Question Unrelated

[Logi]

Hey, just an unrelated question to N4 or N3, but what do you guys want out of a naval simulation game?

Total realism? Slackened realism to be more user friendly? What type of game-play do you guys want? Multi-player or Single-player?

I figure this is as good a place to as these sort of question as any.

[Sachmle]

Realism > Simplicity. I deal with complicated as long as there is a reason for it. (I.e. detailed merchant marine rules, if merchant raiding actually does something in war)

Single player is fine, but would be open to having multiple persons per nation. Each person could do a part (Navy/Army/Foreign Affairs/Civil/etc..)

I prefer to think of Navalism as a "Nation running" game that focuses on the Naval/Military side vs a "Naval simulation" that includes national stuff. Some appear to think the other way around, and that is fine.

[Darman]

I agree that if there is a reason for a game mechanism being complicated then to me its probably worth it (unless it involves a lot of tricky maths). 
And I have actually toyed with the idea of asking a friend to play with me, sharing control of the country with one having the civil side and the other the military.  Or even splitting army/navy. 

[Logi]

The answers, also forgot to ask;

What do you want out of the naval combat simulation portions? IE: The actual ship battles.

Keep in mind I'm asking in the context that this is a computer game.

[Valles]

I tend to approach Navalism more as a game than as 'history' or 'simulation'... But, well, it's a game of worldbuilding rather than one that's about 'winning'. I get annoyed over issues like the proposed 'colonial' and 'conquest' systems because I see them as people mistaking 'it happened in OTL' as being 'there's a structural reason it should always happen'; I've yet to see someone really talking about realism actually back 'we need to have colonies' up with any remotely satisfactory explanation for why that should be so rather than 'everbody wanted colonies so we should all have them'. That being the case, my contrary streak rears up on its hind legs and starts trying to push me into the figurative boxing ring over it.

What I want from the ship battles is empirical rather than theoretical feedback on how my design efforts work.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Total realism? Slackened realism to be more user friendly?

What type of game-play do you guys want? Multi-player or Single-player?

What do you want out of the naval combat simulation portions? IE: The actual ship battles.

Presuming we're talking game system, not combat system - Slackened Realism to be more user friendly. :
Wesworld's system is workable for pure naval, but is somewhat lacking in other respects. Nav3 is more complex, but supports a wider base of options, an acceptable trade off.   

Pretty much as long as it makes sense and everyone plays by the same rules, I can live with less realism for simplicity. More realism needs to bring more value to offset more effort- if just to understand the interactions.

Single player countries. :
Efforts in collaboration tend to run afoul of folks other commitments. The multi-player comes with others running other countries, and is desirable for providing an environment to make choices in.

Actual ship battles...what I want is a nuetral party overseeing a highly detailed combat. For 'critical hits' to be a minor occurance, and for a system to consider the design parameters of your vessel, including the minor ones.  Bring destroyers overseas and launch them into battle...what's your accomodations...cramped you say? Shame...  I suppose I'd have each side write up their ships perceived merits* and intended use and then give orders, then have the 3rd party run the battle, and report the results, with details on the important bits.

Of course that's a bit much to ask of a 3rd party in every case..

[Nobody]

I have a similar opinion as Sachmle concerning realism & complexity.

Concerning sea battles. I would love to have individual ship battles e.g. with "Seas of War" rules. There are however problems with that. Fist of all, how and/or who makes the gun and ship tables, some might even want to have individual hit tables. Biggest problem however might be time. Depending on who is fighting they might not be able to do more than one or two - maybe less - rounds per day. Meaning even a simple battle would span a month or so.


@Valles:
Why colonies?
Influence, independence from others, overseas ports, resources, money...

[Jefgte]

Similar opinion as Sachmle
I add;
1- Realism
2- Clear rules
3- Easy HY report with an EXCELL board with a sheet for each part:
- Navy
- AirForce
- Army
- Civil (railways, merchant fleet...)
...

Jef  ;)

[Korpen]

Hey, just an unrelated question to N4 or N3, but what do you guys want out of a naval simulation game?

Total realism? Slackened realism to be more user friendly? What type of game-play do you guys want? Multi-player or Single-player?

I figure this is as good a place to as these sort of question as any.

The first question should be:"what is realism?"
I see no contradiction between realism and user friendliness, so I suspect that the question really is about level of detail rather then realism (a pretty common debate on RPG forums).
I am for a system that deliver "realistic" results, but I feel no need to try and have detailed rules for every step on the way. I also put realism in brackets, for it is a word that is problematic in any fictional situation, and I would really use it in the sense of "believable and logic given the interior logic of the game world".

Given all that: total realism.

[Walter]

The first question should be:"what is realism?"

Actually standing on the deck of a battleship while a bloke on an enemy battleship is trying to blow your head from your torso with a 16" shell. :)

but would be open to having multiple persons per nation. Each person could do a part (Navy/Army/Foreign Affairs/Civil/etc..)

Would then be interesting to see the struggles within, an internal fight to see who gets most of the budget and construction materials.

[Darman]

but would be open to having multiple persons per nation. Each person could do a part (Navy/Army/Foreign Affairs/Civil/etc..)

Would then be interesting to see the struggles within, an internal fight to see who gets most of the budget and construction materials.

Which is actually exactly the reason I looked into trying it. 

[Walter]

"You, Sir, are the most vile, despicable and barbaric person I have ever met... and, oh yeah, you are stealing the funds that are meant to build the tanks of my army! I challenge you to a duel!" *tosses gauntlet at Admiral Darman's feet*  :D

[Nobody]

Concerning Korpens question:

The first question should be:"what is realism?"

I would say for me it starts being realistic when things are interconnected and partly random. Also if there is more than one way to do the same thing.

[Darman]

"You, Sir, are the most vile, despicable and barbaric person I have ever met... and, oh yeah, you are stealing the funds that are meant to build the tanks of my army! I challenge you to a duel!" *tosses gauntlet at Admiral Darman's feet*  :D

Not sure how I missed this... but I accept! What shall it be?  Swords at high noon?  Or battleships in the morning?

[snip]

"You, Sir, are the most vile, despicable and barbaric person I have ever met... and, oh yeah, you are stealing the funds that are meant to build the tanks of my army! I challenge you to a duel!" *tosses gauntlet at Admiral Darman's feet*  :D

Not sure how I missed this... but I accept! What shall it be?  Swords at high noon?  Or battleships in the morning?

Or a fighter dual in the evening?