Random thoughts, as y'all are rebooting

[The Rock Doctor]

I'll chip in a few ideas for you to consider.  And if you're wondering - no, I do not anticipate returning to sims...

A.  From my perspective as Mod, the most time-limiting issues in a war were understanding orders and conducting naval battles.  Conducting the land battles was not a problem once I understood the orders.  So consider:

-->Standardize an "Orders Form" for belligerents

-->Create a generic system for simulating raider/submarine activity that accounts for defender assets and strategy.

B.  I came round to thinking that the military infrastructure was uneven.  The slip/dock system created an artifiical size limit on ships that isn't necessary.  Meanwhile, there is no army infrastructure to speak of.

-->Discard slips and drydocks.

-->Separate "Ports" into "Shipyards" and "Depots".  Shipyards build and repair ships.  Depots are their bases.  Shipyards would have limits on maximum ship size (tonnage) built/maintained/repaired, and overall tonnage that could be built/maintained/repaired.  Depots would have limits on overall tonnage of shipping that could be based there.  A single location could have both a shipyard and a depot, potentially of different sizes.

-->Create an equivalent pair of items (armories/garrisons) for army units.  This will create a more realistic system for raising and maintaining armies, especially far from the homeland.

-->Add something similar for aircraft if appropriate.

C.  The "steps" in IC/BP were too large and expensive.  Economies should grow smoothly, not in chunks.

-->However you establish an economic system, have X investment immediately produce Y payback in the following turn.

D.  Tech research got carried away.  It was also too predictable.

-->Limit mandatory R&D to genuine breakthroughs.

-->Do not create a forward-looking timetable of when tech will become available for research.  Have the Mod team reveal new tech options in the year that they become available, based on world events.

E.  Factor some variability into the economy.  You should not be able to precisely plan years in advance.

-->Have Mods roll for economic conditions in each continental region.  There should be a chance that the economy under-performs or over-performs, with consequences for defence budgets.

F.  Account for land transportation infrastructure in the most basic sense

-->Total land transportation capability would be proportional to population and industrialization.  Population establishes the extent of the infrastructure, industrialization its efficiency.  Figure industrialization comes in perhaps three levels:  Not (foot and animal transport), Partial (some canals/railways connecting key centres), and Full (spur lines, canal networks).

[P3D]

I'll chip in a few ideas for you to consider.  And if you're wondering - no, I do not anticipate returning to sims...

A.  From my perspective as Mod, the most time-limiting issues in a war were understanding orders and conducting naval battles.  Conducting the land battles was not a problem once I understood the orders.  So consider:

-->Standardize an "Orders Form" for belligerents

-->Create a generic system for simulating raider/submarine activity that accounts for defender assets and strategy.

The merchant marine system I have in mind will give you how many freight ships are on a given trade route, and that's about half of the issue.

B.  I came round to thinking that the military infrastructure was uneven.  The slip/dock system created an artifiical size limit on ships that isn't necessary.  Meanwhile, there is no army infrastructure to speak of.

-->Discard slips and drydocks.

-->Separate "Ports" into "Shipyards" and "Depots".  Shipyards build and repair ships.  Depots are their bases.  Shipyards would have limits on maximum ship size (tonnage) built/maintained/repaired, and overall tonnage that could be built/maintained/repaired.  Depots would have limits on overall tonnage of shipping that could be based there.  A single location could have both a shipyard and a depot, potentially of different sizes.

-->Create an equivalent pair of items (armories/garrisons) for army units.  This will create a more realistic system for raising and maintaining armies, especially far from the homeland.

-->Add something similar for aircraft if appropriate.

That shipyard/depot system is almost the identical to the system I have in mind - which needs only fine tuning.
We will have drydocks, but without artificial size limitations. Slips as is would be discarded.
No need for separate garrisons for armies. The US Army had no problems expanding their army in either wars, starting from effectively zero.

D.  Tech research got carried away.  It was also too predictable.

-->Limit mandatory R&D to genuine breakthroughs.

-->Do not create a forward-looking timetable of when tech will become available for research.  Have the Mod team reveal new tech options in the year that they become available, based on world events.

Good ideas. Will keep that in mind.

E.  Factor some variability into the economy.  You should not be able to precisely plan years in advance.

-->Have Mods roll for economic conditions in each continental region.  There should be a chance that the economy under-performs or over-performs, with consequences for defence budgets.

We have it. Are you reading our separate board or what? ;)

[Darman]

The US Army had no problems expanding their army in either wars, starting from effectively zero.

I don't know enough about the US Army's build-up during World War One but General Marshall considered the construction of more permanent/semi-permanent barracks to be of vital importance and used the Civilian Conservation Corps as an excuse to funnel funds into the construction of housing before the Second World War.  Having already returned his biography that I read that in, I cannot look it up to find quotes.  But I believe that Marshall did not want American soldiers to have to sleep under canvas while in training or stationed at home like they had during the First World War. 

[snip]

The US Army had no problems expanding their army in either wars, starting from effectively zero.

I don't know enough about the US Army's build-up during World War One but General Marshall considered the construction of more permanent/semi-permanent barracks to be of vital importance and used the Civilian Conservation Corps as an excuse to funnel funds into the construction of housing before the Second World War.  Having already returned his biography that I read that in, I cannot look it up to find quotes.  But I believe that Marshall did not want American soldiers to have to sleep under canvas while in training or stationed at home like they had during the First World War. 

But it appears that it was posible to do without significant infrastructure. I happened to acquire a 4-part series on the US involvement in WWI a short wile back, I can dig later and see if I can find anything.

[Logi]

So perhaps, if it turns out to be true, the morale of troops trained with significant infrastructure would be higher than that of those without? Using the current land-morale system anyways.

[miketr]

So perhaps, if it turns out to be true, the morale of troops trained with significant infrastructure would be higher than that of those without? Using the current land-morale system anyways.

I have seen a military base / training area.  Its not much and would be even less in this time period.  Barracks, shops, armor, firing range and lots of land to do maneuvers on.  Its not much in the way of infrastructure.

Michael

[ctwaterman]

Having lived in a Barracks built on RAF Bentwaters England I can say the barracks built in 1942 durring the expansion to allow USAAC fighters and later bombers to use the field the Barracks are basically a 2 story brick building with 1 set of showers on each wing, a central recreation room [TV Room] in my time with soda machine and either a pool table or Fooseball table.  Anyway the Rooms had room for 2 to 4 beds [4 if you use Bunks.  And 4 Wall Lockers by the time I was stationed there the USAF had replaced the USAAC for about 35 years and it was limited to 2 people per room one if you were a Staff Sgt or Above.

Similar barracks built in Texas were simple wooden frame buildings.

[Darman]

I don't think the expense for building barracks was in the materials, it was in the manpower and time needed to complete them. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

Many of these armies were universal conscription, which lowered the labor cost and increased the need for make work.  I'd guess you'd need an armory, drill grounds, and sufficient barracks for the active duty troops and any active reservists.

[miketr]

Only forts took a great deal of materials and costs for setting them up.

Michael

[Korpen]

Many of these armies were universal conscription, which lowered the labor cost and increased the need for make work.  I'd guess you'd need an armory, drill grounds, and sufficient barracks for the active duty troops and any active reservists.

Actually I think a full time army is in more need for "make work" then a conscription one, as they have relatively less time spent in training.

On the main subject: I think that one could have a rule for permanent garrisons, and raise the upkeep for units stained away from permanent bases.

[Korpen]

Some quick random thoughts of my own:

On economy:
One of the major economic flaws of n3 was the huge payoffs of colonies, for several countries they represented a ridiculously large share of the economy. All-money system works fine for me.
I would like to see some rudimentary recourse tracking, nothing complicated, but basically a list with A for things the country is a major exporter of, B for resources were the country is economically self-sufficient and C for thing were imports is needed for full economic efficiency . For example the Nordic countries would be something like A  Iron ore, B Food, C Coal and the UK would be Iron B(or perhaps C), food C and Coal A. C would not mean that it is not existent, only that it is either insufficient to meet the demands of the economy, or of low quality (such as the German iron ore with only 20% iron).
This would in effect mainly be guideline to players and mods to judge trade disruptions.

On technology:
I really liked Rocky idea about having most technology "hidden" in the sense that one do not really know when it comes into effect.
I think the "game-changing" techs such as hardened armour, smokeless powder, QF guns, engines and similar tech should be global inventions, basically happening to everyone at the same time. Player controlled-research should be evolutionary rather then revolutionary; so should be things like how thick (KC) armour can reliably be made or how fast and long torpedoes can go.

On ship design:
SS2 or SS3?: I do not feel strongly one way or the other, but we do have a very good knowledgebase and experience with the quirks, flaws and limitations of SS2, so it would be the more stable choice.
Engine tech: It is something that is so crucial in a SS-centred game that everyone will strive to be updated to the max in it; hence I believe we should more or less run with engine year = year laid down, and same engine level for everyone.
SHP limits is something I think one should get rid off, especially if one is to use normal tonnage for costs. Such limits only create incentives for building extremely long and narrow hulls with extremely low BC.
I think that turbines should have a hefty cost increase for the first ten years or so; perhaps about 50% extra (of the engine weight). This to reduce the incentives to switch to turbines on everything in 1905 and give economic incentives to continue to use VTE engines for some years more (at least in some ships).


On diplomacy and gameplay.
A problem I sometimes felt was when "mod-nation" was sitting on two chairs; it was sometimes clear if an action were an attempt of in-game moderation, or a move of the country itself. Hence I think it in a sense should be a very strict line between in-game actions and "out-game" moderation.
If one wants to have means to encourage players to do things (or not do things) and certain behaviours and I am all for "soft" rules (well, guidelines really) concerning economic effect and internal stability effects then any "hard" rules that say yes or no.

[Carthaginian]

Perhaps we should have 'introduction years' for turbine engines along the lines of displacement?
Destroyer-sized ships get them in the 1890's, cruiser-sized ships in 1900's and battleship-sized ships at a later date.

[Korpen]

Perhaps we should have 'introduction years' for turbine engines along the lines of displacement?
Destroyer-sized ships get them in the 1890's, cruiser-sized ships in 1900's and battleship-sized ships at a later date.

Well, SS only allows turbines from 1900, but that is another issue.
However I do not really like the concept of dividing engines accorded to class in such a manner as I think it is a bit silly that one could mount a turbine in a small destroyer, but not the same turbine in a ship five times as large.  However if one give an economic cost to the turbines (and 100% might be better then 50%) it makes it less of a must-do to change everything to turbines and instead makes VTE a sensible choice for ships that do not need sustained high speed that much or were the superior fuel economy is needed.

[Carthaginian]

Historically, turbines were mounted in smaller ships first... this wasn't just for no reason.
Smaller sets were easier to build, cheaper to build, and less risky.

THAT is the reason that there should, in my mind, be limitations on the size of ships that you can mount turbines in to begin with. If you don't do that, then frankly, no one will put turbines into ships until the cost surcharge diminishes to a rather nominal level... which will have no real difference in effect from having an 'introduction year' in the first place.