Time Period for SDN World 3

[Setzer]

I don't want nukes. I don't want bio weapons, and I'm even pissed at chemical warfare. I've been wary about RPing on this board simply because something happens that ends up getting me killed.

[Steve]

Biochem warfare's not very advanced at this point and the mod can limit it (Treaties and such, with any player trying to use it getting dealt with severely). As for nukes, even with a Late Interbellum start it'll be a decade and a half at the very least before even the first bits of nuclear technology can come into play, and it will be easily-justified to make sure all national nuclear programs result in tracks that only permit atomic energy applications, not atom bombs.

Anyway, with 23 votes it's pretty clear that the Interbellum period is the popular choice. Given 9 votes for the 30s and 7 for the 20s, I'd suggest 1925 as a compromise starting year, especially since we have 7 further votes for even earlier.

Shall the poll be declared closed?

[Czechmate]

Biochem warfare's not very advanced at this point and the mod can limit it (Treaties and such, with any player trying to use it getting dealt with severely). As for nukes, even with a Late Interbellum start it'll be a decade and a half at the very least before even the first bits of nuclear technology can come into play, and it will be easily-justified to make sure all national nuclear programs result in tracks that only permit atomic energy applications, not atom bombs.

Anyway, with 23 votes it's pretty clear that the Interbellum period is the popular choice. Given 9 votes for the 30s and 7 for the 20s, I'd suggest 1925 as a compromise starting year, especially since we have 7 further votes for even earlier.

Shall the poll be declared closed?

I second the 1925 motion. With 23 votes the vast majority of the game's potential playerbase has voted and a compromise between the top two categories seems perfectly fair to me.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

A runoff poll between the 1920s and the 1930s might be a good idea, but that'd probably necessitate another thread, if phpBB does not allow one to change existing polls.

Personally, my own knowledge of warfighting equipment of the 1920s is practically nonexistent, and of the few pieces I know, they're largely crap compared to what one can get in the early to mid 1930s. I really don't want to be stuck with Renault FT-17s for armor and a bunch of flimsy cloth-covered biplanes for an air force.

[Czechmate]

A runoff poll between the 1920s and the 1930s might be a good idea, but that'd probably necessitate another thread, if phpBB does not allow one to change existing polls.

Personally, my own knowledge of warfighting equipment of the 1920s is practically nonexistent, and of the few pieces I know, they're largely crap compared to what one can get in the early to mid 1930s. I really don't want to be stuck with Renault FT-17s for armor and a bunch of flimsy cloth-covered biplanes for an air force.

Be more creative.

EDIT: Also, some Wikipedia trawling might do you good in terms of knowledge regarding 1920s equipment.

EDIT2: Okay, yeah, 1920s gear is pretty esoteric. I'll give you that.

[Steve]

Well, I'm not against a runoff, but I suspect that short of people changing votes the 1920s will win, since since I figure those who voted 1910 and 1900 will vote for 1920s and not 1930. So we'd just be having an extra thread and voting for little gain.

As for tech of the period, hrm....

[Czechmate]

As I see it, we (as a group) have two options. Either we start earlier to play longer without crazy WMD shit, or we decide on and set in stone a way to keep a tight lid on the aforementioned crazy WMD shit.

Perhaps we can agree on a treaty in the game's recent past banning non-nuclear WMDs and have Q explode the heads of anybody that tries to create and use nukes.

EDIT: I wouldn't mind starting between 1930 and 1935.

[Master_Baerne]

Perhaps we can agree on a treaty in the game's recent past banning non-nuclear WMDs and have Q explode the heads of anybody that tries to create and use nukes.

That's not crazy, actually. If we have NPC Great Powers, it wouldn't be outrageous at all for them to have taken it upon themselves to enforce some kind of Geneva Convention-esque thing forbidding the use of WMDs.

For the lolz, we could include the line "And the use of chemical or biological weapons against humans shall be cause for national obliteration." Everyone needs more Dune in their STGOD.

[Steve]

Exploding heads is a bit out of the question. If, OTOH, a scientist somewhere gets the idea of intentionally creating a nuclear fission reaction to prompt an explosion, said scientist just might get a lethal exposure to radiation in a lab accident. Or have a tragic hemorrhagic stroke. Maybe a car accident.....

[CmdrWilkens]

As I see it, we (as a group) have two options. Either we start earlier to play longer without crazy WMD shit, or we decide on and set in stone a way to keep a tight lid on the aforementioned crazy WMD shit.

Perhaps we can agree on a treaty in the game's recent past banning non-nuclear WMDs and have Q explode the heads of anybody that tries to create and use nukes.

Honestly we could do both an earlier play and a means of enforcing a no WMD policy but the problme is how do we differentiate between allowable tech development towards nuclear power (viable in the 1930-35 scenario)?

Anyway with the 1910s off the board I would hold that the 1920s is preferable.

[Mr Bean]

Sorry folks but you all seem to forget that the last two times WMD were used it WAS in an Andross style "I'f I'm going down I'm taking you with me mwhahaha!" We have members here who's end goal is to end every STGOD in storm of nuclear hellfire. Agreements won't cut it you are talking about highly motivated dedicated members who want to rack up virtual kills because when they were growing up they always wanted to be a Genocidal Maniac and only the accident of birth to the wrong parents prevented them from doing just that.

Edit
Yes I am also one of the members who wanted to end an STGOD with me nuking everyone.

[Steve]

That's what the moderator/moderators are for, Bean. This time around certain players will not be allowed to just unleash mass death willy-nilly. We say "no" and we mean "no".

[Steve]

As I see it, we (as a group) have two options. Either we start earlier to play longer without crazy WMD shit, or we decide on and set in stone a way to keep a tight lid on the aforementioned crazy WMD shit.

Perhaps we can agree on a treaty in the game's recent past banning non-nuclear WMDs and have Q explode the heads of anybody that tries to create and use nukes.

Honestly we could do both an earlier play and a means of enforcing a no WMD policy but the problme is how do we differentiate between allowable tech development towards nuclear power (viable in the 1930-35 scenario)?

Anyway with the 1910s off the board I would hold that the 1920s is preferable.

I'm not opposed to the 20s, but the era's military technology is somewhat obscure, at least outside of naval stuff.

And differentiate what tech development? I was going to propose that at certain landmark years, players can have certain advancements, including nuclear theory, and accounting for perhaps no war and no one being as wealthy and big as the USA, holding off development of nuclear power so that it can't truly begin until 1945 or so, and take years to get right. And as for nuclear power versus nuclear reactor, we simply combine imposing limitations on players' scientific communities - have them completely full with figures who are on a track that will result in reactors, not bombs - and by suppressing any attempt to create a weapon by saying that a scientist making such a breakthrough dies tragically via accident/illness/affliction.

[Steve]

Let's be clear on something. This is not SDN Worlds 1 or 2. We will have at least one mod, if not more. It seems I've been generally appointed/accepted as game mod, and I can tell you that if someone tries to cause mass death and/or the demise of the world again and I'm on watch, I will bring the hammer down. Hard. If we decide on other mods, they can do the same thing. After all, our goal is to have a fun game. If we don't want someone to inflict mass death on us, it doesn't happen. It can only happen if we let it.

So we declare no nuclear weapons. Nuclear programs will be in their infancy for a couple decades in-game and we can have them all result only in nuclear power, with attempts to weaponize failing utterly. That decision is final. There will be no 'if's, 'and's, or 'but's about it. No wiggle room, no semantics. No atomic weaponry.

[Czechmate]

Well, that's refreshingly final.

Gooooood, goooooood...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Sorry folks but you all seem to forget that the last two times WMD were used it WAS in an Andross style "I'f I'm going down I'm taking you with me mwhahaha!" We have members here who's end goal is to end every STGOD in storm of nuclear hellfire. Agreements won't cut it you are talking about highly motivated dedicated members who want to rack up virtual kills because when they were growing up they always wanted to be a Genocidal Maniac and only the accident of birth to the wrong parents prevented them from doing just that.

Edit
Yes I am also one of the members who wanted to end an STGOD with me nuking everyone.

Yeah, we all remembered how impotent those "rods of doom" were.

But that aside, yes, the nihilism of some players is annoying. No nukes is a good thing. I would rather take a look at other things really.

[Mr Bean]

Yeah, we all remembered how impotent those "rods of doom" were.

They were a tactical weapon not a strategic weapon designed to kill command and control facilities as well as airbases and the like since you can't get off anything BUT nukes with a seventy second engagement window.

Oh and I had nukes, I never used them since I was AFK from the game when the world ended and I came back to find the KEV's useless because Shep went nukey happy and Skimmer went Chemical/Bio happy.

[Lonestar]

Let's be clear on something. This is not SDN Worlds 1 or 2. We will have at least one mod, if not more. It seems I've been generally appointed/accepted as game mod, and I can tell you that if someone tries to cause mass death and/or the demise of the world again and I'm on watch, I will bring the hammer down. Hard. If we decide on other mods, they can do the same thing. After all, our goal is to have a fun game. If we don't want someone to inflict mass death on us, it doesn't happen. It can only happen if we let it.

So we declare no nuclear weapons. Nuclear programs will be in their infancy for a couple decades in-game and we can have them all result only in nuclear power, with attempts to weaponize failing utterly. That decision is final. There will be no 'if's, 'and's, or 'but's about it. No wiggle room, no semantics. No atomic weaponry.

No Orion spaceships?

[Steve]

....if the game survives to the early 21st Century we might revisit things then.

[Steve]

Given the clear majority for Interbellum period, I suggest 1930 as a compromise start date. It's the rough mid-point of the Interbellum Period. Even if we don't have a demilitarized 20s in our history to slow down arms development it'll be the mid to late 30s before the early WWII arms are coming out in force, so for now we have slow WWI-style tanks or the first light tanks and tankettes and most of us still fly biplanes in our air forces, with the first monoplanes coming out IIRC. We're 15 years arguably from the first useful nuclear reactor and any scientist who conceives of an atomic weapon will have a tragic difficulty, like, oh, having a blood vessel in their brain go kablooey (hemorrhagic strokes suck).

I call for posted votes.

[Thanas]

I would object to a 1930 scenario because Battleships will be obsolete in about a decade and I want to have some battleship actions, dammit.

Also, this would require me having major AH rewrites for both germany and spain (if I finally decide who I want to play) and I do not think other players appreciate things like "Germany won the first World War" or "Spain regained its colonial empire and defeated US attempts on the Philippines and Cuba".

[Steve]

I would object to a 1930 scenario because Battleships will be obsolete in about a decade and I want to have some battleship actions, dammit.

Also, this would require me having major AH rewrites for both germany and spain (if I finally decide who I want to play) and I do not think other players appreciate things like "Germany won the first World War" or "Spain regained its colonial empire and defeated US attempts on the Philippines and Cuba".

That's why you negotiate with players on whether certain historical events even happen. I know I'm going to have to talk to people concerning themselves with North America and the Pacific, as will Czechmate. That's not counting if anyone wants to play fictional countries (Actually, I don't think we've even finalized how much we'll twist history and reality. I know my suggestion to Lonestar and Shep would have an entirely new island-continent in the Indian Ocean).

I suppose 1925 is possible but, frankly, 20s tech is quite a bit esoteric in some things compared to 30s and 40s tech, not to mention being less advanced, and that will not be welcomed by many players.

[Beowulf]

I would object to a 1930 scenario because Battleships will be obsolete in about a decade and I want to have some battleship actions, dammit.

No SDNworld has yet lasted a decade. I'm sure you'll have a chance to have a BB fight still.

[Steve]

Also, carriers will not mature into truly dangerous anti-battleship platforms until the early 40s. As late as 1942 there were confrontations in the Pacific between surface ships, even battleships, because carriers couldn't be everywhere at once and/or because both sides had enough airpower that it canceled out. The 4th Battle of Savo Island and the Battle of Surigao Strait being the premiere examples of this point.

[Thanas]

Why? The Swordfish was available in 1934, the Ark Royal was launched in 1937. The Saratoga was already active since 1927, Yorktown in 1936. Two of those are certainly enough to finish of a BB, so forgive me when I find Battleships not that useful come 1930s.