Not one formal entry to compete received to date.  Not even one enquiry. I think it is safe to say that the Wargames Trial will not proceed.

More than 2 days now since I invited entries in a formal AG Wargames Trial.  Zero entries received. Zero enquiries received.  Zero PMs with suggestions for changes received. A few comments on this thread and the Trial thread about possible changes.

Mostly it seems that wargames are only of interest to you JJL.  The rest of us find other things to keep us interested in AG.  I cannot speak for other Corps, but I suspect that many of them they are like us in SPQNR.  Within the Corp there is plenty of scope for growth and cooperation.  This online article fits us pretty well IMHO:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/video-games-want-us-to-be-enemies-but-developers-underestimate-our-humanity

JJL, if I may diplomatically point out a flaw or two in your reasoning?
- From your post that started this thread: "I already removed some science stations in Sol belonging to SPQNR".  So from the start you wanted to be fighting SPQNR?  Or you somehow think SPQNR would just cop it?
- SPQNR did not respond immediately with fighting, but asked you to honour a NAP they thought was in place.  Which you then stated was not.  How does that not imply more attacks from you are coming?
- The leadership of SPQNR then decided to take proactive action.  That is what good strong leaders do.  It is not being "bloodthirsty", when the evidence is there of prior adversary activity and no promise to stop.
- SPQNR may or may not care about what happens to the rest of the galaxy.  But it also does not stick its nose into other Corps affairs.
- Some of us in SPQNR have been investing considerable time in trying to find another way to satisfy those with fighting impulses.  See my post about the AG Wargames Trial.  Not one PM received after a day of advertising the Wargames Trial.  Not one from you either, saying that you were or were not interested. Or suggesting changes.  (But you have had other things in AG keeping you busy, so I understand).  At the moment though you seem to be alone in wanting to fight in a semi-controlled fashion

I understand your comment about coming back to AG because you enjoy it. The veteran players among us obviously feel the same.  Some of us also feel at times that we have explored all it has to offer, and want something new to happen.  You have expressed similar comments, so you know the feeling.  That is why I submitted the code for 2 new SOS missions to Sir Emi last November.  Not because they are anything wonderful, but as a starting point to get more interesting things to happen.  It is disappointing that they have not been implemented, and I would like to try again with Sir Emi to get things happening.  But frankly, this "Wargames" issue and the fallout from it is taking my time that would otherwise be used in that direction.  Can we at least call a truce for 4-6 weeks to see what I can persuade Sir Emi to do?

Just over a day has passed since I advertised the AG Wargames trial.  Less than a week until it would start.
- 31 views of the post
- 1 reply (thanks Sargas), basically saying "not near me" (if I may be permitted to interpret the reply so bluntly ;)
- 0 PMs for Wargames entries.  Actually, no PMs even enquiring about entering

So far it is not looking like it will go anywhere.  If it is at all of interest then at least PM me with some expression of current or future interest.  Or with suggestions for contest changes that you would like.

StarGazer Enterprises, in an attempt to reduce growing Interstellar Tensions, invites entries in an AG Wargames Trial

- the Trial will run for a week. From 06:35 UTC 18 January to 06:35 25 January.  One week timed to begin and end with the star stability update
- Entry to the Trial is by PM to Captain StarGazer. Entry to the Trial is free, but if the Trial is successful future Wargames will require Quantum Points to enter with all entry fees going to games winners
- the Trial is intended to evolve the rules for subsequent regular Wargames events. Perhaps monthly? And a likely rule evolution is how long to allow for finding the target in "Search and Destroy"
- Participants may enter multiple times in multiple categories.  For the trial, there is a limit of one entry per player per category per day. (With 7 days available, January 25 counting as an extension of January 24). So for the Trial 35 battles in the week per player is the maximum!
- The Trial has three categories. Summary here, details below.
  + "Stand and Deliver"  On the nominated day turn up at an agreed orbit at an agreed time with a sole ship with no more than 0.5 million power as reported by the AG battle report.  A neutral observer ship will confirm that both opponents arrive and do not change ship when they see what they are facing. Stand and deliver!  Disabling or destaffing of mods allowed. Changing of weapon settings is allowed. For the Trial use of AP to speed up the battle is permitted.
  + "Search and Destroy" On the nominated day and time the target player will deploy a target ship named "Red Shirt" (nod to Star Trek fans ;) in an orbit in a specified quadrant. The target must remain in the same orbit for the entire period of X hours (see below).  A neutral observer ship will confirm that they do so (unless there is some other means to confirm this?). A neutral observer with a Wormhole Detector may also be required to try and restrict searches to manual over scripted.  A limit is in place for the WHG and FTL Tech permitted to be used by the hunter. The target (ship only for the Trial) has no more than 0.5 million power. The hunter must find the target and attack it.  The attacker can have whatever power ship they want, but cannot use AP to speed up the battle.  The target may leave after the X hours.  Each entry in this category is effectively a double entry. One entry as the target, another as the hunter. On one day you will be the hunter, on a different day the hunted.
  + "Catch Me If You Can".  Same Rules as "Search and Destroy", except that the contest lasts 24 hours. Every hour, the target has 5 minutes to move to a new orbit. If the hunter has WHG and FTL Tech limits, the same limits apply to the target. It must stay in any new orbit till the next hour is up.  Target player must PM the hunter on departure and arrival. (So the hunter knows the target is in a new place, not where that place is). AP can be used to speed up the battle.  Again, each entry in this category is effectively a double entry. One entry as the target, another as the hunter. On one day you will be the hunter, on a different day the hunted
- Wargames points are awarded based on the battle result
 + A battle victory score is 10 points divided by the odds ratio (as determined by the Att and Def strength in the AG battle report). So beat some one up at 2-1 odds and you get 5 points. Take someone down at 1-2 odds and you get 20 points (a reward for skill!)
 + A draw counts as a Victory for both sides, so fight a 2-1 attacker to a draw scores the defender 20 but the attacker still gets 5 for his effort
 + Fail to find the target in S&D or CMIYC scores 20 points for the target, -20 for the hunter. Finding but running out of time to fight scores 10 points for the target, -10 for the hunter
 + failure to abide by Games rules is no points and instant disqualification!  A gracious opponent MAY at his sole discretion allow you to get away with breaking a rule. So perhaps your ship had 0.51 million ship power when 0.5 million was the limit. If the opponent agrees then the disqualification would not be applied. But don't risk it!  And if the rule breaking is bad enough then the Games organiser is likely to enforce the disqualification regardless of the opponent's attitude (5 million instead of 0.5 million was OK? I don't think so!)
- winners of the games will be announced here on the Forum to general acclaim (and perhaps some jealousy? ;)

Details:
- Both players are to submit relevant AG logs or reports to the organiser upon request. Battle reports mainly, but possibly cargo logs etc
- For all contests where a Neutral Observer ship is present, contestants agree for their ship to remain for a detailed scan as requested by the observer.  This is to confirm compliance with games rules.  We do not want any cheating!!
- The value of X in "Search and Destroy" is determined by the number of systems in the Quadrant at the time the contest commences.
 + minimum of 5 systems or the search is too trivial
 + X hours is the number of systems divided by 3 (For the Trial. May well need revision)
 + Each player in the contest must nominate a minimum of 5 of the 81 quadrants in the SOL cluster where they have no stations or ships in orbit. The Trial organiser, StarGazer Enterprises, will randomly select a quadrant nominated by both contestants as the contest site.
 +The FTL and WHG Tech used by the hunter is limited to a max of ten ie FTL-X and WHG-X Use of AP to speed up movement permitted.  (Suggestions welcomed as to whether another value than ten is more appropriate)
- No getting friends or fellow Corp members to help you look/report where the target is not (but hard to enforce
- No contests with friends or fellow Corp members (except for "Stand and Deliver"?)
- Friends and fellow Corp members are NOT suitable as Neutral Observers unless both contestants agree
 

Still can't interest you in arranged matches only?  With only players who nominate for the games, and their nominated target, being open to attack?  Everyone else just gets to watch.  And defend themselves against the normal background Player Pirate level.

I am about to announce a trial games along those lines.  Please consider giving it a try at least...

Excellent ideas.  There needs to be room for unexpected attacks though too.  It teaches players to be more aware of their surroundings.  Which is important to learn do you can handle yourself better in situations such as when new pirates appear. Pirating is popular in the early game.  There aren't many people to teach you how to be around when pirates are in the area then me. You will see when my actual raiding ships are set up and I'll be trying to avoid having to speed up timers.  It also helps to teach players good habits in times of war where people don't care if the target is small and insignificant. These are all things the veterans learned long ago. Especially those of around since the early days.  The willing participants I am definitely giving wiggle room on targets though. The unwilling on the other hand they will just have to deal with the power constraints I am putting on myself.  

The NAP with SPQNR was a GC only agreement.  It was never agreed to beyond that.  We just never attacked one another after that because we had no real reason to. I returned because honestly I missed the people here and I missed how it was in the old days.  I tried returning once before and quickly got bored and quit.  So I decided if I was going to return and be able to keep myself entertained enough to stay. Fact is this is how I have the most fun with this game. Not playing useless politics.  I am very aware of how your power has grown and really I don't care. Attacking ships with higher power levels just results in absurd timers and AP used that really isn't worth it. A hit on one of my ships isn't real loss.  I don't have any holdings that really are at risk.  I came up with the games idea after I returned.  I thought it might be something everyone can have fun with and give less powerful captains an actual chance against those who could normally cream them.  I am interested to hear what the rest of your corp thinks. That said whether you like it or not, once I announce the games your corp is not exempt from this.  If you want to work on getting this thing organized with some rules I would be more then happy to discuss certain targets being exempt.  Also I am aware about ConPlays.  He earned that bounty so it's his problem to deal with.  I won't get in your way there.

Hmm.  There is obviously some past "history" between players that precedes my AG or Corp involvement.  Overlooking that (possible for me anyway):
- any comments/changes to my latest Rules of Engagement suggestion?
- there are already Player pirates out there teaching/discouraging new players. We need more new players, not to turn away the ones we get.  Sounds like us AG veterans just beef up our defences as we are quite able to do, and only the new players who can't do that get hit?
- if someone who plans to make unexpected attacks has no holdings of their own exposed to the same then that looks rather one sided.  Not to say unskillful!
- good to see that some limits are voluntarily set eg certain targets exempt. Best IMHO if ALL targets are exempt except those volunteered
- some of us rarely read/post here because we are much more active posting on Corp Comms. Posts here do not reflect all the AG activity going on
- a suggestion: Formal "War Games" in the month of February, based on agreed Rules of Engagement. I will commit to participation, and agree to making a contribution for a prize to the winner. If my Rules of Engagement or a variation on them were to be used, I would commit to providing a target at least once a week. And being an attacker at least once a week

So finding targets is part of the fun?  And skill is required?  So a real chance of losing?  Because some of us would say that hit and run on easy targets is a lazy way to do battles...

Engagement option 1.1
- Name a time frame and quadrant/s eg For a day from 12:00 UTC 9 Jan a specific named ship/station will be in an unknown but specific orbit for the whole time period, somewhere in Q x,y
- Name a maximum ship power for the target as reported by AG in the Battle Report eg 0.5 million (0.5 million each side would give an average of 1 million for the battle, which is how many hours battle timer?)
- Opponent has to find the target
- Opponent turns up with whatever power ship/s they want, starts the battle, PMs the target owner
- Both sides get a chance to do a scan of the opponents ship before the battle is resolved
- Wargames points awarded based on the result. A first suggestion: 50 points for the target side if it is not found (a penalty for not trying basically!), battle victory score is 10 points divided by the odds ratio (as determined by the Att and Def strength in the AG battle report). So beat some one up at 2-1 odds and you get 5 points. Take someone down at 1-2 odds and you get 20 points (a reward for skill!). A draw counts as a Victory for both sides, so fight a 2-1 attacker to a draw scores the defender 20 but the attacker still gets 5 for his effort

Engagement option 2.1
- Like 1.1 but hide and seek. After a specified time (1, 2 hours?) the target has 5 minutes to move to another orbit in the target zone. Maybe PM the searcher before and after moving

Tell me about it! Code for 2 new SOS missions that I submitted to Sir Emi in November got an initial enthusiastic response. But no progress or implementation since 
But I can hope 

Fact is that without any major installations of their own to protect, any dummy can do hit and run stuff.   I expect that you want a challenge?

An initial Rules of Engagement proposal. Suggest mods as you see fit. Maybe have multiple engagement options?
Engagement option 1.
- Name a time and place eg Phobos orbit, 12:00 UTC 9 Jan (just an example, so deliberately in the past)
- Name a maximum ship power per side as reported by AG in the Battle Report eg 2.5 million (2.5 million each side would give a max of 5 million for the battle, which is about a one day battle timer?)
- Both sides turn up and either can start the battle
- Nobody uses AP to speedup the battle until both sides have had a chance to scan the opposing ships (you would want to see the cunning config that beat you up wouldn't you? ;) (Or vice versa
- the victor gloats and the loser sulks till the next round...

I have submitted some code to Sir Emi recently for some AG development.  No response yet, but things MAY happen.  In time an encounter with BORG type aliens may satisfy your thirst for battle!

In the meantime, I could personally agree to some "War Games" as a means of adding interest.  But as not a current member of SPQNR government it is not for me to speak for the entire Corp.  Except that without an agreed set of rules of engagement continued attacks on our Senators is likely to be viewed as an Act of War

Can we please have a change that new missions give the miner a realistic time from pick up to blow up...

Basically new missions should lead to newborn systems, or systems with at least some minimum level of stability.. (-100? or better!)

I agree.  While the star instability and nova changes are in general good and working well, it seems that it would be better if the pace of it all was reduced.  A suggestion would be to halve the rate of instability growth from what it is now, so that star lifetimes are at least double what they currently are.  Happy with the current proportionate difference in lifetime of dwarf vs coloured vs binary vs giant stars, but they could all last longer than they currently do.

And while we are talking of changes, there are a couple of minor needed reporting changes:
- upgrade the exploration reports.  So that when reviewing where your ship has been, the system report includes the star instability at the time of the visit.
- stations should be able to report the current star instability rating in their system.  Currently they cannot (to my knowledge), only a ship can in system view

At two newly created systems two different players have encountered the same problem:
- navigation to the system is fine
- when trying to enter system view (http://www.astro-galaxy.com/index.php?action=access_sys) an error message of "Could not open image" is displayed instead of the system view. One player tried both desktop and mobile views for the same result
- the two known newly created systems with this problem are:
JLA 19778 in Q -4,4
TUZ 957 in Q -1,4

We await with eager anticipation the resolution of this bug, so that these new systems can be explored!  They are full of diamonds right?  :-)