insufficient warning to the opponent to satisfy the requirement of the rule. But what about announcing to my opponent that he should think about firing because I might also be thinking of firing at the beginning of every impulse? If that satisfied the rule, I think I could create a macro easily enough that would just announce it, in text, every impulse.

The spirit of the rule is just plain stupid. there is no reason I should have to tell my opponent those things about which he should or should not be thinking. So I am not really at all interested in complying with the spirit of the rule. I am trying to think of ways that will comply with the letter of the rule (in case an opponent demands that we use the C4F system) that does not result in me clicking on the IA button, clicking on the dis dev step and typing in "thinking on fire" every impulse of every RAT game I play.

Paul, what is the rule for your RUT?

>>If you are concerned with knowing that IA is completed before you go to fire, that is already 100% in your control. Use the Dis Dev step as you suggest you do.>>

That is why I operate the way I operate. That being said, I realize that using the dis-dev step is a klunky kludge, and would rather there be a non kludgey way for this to happen.

In the grand scheme, what I'd like is for SFBOL to work like FTF SFB. As I'm not yet willing to concede that SFB is no longer a board game. Call for fire can be a magical and seamless thing using the computer interface. But not so much in real life. I still like to imagine that SFBOL is a convenience for playing the board game that is SFB over a computer, rather than SFBOL being the optimal way to play SFB and using to do things that you can't do when playing in real life.

In real life, you call for fire. You know that the rest of IA is over before you consider shooting stuff. Maybe that isn't the way the designers originally envisioned the game operating, but it is how every single FTF game of SFB I have ever played has operated. And *still*, I have played infinitely more SFB FTF than online.

>>In other words, the only thing you need C4F for is to prohibit your opponent from firing without first alerting you to it. C4F does not otherwise gain you any additional information you cannot already gain using tools completely under your own control.>>

Sure. But it is klunky.

>>C4E (Call for Everything) is like F-t-F. C4F is completely foreign to anything other than the RATs. They are the only context in which the fire step is completely different from every other step of IA.>>

In FTF SFB, every game I have ever played, an impulse goes like this:

-Movement.
-"Have any Impulse Activity?" (write stuff down. Walk through procedure as necessary.)
-"Have any direct fire?" (write stuff down. Simultaneous reveal.)

That's how it goes. Every game. I have never in my life played a FTF game where it went like this:

-Movement.
-"Have any Impulse Activity?" (write stuff down. Walk through procedure as necessary. Including direct fire allocation and revealing.)

I'd like SFBOL to work like the first example. Which is how every single FTF game of SFB I have ever played has gone. I find the game operating like the second example (i.e. how SFBOL operates currently) to be sub-optimal.

>>I have most certainly never played a game where some (including you) said "Impulse Activity" and we both recorded things. I then reveal my speed change and you reveal your drone launch (which I guess you could then take back...). I have never played that way and never seen anyone play that way.>>

Clearly, one of us in misremembering how things happen. My experience of playing this game FTF is one of saying "I have impulse activity" and jotting down a note (the phrase "impulse activity" might be "drone launch" or "speed change" but sometimes it is just "impulse activity"). Sometimes when things are easy and obvious, it gets a short cut (i.e. "drone launch" as we are far apart and it is the only thing really possible at that point that could matter). But when things are tricky, I'll call for impulse activity, jot down notes, and go through them like "Speed change? Nope. Ok. Drone launch? Yeah, I got some..." and go from there.

In any case, direct fire is *always* a separate and distinct part of the impulse. Whatever way IA is muddled through, DF is always a matter of "recording direct fire". Which means that the rest of IA is over.

So, you two old geezers are not moving with the times and want to use real life procedures for an arcificial medium? With the consequence of slowing down the game? I have no problem with that boys, I am at times something of an old geezer myself:)
The problem is SVC let your preference be the rule in the RAT which is fundamentally unfair to anyone else. :( Not one of his brighter moments IMO.

Maybe part of the problem is the SFBOL interface (here I go beating on the interface again! Actually I love the interface).

The Sequence of Play has 5 clearly defined segments during the Impulse Procedure:
Movement,
Activity,
Dogfight Resolution,
Direct-Fire Weapons,
and Post-Combat.

So using a strict interpretation of the rules, you cannot declare that you have impulse activity then immediately fire without your opponent being slightly upset since DF does NOT take place during impulse activity.

However consider the button we use for the entire impulse procedure in SFBOL- it is labeled Activity. Again, using a strict interpretation of the rules, one would reasonably conclude that this button was strictly for the purpose of handling the impulse activity segment. But it is not; it handles actions for all segments in the procedure.

Viewed from this perspective, the use of C4F actually should make online play more like FTF play.

But does that mean C4F should be required? I say no. Let everyone agree at the start of a game which will be used, and who will call the impulses, just like we always do.

I have played perhaps 4 or 5 games without C4F and I hated the experience. I adjusted from a gameplay perspective (after my first game, anyway), so that it didn't effect the results, but I hated the sterility of the whole process. I felt like I might as well have been playing a computer opponent, for all the interpersonal contact there was.

I have no problem being considerate to an opponent who requests things are done in a particular way. Whether that be them asking me for some help with their tactics (often times even during a game), going back to fix things rather than accept a concession, or something like who calls the impulses, which side of the map (even though 2530 is slightly better), whatever - including an opponent who asks for the crutch of C4F. If someone politely asks for it, I'll concede to it.

I have three real problems with C4F in RATs.

1. That this is mandated.

2. That the people ardently supporting that it be mandated use absurd arguments to support it. (I would disagree still, but have no problem with "I rely on my opponent announcing his intention to fire in my tactics. I am this way because years of F-t-F have trained me to be that way and I still need the crutch in RATs too").

3. That no one who supports it will admit that real information is being provided when a person who wants to fire is forced to announce his intention prior to firing so that his opponent can also consider it.

Those three things are making me harden my position on this matter, so much to the point that right now if an opponent wants to use C4F in RATs we will be calling for fire every impulse.

if you and I play in a RAT, I will gladly use C4F with you.

..chatting can occur from people watching the game, just as much (for those who don't mind that sort of thing), but it's that whole "we're both thinking about fire now" interaction that's missing without C4F.

In situation 1) yes, I would still say "I have fire", to give my opponent the opportunity to say "go ahead" or "I may have some too".

In situation 2) if you called C4F every impulse within range 8, you wouldn't be invited back.

Andy,
What you've described is Me Too fire, which detracts from the game.
SFBOL Impulse Activity as designed works very well in preventing Me Too fire. The C4F fudge online reinstitutes this possibility. Obviously guys like yourself or Peter or Ken Lin etc don't use Me Too as a motivation in your support for C4F, but C4F opens this possibility and can lead to some unpleasant experiences. But, if thats the way it's to be played in a RAT or by someone's preference, then C4F within r8 is perfectly reasonable.

How is it possible that:

"2) you want to hold your fire, but think your opponent might think you'll fire and want THEM to (i.e., a bluff)."

IS in the spirit of the game, but

"I'm going to C4F every impulse so that I can get my surprise shot off."

is not? That makes no sense. The spirit of the game calls for players taking actions designed to trick others into thinking they are going to shoot when they are not, but the spirit of the game is counter to taking actions designed to hide when you plan on firing? Crazy talk.

You click on a button marked "Activity"

A pop up window shows up, with a drop down that allows you to select what Impulse Activity Step you're going to act in.

You select the step, enter your orders, and press "Execute".

The program compares all IA steps that have come through, and only displays the one that comes earliest in the sequence of play. If you had something that was slated to happen later in the SoP, you click Activity again, and it pulls up the order you entered last time, giving you a chance to adjust it.

One of those steps (the last one, in fact) is Allocate Fire. I have allocated fire, gone through four Impulse Activity steps (speed change, lab, tractor auction, range one drone launch, non WW shuttle launch by me), had my fire shown as the fifth and final one, and had someone grumble because, well, I was shooting and they didn't get advanced warning to decide if they wanted to shoot something back at me.

(Here's a hint: If the Hydran is at range 1, you just did a speed change that will get you to range 2 next impulse, he attempted to tractor you, and you just launched 2 drones at him, with his number 1 shield to your down shield, any ambiguity in his intentions are kind of irrelevant...)

"The program compares all IA steps that have come through, and only displays the one that comes earliest in the sequence of play. If you had something that was slated to happen later in the SoP, you click Activity again, and it pulls up the order you entered last time, giving you a chance to adjust it."

..it's hard to judge. It SOUND clunky, but again to be fair, I'm not looking at it, nor have I tried to use it, so I'm shooting in the dark (no pun intended).

as I said earlier, I liked the battlecards. We were, in effect, using the C4F... not evey impulse, but anytime it looked like it might be likely. Anyone could call for it, and when we got to close range, it happened every impulse. But it was never a mandated thing.

Back to the SFBOL, given what little I know about the interface, I'd probably have kept the firing stuff outside of the popup, and went with what I mentioned; after IA, the use hits "declare fire"or "no fire". It would accommodate either approach (you could disallow having nothing for one's fire declaration if you selected "declare fire", or allow it, to simulate C4F or not)

simply to mean "exactly how I like to play." Saying that it is "gentlemanly" to try and trick people into firing by bluffing occasionally, but not "gentlemanly" to call for fire every impulse inside range 8 so as to hide exactly when you will fire.

You are right when you say the following:

"What you won't see is Kirk saying, 'I want you to prepare to fire the phasers every 5 seconds, then bring them back to safe mode.'"

but what you also don't see is:

Checkov: "Keptin, They're locking veapons"
Kirik: "Hold fire, we are not at our best position and I think they are only locking weapons to bluff us into firing too soon!"

No. When an enemy locked weapons on the Enterprise, they fired them. There is no "some feints to try to get your opponent to commit."

So, your conclusions simply do not flow from what you put forth.

I can see no reason for you to suggest that you have some "high road" "gentleman's manner" of playing relative to Jason. I also do not see how your C4F with bluffing at all resembles the source material from which the game is based.

I do see how "This is the way I have always played, and I like it better that way" is true. But your attempts to make your of of playing somehow superior on their own merits (as opposed to superior to you, because that's what you are comfortable with) fail completely.

Again, my preference is straight IA, but I am certainly glad to play C4F with anyone who wants, so I'm not really arguing here. BUT....the reason you dont want to play straight IA is that you don't want the hassle of reallocating fire? Well, ok. I agree that can be a hassle as I said before. However, as someone who plays quite a few straight IA games, against pretty good opponents, I can tell you that the overall hassle of clicking in the DisDev step and writing something pithy every time you want to fire is much more of a hassle.

Peter, let us not forget that the "me too" thing is not really at the heart of the issue, but that ANDY got what he wanted when SVC made his regretable decision! :D

>>the reason you dont want to play straight IA is that you don't want the hassle of reallocating fire?>>

Not so much. The hassle is just a hassle. I don't want to consider my gunplay until I know my opponent is done doing IA.

Hitting the IA button, allocating my fire, and then seeing my opponent has a speed change is kind of a hassle, sure, but more importantly, it is a problem in the decision making process. I want to know my opponent is or is not changing speed, is or is not tractoring something, is or is not launching seeking weapons, or is or is not launching shuttles before I decide what to shoot at. Plotting fire before I see if my opponent has a speed change or launches drones is not how the FTF game works, and I'm not fond of it being how SFBOL works.

"Not so much. The hassle is just a hassle. I don't want to consider my gunplay until I know my opponent is done doing IA."

You often have a good idea when an opponent will have a bunch of Activity before Fire, when this is the case and you don't want to think about fire until the fire step then you simply break the sequence at Dis Div by typing "Thinking" or "C4F" or if you are real lazy put nothing, the point is you are free to stop the sequence of play at any point as Paul S has pointed out in the past.

In pretty much every straight IA battle that I play at some point in the game I will choose to halt the IA at Dis Div because I'm pretty sure my opponent has a bunch of Activity before Fire and I want to see what it is before I allocate my fire (just as Peter B has described above). Straight IA in no way stops you doing this which I think some players have not grasped (including SVC!).

-Jason G

"I don't mind using C4F but it does bother me that it should be imposed on everyone without a compelling reason to do so. "

If both players are OK not using it, then it's just wasting their time.

I certainly would have no objection to Paul adding a "Thinking on Fire" line between Dis Dev and Fire, as it would operate exactly as it does now. My understanding, however, is that is not what is being requested. My understanding is that you and peter want the fire allocation removed from the IA box entirely and associated instead with its own button called "Fire". If all you want is an extra line that, like everything else in IA, would be skipped if no person entered anything and revealed if one person did put something there, I don't object at all.

As an aside, the use of the Dis Dev step to call for fire does not in any way effect Andromedans or their opponents. If Andro's want to use it for Dis Dev, the say so, if they want to use it as a break before fire, they can say that. It's just a text field associated with a particular step in IA that happens to fall immediately before fire. The interface does not force anything to actually happen just because someone stops in that step apart from actually stopping in that step.

>>I certainly would have no objection to Paul adding a "Thinking on Fire" line between Dis Dev and Fire, as it would operate exactly as it does now. My understanding, however, is that is not what is being requested. My understanding is that you and peter want the fire allocation removed from the IA box entirely and associated instead with its own button called "Fire".>>

I'd be totally ok with a line in the IA procedure that was "thinking on fire".

I'd prefer that IA and DF be separate steps all together with their own buttons (which doesn't actually add any time at all to anything, assuming it was done such that it couldn't accidentally fail to give someone the opportunity to do regular IA). As in FTF play, IA and DF are effectively separate steps all together, and in the rulebook, IA and DF are separate steps all together.

But if that isn't going to happen, adding a line between "Dis Dev Step" and "Allocate Direct Fire" that was "Thinking on Direct Fire" or something, that'd certainly be better than nothing.

Unless the "thinking on fire button" also brings up the IA window for fire it would still give things away. When the IA window suddenly pop up after Peter is done thinking that is.

I thought you might not be "totally ok" with it because it is functionally the equivalent of what we have now, so I thought I was missing something in your suggestion. I was thinking that maybe when you said if we had a "thinking on fire" line that was MANDATORY to be hit prior firing, or something like that. The "bastardizing" of the Dis Dev step is a semantic concern. All you are doing is stopping the IA procedure in the Dis Dev step. You could do that in any step (and occasionally I have done so in other steps) irrespective of whether you wanted to do something in that step apart from thinking. So this as an entirely semantic change. Functionally things would remain 100% the same as they are now.

Since you are one of two proponents strongly pushing for complete separation of the Direct Fire step of IA from the rest of IA, I thought I was missing something. Apparently not. Thanks for clarifying, because I thought the point of disagreement was far more significant that just the label of the step in IA used to optionally pause things before fire.

I think if that had been clear from the very beginning, there would have been little or no disagreement and this would be in SFBOL today.

Do you consider Dis Dev part of fire or separate from it? I just need to know this to know where you want the "think on fire" line to appear (before or after Dis Dev).

>>I thought you might not be "totally ok" with it because it is functionally the equivalent of what we have now, so I thought I was missing something in your suggestion.>>

Well, it is functionally equivalent only in that what we currently have is a klunky ad-hoc solution to a not insignificant issue (wanting to know that IA is over before considering DF). If there was something actually in the IA menu (i.e. "considering direct fire") it would be an official part of the system. And not something that required conversation at the start of each game. And not something that would be unexpected when it came up.

>>I was thinking that maybe when you said if we had a "thinking on fire" line that was MANDATORY to be hit prior firing, or something like that.>>

I'm not interested in "mandatory call for fire". I'm interested in "Impulse activity is done. Direct fire is now."

>>The "bastardizing" of the Dis Dev step is a semantic concern.>>

Yes, it is. But not an insignificant one. Using the Dis Dev step for this is seen as objectionable by many people playing the game currently--they get cranky if you write "shoot" in the Dis Dev step before considering fire, 'cause they are under the impression that this is somehow "cheating" the truly secret and simultaneous aspect of fire decleration. They get cranky if you write "shoot" in the dis dev step and then don't shoot anything, 'cause the think you are trying to "bluff" them into shooting early. It is a semantic concern, but for my money, an important one. If such a step was inherent in the IA menu, there would be no need to have any such discussion about C4F or not. The option would be built into the IA system. If you want to see if IA is done before IA is done, you click that handy step. And no one can complain about it. As it is part of the IA system.

>> So this as an entirely semantic change. Functionally things would remain 100% the same as they are now.>>

Well, except that to use the Dis Dev step for this, you generally need to write something to avoid confusion. And generally need to clarify that this is what you plan to do. And then put up with people being cranky about it, as they seem to think that if you *don't* do this, declaration of DF is actually secret and simultaneous. Which it isn't. "Hmm. The Fed has come to range 8. IA has come up. I wonder if firing is something he might consider doing?"

>>Since you are one of two proponents strongly pushing for complete separation of the Direct Fire step of IA from the rest of IA, I thought I was missing something.>>

"Pushing" for something? You opened a discussion thread about this here very topic. I'm discussing said topic. I've pointed out what my preference is (making IA and DF different, discrete steps, as that is hoe the FTF game tends to work). How is this "pushing" for anything?

You've been on the internet before, right?

>>Apparently not. Thanks for clarifying, because I thought the point of disagreement was far more significant that just the label of the step in IA used to optionally pause things before fire.>>

I think my standpoint if perfectly clear. I'd prefer if the system worked like X. I'm totally ok with a compromise with Y if that is all that is likely to happen. I'm also ok with things not changing at all--I mean, yeah, I'd rather the interface change to something I consider better than it is now. But I've survived this long. I'm not, like, gonna boycott anything if it doesn't change. Again, you've seen the internet, right? Where people go to complain about the scientific inaccuracies of "Earth II"?

>>I think if that had been clear from the very beginning, there would have been little or no disagreement and this would be in SFBOL today.>>

The beginning of what? The beginning of this discussion? The beginning of SFBOL? My issue is, for my money, reasonably clear--I want there to be a clear separation between IA and DF. That could be done any number of ways. What I'd *like* to see is two different buttons--IA and DF. If player A clicks IA and player B clicks DF, the IA window opens. If they both click IA, the IA window opens. If they both click DF, the DF window opens. Nice, clean, and in terms of how the game currently operates, virtually identical, except that you know IA is over before you have to plot DF. Barring that, something else better than what is there now would be nice. An IA step that is in the appropriate place that says "considering direct fire" or something would be a reasonable solution.

>>Do you consider Dis Dev part of fire or separate from it?>>

Well, it is either one or the other (I'm not sure, as I don't have a rulebook on my lap currently). It is either in the IA step or the DF step. If it belongs in the DF step, then the "considering DF" should probably come before that. If it isn't, then it should probably come after it.

(though sometimes I am without really trying at all ;) ). I didn't mean pushing as pejorative. I just meant you are someone arguing for, suggesting that, hoping that, etc. e.g. you would like a change in the way SFBOL functions now.

As to people complaining about the use of the dis dev step, they are being foolish. Any player has the right to stop the IA at any step. That cannot be considered cheating, or if it is the person so considering it is very wrong headed on the matter. That said, I certainly agree with you that if this is something you or other people are encountering then adding a step, even though not one technically found in the SoP, is the right thing to do.

The SoP I have (pages 168-170) makes no big box break at all during impulse procedure. Dis. Dev. is, however, grouped with the other parts of 6D1 (Fire Allocation Stage). Personally, though, I think the added IA step of "Thinking on Fire" should go between the first and second steps of 6D1. The reason for this is efficiency during games with Andros. If the Andro is going to DD, you may as well have that come first, because if that happens, no one would ever then select "Thinking on Fire". I don't think this should matter much either, since the step is just added as an option that does not otherwise exist in print in the rulebook. Maybe, and this should be easy, the "Fire" button (which is currently 100% redundant with the IA button) could be converted to something that pulls up IA, selects the new thinking on fire step, and then hits return - so that the guy thinking on fire doesn't need to do anything other than press that button.

This addition should be uncontroversial (though I bet I am wrong), since it leaves the game in exactly the state it is now.

it then we would really achive something:)

Yeah, see, what I'd *really* like to see is what I detailed above:

-You have 2 buttons. IA and Fire. If both players hit IA, the IA menu comes up. If both players hit the Fire button, the Fire menu comes up. If one player hits the IA and one player hits the Fire, the IA window comes up. When the first player hits one of the buttons, the window that pops up gives you 3 buttons (instead of the current 2), i.e. IA, Fire, No Activity.

This leaves the game in the exact same state it is currently, in terms of "secret and simultaneous". If something might happen, the IA/Fire window comes up. There is no more or less "information leak" as there is currently. But you know IA is over before having to plot DF.

That being said, if this isn't going to happen, the "pause for thoughts on fire" step after the Dis Dev step, or whatever, is a reasonable compromise for my money.

...which is why you likely won't see me on SFBOL again (nor any of the others who stopped when the change was implemented).

:shrugs:

I still remember SFBOL v1 (Gregg's) fondly.

I play SFBOL the exact same way I have for 3 years now. That is to say IA when I can because I prefer it and think it's better, and C4F if my opponent prefers. I defer to my opponent every single time, 'cause when all is said and done I don't really give a shit.

So what change are you referring to Andy? Come on back and play with us!

the "Ready" button would be pressed if you were ready to move on, and if not you would press the IA button and enter your IA (including the fire step of IA). Pressing the IA button would not trigger a menu pop-up for the opponent. Entering your IA would also do nothing until the interface noted that both players had pressed "Ready" or had entered IA. In that way you would have truly secret and simultaneous IA (including the fire step of IA).

I think that is what Carl is talking about, Peter, when he says "there is no 'Both players event.'"

"I think "secret and simultaneous" takes away the "character" of the SFB that thrived for 2 decades."

First off, I don't see it different than using the Battlecards. Secondly, I don't see how it has anything to do with "character"

While I'm not a big SFB player anymore, I DID play enough to have a sense of how the game was played. To me, this issue is a matter of mechanic..... I don't see how there is anything to be gained by telegraphing what you are doing.

If there was, there would not have been a "no action" card in the Battlecard set.

I would render a guess that I have played easily 2-3 times as many FTF opponents as you have, probably more considering 1) I've been playing since Designers Edition, 2) I spent until '94 living on or near American military bases (with a higher population of wargamers) and 3) I'm American, and Americans represent most of SFB players world wide. I can *conservatively* say that I've played F-T-F SFB against over 150 different opponents.

Whether we used Battlecards or not, there has always been the "Call for Fire" or "I have fire" declaration, FOLLOWED by the secret and simultanious designation of fire (either using the Battlecards or pencil and paper), or in some cases, a simple "go ahead" by one opponent. Those players who "abused" the Call for Fire declaration, making it an every impulse thing, were quickly called to task on it. Every time, every group.

"Anyone who is currently playing regularly on SFBOL knows that there is no "surprise you just got shot" in the current online game, I really think you need to play some more online games to get a clearer picture."

Really!? So if I hit "IA" and select to fire an Alpha Strike and my opponent selects No Activity, he gets a warning that he might get blasted?

This:

"When you are playing straight IA, you and your opponent need to consider the possiblity of fire when the IA button is pushed, just the same as if you are using C4F."

is NOT the same as C4F. Having to consider Fire during impulse activity is NOT the same as C4F.

"But I found that once I started playing without it and using straight IA, I liked IA much better." That's you; I have played straight IA and I hate it.

"But the option is there for you to play C4F if you like, so why not come back and play with us?" With the option of typing C4F into the DisDev step!? And hoping I get lucky enough to only pick players who are WILLING to play SFB the way I have played for most of my life? I'll pass, thanks.

"Really!? So if I hit "IA" and select to fire an Alpha Strike and my opponent selects No Activity, he gets a warning that he might get blasted?"

Yes!! When you hit "IA" that is a warning that I might get blasted!!!

I've played over 200 games online, surely if the sneaky Alpha you talk about was possible someone would have done it to me?????? But where are these "surprise you just got shot" Alphas??? I must have been shot at over 1,000 times online and I can honestly say that I've never been tricked, surprised or cheated out of my chance to fire, I might have had a bunch of instances where I wished I'd fired or held fire cause I guessed wrong on what I thought my opponent would do but never once have I felt that my opponent made a sneaky Alpha Strike that I had no chance to respond to.

The proof is in the pudding IMO, whether I'm playing F-T-F or Online my play and decisions are the same! Surely if there was a difference between the two then it would affect my play......."like ooohhhh I can get a sneaky Alpha off here that I couldn't in F-T-F play, I'll go for it!".......but that is simply not the case, I play the same because the result of the interaction is the same as F-T-F play.

So is there anyone reading this thread who can say they have been on the recieving end of one of these secret Alpha Strikes?

-Jason G

Sounds good to me, see you 7am Friday.

-Jason G

PS. I like playing those Lyran Captains early in the morning, sometimes those sleepy Cats blink or yawn at the wrong moment and you can catch'em with a sneaky Alpha! :-)

"*I* consider getting shot without a distinct, mandatory C4F, to be a "surprise you just got shot" moment."

I agree with you that I'd prefer to know what happened in IA before deciding to shoot myself.

But the fact is, I have to think we know that there is ALWAYS the chance of being fired at.

You are assuming that, just because the rules say that everything is secret and simultaneous, that the game is actually played that way. Yeah, on SFBOL it is, but in the early days of SFBOL and the ~ 20 years of play prior to that, "secret and simultaneous" was selectively used.

"Straight IA does not force you to think about fire until you choose to, basically it's the best of both worlds!"

What you are, repeatedly, missing is that I don't want to be shot without being forced to think about fire and I don't want to shoot my opponent without forcing them to think about fire. Straight IA does *NOT* do that. I don't want it streamlined, I want to play the game that I've played for over 20 years, online. The current interface doesn't allow that, without putting me in the bucket of "C4F Nazis" and forcing me to use a clunky method of implementing C4F.

Oh, btw, Andy brought up the Nazis. He loose! :)

I put up with C4F in its current incarnation because it means I can play with about 7 players who insist on it.

I would put up with C4F being a separate 'Fire' button on the client like it was in the Olden Days because it would make it possible to play against Andy.

However, I'm willing to put up with things that are sub-optimal because, hey, I want to play the game. Not look for excuses to not play because it wasn't done the way I wanted, or to have two decade old BAD HABITS codified into the client.

Andy, I've played SFB against about 200 people or so over the last 20 years as well. My Arizona database for the Phoenix Metro area had over 100 players in it at one point, and we met twice a week with 20-30 players. We were one of three tournaments EVER to give out two Ace cards when the requirement was 50 players.

Largely because it sped the game up, we used the "Defensive Fire", "Plotted Fire", "No Fire" cards. When we were teaching newbies, we'd do the "I'm thinking about fire..." because they might not, oh, recognize that being in a given arc put them at risk for being shot at...but we quickly weaned them off of that crutch. Nobody ever got "sneak alpha'd" once they learned to read the map.

The current 'fire in IA system' is about as close to that as the client supports.

>>You are one, Peter is one, Goofy is one. Ken Lin maybe?>>

Now, to be fair, I have *never* requested that my opponent call for fire if they didn't want to. What I always tell people when this comes up is "I'm gonna C4F in the dis dev step 'cause I want to see IA finish before I consider fire--you don't have to. You can do whatever works for you."

What I object to is when people object to *me* doing this. Which happens. Which is why I'm in favor of the "pause to think about fire" after the Dis Dev step compromise.

"*To me*, SFB is not the same game without C4F, without one player telling the other, "hey, I may be shooting you now" and the other player pausing to think, "what do I want to do about that possibility?""

It's been a long time since I played regularly, but I never recall telling my opponent I may have fire; the closest thing would be if I was thinking, but wasn't sure, and needed time to study the map. The closest otherwise would have been using the cards.

As I mentioned, I think adding a separate button, to split IA and fire/no fire is a good think, I really think you are making WAY too much of it, Andy. I can't take seriously that this is the reason that you don't play SFB online, esp when as some have pointed out, you can achieve the result with the break during DisDev that others have mentioned. It just doesn't ring true to me. It sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Yeah, you know who disliked C4F? Hitler!

Oh, wait. Damn.

Again, we rapidly taught people to NOT rely on their opponents to tell them "Oh, I might be shooting." out west.

I'm willing to play in ways that I consider suboptimal in the interests of diversity and tolerance in the community. Andy isn't.

I'm also willing to call a meta-game crutch a meta-game crutch. If you can't play without your meta-game crutch, that's fine, I'll accommodate you. I reserve the right to the opinion that you're playing with a bad habit.

But saying that a meta-game crutch that's largely confined to the East Coast is the way all F-T-F play is done is bullshit.

The game rules, and the Sequence of Play probably SHOULD be written to make direct fire a distinct step from the rest of IA. On the other hand...as a player, you should be thinking about when you're going to shoot based on looking at the map, reading the geometry and the tactical situation, and factoring the same for your opponent.

You shouldn't be relying on your opponent saying "By the way, old chap, courtesy demands that I warn you that I shall be contemplating great carnage this impulse. Apologies for the inconvenient disruption of your reverie with this news. Shall I go to the washroom while you contemplate your options?"

Or something a bit more concise.

"All did it the same way"

the same thing about F&E and counters, you seemed to want to tell me (who has way more F&E experience) that somehow, I didn't know what I was talking about.

I don't believe that SVC is really in favor of C4F.

>>The game rules, and the Sequence of Play probably SHOULD be written to make direct fire a distinct step from the rest of IA.>>

But, see, it is. As I look directly at the 2005 edition of the basic rulebook, we got:

6. Impulse Procedure.
-6A. Movement.
-6B. Impulse Activity Segment.
-6C. Dogfight Interface.
-6D. Direct Fire Weapons Segment.
-6E. Post Combat Segment.

Direct fire is as separate from Impulse Activity as Movement is. Movement is a distinct, separate step from IA. DF is a distinct separate step from IA. Post combat segment is a distinct, separate step from IA.

Some of us actually play the rules as written.

I'm willing to play with C4F. I dislike it, and consider it pandering to my opponent's bad habits. On the other hand, we're a small enough community as it is that giving people reasons not to play is a bad idea in general.

..is that the game plays differently with C4F than without it. You're going to be more proficient with the method you play with, but it's an easy argument that it's a "less impactful" transition for non-C4Fers to C4F than it is the other way round (from a proficiency/results perspective).

And Joe, dude, you made the statement that "everyone stacks their counters the same way." I merely pointed out that, even in my much smaller sampling size that wasn't the case. For C4F, I pointed out that with those groups I've played with, C4F was used. I've never made the ascertion that "everyone" uses C4F, and the biggest difference between the two is: your opponent might stack his counters differently, and you might not even notice, as long as he counts them rapidly enough and you aren't checking them regularly; use of C4F is a heck of a lot more noticeable. I suppose it might get missed in a 30 turn plasma ballet, but otherwise, you're gonna know.

"I merely pointed out that, even in my much smaller sampling size that wasn't the case."

and as you don't play the game, I doubt you'd have the context to know if it were.

"and you might not even notice, as long as he counts them rapidly enough and you aren't checking them regularly; use of C4F is a heck of a lot more noticeable."

In the rare instances I've seen people stack them differently, I noticed, and made a point to correct their error.

I've played SFB with the cards (which is really a method of C4F, although as I indicated earlier, we only used it when fire was probable, to avoid "me too" firing), and without it. While I recognize that C4F avoids "me too", I don't see how the lack of it constitutes a "surprise attack", and could really be that big of a deal. Perhaps if you can explain to me why it figures heavily into your play, I could understand it. But all I've heard so far is a nebulous emotional argument about gentlemanliness, and I'm not comprehending how this is some sort of sacrosanct thing.

When we played with the cards, I would on occasion C4F if I thought my opponent was in a position to fire, to avoid "me too" on his part. That's about it.

"I'll stack my counters the way I want to."

Sure you can stack them any way you want, but how many permutations can you come up with? It seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse. Anyone that plays the game at all is going to going to organize their counters in some logical way, and there aren't that many "logical ways"

For that matter, there aren't even that many stupid ways. So please, spare me, Andy. Being coy and pretending otherwise is an insult to my intelligence.

It is a false notion anyway; the IA coming up is surely a warning enough that there might be fire, just as C4F is.

"Jo. I mentioned previously two equally logical ways of stacking counters; "

I did not see anything you posted as even two different ways, period.

I'll use C4F too. And I won't even accuse you of using a crutch :)

Seriously Andy, I think you'll find most people on SFBOL will play either way with no complaints. And we can always use more players on the client.

Prepare to be reduced to component atoms! Unless you reduce me first, of course.

Telling a bunch of other people that the way they play is wrong? You can't have it both ways Andy. If you want respect for your viewpoint you need to offer it to others as well. I have also only seen a few people say that C4F is a crutch. Almost everyone I have played online is willing to play either way, with or without C4F.

Besides the 2-3 people on here, I had bad experiences with a few others on SFBOL. I played the game a certain way for over 20 years. I went to Origins twice and everyone played it the same way. It's the way I enjoy playing the game. I've tried non-C4F and I don't enjoy it - it's a different game, a more sterile one. Yeah, I know most people online are willing to play C4F, but as the one who's playing the game the same way it's been played in the Gold Hat for its entire existance, why should I have to be the supplicant, asking for consideration of my C4F request and hoping I don't hear a few cracks in the process?

To me, it's just not worth the hassle. I can play FTF when I get the "itch" and have lots of other games on my shelf and PC to occupy my time. As long as "straight IA" is the perceived "proper way" by the SFBOL community, it's just not a playground I choose to play in. I'll still participate in discussions on the game, but really have no desire to spend $40 a year to join SFBOL as a "2nd class citizen."

...is how many other players have left SFBOL for the same reason? I sincerely doubt that I'm the only one.

Paul. yeah, I get that, to some degree, it's my refusal to accede that is causing the conflict here, but from another perspective, *I* didn't change, SFBOL did, and did so after many years of success and then only changed because of the opinions of a vocal minority. From my perspective, it was SFBOL that diverged from how SFB is played; in effect, I didn't leave SFBOL, SFBOL left me.

"to join SFBOL as a "2nd class citizen.""

Wow Andy.... way to blow this WAAAAAAY out of proportion. So far, EVERYONE here says that they accommodate people that want to play it the way you do. But that's still not good enough for you. Is it required that they think the way you do to play with them?

and I'm going to call you on this:

"I went to Origins twice and everyone played it the same way."

"Everyone"? We KNOW not "everyone" at Origins plays this way, because many of the people disagreeing with you on C4F go to Origins, and they don't play that way if they don't have to (and likely didn't before it became mandatory). You did take issue with my use of "everyone" earlier....

So please, don't make up fake arguments, Andy. Your stated reason for not playing online is ridiculous.

If you don't want to play online, that's perfectly fine; it doesn't suit everyone. But don't make up ridiculous arguments, and equate it to something akin to being shunted to a ghetto or being denied the right to vote or something.

I have never played it any other way than "I have [activity X]" followed by S&S recording (assuming S&S was desired). This is true of Fire, Speed Changes, Shuttles, plasma, etc. Without a Judge I see no other reasonably efficient manner to play other than one player asking for the step and then both players S&S (again, assuming S&S was desired).

More often than not, with the possible exception of fire step (but certainly often even then) I just tell my opponent that I am doing something.

So, yes, in F-t-F, in my experience C4F is always used, but, again, that was nothing special to fire - Call for Everything is the norm in my experience.

If, however, we had a Judge for every game, I'd use that Judge just like I use the IA call up box in SFBOL. But that is not reality.

None of the above should be considered to support the idea of a mandatory C4F. I hold that if you want to simulate F-t-F, you have to do away with the IA button altogether. Like it was in the "original" version of SFBOL.

I think Ken (and maybe me) are the only ones being a little derisive about your "crutch." To the extent any of that is coming from me, I will say it is only in direct response to your suggestion that C4F is the "one true way." It's not. It's inferior and provides some "me too" information (which you earlier admitted). But even so, everyone (here at least) will be happy to play C4F with you. My biggest problem with it was SVC's decision on it, tbh.