StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Siege wrote:For the love of God, what is it about this game that instils this obsessive need to quantify and regulate everything?

Think about the culture of discussion at SDnet, where the ability to quantify is so pivotal, and think about that question. It is habitual for many people to automatically seek solid, measurable quantification for things, especially if engaged in a 'game' that will involve conquest & dominance.

...here we are trying to quantify everything from slipway tonnage down to troop maintenance costs, the number of IBPs per kilometer of railway, the number of logistics personnel per division..

To be fair, that was my suggestion, not Steve's. I offered it as a possible way to impose a standard, uniform measure of spending if we wanted to go that far. I agree that we need as few rules as possible; my concern was that if we went down the path of heavy regulation then I wanted it to be as simple and as uniform as possible.

But I agree, I'd prefer to avoid it entirely and rely more on RP'ing.

Coyote wrote:Think about the culture of discussion at SDnet, where the ability to quantify is so pivotal, and think about that question. It is habitual for many people to automatically seek solid, measurable quantification for things, especially if engaged in a 'game' that will involve conquest & dominance.

That may sound neat, but it doesn't explain why it was never a problem in the first game. Hell as I recall at the end of the first game a bunch of people magicked thousands of SCUD missiles out of thin air, and nobody screamed bloody murder about that; likewise in the second we did very well indeed without obsessive quantification. If you ask me, these sort of games are better served by leaving as much to the player as possible. If you want to invoke the culture of SDNet, I think the culture of the board means that we're all supposed to be reasonable folk, we should be able to figure this out by ourselves, without the need to count every single field gun or whatnot. And if it somehow turns out we can't, we've got Steve to do it for us, don't we?

To be fair, that was my suggestion, not Steve's. I offered it as a possible way to impose a standard, uniform measure of spending if we wanted to go that far. I agree that we need as few rules as possible; my concern was that if we went down the path of heavy regulation then I wanted it to be as simple and as uniform as possible.

I know that wasn't Steve's idea, it's not Steve specifically that I'm getting cranky with either. And I see your concern, I just think that we should not go down the path of heavy regulation in the best conceivable manner: we should avoid going down it in the first place, because frankly unless I'm vastly underestimating the people here we don't have to, so it'll prove a pointless hassle that'll be to the detriment of the game.

But I agree, I'd prefer to avoid it entirely and rely more on RP'ing.

We certainly are in agreement there, then.

I just want to chime in to support Seige; there is no need to quantify everything! We're already at the point were we've recorded enough so people can't pull ridiculous crap out of their ass and that's good enough for me. Besides, I doubt troop maintenance costs are going to be the decisive element of our conflicts. The main strategic factors (Such as having allies) are established by role playing.

Just for reference new airplane orders are being made (for my convenience) in bulk buys of 40, 80, or some increment thereof. The operational number of planes will only be 36, 72, etc. In other words I'm putting planes in to storage for replacements and parts as part of each order. The reason I mention this is that if and when I get in a fight each squadron out there has between 1 and 2 replacement planes immediately available without having to wait for new production. So if I lose 2 planes in a squadron and have them back at full strength 2 days later that is not a misprint or a sudden force pop from nothing.

I think you're supposed to ramp up to war economy, Thanas. I don't recall the limit, though.

Ryan Thunder wrote:I think you're supposed to ramp up to war economy, Thanas. I don't recall the limit, though.

I did do so. Note the 100% war economy bonus?

Also, topics moved to discussion thread.

Sorry. I meant ramp up as in 10% at first, then 20%, and so on. Unless I'm mistaken I believe Steve enforced that for Stas and Beo.

If you did that and I just didn't see it I apologize for bothering you with it.

Ryan Thunder wrote:Sorry. I meant ramp up as in 10% at first, then 20%, and so on. Unless I'm mistaken I believe Steve enforced that for Stas and Beo.

If you did that and I just didn't see it I apologize for bothering you with it.

I wasn't aware that this was the case - and it would fly right in the face of every mobilization plan made. especially as the German plan of 1914 provided for about the same activation iirc.

Besides, Stas has gone to full mobilization in Q2 as well and he got the max bonus his economy would allow.

Alright. By the way, I'm not complaining in either case, just pointing it out.

I've never inserted rules for it taking time to ramp up to war economy. Realistically it could take 3-6 months I imagine, as the government forms the necessary commissions and offices to direct the national economy in the war effort. But for now I'm not enforcing such.

What happens if the war you boosted your economy for ends before your construction does?

Logically you start canceling orders, as real countries did.

I assumed as much, but wanted to be sure.