|
On another note, as some of you know I've been talking to various other players over IMs about the direction of SDN World 3 if we ever decide to start it. A couple people have asked me about directly bringing this up here in the thread, so here it is.
I know a few of you are still thinking of this one. I'm not saying "Let's kill SDN World 2 and set up 3 right now", but rather reflecting what can be done next time to improve upon bumps we found this time around for when we inevitably start up World #3.
Note that I do think that once we get past 2020 we're going to start seeing our ideas for tech progress become far too speculative to easily judge things and that this would be a good time to contemplate proclaiming the game "won", but that's another subject.
Anyway, the running proposal that it seems people are liking or at least warming up to is choosing a different time period, since we've already done two "modern day" ones, and to find something where we won't have to worry about nukes from the getgo. The late interbellum period seems the most acceptable in this vein, 1935 as a starting point.
As a world, instead of creating one completely from scratch like the last two times we start with Earth as a basis, then play with it as we desire. Shroom wants to switch the British Isles for Usea of a certain size to have Shroomania? Sure. Alternatively, he wants to be a Pacific nation east of the Phillippines? Why not? Czech wants to still use the British Isles but wants them colder? We shift them to the north or something.
This time a point system for military size would be mandatory, but instead of a uniform limit for each country one's point limit would be determined by how much of your GDP you devote to military spending, though a relatively high "cap" is open for discussion.
Secondly, in keeping with Wilkens' proposal for how naval construction should be considered among the nations, this game would have a second point system, this one with a cap by power rating, that would determine how developed one is as a land, sea, and air power by how you invest points into each category. This would determine the quality of your forces, your ability to put into service more sophisticated ships, land vehicles, and aircraft, factors like reserve pool, and the sophistication of your starting forces. In specific three kinds of unit/capability - aircraft carriers, amphibious assault/Marine forces, and paratroopers - would be fixed to two categories (and I shouldn't need to say which). Thus one can, say, be like Germany and have a sophisticated army and air force but less-built up navy, or you can have Japan's air and naval skill but relatively-unarmed army. Naturally larger powers would find it easier to be at certain levels in all three categories, but even they might find it useful to invest in one but not another depending upon their situation. A continuing system where every game year a set amount of "points" can be invested to improve these three categories, reflecting yearly technological advancement, is possible but might be too number-crunchy.
And, of course, the points system for the OrBats would have to generally be overhauled to accommodate the era. Armies are larger, based more on the division than brigade, and reserves and the capability to mobilize them quickly play a pivotal role in war-preparation, air units have the capacity to be more varied in capability and role, and on the sea subs are still more submersible than true submarine while carriers are in their first years as a potential fleet unit while the battleship is still King of the Sea (and also stupendously expensive, much like a Nimitz-equivalent was for our current game).
Someone - Beo I believe - brought up the idea that having all of one's ships of a type as a single class should also be nixed, but rather you would have to have ships of a few classes at least depending upon size of your forces.
Also, for power levels, there have been recommendations to slice one or two ranks off, Duchy and possibly Imperium, to flatten the curve and make things slightly more equitable. I've even considered using different terms for them to reflect the period - we could go from, say, Imperium-Tsardom-Kingdom to Great Power-Regional Power-Minor Power.
I think that's it, but if someone else has an idea either never spoken of or spoken of but forgotten, feel free to speak of it here.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
Moderator of SDN, Former Spacebattles Super-Mod, Veteran Chatnik
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Login
