Coalition Master Coordinates and Naming Convention

[Admin]

In order for our coalition to overcome some difficulties presented by the game system, which will NOT be changed by the game master, I propose that we develop a strategy and method for providing a consistent coordinate reference system and to also cooperate in naming conventions for Star Systems, Stars and Planets.

A master coordinate reference system should either be based upon one corner of the cluster map OR the center of the cube. Please express your preferences and reasoning for them.

I would suggest that we agree to a master catalog of names and that we all agree to use these names rather than coordinate references when discussing exploration, colonization and setting inter-player borders as well as coalition territorial limits. We should also develop policies relating to how we collectively interact with other players and/or alliances that we may encounter.

Suggestions would be appreciated. Maybe we could develop a constitution of sorts?

[Geoff Graff]

A constitution! NEVER!!

OK, let me explain.
I have several other hobbies, including reenacting and historical miniature wargaming. As a reenactor I love the movie 1776. A musical comedy about the writing of the Declaration of Independence, staring John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (OK, for ME they seem real). Early in the movie the Congress is tired of hearing John Adams rant about independence, and they sing, over and over, "Sit down John!". His reply is "NEVER!" A great movie, watch it!
My historical miniatures gaming group is an anarchistic collective, no constitution, no bylaws, no officers, no business meeting -- no organization at all. Other than what the 'members' are willing to do. We discuss things, and if there is a consensus to do something, people offer to do it. If there is no support it doesn't happen. And we are regarded highly by other gamers along the East Coast as being very effective and innovative. We just do what we want to, no pressure. But we are (almost) all willing to step up and help. It works for us, so I tend to think this way.
We have here a group banding together to do perhaps 3 things:
1) Work together to cooperate and coordinate - Cooperate to mutual gain and Coordinate to avoid tripping over each other.
2) Be prepared for mutual defense.
3) Help in the development of the coolest game in the world (OK, I'm getting too excited by the rebirth of EC).
If we agree to cooperate, allow 'innovaters' and 'the hyper-active' to do their own thing, [within bounds of our plan], and understand that this requires ALL to help, we don't need a formal agreement.
But that's just my view.

As for system coordinates, are we all working with the same X, Y and Z axixes (How do you spell that word?)? If so, then a bottom left front corner of 0, 0, 0 would make the most sense. Each player then need only add a positiver number to their coordinate number to arrive at the 'coalition coordinate'.
If the center point is used then players would need to add OR subtract a number. More thinking here.

Whatever you want I'm amenable to.

Geoff Graff
AKA Commodore Barney

[Admin]

The trick with the inter-player coordinate references is that Vern has what he calls six (6) "scrambles". A scramble is a combination of axis swapping. There are no polarity reversals and since I asked Vern about that possibility, I really hope he doesn't add that complexity to later games. One (1) of the scramble combinations is NO SCRAMBLE. General Quarters' "scramble" has two axes swapped (relative to my reference). Commodore Barney and Red Snertz and myself all have the same "scramble" which I am referencing the others to. Erasmus has all three axes rotated. So between the five of us, so far, we have three (3) "scrambles". ON TOP OF ALL THAT... we all have offsets from each others' home-world zero references.

This is why I believe we need to have a star catalog with coordinates listed in tandem and normalized to each player for reference. Then we need to identify ownership and territories controlled by each player and give the Star Systems names that will be recognized within our coalition, alliance, defense pact, co-prosperity sphere, mutual defense league, etc.

No, we don't need a constitution as a formal document, but we do need to agree on some basic principles and make some commitments to each other. In order to maximize the benefits of our collaboration we also need to coordinate technology expenditures and identify a centrally located system where we can all meet for exchange of prototypes at regular intervals. I believe each of us should have a home sector radius and areas of
accountability to garrison or patrol the collective boundaries. Probe reports should be shared regarding our coalition borders and incursions of non-aligned players. Means of recruiting and admitting new members also would be helpful.

This was not my idea. I was apprised of the emerging need and desire for a cooperative by other players who expressed concern about the threat arising from rumored activities of one "Jay Columbo". Others may be in alliance with him; possibly out of fear and proximity. Jay Columbo is my target in the long term. Short term is reconnaissance and colonization with rapid technological development. I have inherited Vern's original position and am just now getting the huge plethora of ailing S/C's organized and consolidated. I can only imagine that Jay Columbo has spent the whole game systematically developing his empire. New players are inheriting fledgling or abandoned positions.

I am willing to invest the time and effort to help organize and coordinate as much as reasonably possible. Together our efforts can complement the others and result in a synergy for all of us. Hopefully I have demonstrated my trustworthiness.

Additionally I would like to say that General Quarters and Red Snertz have the more vulnerable positions being exposed in the relative center of the cluster. That has allowed them more extensive exploration and potential contact with other players too. Commodore Barney, Erasmus and myself are pretty close to corners of the cluster and therefore limited in routes of expansion and also more focused on fronts of defense. These advantages and disadvantages tend to cancel. Collectively each of our strengths can compensate for our weaknesses.

So are we a coalition (or whatever each of us cares to call it) or not? I would like to hear what the others are willing to commit to. How much are you willing to share and trust each other?

[Sponsored content]