StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Steve wrote:We typically have some absentee players and activity wouldn't be daily, even if we go back to "RL month = IG year" you might have to post once a week, at most, especially considering the concept we have for a system for how one expands/upgrades military forces with quarterly industrial capacity allotment.

And Czech, that was Wilkens. I think we'll end up with multiple PODs. And really, I think that even if we do things implausible we shouldn't worry about it. The point of the game is to have fun and make up countries we want to control, not strive for historical accuracy.

I think I've clarified but I do want to clarify that the 100 year POD suggestion was meant to be a guide not a hard and fast rule. The idea I had was to allow for a reasonable time period to generate the country one wants (look at the changes in the US from 1790 to 1890 for instance) while at the same time giving us all a solid historical base from which to work.

In your example of Cascadia you could easily have a large movement of settlers westward in teh US much earlier than in truth who setup a nation which retains the enlightenment ideal even as the Eastern States descend in to a revival of fundamental religion and eventually clash over slavery (which could be the point of separation). That would just be a suggestion as it certainly would give you a leg up towards enlightened moderate democracy in the 20s.


Anyway I think 1925 would allow us to both stay a ways away from the era of massed bomber streams and city levelling (at least for a decade or so) and I would go with 1 RL month = 6 IG months. I think the 1mo=1yr is too fast and 1wk=1mo is too slow so an in between timeframe should be worthwhile.



In SDNWorld Redux I'm still working forward on the space and naval projects so I epect to release a few things later today.

I second Wilkens' game speed suggestion. The 1925 offer plenty of develoment time without hitting futuretech, and pacing up a little would add dynamics to the game.

Using PoD-100y as a guideline sounds like a good idea to me. It'll net us a world that allows for sufficient divergence whilst at the same time giving us at least a somewhat firm basis to work with. Oh, and two months of real time to one game year is okay by me as well.

As for tech levels, I myself intend to play as a non-Western nation (preferably Egypt because then Fin and I can have shouting matches between our rulers... But I see we're not in the process of claiming territories yet ) that's busy playing catch-up in terms not just of weaponry etc. but also in industry and mindset -- so frankly 1925 suits me quite wel.

Seige and Stas agree with me in the STGOD, the world is coming to an end tonight

Lonestar wrote:

Steve wrote:For the benefit of players, I suggest we permit them to be... unrealistically progressive for the era, if they so choose. I know I plan on Cascadia being heavily enlightened for the era, more like 1970s US than what a 1920s Western nation really is. There will be racism, but it will be seen as a sign of bigotry and backwardness.

Ah Geez, is this because of me and Shep in the chat the other night making you uncomfortable?

I for one think we should use era-appropriated racism and bigotry and... okay, I'll stop now.

CmdrWilkens wrote:I think I've clarified but I do want to clarify that the 100 year POD suggestion was meant to be a guide not a hard and fast rule. The idea I had was to allow for a reasonable time period to generate the country one wants (look at the changes in the US from 1790 to 1890 for instance) while at the same time giving us all a solid historical base from which to work.

In your example of Cascadia you could easily have a large movement of settlers westward in teh US much earlier than in truth who setup a nation which retains the enlightenment ideal even as the Eastern States descend in to a revival of fundamental religion and eventually clash over slavery (which could be the point of separation). That would just be a suggestion as it certainly would give you a leg up towards enlightened moderate democracy in the 20s.

Anyway I think 1925 would allow us to both stay a ways away from the era of massed bomber streams and city levelling (at least for a decade or so) and I would go with 1 RL month = 6 IG months. I think the 1mo=1yr is too fast and 1wk=1mo is too slow so an in between timeframe should be worthwhile.

No matter what speed you use, players are still supposed to do a budget once every quarter, aka every three game months. It's how the system is designed to let you build things, so try to keep that in mind. 1mo=1yr means you do a budget once a week. 1mo=6mo means you do a budget every two (I don't mind the idea of only having to deal with budgeting twice a month). 1wk=1mo means you do a budget every three.

...and Cascadia's not the only breakaway former Union power in North America this time around.

Given we have had this poll going for over week and I am pretty sure virtually every SDN Worlds player is interested has voted, would it be OK to assume that the 1920/25-1929 has won?

Shroom Man 777 wrote:I for one think we should use era-appropriated racism and bigotry and... okay, I'll stop now.

Those damn Shroomanians and their heathen habits! I say we should all be anti-Shroomites! Death to all Shrooms! I advocate the Final Solution!

The Shinrastaffel! The Night of the Gunblades!

Bluewolf wrote:Given we have had this poll going for over week and I am pretty sure virtually every SDN Worlds player is interested has voted, would it be OK to assume that the 1920/25-1929 has won?

I think it's safe to assume that 1925 will be our starting year. We will sic Shep on any further dissenters.

edit: lol schinrastaffel

Shroom Man 777 wrote: I for one think we should use era-appropriated racism and bigotry and... okay, I'll stop now.

I am laughing my ass off already.

Oh and yeah, I'm cool with 1925.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:The Shinrastaffel! The Night of the Gunblades!

And I was going to defend Shrooms as having as much right to live as anyone else, regardless of whether you agree with their ways or not.

Shroom and I have already formed a plan. I'll go all out Kaiser and he can be the psychotic effective partner.

Thanas wrote:Shroom and I have already formed a plan. I'll go all out Kaiser and he can be the psychotic effective partner.

Aw, we were going to have a disunited Germany. Hannover uber alles!

But that's a discussion for the next thread.

I'm cool with the developeing 1925 consensus.

It looks like if I want to be a commonwealth type nation Shroomania might be out as a patron; I'm not exactly up for Shroomnacht. But maybe instead being set up like a penal colony like Australia my nation could be simply where all the sane Shroomites fled to .

If anyone is interested in forming a commonwealth type system I'm very open to joining it at this time. Just about any Imperial power could have former colonies that are still close to the motherland. Seeing things from the old MESS players side of the fence could be quite interesting this time around....

Raj Ahten wrote:If anyone is interested in forming a commonwealth type system I'm very open to joining it at this time. Just about any Imperial power could have former colonies that are still close to the motherland. Seeing things from the old MESS players side of the fence could be quite interesting this time around....

Does this mean I get to call first dibs?

RogueIce wrote:

Raj Ahten wrote:If anyone is interested in forming a commonwealth type system I'm very open to joining it at this time. Just about any Imperial power could have former colonies that are still close to the motherland. Seeing things from the old MESS players side of the fence could be quite interesting this time around....

Does this mean I get to call first dibs?

If you want to . I don't expect this to be a bidding process; If I wanted that I'd just play as Italy ala WWI and sell my allegiance to the highest bidder. That said I'm going to wait or day or two before making a final decision to give everyone a chance to think about what they want to do.

What are you planning to do this time around?

Guys, don't be planning your stuff beyond a vague idea just yet. The rules aren't done and they won't be for another few nights of Steve and I hammering out rules. And we won't be posting the location-and-backstory thread until then, as far as I know. Steve thinks it's still premature and I haven't finished retooling the ruleset to reflect umpteen suggestions and a startdate change of -10 years.

Any objection to me being a France that learned some rather different lessons from the Franco-Prussian War? I was thinking of some kind of militaristic socialism, wherein everything is rationed as far as possible to allow the government to stockpile towards the day when old humiliations will be avenged, etc.

Again, Wilkens, what do we do if, say, Fin wants to be an ERE that never fell? Marina's suggestion of a wildly successful 19th Century for restored Greece was not a bad alternative, but I think that where history and a player's desire collide, we should hew toward the player.

As for the rules, we primarily have to determine how to scale Air Focus, various modifiers for country data (Like free population for Colonial Territory), and a few other tidbits.

And to make sure everyone's seen it:
http://sdnworld.wikia.com/wiki/SDN_Worl ... rogressive

Master_Baerne wrote:Any objection to me being a France that learned some rather different lessons from the Franco-Prussian War? I was thinking of some kind of militaristic socialism, wherein everything is rationed as far as possible to allow the government to stockpile towards the day when old humiliations will be avenged, etc.

Talk with Thanas and others intending to be in Europe, but sure.

I have contemplated with Stas and Czech that we should have some kind of WWI-analogue in our history, but perhaps one that ended with a general peace, not one side dictating peace to their defeated enemies.

I think stuff like world wars are best left up to the individual players to dream up. If some of us want a giant war to have happened between them, I say we let them (Lonestar and Shep seem to be going down that route already), and if enough of us join that conflict in some manner it will automatically classify as a 'world war'. These things are better left to happen organically IMO than being ordained from on high. If enough people are interested in a recent world war, then a world war will have happened; if not, then not.

Perhaps a battering into mutual exhaustion? Plenty of opportunities for scholars to claim we could have won if only we'd taken such and such a hill or held such and such a valley.

I think we best wait with that for the next thread, I have quite a few ideas in mind as to how to prevent WWI or to stop it from escelating that much.

Agreed. The crux, though, is that without some kind of conflict in the first quarter of the century then we'd alter what kind of militaries everyone fields.