StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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.

I'm still not entirely sold on a 1925 start, seeing as most of those interwar designs didn't actually come into existence until the 1930s. I'd like some actual variety in tank and aircraft designs; everyone using practically identical gear with only minor variations would get boring very fast.

Thanas wrote:With regards to airpower - maybe I am a bit too paranoid about it. I just do not want to see existing navies of dreadnoughts being rendered obsolete by carrier fleets of doom in a few years.

1925 would work fine in that regard, yes.

I intend on imposing limits on introduction of technology and equipment via the use of landmark years. For instance, with a 1925 start all carriers will be converted carriers or, if purpose-built, very small "light" carriers like the Hōshō. I will not permit any "fleet" carrier construction before 1930, and if you want something that won't be determined a lemon by moderator decree, you'd better damned well have a converted carrier of larger tonnage (like the British Furious, Japanese Akagi, or US Saratoga) at the time you try to claim you're going to start building fleet carriers.

Really, even with a 1930 start you wouldn't have to worry about that, Thanas, I have no intention of tolerating techrushing to marauding carrier fleets.

And Shinn, I will probably allow some ahistoricalness in bringing in tanks and stuff because a lot of reason certain things didn't start to get put into service until the 30s was because, in the 20s, post-WWI disarmament and focus upon diplomatic initiatives stunted military advancement. So a number of those designs may be permitted before 1930. Not sure yet how much I'll shave off their historical start years.

What about unguided rocket spam instead of conventional shells?

For naval battles?

*snicker*

Well, if you want to try....

Steve wrote:For naval battles?

*snicker*

Well, if you want to try....

That bad, huh? Alright, whatever. Just trying to be different.

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?

"It's been proven that rock-chuckers have smaller skulls than Grand Domionites."

MKSheppard wrote:"It's been proven that rock-chuckers have smaller skulls than Grand Domionites."

"Next you will be wanting to extend the franchise to Jews and Protestants."

"My god, what is the world coming to? Next they'll want us to view Hindoos as human beings!"

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Steve wrote:For naval battles?

*snicker*

Well, if you want to try....

That bad, huh? Alright, whatever. Just trying to be different.

It was once recorded by Soviet High Command that a particular rocket attack on a town some distance from three full batteries(Twelve launchers) had been used in-mass against a bridge full of retreating Axis soldiers some two and a half kilometers distant was hit by roughly nine of the 203 rockets launched(Several of the Katyusha's had one or two missfired rockets or ones that went of early). The remaing rockets scattered themselves over half a kilomter of impact area. This anecdote was in General Hoth's biography and I'm not sure where he got it. But I've heard a few similar accounts. If you want to hit a city? Well missile spam is the way to go... Hit a ship which itself is moving? Not likely.

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?

No, it's because other players have expressed concern to me about how much racism would be in the game as a "sign of the times".

I'm not saying you can't be a bunch of racist fuckers, but the rest of us don't have to be if we don't want to be.

As a request, i would kindly ask that any annolouge to the Washington Naval Treaty be removed from the game before things start up.

Also, i call the Empire of Japan annolouge for this game, with the general evil levels turned down.

Zor

No, the WNT shouldn't be turned down (why?), and the current levels of evil of a particular nation should be purely the decision of the player.

Zor, we're not claiming countries yet, time period still up for grabs.

Mr Bean wrote:This anecdote was in General Hoth's biography and I'm not sure where he got it. But I've heard a few similar accounts. If you want to hit a city? Well missile spam is the way to go... Hit a ship which itself is moving? Not likely.

What was stopping them from making them as accurate as standard naval guns?

Zor wrote:As a request, i would kindly ask that any annolouge to the Washington Naval Treaty be removed from the game before things start up.

Also, i call the Empire of Japan annolouge for this game, with the general evil levels turned down.

Zor

Firstly, an analogue to the WNT has already been proposed and pretty much accepted to explicitly avoid really crazy powergamer ships.

Secondly, to Stas, level of evil is indeed up to the player. Gas all the malcontents you like. However, we should all keep in mind that the system doesn't give anybody a 'free pass' like the last one did and one might end up with a coalition of other powers with their own strengths and weaknesses gathering together out of shared dislike of one's ideology and one's behavior.

Shortly before they invade you from several different directions. Heheheheh. Love this era.

*Edited in the name of fairness.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:This anecdote was in General Hoth's biography and I'm not sure where he got it. But I've heard a few similar accounts. If you want to hit a city? Well missile spam is the way to go... Hit a ship which itself is moving? Not likely.

What was stopping them from making them as accurate as standard naval guns?

Poor accuracy over long range. Rocket weapons were never really meant to hit anything accurately, so much as just smother them in explosions at a rate no artillery piece could match.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:This anecdote was in General Hoth's biography and I'm not sure where he got it. But I've heard a few similar accounts. If you want to hit a city? Well missile spam is the way to go... Hit a ship which itself is moving? Not likely.

What was stopping them from making them as accurate as standard naval guns?

Rocket weapons are not guided, and spin stabilizing them as you can with a heavy naval projectile simply is not possible. A decent Naval 5inch can get within a dozen meters of a target on the shore or another target on the ocean in anything up to medium seas because they can preciously calculate the range, and adjust the powder charge(Precise for WWII) to go that far. The projectile is spinning so it fly's truer. Meanwhile you can't adjust a rocket except in it's angle of fire. You get a rocket it's prebuilt it should have powder all the same amount but you can't do things like crack it open and remove some to reduce the range. And flight time of WWII era rockets mean you also have to factor in ship speeds at any range. Sure at shorter ranges a nice rocket barrage would tear up an enemy ship but at that range you might as well be tossing torpedoes as the Japanese did.


Addendum, Rocket artillery is much more affected by wind due to high surface area and projectile shape. Spin stabilizing rockets is hard. Spin stabilizing rockets with any kind of wind? Inaccurate does not even come into it. Fire and forget them hitting the target.

Rockets are relatively large and slow objects and thus are subjected to wind etc.

Spinning is more useful for straight flight and not projectile motion.

Just how much participation will be required, exactly? I'd like to play my nation-state concept of Kaetjhasti which I've previously elucidated on the board if we're gonna be around 1925-ish, but I have some heavy time constraints so I might not be heavily involved. May I suggest that non-historical countries originate from a Vaguely Plausible Point of Divergence? For example a Neo-Byzantium would be freshly formed by a more successful Greece in WW1 conquering Constantinople, and that sort of thing. Cascadia would be the result of the US and Britain holding a condominion over the Oregon Country long enough that it developed its own culture and was granted independence by both in the later 19th century, etcetera.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Just how much participation will be required, exactly? I'd like to play my nation-state concept of Kaetjhasti which I've previously elucidated on the board if we're gonna be around 1925-ish, but I have some heavy time constraints so I might not be heavily involved. May I suggest that non-historical countries originate from a Vaguely Plausible Point of Divergence? For example a Neo-Byzantium would be freshly formed by a more successful Greece in WW1 conquering Constantinople, and that sort of thing. Cascadia would be the result of the US and Britain holding a condominion over the Oregon Country long enough that it developed its own culture and was granted independence by both in the later 19th century, etcetera.

We hadn't yet gotten to that point. We're still trying to agree on starting date. 1925 seems to be the developing consensus.

As to alternate history backstories, Steve said something about PODs as far back as a hundred or so years. We haven't put much spotlight on that yet.

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.

and the current levels of evil of a particular nation should be purely the decision of the player.

I am with this. Though there is a line between fitting the IC time period and just being hateful, I think that we should be so limiting on people who want to play as a more evil nation, so to speak. I mean its not as if nicer ones will not trade with them or will double team them with others etc if they do anything. On top of that it generates conflict which is good for an RP like this.

Oh and on the WNT. Can't we just lower its limits while not scrapping it totally?

Stas Bush wrote:No, the WNT shouldn't be turned down (why?),

Why would we assume that something like the WNT exists?

I might add that even without a WNT, the absolute biggest BBs the GD will have to start with will be 13.5in broadside ones. It's a fiscal decision already made on my part, but at least I'l have some pre-dreads converted to Coastal Defense as well.