1922 Rules Change Discussion

[Guinness]

This is the place for any rule change discussion for 1922.

[TexanCowboy]

Adjustment of the war economy rules, for one. The past two wars showed serious shortcomings with them...

[Nobody]

I still think, that the list of engine tech level needs to be "adjusted". At the very least we need higher power per shaft levels. And even if the effect is low, i disagree with the "engine year = year laid down" if nothing needs to be spent on improved engines.

[miketr]

Adjustment of the war economy rules, for one. The past two wars showed serious shortcomings with them...

Seconded

[Sachmle]

Adjustment of the war economy rules, for one. The past two wars showed serious shortcomings with them...

Seconded

Thirded.

The only problem with fixing it that I can see is that any RL analogs we could pull from won't translate well since it took >6mo to 'mobilize' the economy in most cases for 'total war footing'. Here, wars rarely last 6mo. Part of that, IMHO, is that everyone's (myself included in past wars) Operational tempo is ridiculously fast compared to OTL. We're having major battle every 2wks lasting 4-5 days when it should be every 2-3mo lasting 4-5wks. IMHO.

[ctwaterman]

Adjustment of the war economy rules, for one. The past two wars showed serious shortcomings with them...

Seconded

Thirded.

The only problem with fixing it that I can see is that any RL analogs we could pull from won't translate well since it took >6mo to 'mobilize' the economy in most cases for 'total war footing'. Here, wars rarely last 6mo. Part of that, IMHO, is that everyone's (myself included in past wars) Operational tempo is ridiculously fast compared to OTL. We're having major battle every 2wks lasting 4-5 days when it should be every 2-3mo lasting 4-5wks. IMHO.

I tried to slow operational tempos meaning it would take weeks if not months to build up the logistics to fight say a battle of the Marn size battle which would then last weeks before exhausting supplies.

Charles

[Guinness]

Needless to say, we're unlikely to fiddle with economic rules related to mobilization while there is a war going on.

[Sachmle]

Needless to say, we're unlikely to fiddle with economic rules related to mobilization while there is a war going on.

Hence it's in the 1922 discussion thread.

[Guinness]

I guess I meant  that as incentive to not start any new wars come 1922.  :P

[snip]

Or not to let any drag on that long (looks a dwindling ammo stockpiles)

[Darman]

The only problem with fixing it that I can see is that any RL analogs we could pull from won't translate well since it took >6mo to 'mobilize' the economy in most cases for 'total war footing'. Here, wars rarely last 6mo. Part of that, IMHO, is that everyone's (myself included in past wars) Operational tempo is ridiculously fast compared to OTL. We're having major battle every 2wks lasting 4-5 days when it should be every 2-3mo lasting 4-5wks. IMHO.

Its probably because we issue orders one month at a time.  During WW1 the politicians and generals didn't sit down on the last two days of the month and plan for the next month, they planned further ahead, gathering forces before striking. 

[ctwaterman]

Ammo Cost for you army are alot higher then you appear to think.


50 Corp of just 5/3 units need

3000 tons of ammo each or 150,000 tons of ammo

ammo cost .2$ and .2bp per 1000 tons

Total ammo cost $30 and 30 BP

Charles

[Darman]

holy.... 30BP worth of ammo?  seriously?  I devoted most of my BP production for one half year and I only made 13% of that... I'm just glad MY army isnt that big!

[ctwaterman]

And why Italy spent years building up $13 and 13 BP worth of ammo and why I purchased 6 BP worth of ammo from foreign sources prior to the start of the New Zion war....??????

The Ammo Usage of Armys involved in these huge battles is simply huge...?????

Look at the Ammo Shortages of Germany, France, UK, and Russia in World War I.
They all thought they had 6 months of ammo in storage and the war would be over or nearly over by the time that was gone.   They were wrong very very wrong the war continued there ammo was gone in 2 months 3 months at the tops.   And Germany had to turn lots of domestic production to Ammo Production including any industry they had captured in Northern France and Belgium.  The Allies in the UK and France paid there Gold Reserves and all the money they had invested in the US to the US for shells, and explosives to be turned into ammo and latter whole shells screw the neutrality laws..... 8)

My Proposal would be to reduce the amount of Ammo needed per Corp to half of its current value.  Combat Bonus would be given to units who can utilize more ammo.  This is equivelant to US vs. German Artillary in WWII.  A Unit of fire for a US artillary regiments was 3x or 4x more then that for anyone elses army.   Next this Ammo supply is required up front before the war starts not after 6 months.  Our armies in the Case of China simply got way to big for their economies to afford.

[Walter]

The rule clearly states artillery ammunition so once the ammunition suply is gone, the big guns will no longer turn the lands into a lunar landscape but the small arms fire will continue. Big battles can still take place, but the artillery value of the units involved would be 0.

Makes me wonder. Would a complete lack of artillery mean that things in the Mk-RRC war will become a lot bloodier considering that both sides are very fanatical?