StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm with RogueIce on this one.

I just generally dislike the idea of making one or two superpowers for mod-controlled NPCs. Either have them played by someone trusted or we just ignore having a nation of that power level. It might actually make things more interesting.

Steve wrote:I'd prefer either one or two "Great Powers" for trusted players or none at all, since an NPC Great Power still has to be controlled. Instead the players' countries would be the world powers and we'd have no Superpowers around.

I do think Czech's idea of a leveled world where everyone has the same potential, though invested as they see fit, could make for an interesting game. But everyone has to be powerful enough, then, that we can fairly enjoy the game instead of bogging down from being too weak to effectively do things.

Though having a weaker tier for new, inexperienced players who have no reputation to ensure they won't be disruptions can be an open issue to determine.

Just to give you guys an idea of what things would be like, the 'baseline PC' country for the rule system I've been working on (with primary input from Steve & Beowulf) is based on France ca. 1935/36 due to it having a (roughly) balanced army and navy + an okay air force, whereas the militaries of other logical example nations (Germany, Britain, America, Japan, Russia) are all generally dominated by either the army or the navy. Of course, the system is designed to let you build any one of those with the points you're given, so keep that in mind.

As far as 'tiers' go, the system isn't designed to accomodate more than 2-3 PC powers outside of the 30-point 'Middle Power/PC' category. The other tiers are 'Great Power/Modstick' (PC or NPC, but the latter is preferred), at 40 points, 'NPC Fillerstate/First-Time-In-STGOD-territory' at 25 points, and the 'Crazy Man's Challenge/NPC Banana Republic' at 20 points. For the record, 30 points lets you make most of WW2's belligerents at their 1935 level of power, depending on how you spread your points across the game's categories, but a difference of five or ten points means higher scores across various categories and therefore tangibly higher overall power.

Since the cat's outta the bag as to who's building the 'equal start + GPs' ruleset, I'll be putting up what I have on the wiki tonight and updating it on there. I'll post up a 'How To' guide in this thread once the ruleset is complete to the point that a sample PC nation can be made, which at the current rate of development is sometime in the next week or so.

Oh, and you're welcome.

PS: If you have a constructive suggestion, do feel free to offer it.

PPS: I read some of your points when I finished my post and hit Preview. The idea of a mod council has come up before, but based on my experience elsewhere I suggested that Steve be chief mod and have a couple of comods beneath him. Also, I don't mind the idea of a 'rookie' level of power, but I think that 'rookie' should be defined as somebody doing his first SDNWorld game, not somebody with X posts. Rogue's point about having 30 britains or 10 USAs is valid, but I've also taken painstaking care to ensure that the ruleset is both customizable enough to keep people out of cookie-cutter positions like 'germany' or 'britain' while allowing similarity to them, should the player wish it. Also, the ruleset is pretty much un-powergamable, but I'll prolly be asking you guys to testbuild some nations for me once the rules are at a high enough level of completion just so any remaining kinks can be hammered out before it's stamped FINAL and sent on its' way.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Vote me for Imperium.

Only if you'll play as Ronald von Reagan, Baron of Greater California, Shroom.

I just popped my head end and I find we are now discussing proposals for STGOD 3. Frankly I think this is all for the best as the current STGOD has been dragging for me lately as we've been getting further and further into speculative tech territory which my nation can never hope to develop.

I'm still going through all the proposals, but I fully support a game starting in the 1930's and will gladly play in one starting in 1900 or so as well. As people have said, being a great power doesn't mean you can easily annihilate anyone you come across during these stages. Even with up to 1940's airpower nations without huge air forces could still attempt to do something given the inaccurate nature of bombing in that era.

On for how the game is to be set up, I am all for a points system of some sort, at least for navies. Armies during this period are all about mass mobilization by putting every available man into uniform rather than training an elite force and researching the latest wiz bang tech; population and industrial capacity are what count here. Perhaps we should break down industry and infrastructure into rateable categories, but that may be more bean counting than people want to do.

edit: I should say I'm with Steve's earlier proposal for a fairly strict orbat/nation profile at the start simply so we can figure out what nations are capable of for the non history majors among us. It might also be a good idea to get some reference material about ship building times and so forth together to help players out.

Also for the record I'd like to say I'm quite interested in trying something different geopolitically this time around. The last couple of go a rounds I've been playing the "outsider" and I've had quite enough of that. It's time to be allied with a great power, even if its just as a commonwealth or the like.

While I've more or less decided on the gear I want to use (mainly a mix of American, French, German, and Japanese stuff), is it okay to be ever so slightly anachronistic in equipment choices? Just how far ahead of the 1935 tech baseline can we go before it becomes ludicrous?

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:While I've more or less decided on the gear I want to use (mainly a mix of American, French, German, and Japanese stuff), is it okay to be ever so slightly anachronistic in equipment choices? Just how far ahead of the 1935 tech baseline can we go before it becomes ludicrous?

If you've got an A-bomb, you're doing it wrong.

RogueIce wrote:

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:While I've more or less decided on the gear I want to use (mainly a mix of American, French, German, and Japanese stuff), is it okay to be ever so slightly anachronistic in equipment choices? Just how far ahead of the 1935 tech baseline can we go before it becomes ludicrous?

If you've got an A-bomb, you're doing it wrong.

Nukes would definitely qualify as ludicrously anachronistic.

My own suggestion is that anything designed or built prior to the end of 1939 should be fair game for our starting arsenals; we can work our way up to World War II levels of technology when the game starts.

http://sdnworld.wikia.com/wiki/SDN_Worl ... ogressive)

Not done yet, but that's what's there so far.

Well, why do you want 1939 stuff possible in 1935? Maybe have it as on the drawing board, sure, but active in arsenals?

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:My own suggestion is that anything designed or built prior to the end of 1939 should be fair game for our starting arsenals; we can work our way up to World War II levels of technology when the game starts.

I figured 1936 or 1937 would be a better starting cap. Technology will whip through WW2 stuff and into the Jet Age quicker than you think.

Czechmate wrote:

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:My own suggestion is that anything designed or built prior to the end of 1939 should be fair game for our starting arsenals; we can work our way up to World War II levels of technology when the game starts.

I figured 1936 or 1937 would be a better starting cap. Technology will whip through WW2 stuff and into the Jet Age quicker than you think.

Which is honestly why I'd rather go with 1890s/1900s. You've got plenty of tech development but nobody is going to be leveling cities with bombers or even getting close to nukes since atomic theory is only starting to hit the drawing boards. Keeping city killers out of the equation while also keeping transit speeds down means that folks will feel free to play aggressive and interesting without worrying about total death in retaliation.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Czechmate wrote:

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:My own suggestion is that anything designed or built prior to the end of 1939 should be fair game for our starting arsenals; we can work our way up to World War II levels of technology when the game starts.

I figured 1936 or 1937 would be a better starting cap. Technology will whip through WW2 stuff and into the Jet Age quicker than you think.

Which is honestly why I'd rather go with 1890s/1900s. You've got plenty of tech development but nobody is going to be leveling cities with bombers or even getting close to nukes since atomic theory is only starting to hit the drawing boards. Keeping city killers out of the equation while also keeping transit speeds down means that folks will feel free to play aggressive and interesting without worrying about total death in retaliation.

We could just make research super slooooowwwwwwww. Maybe we won't have Panthers in 1944, but things won't reach Crazy Land as fast.

EDIT: Also, blanket ban on WMDs this time. This world's consensual reality (cookie if you know where that's from) does not incorporate biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. ;p

Without a WWII and a country like the USA to spearhead atomic development, it'll probably be 15 game years before we could even see nukes. Bomber attacks on cities were, admittedly, the 1930s equivalent to fears of atomic attack, but I doubt that'll have the same deterrent effect.

Shouldn't we have a vote on whether we are going ahead with the early 1900's or the 1930's before we start talking about banning WMD's or the like?

Some people would probably walk out if we arbitrarily set limits on WMDs. The different times offer different advantages. The 1900's give us a plenty of time before having to worry about air superiority becoming vital and WMD's. As a bonus Zeppelins and the like seeing practical use and the battleship fans get to have big gun brawls.

Meanwhile the 1930's let people experiment with armored warfare, serious airplanes, and high tech tools like radar and early jets.

But really there isn't that much difference between the eras. In both you are making war at an industrial scale, travel and communications are fast due to the telegraph/radio and railways/steamships and nationalism is the driving force. Its more of a question of style really; no matter what we are doing this is firmly in the modern age. If we were debating 1830 or 1930 that would be a different story.

So the question is do you like battleships and zeppelins more than tanks and all metal airframes?

Edit: In the 1900's favor I forgot to add Paris Guns

RP wise I think I'd do better in a 1935 start point, as I'm more familiar with stuff in that era, but that said I'm not entirely opposed to a turn of the century opening of the game. I know either way we'll probably lose prospective players since some people want 1890-1900 and some want pre-WWII.

1910 could be something of a compromise. Closer to tank development, aircraft are taking their first baby steps as a technology, and the seas are dominated by the dreadnought.

Raj Ahten wrote:So the question is do you like battleships and zeppelins more than tanks and all metal airframes?

In the 1930s, you can still have zeppelins (if you do, just hope they don't meet the same fate as the Hindenburg or the USS Shenandoah, Akron, and Macon) and battleships (I assume there's no Washington Naval Treaty to curtail the development of capital ships, so feel free to pile them on). If we're gonna vote on the time frame, then I cast my vote for 1935.

Also, in retrospect, 1936-1937 would indeed be a more reasonable tech limit cap for starting equipment than 1939. Those of us with enough money to throw at R&D probably could afford to have 1938-1939 designs on the drawing boards or as prototypes at best; anything else, we'll have to work towards.

Man... I'm not even done editing the page for the carrier. If too much power? I'd switch to the molten salt reactors on the first carrier and cut the power down to 450-600MWt each while driving an electric drive... as if the electric drive went *poof* when I wrote up the page. Heck, I don't even know how much power the Nimitz carriers use, much less the new Ford class.

The only reason why I never got around to edit the page, because i figured the game is dead anyway. Little reason to even do anything about it at this point. And i'm still calling it bullshit on the polywell design.

Also, you going to have to compress quite a bit of fusion fuel to even make that Z-pinch device to work, especially without ultra-dense deuterium to play with.

I think 1890 or 1900 are too far back. 1910 I could get behind though.

EDIT: I find myself liking the point system Czech drew up. It allows for much variety, and if one wants to max out in one place it inevitably forces one to compromise in another.

And like Raj I'm thinking of doing something else for this game as well... Maybe play as the Sultan of Egypt...

Siege wrote:I think 1890 or 1900 are too far back. 1910 I could get behind though.

First generation Dreads? Meh...

Myself and Shep are already tentatively discussion what form the Shepistan/Grand Dominion(The GD, or "God-Damns") rivalry will take next time around.

Will Shep sit in a mountain stronghold in Central Asia somewhere? Or alternatively he can be our Fu Manchu .

Siege wrote:Will Shep sit in a mountain stronghold in Central Asia somewhere? Or alternatively he can be our Fu Manchu .

Well, we originally thought that SDNW3 would be in the 20s-30s era, so Shep was talking about G3 BCs. Seeing as I was planning on modelling the GDN on the RM, I would have had trouble.

Siege wrote:I think 1890 or 1900 are too far back. 1910 I could get behind though.

EDIT: I find myself liking the point system Czech drew up. It allows for much variety, and if one wants to max out in one place it inevitably forces one to compromise in another.

And like Raj I'm thinking of doing something else for this game as well... Maybe play as the Sultan of Egypt...

Awesome. That dynamic of having variety but also having to prioritize your spending is just the thing I was aiming for.

The system I've done can do 1900/1910/1935 equally well (well, in 1900 everybody has air tech 0 ), but my preference is for 1900 or 1910. I don't really want to play Another Version Of WW2, but if that's the way things go that's the way they go.

I personally prefer 1930s because at least I have some degree of familiarity. On the other hand, I have none for the 1900s, beyond the fact that ships were slowly coming out as ironclads and the lot.

Siege wrote:

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Vote me for Imperium.

Only if you'll play as Ronald von Reagan, Baron of Greater California, Shroom.

Oh, yes please!