Time Period for SDN World 3

[Ryan Thunder]

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.....

Or he could just think of it and then find the consequences too horrible to be worth contemplating and refuse to do any work on it.

[KlavoHunter]

1925 strikes me as the best compromise starting point. We still get plenty of ingame years where the Battleship is queen of the seas, before aviation technology starts getting competitive.

[Steve]

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.

A handful of carriers dwarfed in number by battleships and without really potent aircraft until 1940. The Swordfish wasn't bad, sure, unless one had air cover, but it alone wasn't so potent as to put the battleship out of business. It's not until the later 30s that you even start to get bombers that will be very useful. 1940-1942 is when the two weapon systems equal out, and later in the 40s is when the battleship will be obsolete (it's final real purpose dies in the 50s with the first all-weather aircraft).

My point, in summation, is that we can start in 1930 and you can easily justify surface actions, fun battleship vs. battleship gunnery duels, up until 1945 or so. No game has lasted fifteen years and, heh, knowing this crowd, we should have a war on by 1936 assuming a 1930 start.

[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.

A handful of carriers dwarfed in number by battleships and without really potent aircraft until 1940. The Swordfish wasn't bad, sure, unless one had air cover, but it alone wasn't so potent as to put the battleship out of business.

The Bismarck and three Italian battleships would beg to differ.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Swordfish are flying hulks of crap that would have been slaughtered outright if they were ever deployed in the Pacific theater. They only did well in the Atlantic and Mediterranean because the RN's opponents had not a single carrier based aircraft worth a damn.

[Steve]

Before we begin a history debate, I personally don't entirely mind the idea of a 1925 start, but frankly I think that this will make the game less fun because, sure, people might have BBs, but everything else is generally uninspiring and not useful. Armies are generally like they were in WWI, moving at the speed of foot infantry with no faster and well-armored tanks to offer the possiility of exciting charges since virtually all tanks are at or just above the speed of foot infantry.

[Thanas]

Yes. And neither did most of the battleships floating around the 1930s. So unless we all want to go down the custom design route...

[Steve]

Yes. And neither did most of the battleships floating around the 1930s. So unless we all want to go down the custom design route...

The current proposal is to permit custom designs made with SpringSharp.

[Bluewolf]

One question I'd like to ask? Are we going with the "take the world map and add or take what we need" route? Because if so then we should consider merging some territories if we need to (say if we got a lot of large 4's and 5's when it comes to land). This would make sure that we don't run out of room for large empires (I mean colonial territory will be big too.)

[Thanas]

How easy is it to use?

[Steve]

One question I'd like to ask? Are we going with the "take the world map and add or take what we need" route? Because if so then we should consider merging some territories if we need to (say if we got a lot of large 4's and 5's when it comes to land). This would make sure that we don't run out of room for large empires (I mean colonial territory will be big too.)

Merging some territories? What do you mean by that?

As for SpringSharp, it's best used if you know something about naval design, amateur level that is, though you can get a manual that better explains things.

Hrm, can't remember the link. I believe Beo has it.

[Bluewolf]

Like combining the landmass of Germany and France or Canada or the US for example.

[Thanas]

Germany objects.

[Raj Ahten]

What exactly is wrong with WW I tech? At the strategic level we are playing at a LOT is still happening. Amphibious landings and naval battles give us plenty of options. And there were plenty of mobile battles in WWI as well as the iconic western front style meat grinder.

Since the tech is a little less developed we don't have to worry about players pulling obscure airplane designs out that are supposedly superior to everything else etc. The lower tech also gives us more room for role playing as we have to worry less about the technical details of a certain piece of kit and can focus more on heroic but foolish charges, major commander's personalities, geopolitics and so forth.

If people really want tanks and stuff though the 20's are a good compromise because the next generation of weapons are just being developed.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yes. And neither did most of the battleships floating around the 1930s. So unless we all want to go down the custom design route...

I do.

[Bluewolf]

The only fear I see with WW1 is basically trench warfare which is slow, annoying and would drag on.

Oh and don't worry Thanas, no one will make Germany theirs but you..for now.

[Steve]

Like combining the landmass of Germany and France or Canada or the US for example.

As in someone controlling France and Germany at the same time?

That'll be permitted, yeah, for 4s and 5s in Home Territory that lay claim. IIRC Germany is considered the model for a 3 in Home Territory.

If, say, Thanas here plays Germany and spends 4 points in generation for Home Territory, we'd let him do something like, say, own bits and chunks of neighboring areas. Bohemia, Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, Holland, or Jutland, etc. Though in some cases players may need to negotiate territorial boundaries if there will be completing land claims based on score.

I suppose I could point out I intend to lay claim to a bit more of North America as Cascadia this time around....

God dammit, you people keep posting before I can finish!

[Steve]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_%281 ... %931939%29

For helping us, as I'm being sold on a 1925 start.

[Bluewolf]

I kind of meant like a nation thats borders comprise what would be Germany and France. Its just an idea but what you said borders pretty close as well.

[Raj Ahten]

The only fear I see with WW1 is basically trench warfare which is slow, annoying and would drag on.

Well World War II wasn't exactly over in a day either. The trench warfare was only one front anyway, the Russian front was a series of massive and mobile fights. The fighting in the middle east was highly mobile as well. In Romania the central powers overwhelmed that nation in a matter of months once they joined the war.

A bigger concern for me than what exact day we start at is what the geopolitical situation looks like at the start of the game. For example, is the world run by a fairly stable system of great powers, or has a such a system just collapsed such as after WWI?

Edit: some spelling

[Beowulf]

A handful of carriers dwarfed in number by battleships and without really potent aircraft until 1940. The Swordfish wasn't bad, sure, unless one had air cover, but it alone wasn't so potent as to put the battleship out of business.

The Bismarck and three Italian battleships would beg to differ.

At least three of those four were sitting at anchor. Kinda similar to Pearl Harbor, really...

As for the Bismarck, it was alone, facing most of the might of the Royal Navy, and was smashed to flinders largerly by gunfire and other weaponry from surface ships.

[Bluewolf]

Fair enough. I just don't want a stand off like last time that went nowhere. Contrast to that though, I don't want one day wars either. Its finding that balance that is the key.

Also to add to Steve's link, a list of fighter planes during the interwar period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fi ... d_aircraft

[Steve]

Fair enough. I just don't want a stand off like last time that went nowhere. Contrast to that though, I don't want one day wars either. Its finding that balance that is the key.

Also to add to Steve's link, a list of fighter planes during the interwar period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fi ... d_aircraft

The perpetual standoff was from the existence of nuclear weapons. It's sometimes called Strategic Paralysis. Otherwise I imagine a MESS v. CATO war would've inevitably happened.

If we were still going with the whole "Imperium, Tsardom, Kingdom, etc." system this era wouldn't be so bad for the Duchies and Principalities either, as no airpower to bring a country to its knees in a matter of days or even hours.

Any war that isn't a minor colonial skirmish ended by diplomacy would probably last months, especially if it is total.

[Raj Ahten]

Fair enough. I just don't want a stand off like last time that went nowhere. Contrast to that though, I don't want one day wars either. Its finding that balance that is the key.

That's a legitimate concern to have. I'd say that more than the tech level circumstances like geography and the player's willingness to undertake bold (or stupid!) action is what really counts.

On another note, how much a part do we wan to have racism play in this game? In this time period it was a major factor in foreign policy ex. anti Japanese laws in the US, viewing non western peoples as utterly inferior, etc. I could definitely see people being uncomfortable with a realistic level of racism in this game.

Edit : Though nukes are a big game changer as Steve has pointed out.....

[Thanas]

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.