Conserns about sim speed

[snip]

My thoughts on the warfare issue are this: Simming is the bottleneck, so why not resort to scripting. To keep an element of randomness, a mod (or team of mods) could decide the general outcome of a war (e. who wins, what territory is lost ect...) or some more specific details if deemed necessary, then the players could script out what happens. then at least we know what will happen in general so other events can move on. Its a rough idea that may have some glaring holes, so fee free to critique it.

Late 1800's would be an interesting time period

[miketr]

My thoughts on the warfare issue are this: Simming is the bottleneck, so why not resort to scripting. To keep an element of randomness, a mod (or team of mods) could decide the general outcome of a war (e. who wins, what territory is lost ect...) or some more specific details if deemed necessary, then the players could script out what happens. then at least we know what will happen in general so other events can move on. Its a rough idea that may have some glaring holes, so fee free to critique it.

Late 1800's would be an interesting time period

I suggest we do the following.

1) Move to area based maps and a very simplified land combat

2) With this being very late 1800's I would suggest 1880, there were no great power wars in that time period.  We had Spanish American and Russo-Japanese war and they were both limited wars.  No great general wars at all.  So without massive provocation, scriptting etc, General wars should be banned between players.  Instead we have limited wars over colonies or a single province.  War is fought and over over in under a year. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabinettskriege

Wars of limited means and objectives.  Not industrial slugging matches or long drawn out wars of Nationalism like the Napoleonic.

We have the players concentrated in a couple of locations with minor nations near by and lots of territory open around the world to allow for a colony race.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

I don't think it's the land combat specifically thats holding things up. Plus I don't know what others are doing to "sim" that. So I'm not sold on turning landwarfare into "Risk".

I really don't like the idea of banning direct conflict between players and forcing only proxy wars.

I think we just have to be draconian on war timelines. If you don't submit, someone else will for you.

On Scripting :
The advantage of a gamed or modded war is that toys can get broken and decisions made. However, we've still had very upset players in many wars because their toys didn't shine like they were supposed to - doctrine, luck, information, etc. People get very invested.

Now take that ownership and move it to a scenario where you're cooperating in creating an adversarial story....

The problem with scripting is it's not necessarily faster.  Especially when one adds the storyline elements.
supposedly we "script" in Wesworld.. but not everyone has the
a. interest level
b. time
c. willingness to "loose".

As a result there have been few wars between players - and they took ages to tell. Even single-teller wars take ages to tell.

Here, I asked if the Mods wanted to game the Ukrainian war, or have me script it. Even though I've done 95% of the work, the major hold ups have been trying to talk to other players and get input in a timely manner. One on decision, 3 of us were happy, and one very unhappy- an ownership issue.

[snip]

I don't think it's the land combat specifically thats holding things up. Plus I don't know what others are doing to "sim" that. So I'm not sold on turning landwarfare into "Risk".

I think that working with Mike's system would lead to speedy general result (ie. after 6 months of fighting, you take X amount of land) If the player(s) wanted, they could elaborate on this. For better or worse, this is a Naval sim, some don't give a rats hindquarters about land combat.

I really don't like the idea of banning direct conflict between players and forcing only proxy wars.

Same here, but I do think that there should be rhyme and reason as to when they do happen if they are not entirely scripted.

As a result there have been few wars between players - and they took ages to tell. Even single-teller wars take ages to tell.

I think that if the players are required to submit a general timeline of events that guide the rest of us through the course of the conflict, that this will not be as big of a problem as the rest of the playerbase will know what is going to happen and can move on accordingly if stories fall behind.

Wars of limited means and objectives.  Not industrial slugging matches or long drawn out wars of Nationalism like the Napoleonic.

I think we will get to a point were at least one WWI type conflict happens, but that would not be the case at the start.

We have the players concentrated in a couple of locations with minor nations near by and lots of territory open around the world to allow for a colony race.

Earth or a fictional geography?

[miketr]

I don't think it's the land combat specifically thats holding things up. Plus I don't know what others are doing to "sim" that. So I'm not sold on turning landwarfare into "Risk".

I think that working with Mike's system would lead to speedy general result (ie. after 6 months of fighting, you take X amount of land) If the player(s) wanted, they could elaborate on this. For better or worse, this is a Naval sim, some don't give a rats hindquarters about land combat.

What I have in mind is for the world to be 2 or 3 thousand provinces, like a Victoria or Hearts of Iron maps.  I have a few maps that are just white background and black outlines.

It would be a little more advanced than Risk.  I would really like to do is a early 1800's to mid 1850's game but I don't see interest for that.  I have a perfect combat system that would work for that era.  The problem is the system isn't design for industrial era warfare that we would encounter from about 1890-1900 on.  

Empire in Arms Land Combat System and something like Wooden Ship and Iron men or Close Action would work very well for early 19th century.  I think the Land Combat system could work till like I said 1900 or so.

The problem is when things get dense enough in terms of troops to not have battles but long fronts.

I really don't like the idea of banning direct conflict between players and forcing only proxy wars.

Same here, but I do think that there should be rhyme and reason as to when they do happen if they are not entirely scripted.

I am suggesting only allowing limited wars between players.  Think Franco Prussian war as the upper end of conflict.  Take the enemies capital or win a big enough battle and the war is OVER.  You demand lots of money in reparations, rip off a province and or a choice colony and the war is over.

The rule is if you leave the door open to the players to do X, guess what they will do it X.

Wars of limited means and objectives.  Not industrial slugging matches or long drawn out wars of Nationalism like the Napoleonic.

I think we will get to a point were at least one WWI type conflict happens, but that would not be the case at the start.

Yes in time but not for a long time and not without Moderator Approval.

We have the players concentrated in a couple of locations with minor nations near by and lots of territory open around the world to allow for a colony race.

Earth or a fictional geography?

My assumption is Earth with LIMITED changes to geography.  I myself favor additional islands but others have their own ideas.

Michael

[snip]

What I have in mind is for the world to be 2 or 3 thousand provinces, like a Victoria or Hearts of Iron maps.  I have a few maps that are just white background and black outlines.

Sounds like a good consent to me.

Think Franco Prussian war as the upper end of conflict.  Take the enemies capital or win a big enough battle and the war is OVER.  You demand lots of money in reparations, rip off a province and or a choice colony and the war is over.

That could work, as the more it happens, the more intence the rivalries get. It would eventualy lead to a WWI-style conflict, but that could be worked out if/when it arives.

My assumption is Earth with LIMITED changes to geography.  I myself favor additional islands but others have their own ideas.

My personal thoughts are no Geographic changes, but plenty of political ones to break up some traditional powerhouses.

[P3D]

Indeed, there was some discussion on it behind the scenes.
Earth Geography is necessary, as in N3verse there were wars fought over fantasyland (Rift Sea, NS islands, etc.).

A Great War could still fit the sim. It would necessarily be partially scripted  - at least to the extent that most players agree that it's time to do WWI.

[Valles]

About more rapid progression: I have no real objection to, say, the Mods essentially scripting out raw results of conflict for players to elaborate or not as time and energy permit, with no more than six month 'strategy summaries' from the involved players to work with. Opposed 2d6 rolls from the players for the 'luck' or 'fudge' factors, if need be.


About a reboot: Speaking for myself I'm not done yet. I want to resolve the current conflict, I want to know how it ends. If I beat the Swiss, then the Maori will have significantly more resources and I can tell myself that another war in the thirties would probably go badly for the DKB. If I don't, then I'll obviously never be in a position to challenge them, and things will stop there until something like the fifties end up with a political situation something like the British in India...

That said, I'm hardly going to throw a hissy fit if people want to reboot, though I am and will remain strongly against any sloppy half measures like simply inventing new landmasses and stuffing them into an existing map. My own preference would be for something like a 'Cretaceous Earth' or one with a realigned polar axis - something legitimately different, but still with enough data available to not be making things up in a vacuum - but if people are too lazy to learn their way around it, then I'd suggest something like an altered sea level to produce manageable geographical changes that could butterfly history to as great - or, I suppose, as small - a degree as people wished.

[snip]

Valles: Would something like the maps listed at this site (http://www.worlddreambank.org/P/PLANETS.HTM) be what you have in mind? This is the extent to which I would like geographic changes to take place, messing with axies and sealevel. So many political changes can come from that alone that adding in new landmasses is quite unnecessary IMO.

About more rapid progression: I have no real objection to, say, the Mods essentially scripting out raw results of conflict for players to elaborate or not as time and energy permit, with no more than six month 'strategy summaries' from the involved players to work with. Opposed 2d6 rolls from the players for the 'luck' or 'fudge' factors, if need be.

If it significantly speeds up conflict resolution, it works for me.

[Kaiser Kirk]

A provincial based land map would be reasonable.  I'm particularly enamored of those that take hard to travel areas like mountains, and dice them up, allowing use as a movement map as well.

Overall, I'm keen on landwarfare mattering. Unless we're all on islands, boots on the ground matter.  Plus it's the French Guns, Butter or Ships delima. Land warfare has to be viable to warrant expenditures, and variable enough you can't just calculate odds.

One mechanism for limiting wars would be a Mod-based "Regime Popularity Level", disclosed privately to the player.  Be on the loosing end of a war, loose your capital, and you just may...or may not...depending on outrage- NEED to negotiate, or be forced to the table.   It gives the Mods leverage to pull something like the way the Dutch Siamese war ended.


To an extent, I'm not keen on a reboot. I just got Bavaria running nicely and have almost solved that eastern neighbor issue.
On the other hand ... Netherlands, Italia and Ukraine are void, Russia and the Hapsburgs heading there, the ESC is mysteriously silent.... my neighborhood is vacant.

IF we have a new map, THEN  I'd like : Iron Ore, Bauxite Ore, Coal, Oil, Rubber, "Alloy" Ore, and Wood to be attributes of provinces.   Doesn't have to be fancy, but we should know where the stables are and who has to import which critical things.

[snip]

IF we have a new map, THEN  I'd like : Iron Ore, Bauxite Ore, Coal, Oil, Rubber, "Alloy" Ore, and Wood to be attributes of provinces.   Doesn't have to be fancy, but we should know where the stables are and who has to import which critical things.

Reasons 1 through 10 for using a map with minimal fictional geography

[Valles]

Valles: Would something like the maps listed at this site (http://www.worlddreambank.org/P/PLANETS.HTM) be what you have in mind? This is the extent to which I would like geographic changes to take place, messing with axies and sealevel. So many political changes can come from that alone that adding in new landmasses is quite unnecessary IMO.

The World Dream Bank was in fact exactly what put me on that line of logic, yes. I'd feel morally compelled to obtain Mr. Wayan's permission before using those specific maps, and given some of his editorializing in his descriptions I'm not certain he'd be willing to grant it to a group of militaristic warmongers like us, but if someone more familiar with image manipulation or mapping software can produce a set of physical projections in a 'new' altered layout - my favorite would have the north pole off of India and the south near Mexico, a 'rejected Seapole' so to speak - I can pledge to do the climatology and so forth, at least to a broad rule of thumb adequate for our purposes.

Using a 'historical', tectonic-drifted map would probably require someone with disposable income (ie, 'not me') to spring for and scan one of the sets of reconstruction maps I've found for sale on the net a time or two, but it would have the advantage that the climate data would not be guesswork, but based off of mineralogical sampling and so forth. (Yes, you can tell what the climate was like in a given geological period by looking at the modern rocks laid down in that place and time.)

Unfortunately, when I raised both ideas the last time the geography of a reboot came up, a lot of people were both too wedded to imitating extant historical cultures in their same familiar contexts and unwilling to 'learn' the new layout.

[snip]

Personally, I would say the Trunovia would be better as it keeps some open oceans, but also adds inland seas aplenty. That being said, for simplicities sake, I feel that any reboot should use pure historical geography, with all its known climatology and resource distribution IF those things are going to matter.

[snip]

Something to chew on for if we go with speeding up:Who is going to fill the gaps in the big boys (Rohan, Russia, Netherlands ect.)?

[miketr]

The reason to stay with an earth world is to allow us to make use of distance calculators on the know geography.