StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Siege, I agree completely with what you say. The SpringSharp requirement is not meant to enable people to build whatever they please if they don't need it, it's simply a way for mods to confirm that a proposed design is a feasible one.

We will overlook proposed OrBats and review complaints about if someone is going overboard in some way. That said, the best option may be for everyone to post a draft OrBat, let everyone see them, then we put up a final OrBat, which allows for some realistic adaptation to a potential rival's forces and direction. Because putting together an OrBat in a vacuum would easily cause what you describe without any real malicious intent at all.

If you guys really don't want to use Springsharp, don't use it. But Steve (as senior mod) and I (as rulesguy and assistant) will be going over your stuff when you post it and if something looks like it isn't right, we'll point it out in as nice a way as possible...unless you try to ignore it, in which case Bad Things Will Happen.

Langley's right, by the way. Referring to period stuff on wikipedia and other (reputable) sites and making your own version is kosher, so long as you put in the minimum effort of doing something to make your version your own (different gun arrangement? maybe do a little bit of art editing and change the superstructure?) and not just a generic boat like all the Arleigh Burkes and such in SDNW2.

Lastly, and this isn't a specific jab at anybody, I'd like to make it nice and clear that both Steve and I agree that grudges from the last game are not welcome in this thread or any other SDNW3 thread. Leftover MESS-CATO player tensions are especially not welcome. This is for the good of -everyone-.

I shall use real weapons or real weapon projects as usual, there's a vast multitude of them to be considered. The same advice goes to all who find it too much trouble to use Springsharp or some other design software.

Stas Bush wrote:I shall use real weapons or real weapon projects as usual, there's a vast multitude of them to be considered. The same advice goes to all who find it too much trouble to use Springsharp or some other design software.

I fully expect to see something of yours named Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya or Potemkin.

Siege I get where you are coming from here, but as long as a ship can be practically built I'd say let the player build the damn thing. Since we have a proper moderator if someone building stupendously expensive wankships or whatever will soon be hurting as his navy is outnumbered and outmaneuvered by the people who've actually built a sensible force.

As an example in SD.net world 2 Japanistan built 100 ton+ tanks but they needed their own specialized transports and could still be killed by advanced ATGM's as easily as any other armored vehicle. They were a terror weapon built to utterly crush poorly armed opponents and their existence wasn't what made Japanistan dangerous.

Now that we have settled on a time period, I would say it's time to move on to other decisions. Such as the Mod issue, whether we want new ones? How many we want? I would suggest two additional ones, and Steve. And also, I think it's time we start claiming countries.

Stas Bush wrote:I shall use real weapons or real weapon projects as usual, there's a vast multitude of them to be considered. The same advice goes to all who find it too much trouble to use Springsharp or some other design software.

I'll be doing the same thing. Anything else would be too much trouble and would take too much time to get done.

I'll be opening the claim thread tomorrow, I'm trying to nail down the ruleset more firmly with Czech.

The newest iteration, for instance, switches out "Troop Quality", making that another function of the three Service Focus items, and replaces it with Infrastructure, which determines primarily how fast your nation can mobilize while modifying GDP.

For GDP, my idea is that a country's Economy rating determines per capita, you use that with Population to get your base GDP, then Industry, Infrastructure, and Standing Military can modify it positively or negatively based on how many points you invest in them.

OrBat generation will rely primarily upon Army, Navy, and Air Focus. We might give a few extra bits of general-use points based on Standing Military if deemed necessary, though we were aiming at making Standing Military denote available military manpower. Whether to make military units cost both industrial "points" and manpower points is still to be determined since I want to minimize the number crunching where possible.

Link's on Page 5 or 6 of the thread, I think, we're open to suggestions or advice.

Siege I get where you are coming from here, but as long as a ship can be practically built I'd say let the player build the damn thing. Since we have a proper moderator if someone building stupendously expensive wankships or whatever will soon be hurting as his navy is outnumbered and outmaneuvered by the people who've actually built a sensible force.

One thing that limited the size of capital ships historically was the size of existing shipyard slips and drydock facilities, both of which were practically as expensive as the ships themselves. There should be a way to consider this in the rules without making them too complicated, maybe having a set number of predetermined dockyard sizes or size brackets (Class I, Class II etc) that would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade. To simplify things further, dockyard size could be a national attribute rather than an actual unit like a ship, or we could have the players buy actual drydocks and yards as they would ships if people feel like keeping track of all that. This would prevent players from building uberships right off the bat, and it would force them to choose between, say, investing in bigger dockyards so they can have bigger ships later, or building smaller ships now.

As for the cost of ships, Springsharp does estimate that, based on displacement, number and size of guns, engine power etc: While it doesn't quite line up with the cost of historical ships in certain eras, it's still good enough for comparing the costs of Springsharp designs to each other, and at least allow you to guesstimate how much they'd cost in relation to the real-world designs that would be used in the game.

Regarding an earlier point, My main concern with springsharp was actually the design of smaller escorts. The program works pretty darn well for battleships and cruisers, but can be a bit iffy for lighter combatants (which can have composite strength ratings as low as .50), which is why I proposed imposing a few design rules, especially in light of the fact that springsharp designs will be competing with the RL designs some players will choose to use.

I intend to tie dockyard capacity into the Navy Focus score.

Can someone be nice enough to design an XLS sheet for easy calculations? Especially whoever is drafting the points? Getting through all the rules and regs and having to construct my own is a royal pain in the butt.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Can someone be nice enough to design an XLS sheet for easy calculations? Especially whoever is drafting the points? Getting through all the rules and regs and having to construct my own is a royal pain in the butt.

Um, dunno how to make those, but once we get an OrBat point system derived I'm sure someone can do so.

DarthShady wrote:Now that we have settled on a time period, I would say it's time to move on to other decisions. Such as the Mod issue, whether we want new ones? How many we want? I would suggest two additional ones, and Steve. And also, I think it's time we start claiming countries.

Slow down. At the moment we're still trying too finish all the fiddly bits of the ruleset. Also, you have (by default) Steve as senior mod and myself as rules mod, given that I made most of it and only I truly understand its' arcane secrets ( ). If you want other mods, you can vote on them after claiming is done (because mods don't get any more points to build their stuff and put into territory than anyone else), which won't even start until friday evening (EST).

Shall we assume you're going to be in the Balkans? Perhaps some sort of Austro-Hungarian Empire analogue?

I am personally thinking of being China. Would anyone have any objections to that?

The claims thread will be first-come, first-serve in the name of fairness. If it helps, unified China would be a 5 on the Home Territory scale. 4 if you don't have Manchuria, or perhaps lack Mongolia & Tibet. Taiwan, for the record, is too small to actually affect the territory score of a nation as big as China.

I am going to go 5 for it so not to worry. I am only mentioning it first as I personally think I will be fucked over timezone wise and get denied China just because I had to sleep during the time someone claimed it. I know your trying to be fair but I just think I am going to crap luck.

I'm starting to wonder if FCFS is really a good idea. It prevents claim disputes (posts have time & date), but it's pretty harsh, cause it'll screw people out of the country they came up with a concept just because someone else claimed it as part of their empire.

I know its hard as said but as said, its a tough thing to sort out. I respect that. I just hate the idea of being denied a country because I have to have a life and have to sleep at some time. I have a fair idea on what I want to do with China ready to go so its not as if I am just keeping China just for the sake of it. Then again I have no idea how you'd sort it out.

Also Czech: Do you have AIM/MSN, I'd like to talk to you on something.

Bluewolf wrote:I know its hard as said but as said, its a tough thing to sort out. I respect that. I just hate the idea of being denied a country because I have to have a life and have to sleep at some time. I have a fair idea on what I want to do with China ready to go so its not as if I am just keeping China just for the sake of it. Then again I have no idea how you'd sort it out.

Also Czech: Do you have AIM/MSN, I'd like to talk to you on something.

Dagorladsurvivor on AIM. I'm generally around between about 10am and 10pm PST. Later on weekends.

Also, people claiming the same parts of ththe world can, with help from Steve or myself, find a way to coexist in similar regions. Three different players are planning to split what used to be the continental USA, for example, and have put together a shared backstory explaining it. I'm sure similar arrangements can be made elsewhere, assuming that people are willing to compromise and work on a solution that benefits everyone involved instead of being a douchebag for their own benefit.

I'd be willing to talk and that if two people claimed China. I also think if no comprimise could me met, well you could just get Steve to roll a die.

Bluewolf wrote:I am going to go 5 for it so not to worry. I am only mentioning it first as I personally think I will be fucked over timezone wise and get denied China just because I had to sleep during the time someone claimed it. I know your trying to be fair but I just think I am going to crap luck.

If you're going to be claiming China, then you and I have much to discuss. Namely, do you have a warlord problem?

Part of my own nation's backstory involves Guangxi province being taken over as a colony shortly after the collapse of the old Guangxi clique, with Hainan following afterwards. As I intend on playing as a South China Sea hegemony centered on the Philippines with Vietnam, Brunei, eastern Malaysia, portions of southern China (the aforementioned Guangxi and Hainan provinces, plus Macau and Hong Kong and possibly the rest of Guangdong province as well), and possibly Taiwan as colonial territories, we should probably iron out all the territorial claims and backstory stuff now.

Well sorry to totally throw a screw in the works but I was intending to have a more consolidated China. Maybe continuing the Dynasty's in some way. Steve also suggested having an emulation of the Meiji Restoration. Its early days really as I was divided between Canada and China for the last couple of days. I am willing to work with you on this though.

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:

Bluewolf wrote:I am going to go 5 for it so not to worry. I am only mentioning it first as I personally think I will be fucked over timezone wise and get denied China just because I had to sleep during the time someone claimed it. I know your trying to be fair but I just think I am going to crap luck.

If you're going to be claiming China, then you and I have much to discuss. Namely, do you have a warlord problem?

Part of my own nation's backstory involves Guangxi province being taken over as a colony shortly after the collapse of the old Guangxi clique, with Hainan following afterwards. As I intend on playing as a South China Sea hegemony centered on the Philippines with Vietnam, Brunei, eastern Malaysia, portions of southern China (the aforementioned Guangxi and Hainan provinces, plus Macau and Hong Kong and possibly the rest of Guangdong province as well), and possibly Taiwan as colonial territories, we should probably iron out all the territorial claims and backstory stuff now.

Awesome that you're willing to work it out, but you should wait until Steve posts the claims thread.

I actually don't think first-come-first-serve is the best way to handle this. For one, it gives folks who happen to be logged on at the moment the thread goes up a leg up, not to mention folks in the same timezone. It's far preferable to just see who wants what and then talk it out.

As said:

People say who wants what
People discuss and try and find a comprimise.
If not, then it can decided via dice roll/coin toss from a mod.

I do agree with Siege in broad strokes (FYI, I think some of the SDNW OOBs were more to the fact that, when we made them, we didn't actually know the map would look like it did; that said, some could still make sense, but since that's a tangent you can PM me if you're curious about my thoughts). I do have the philosophy in SDN Wars modding that, so long as something's feasible, ie: it won't blow up when you turn on the reactor, isn't absurdly wanked, doesn't cost half what it should, etc., you can build it, even if it's not entirely practical. That said, all possible effort should be made to let the player know it is not practical, and why. Because we are not all experts on military technology in general, or necessairily 1920s tech specifically.

I do like the idea of everyone having draft OOBs, then a cooperative effort to help each other out before having final OOBs. Having OOBs made in a vacuum is what led to the problems of the last game, and does have some inherent flaws. For those who are not expert, even if thought is put into "what do you want your army to do", when it comes to selecting equipment, odds are they'll go for stock, existing designs. Probably from the same or similar countries from the same era, so there's a decent chance of it working together. And probably not a lot of variation because, well, they don't know any better. Whereas 'The Experts' will know these things, and by the very nature of their having to do it from scracth (more or less) will take more time than the NonExperts. So NonExpert OOBs will tend to come out first. And then The Experts see those OOBs, and can come up with ways to counter it, and then the NonExperts get ganked without really knowing why.

A cooperative effort in firming up draft OOBs (when everyone can see what everyone else is generally planning) and a restriction on power-gaming (using your knowledge of things to counter what someone else is doing, when said other person wouldn't even realize it or know better) should tend to keep things mostly reasonable. As I said before, I prefer the concept of 'assumed competence' in that players should not be ganked because their knowledge of technology is not up to what someone else knows; because IU we'd have Subject Matter Experts who would know these things and keep us (mostly) on the right track.