Time Period for SDN World 3

[Raj Ahten]

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.

Keeping a world war from going all out would probably be in many peoples interests, especially the major combatants. That war utterly destroyed many governments in Europe and left most of he victors greatly weakened. Unless people want to play in an environment where the old world order has collapsed and most of the big powers are licking their wounds or gone, limiting a WWI type event is probably the way to go.

[Steve]

Again, my proposal, but as stated that's best for another thread.

Anyway, it's clear that 1925 is the preferred start date. So that's what we've got.

[Raj Ahten]

For the points system under discussion, are we going to be giving players different starting totals based on post count or whatever or are we shit canning that system and giving "proven" players the same numbers of points each?

Otherwise I'm liking the points system, though I think the military support section in unnecessary. You are already quantifying industry separately and a modern army's quality is very much dependent on how well it can plan its logistics. It would be a very strange army that is made of elite stormtroopers with a professional officer corps that can't supply itself in the field.

[Steve]

The plan is to replace MilSup with Economy, which rates the strength of a nation's financial system and institution.

We still have to finalize whether to just trust players not to go nuts or to implement a "tier" system where certain categories require so many points spent in others to spend further points in them. Case in point, Industry and Standing Military could be limited by Population and Territory.

[Ryan Thunder]

I'm probably going to go with something like this for Miratia, then, located somewhere in South America, I'm thinking;

Population - 3
Home Territory - 2
Colonial Territory - 0
Industry - 4
Military Support - 3
Troop Quality - 5
Standing Military Limit - 3
Naval Focus - 3
Army Focus - 4
Air Focus - 3

[Steve]

Go ahead and play with the rules to see how they fit, but keep in mind that we may yet tinker some more with them. As it is, MilSup is due to get replaced by Economy.

[TimothyC]

I would like to be South Africa, tumultuous, and mostly agrarian, but industrializing, and looking north to expand...

[Czechmate]

No nation claiming yet. 0 claims are recognized until we make a thread for them.

[Zor]

In regards to America, might i state that a United States like country, unless it has regressed to a brasil like state of poverty and non industrialization is going to have a huge advantage in this game due to its strategic position (sea barriers on either side with minimal boarder issues). As such, i think that any US analouge be split with A CSA and/or Cascadia existing or in the shambles that i mentioned.

Zor

[Czechmate]

In regards to America, might i state that a United States like country, unless it has regressed to a brasil like state of poverty and non industrialization is going to have a huge advantage in this game due to its strategic position (sea barriers on either side with minimal boarder issues). As such, i think that any US analouge be split with A CSA and/or Cascadia existing or in the shambles that i mentioned.

Zor

...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's so perfect and you don't even know why.

[CmdrWilkens]

In regards to America, might i state that a United States like country, unless it has regressed to a brasil like state of poverty and non industrialization is going to have a huge advantage in this game due to its strategic position (sea barriers on either side with minimal boarder issues). As such, i think that any US analouge be split with A CSA and/or Cascadia existing or in the shambles that i mentioned.

Zor

A united Mexico that is a dominant player in Central America, kept european interference (notably French) to a minimum and exploited the considerable mineral wealth in oil, silver, etc coudl EASILY be a threat to the US as it was in the 20s. Since the US maintained a colonial network while still trying to enforce the Monroe Doctrine its interests are highly dispersed particularly in the Pacific while a strong Mexico could easily be a counter weight in the Caribbean and challenge the US economic hegemony in the region to its benefit and the USs detriment. Likewise with sea borders on both sides and a VERY narrow southern border military forces could be left almost exclusively on the northern border where the sheer distances make any attempt at border defence on either side useless.

Anyway my point is you could easily conceive a reasonable counter weight to the US without breaking it up...not that I don't think breaking it up wouldn't be fun.

[RogueIce]

In regards to America, might i state that a United States like country, unless it has regressed to a brasil like state of poverty and non industrialization is going to have a huge advantage in this game due to its strategic position (sea barriers on either side with minimal boarder issues). As such, i think that any US analouge be split with A CSA and/or Cascadia existing or in the shambles that i mentioned.

Zor

Not to worry. The MESS has plans for North America.

FYI: Steve approves of this post.

[MKSheppard]

Not to worry. The MESS has plans for North America.

Yeah, because huge multinational alliances work so well in the 1920-1930s period.

For fuck's sake, the UK was highly suspicious of the US building battleships and cruisers during WWI and not cancelling them in favor of more destroyers, which were needed far far more than BBs.

"We would as soon fight the British as the Germans."
---Admiral William Shepherd Benson; U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, 1917


And let's not mention the fact that the RAF in the late 20s early 1930s had all their aircraft specifications laid around France as a probable enemy.

[Steve]

In regards to America, might i state that a United States like country, unless it has regressed to a brasil like state of poverty and non industrialization is going to have a huge advantage in this game due to its strategic position (sea barriers on either side with minimal boarder issues). As such, i think that any US analouge be split with A CSA and/or Cascadia existing or in the shambles that i mentioned.

Zor

Not to worry. The MESS has plans for North America.

FYI: Steve approves of this post.

On second thought, while funny I think there's far too much potential for jumpy CATO players to take this seriously.

I and a couple others have plans for North America. They include something like three wars from 1860 to 1910.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, because huge multinational alliances work so well in the 1920-1930s period.

I've already seconded that opinion before the modship of the upcoming game. Multinational alliances like the MESS hardly make much sense. An alliance like the Entente if ever formed should not look like a bunch of buddies. Large powers, especially in the early XX century, are nothing but competing, backstabbing imperialist dicks, and it should be more or less true to reality.

Though I'm not sure I'm even playing this time. Work's overwhelming.

[Steve]

In regards to America, might i state that a United States like country, unless it has regressed to a brasil like state of poverty and non industrialization is going to have a huge advantage in this game due to its strategic position (sea barriers on either side with minimal boarder issues). As such, i think that any US analouge be split with A CSA and/or Cascadia existing or in the shambles that i mentioned.

Zor

Zor, have you seen the Country Generation point system yet? If one made a US-like country they would take hits elsewhere. They might, for instance, have max national territory, max population, max industry, and max economy, but then in six other spots, including all the military ones, their score would be abysmal.

[Ma Deuce]

I voted turn of the century (the eve of the Dreadnought era) even though it's clear which option will win. Still, the '20s suits me just fine: battleships still rule the waves, and still no chance of anyone developing nukes. This may very well be the first STGOD I'd actually be interested in participating in.

EDIT: Though if we're going to use Springsharp to custom-design ships, I think we should first make sure everyone uses the same version (I use 3.0 beta 3). I also think there should still be a few design rules to keep things within reason (springsharp isn't quite perfect, so it can allow a few things that wouldn't be practical in RL),

An example of such design rules can be found on another gaming board:

http://www.wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.p ... 97500254a0
there are also additional sets of rules for designing such things as cargo ships, aircraft carriers (which would still have a place in a '20s game) and submarines using springsharp.

Now, obviously we don't necessarly have to copy these rules verbatim, though it does provide a general example of what I have in mind.

Besides Springsharp, another useful app for custom-designing gun warships is a program called "BigGun", which as it's name suggests sims the ballistic properties of naval guns within a reasonable level of accuracy. Unfortunately, now that Rick Robinson (creator of that program along with the original SpringStyle) has taken down his site, I don't know of anywhere on the internet to get it. However, I still have the Zip on my hard drive (which is only 55 kb), so if anyone wants it or is interested in hosting it, just drop me a PM containing an e-mail address to send it to.

As for naval limitations treaties a la the WNT, I don't think the game should start with one already in place, however if the players are able to negotiate one amongst themselves, I don't see why not.

[Siege]

Okay, before we continue any farther... I have no intention of playing a nation that's big on battleships in any particular way, but I still like to know: what the fuck is this "Springsharp" thing people keep talking about?

[RogueIce]

Okay, before we continue any farther... I have no intention of playing a nation that's big on battleships in any particular way, but I still like to know: what the fuck is this "Springsharp" thing people keep talking about?

This. I've never really used so can't say much more. But it seems like a ship designer thingymajig. Not just for battleships (apparently you can do carriers on it?).

[Siege]

Hokay... Am I getting this straight? Are we seriously basing what battleships etc. people can and cannot build on some random 3rd person program thing some random people built on the web?

I mean, I'd like to think we've been here before. We saw this same damned thing happen in the first iteration of the game: people were fielding ships that had no business being in the game from a strategic point of view (supercarriers when the whole world was little islands); we also saw it in the second (veritable fleets of A-10 attack planes that served no purpose whatsoever, not to mention ten thousand MESS supercarriers and amphibious assault ships)...

And now the sort of ships one fields is supposed to be based on some obscure program no-one's ever heard of, rather than the strategic realities of the game? Seriously? Whoever came up with THIS idea?

[Czechmate]

Hokay... Am I getting this straight? Are we seriously basing what battleships etc. people can and cannot build on some random 3rd person program thing some random people built on the web?

I mean, I'd like to think we've been here before. We saw this same damned thing happen in the first iteration of the game: people were fielding ships that had no business being in the game from a strategic point of view (supercarriers when the whole world was little islands); we also saw it in the second (veritable fleets of A-10 attack planes that served no purpose whatsoever, not to mention ten thousand MESS supercarriers and amphibious assault ships)...

And now the sort of ships one fields is supposed to be based on some obscure program no-one's ever heard of, rather than the strategic realities of the game? Seriously? Whoever came up with THIS idea?

Okay, first, chill out, it is not repeat not the end of the world. Second, springsharp keeps designs mostly-realistic - no putting fifteen 18" guns on a 25kt hull and trying to cheat the system, etc. The alternative is that the players accept that the mods will tell them when a design is unrealistic or anachronistic and tell them to change it without the player bitching and moaning, meaning that we won't have to deal with springsharp at all.

[Steve]

The program was made for alt-hist buffs to make hypothetical designs in various eras (1850-1950) for various world navies, Siege, and it's pretty good at restricting the creation of bad ship designs.

More importantly, if someone tries to make some dumb design that isn't actually functional, I can guarantee they won't enjoy the final result. It'll end up being something like this, depending on particular factors.

This system exists so that people can field "original" designs instead of everyone trying to poach from historical ones, which would make things somewhat bland. I don't see how mandating that all custom-design ships be made in SpringSharp is encouraging people to make things in ignorance of the strategic realities of their situation.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

If you don't want to use SpringSharp, just do some simple Wikipedia browsing for preexisting ship designs of the interbellum period. That's what I did, at any rate.

[Siege]

Okay, first, chill out, it is not repeat not the end of the world.

First, if it was, you'd see me screaming something along the lines of "Sweet Jesus on a Harley rollin' into East Berlin, it's the end of the world!".

Second, springsharp keeps designs mostly-realistic - no putting fifteen 18" guns on a 25kt hull and trying to cheat the system, etc.

You have missed my point. That's not "mostly-realistic" in my book. Sure, in terms of guns-per-ton it might be, but then so were 103,000 tonne carriers in SDN World 1...

Except they weren't: you might theoretically be able to build a 103t supercarrier, but the strategic reality of the game ordained that such a ship would be preposterously useless. The world consisted of small islands the distance between which an F-111 could cross in no time whatsoever. In the face of that a Nimitz-class ship is nothing but an epic wast of resources that would be far better spent on long-range tac-bombers.

Admittedly SDN World #1 was a fairly bizarre world from the get-go, and it ended pretty quick, so then we created #2... Yet the same thing happened: as an example MESS nations for a very long time had in their OOB an epically huge fleet of A-10 gunships. What could those possibly be any good for? Attacking armadas of non-existant Soviet tanks crossing the non-existant Fulda gap? Likewise for the ridiculous 80,000+ tonne amphibious assault carriers they kept unveiling near the end of the game; we CATO members rationalized it as "there's no conceivable defensive use for them, so they MUST BE designed to invade shit". No-one ever deigned to give any rational purpose for those ships.

My point, then, is that there's more to this sort of game than what's "mostly-realistic" from a technical point of view; there's also what makes sense practically. I want people to have ships that make sense according to the strategic realities of the game. I might be able to afford some kind of super maximal battleship in Springsharp terms, but if it doesn't make a lick of sense for me to have a ship like that in terms of my strategic position I want someone to say I can't bloody have it.

For example if the end result of the formation of the game world OOBs is that air power is far more developed than it was in OTL, then destroyers etc. should have more AA guns on 'em. If there are more battleships than there were in OTL, then it makes sense that our fleets focus more on the sort of weaponry that can take down a BB. Likewise with battlecruisers, destroyer leaders, whatever. This should not just be a matter of what can technically be done, it should be a matter of what makes sense from a strategic point of view.

This is the issue with this Springsharp business in my opinion: it only focuses solely on what might technically be done. It's the same trap MESS players fell into at the start of SDN World #2: they went with what was super gee-what tech was available in our world, and then Shep demolished them because he reasoned that if their arsenal was such, his own would reflect that and have the means to effectively counter their crap. Whine about knowledge of obscure weapons systems or not, but this demonstrates that settling for what was available in OTL is a particularly crappy way of going about establishing original OOBs; what you should really be looking at is what the actual game world demands in terms of capabilities, and then going for that instead.

I believe the term Stuart uses is (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'first determine what you want your army to do, then determine what equipment you need to do it', instead of the other way around. In other words, you oughtta look at what you want your fleet to do, before you determine what kind of battleship you need. So what I want our estmeemed moderators (whoever they turn out to be) to do, is to veto any OOB that doesn't make sense from this point of view. If you want super battleships that's fine, but you ought to be able to provide a reason why you need 'em. If it's to fight Super Resurgent Germany, the Eternal Grand Dominion or whomever that's okay, but please let's focus on the necessity of weapons platforms before looking at their technical feasibility.

In closing, then, what I'm saying is not that no-one should use Springsharp to design some fancy ships of their own. If people want to do that, then by all means. I do feel, however, that focussing exclusively on this aspect of the OOB creation business, to the exclususion of strategic alternate-reality-realities (if that's even a term) would be a major mistake that's going to inevitable come back to bite us in the ass later on -- a lesson I would hope people would've learned after two games of getting fucked with by Shep...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I for one would prefer a game more defined by realpolitik than the constant dickwaving with the latest war machine to hit the store. The atmosphere in the last game was poisonous enough, and when diplomacy has given way to irrational "Kim Jong Il" style posturing, you know things are dived into the grave and it's time to yank out the "next bestest thing" to end the game for good.