Spending Spree (NOT OFFICIAL!!!!)

[miketr]

With Mike (Guinness) so swamped I am going to put this out into the open for people to comment on.

Startup Spending Spree


Players have a lump sum of $1,000 to speed on military with the following restrictions.

25% Must be spent on Army Units or Fortress
25% Must be spent on Ships or Naval Infrastructure
The remaining 50% the players may spend on either Navy or Army as they see fit.

When spending on naval units there is a discount to purchase older ships
1875-79 Laid Down Date ship cost 1.0
1870-74 Laid Down Date ship cost 0.75
1860-69 Laid Down Date ship cost 0.5

No more than half of the money spent on ships can have a laid down of 1875-79.

Here is a thought, it would take longer to setup but it would prevent people from being surprised by moves of their neighbors.

Spending is done in 3 sets.  Everyone spends $333 on whatever.  All spending is shown.  Then another $333 is spent, with spending reveled.   Then the last $334 is spent.  So if someone goes hog wild on their army for example the other players would have a chance to react.

Thoughts?

Michael

Players will have to buy all ships, forts, base facilities, etc.  NOTHING is free, if you don't spend cash it isn't there.  If it doesn't cost money then its worth nothing more than fluff / story value.  IE like say HMS Victory, USS Constitution or the like are ships so old / out of date that they have no combat value at all and if you attempt to do anything with them the mods will just sink them without comment.

[snip]

Thanks for putting this up. Few comments/questions

1. While I like the proposal for having setup be done in three increments, I do think it will turn out to be quite a bit slower and longer process.
2. What if we do not spend all of the $1000?
3. Does the limit on ships layed down between 1875 and 1879 apply to the total unmodified cost of the Navy or the total modified (based on laydown year) cost of the Navy?

[miketr]

1. While I like the proposal for having setup be done in three increments, I do think it will turn out to be quite a bit slower and longer process.

I agree but it would avoid weirdness of someone building a huge whatever clearly geared towards dominating their neighbors at once.  There would be some balance between nations.  I am open to suggestions.

2. What if we do not spend all of the $1000?

I don't see any reason why you couldn't roll it over.

3. Does the limit on ships layed down between 1875 and 1879 apply to the total unmodified cost of the Navy or the total modified (based on laydown year) cost of the Navy?

Ships with those laid down dates cost less in terms of startup cost but not upkeep.  As a result if you made your fleet a collection of relics from the 1860's you could have a fleet twice as large.  Does this answer your question?

Michael

[snip]

3. Does the limit on ships layed down between 1875 and 1879 apply to the total unmodified cost of the Navy or the total modified (based on laydown year) cost of the Navy?

Ships with those laid down dates cost less in terms of startup cost but not upkeep.  As a result if you made your fleet a collection of relics from the 1860's you could have a fleet twice as large.  Does this answer your question?

Michael

No, but I was unclear, let me try again. So we have the cap of 50% of total money spent on ships can be spent on ships layed down 1875-79. What I was wondering is if the 50% applies to the cost of the navy before or after the modifications in cost for laydown date are applied? Does that make more sense?

[Carthaginian]

I like the setup of the former, and the theory behind the latter... but I also think that the 'one piece at a time' idea will simply take too long.


Though till we get tech rules, the rest are moot. :(

[Nobody]

I too liked the idea of a three step start at first glanced, but then I asked myself, do I want to decide on a "masterplan" and than split it into three parts...? No not really.

[Guinness]

Yeah, this is a difficult problem, since it seems that at least some players believe other players can't be trusted to play within the spirit of the game at startup time. So we have to figure out how to constrain that process so no one gets surprised. I'm also keen to avoid the "well I did my startup, but then that other guy did crazy stuff, so now I have to redo my startup" effect.

How about 2 passes: everyone can do startup up to the last decade, using 2/3 of the available $. That leaves the last decade to adjust. Essentially, once posted (minus a small grace period), your first pass will be set. Then everyone can do their last decade, taking into account everyone else's first 2 decades worth. This should shorten the process quite a bit.

[Tanthalas]

ok so i'll admit I have trust issues where any "potential enemy" is concernd.  That said I rather like the 3 level spending aproach, just because it allows more flexibility in responce.  Guinnesses proposal would work for me also however all in all looking good guys, and thanks for the update.

*goes diging for the army and infrastructure costing pages*

[miketr]

I like Guinness idea, that would should work.

Michael

[snip]

I think breaking it up by decades is not the best plan, unless we only care about if slipways and/or Drydocks of the right size exist by 1880. Im all for breaking up setup so as to limit attempts at immediate 1up'smenship, but I dont think slapping dates onto a system designed to do that is a good plan. First date that should matter in sim report terms (aside from laydown dates) is January 1st 1880.

[Tanthalas]

I think breaking it up by decades is not the best plan, unless we only care about if slipways and/or Drydocks of the right size exist by 1880. Im all for breaking up setup so as to limit attempts at immediate 1up'smenship, but I dont think slapping dates onto a system designed to do that is a good plan. First date that should matter in sim report terms (aside from laydown dates) is January 1st 1880.

if we are going to break up our spending (which im very much in favor of) some sort of arbitrary period/ammount has to be chosen.  The only real problem I can see is someone trying to maintain their advantage over a potential oponent.  In which case you could never realy catch up, all you could do is mitigate the damage.

[Jefgte]

That' OK for me.

Just a remark about old relica 1860-1870.
Later, in 1882-85 for ex, these old ships could change the guns
240/18 cal ML mod 1865 could be changed to 240/28 cal BL mod 1882.
The cost to change the guns is minor & the battle value of the ship increase greatly.

What is the cost to change the guns? 10% of the original ship cost...
We could also change engines for lighter models...

Jef

[Carthaginian]

Guinness that sounds like a real winner.
Would be a simple and entertaining way to get our fleets developed.

Seems like all we're short on is the tech rules, and then we are on our way. :D

[Desertfox]

I don't like the 'must spend 25%' rule, but am fine with everything else. Can we also spend money on non-military stuff like say railroads?

[Tanthalas]

I don't like the 'must spend 25%' rule, but am fine with everything else. Can we also spend money on non-military stuff like say railroads?

Minimum numbers I can see a point behind.  I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict the answer to that is no as far as Civilian spending since its specificly labled military.