Various thoughts and ideas

[Nobody]

Various thoughts and ideas have or had. Not all are are realistic, hardly any has been planned through and some ideas exclude each other.

Note: This list is subject to changes.

• Time and turns   
• Terms (3 turns per year), because 4 is too much, but with only 2 time might progress too fast.
     
• maybe tie them to seasons, e.g. more difficult fighting conditions in the winter
     
• early start, so we have time to build or ports and develop pre-dreadnought navies. Also gives time for further tech development discussions
• Economics   
• Mostly money based, but with a production capacity limit which only becomes important in extreme circumstances or to e.g. "2nd world" countries with no Industry to speak of
     
• Resources. Some want them, others not. If we do them, they should probably have only a limited effect (increase tax, oil could reduce the upkeep of oil fired ships, etc.)
     
• How about a system that's similar to what you learn in school about economics? That is with a primary(agriculture, mining etc.) secondary(industry) and tertiary(service and trading) sector. The primary sector would a necessity and (with resources) a money source. Industry would be expansive to get but provide production and additional research. The tertiary sector would be all about money (especially in combination with the primary). --> Aim of the system would be that the player can have either a heavily industrialized country (UK, US, F, D) which might have to rely on exports to finance its military or one (like Argentina at the end of the 19th century) which is very rich (because of trading with resources) but has hardly any heavy industry and has to import most things except ammunition(in war time)
     
• automatic loans/debts, surplus money is carried over, maybe with a penalty(inflation)
• Infrastructure and support   
• I would love to see railways playing an important part in infrastructure and economics, but I don't see a (relatively) simple way of doing so
     
• I like variable harbors, but maybe we should limit them to a certain number of ships and a maximum size instead of a total supported tonnage
     
• we need draft limits. Not only for ports but also seas or at least coastal areas. It should at least be distinguished between ships which have a low enough draft to operate freely and big ones which are confined to major shipping lanes - but those should only be known to those who have done something to know them (live there or having sent survey ships)
• Technology   
• no country should be able to build a ship which is the best in every aspect alone
• Shipbuilding   
• closely tied to the tech tree. If your country can't make certain things you either have to develop or by them
     
• harbor draft limits
     
• slips are simple structures mostly limited by their length, that should also define their price
     
• drydocks are big holes, limited by length, width and depth. Expansive, but most versatile.
     
• floating drydocks are limited by the tonnage they can carry. Can't build ships.
• Land Warfare   
• boni for defending the home soil and for units being stationed and extended period of time
     
• mali for fighting on foreign and unknown territory   --> as a result defending is easy attacking difficult. So no one would have to be worried of being overrun. On the other hand colonial battles would happen on equal terms
• Countries, borders, colonies and starting positions   
• how about starting only in a "core" area with no direct contact to neighbors and expanding from there? Leaves room for achievements (e.g. finally growing to historic borders)

[Jefgte]

■Time and turns   
•Terms (3 turns per year), because 4 is too much, but with only 2 time might progress too fast.

2 turns per year. I hope to progress @ good speed.
Made a turn every month, we progress  by 6 years (1910-1916) in one year.
---
Have a building tonnage (steel) per turn & work on a building board (EXCEL).
...

Jef

[KWorld]

Re: Technology:

    The UK couldn't build a state of the art ship by itself in 1905?  Germany or the US could not build state of the art ships by themselves in 1905?  REALLY?????  I disagree with this thesis entirely.  Now, some technologies (cemented (Krupp) armor, for example) were invented elsewhere, but these were rapidly spread around the world as they were commercial processes that were patented and licensed to other companies.  And some countries (Russia, for example) were either rapidly industrializing or had holes in their industrial base that required them to get outside assistance.  Japan bought guns from Vickers and Armstrongs, Russia bought a few guns from Vickers, and Italy bought guns from Elswick and Armstrongs (and had branches of both companies in Italy producing guns), for example, and Russia had turbines on order in Germany at the start of the war.
    If we're talking about 1870-1890, then there's a little bit more basis here, but again the technological advances spread rapidly because the technology was commercially developed and sold.

Draft & shallow waters:

     Maritime charts have been available for a long time, and they show depths.  They'll tell you, roughly, where your ships can, and can't, go, but if you push your luck you'll have to be good with your position reckoning because if you're not, that reef or sandbar may have your name on it.  If we're dealing with a OTL or near OTL timeline, or really any timeline where the various countries have been trading with one another for years, this is going to be the case.

Floating Drydocks:

     Not sure why these couldn't build ships.  They normally haven't, but that's different from couldn't.



"Expanding" countries:

     Compatible only with a fantasy world, like the one we were doing with 4.5.   That map, with a slightly different layout (smaller home islands for each country, basically), we could have done this with.

[Darman]

"Expanding" countries:

     Compatible only with a fantasy world, like the one we were doing with 4.5.   That map, with a slightly different layout (smaller home islands for each country, basically), we could have done this with.

I agree with this.  Unless we go REALLY far back with our time line then this isn't feasible. 

[Nobody]

The UK couldn't build a state of the art ship by itself in 1905?  Germany or the US could not build state of the art ships by themselves in 1905?  REALLY?????  I disagree with this thesis entirely.

Calm down. That's not the point. It's not a thesis either, it's an idea to make the game interesting.
And your are misinterpreting. And besides their ships were indeed not the best in every aspect. The British wire wound guns weren't (to my knowledge) the best/most advanced guns in the world. And the British shells had a very poor performance before ~1916 (greenboy).

Now, some technologies (cemented (Krupp) armor, for example) were invented elsewhere, but these were rapidly spread around the world as they were commercial processes that were patented and licensed to other companies.

Exactly, but than you're not state of the the art (in that field), but keeping pace/close behind!

And some countries (Russia, for example) were either rapidly industrializing or had holes in their industrial base that required them to get outside assistance.  Japan bought guns from Vickers and Armstrongs, Russia bought a few guns from Vickers, and Italy bought guns from Elswick and Armstrongs (and had branches of both companies in Italy producing guns), for example, and Russia had turbines on order in Germany at the start of the war.

And that's exactly what I would like to see.

If we're talking about 1870-1890, then there's a little bit more basis here, but again the technological advances spread rapidly because the technology was commercially developed and sold.

Yet another reason why I want to start early. Besides as countries grow they can do more research and need less imports. All as it should be.

Draft & shallow waters:
     Maritime charts have been available for a long time, and they show depths.  They'll tell you, roughly, where your ships can, and can't, go, but if you push your luck you'll have to be good with your position reckoning because if you're not, that reef or sandbar may have your name on it.  If we're dealing with a OTL or near OTL timeline, or really any timeline where the various countries have been trading with one another for years, this is going to be the case.

Exactly. Now keep in mind that e.g. North sea maps get obsolete very quickly and are useless after every storm - which happen often.

Floating Drydocks:
     Not sure why these couldn't build ships.  They normally haven't, but that's different from couldn't.

Just intended as a sort of "flavor" and to make sure no element get overpowered. Alternatively you could make them more expensive so people don't build only floating drydocks.

"Expanding" countries:
     Compatible only with a fantasy world, like the one we were doing with 4.5.   That map, with a slightly different layout (smaller home islands for each country, basically), we could have done this with.

It's still an idea that I wanted to mention.

[Nobody]

"Expanding" countries:

     Compatible only with a fantasy world, like the one we were doing with 4.5.   That map, with a slightly different layout (smaller home islands for each country, basically), we could have done this with.

I agree with this.  Unless we go REALLY far back with our time line then this isn't feasible.

With the exception of Germany, which has only just been born from a zillion of micro-states. ^^

[KWorld]

Even then, the states that became Germany had long had contact with their neighbors.  Prussia, for instance, might not have had a direct border with France for a while, but they certainly had had contact with France for a very long time.

[snip]

I have had a chance to read this, but will not be able to fully respond until later today. First impressions: There are some very good points (ie. port depth as it should be readily locatable data) some that will need to be debaited (ie. Turn time) some that are not quite relevant (ie Land warfare as there will be no official simming, all conflicts must be scripted or otherwise resolved between the two parties) and some that I decidedly dont like (ie. tracking railroads. This is a naval sim is it not?) Will comment more after class.

[KWorld]

"This is a naval sim, isn't it?"  Well, by including primarily land powers like Russia, France, and Germany, I can't see that there's really a way around including land affairs to one degree or another.   If Germany goes to war with France or Russia (or both, or both plus the UK and Italy), the decisive battles will be on land, not at sea (even if Germany can decisively win Jutland and break the blockade, the land battles still have to be won).  As long as conflicts are confined to minor colonial affairs and are settled by who can blockade whose colonial port, it will be a naval sim.  The instant someone decides to invade a colony from their adjacent colony by land.... it's a world sim.

[Delta Force]

I would love to see railways playing an important part in infrastructure and economics, but I don't see a (relatively) simple way of doing so

I suppose they could have a nonlinear increase in cost as industry expands (railroads being used as something of an "industry upkeep"). Historically (as in until the 1990s) railroad gridlock from too much traffic trying to enter major cities was a problem. It was solved by putting cargo with the major city as their destination on separate trains from those that were just going to a transfer junction. Problems with cargo handling and communications are going to pop up at certain points and they cost more than just putting down another line of track.

The UK couldn't build a state of the art ship by itself in 1905?  Germany or the US could not build state of the art ships by themselves in 1905?  REALLY?????  I disagree with this thesis entirely.

Calm down. That's not the point. It's not a thesis either, it's an idea to make the game interesting.
And your are misinterpreting. And besides their ships were indeed not the best in every aspect. The British wire wound guns weren't (to my knowledge) the best/most advanced guns in the world. And the British shells had a very poor performance before ~1916 (greenboy).

It could be used as a way to reflect the bureaucratic inertia in the navies. For example, the Royal Navy used heavy guns but in double turrets, the USN was a leader in architecture (triple turrets and superfiring turrets) and its ships had strong armor but were late to adopt larger naval guns and turbine engines. Even the Japanese had their limitations, while they certainly did a number of innovations in naval doctrine and ships that combined the advances of navies around the world they were weak in some areas (making 18 inch guns instead of 16 inch guns with superheavy shells, armor not as advanced as those of the Western powers).

The bureaucracy can be as large as impediment to adopting new technologies as the development of technologies themselves. As players we know OOC that superfiring guns won't incapacitate the lower turret crew, that triple turrets are able to keep pace with doubles in rate of fire, and that oil has so many more advantages over coal as a power source. The people making naval procurement choices historically did not know that, so they were worried about all of those things until someone built a ship that proved it feasible.

Floating Drydocks:
     Not sure why these couldn't build ships.  They normally haven't, but that's different from couldn't.

Just intended as a sort of "flavor" and to make sure no element get overpowered. Alternatively you could make them more expensive so people don't build only floating drydocks.

I lived in Norfolk, Virginia, for a number of years and can say that there are a number of floating drydocks that maintain the USN ships there. I have seen them around two amphibious assault aircraft carriers at the same time (large 40,000 ton + ships) and I think some of the cruisers and destroyers may also have been in floating drydocks as well. Same thing at Pearl Harbor, there were a lot of floating drydocks. I am not sure how common they are for other navies (USN having much more tonnage and ships to repair and more funding) but for those who want them floating drydocks are not really an unusual thing. I think building from one would be far more unusual, to my knowledge Norfolk only builds new ships from its standard drydocks (using floating drydocks for repairs).

[snip]

"This is a naval sim, isn't it?"  Well, by including primarily land powers like Russia, France, and Germany, I can't see that there's really a way around including land affairs to one degree or another.   If Germany goes to war with France or Russia (or both, or both plus the UK and Italy), the decisive battles will be on land, not at sea (even if Germany can decisively win Jutland and break the blockade, the land battles still have to be won).  As long as conflicts are confined to minor colonial affairs and are settled by who can blockade whose colonial port, it will be a naval sim.  The instant someone decides to invade a colony from their adjacent colony by land.... it's a world sim.

I really should clarify that point, was trying to squeeze of a reply before class. The previous iterations of the sim have been focused more on the Navy then on the other aspects in terms of complexity. I do feel that armies, and eventually air forces, should be included in what we budget and pay for due to both there role in international affairs (as you correctly point out) and there effects on the military budget and industrial output available for the Navy. These are both reason enough why I have included these non-naval aspects in the econ rules that I wrote and will included them in any ones that are written or modified for this restart attempt. I do fell however, that going to far beyond this boundary removes the emphasis from the naval aspect and transforms the sim into a "pencil-and-paper" version of Victoria II. Railroads are something that I feel will push the sim more in that direction, and I feel we can deal with there effects in a simpler way then tracking them explicitly.

[KWorld]

Oh, I'll agree that tracking railroads (or roads in general, or telegraph/telephone lines) in anything other than a VERY abstract manner (some level of infrastructure, where 1905 Russia is lacking compared to 1905 UK, for example), is going further than we really want to go.  I was surprised, when I looked at the NVerse 3 rules to see the mention of cables and radio towers, for instance, I'd think those were more detailed than we really want.

[snip]

Seeing as most want a N3-like rule system, I plan on working to trim fat from that.

[snip]

Nobody, Here are my thoughts on your list. I think it is a great tool for promoting talk about what the community would like.

Time and Turns: I can see the argument for trimesters, but if you want seasons, quarters is a bit better fit IMO. The start period is still up in the air, tho it looks like a ~ Dreadnought era start is in the lead. I understand your reasons for wanting to start early, but I think a later start has its merrits as well.

Economics: Your ideas make for a bit more (ok, at first glance and without number/tables much more) complicated then what I would like to see. I think the Pop/IC/BP system, with some tweeks, is about as complex as I want to go. KISS should be paramount. Also, your proposals would IMO nessessitate a entirely new ruleset, which is something I think we do not have time for.

Infra and support: I love the draft limits of harbors. Historical data would be easy to find on this, making it not to difficult to use. I would need to see what sort of cost system you have in mind for harbor capacity before I say yay/nay to it. As stated before, I am firmly against the tracking of railroads as unique entities.

Tech: Agreed, as then it becomes more of a who is the best at manipulating the program and less about working within restrictions and coming up with solutions therein.

Shipbuilding: I think a KISS system would work best here. The N4 system of Drydocks, for example, I will not use due to complexity.

Land warfare: Wile all are valid points, they are all sort of mute, as there will be no official simming of conflicts.

Countries ect.: KWorld sort of hit this one on the head. I dont need to dig it back up.

[Logi]

Time and Turns:
I agree with the need for more turns. I think, unlike snip, that 3 turns is ok and we don't need 4. If we are talking about seasons that matter there's really no need for 4. We can split the seasons in 3 portions easily (Winter, Spring, Summer + Fall). To balance the time, winter would extend a bit into Fall and Spring would extend a bit into Summer. However, in this format the seasonal difficulties can be well simulated IMO.

Economics:
I like Nobody's idea but there needs to be greater abstraction IMO. However I don't endorse the old 2-tier system of IC/BP in N3 because I thought it rather poorly simulated economics. It needs to be possible to grow the economy of a nation quickly and even overheat it somewhat like in Supreme Ruler Cold War.

I'll think of something and propose it over the labor day weekend.

Infrastructure and Support:
I agree that the draft limit for harbors is a good idea.

As for rails ad other transportation, I think it would be sufficient to divide the map into general regions (with a rule regarding their minimum and maximum approximate size) and represent infrastructure as levels. We could also represent it as a number which we model onto a decaying function but I presume that would be too much work.

Technology:
I agree with premise. My opinion on technology is that it should be a gradual tech tree rather than the N3 system of hard dates for researching certain techs. Rather than time unlocking technology, having technology time exponentially increase as you go deeper into the field would be a good counter to people rushing for a technology due to hindsightis. This works the opposite way too so further behind countries can tech faster.

In addition, that could support cooperative research agreements in which countries can decide to research a tech together and shorten it but having to spend much more money jointly. This should replace things like tech buying that happened in N3.

Shipbuilding:
I like the idea of requiring component based construction. Rather than building a ship, we thing of it as the sum of it's parts. If the parts cannot be made in that country they would have to buy it (like turbines).

Land Warfare:
I think we would have to go into more detail if we were simming land battles - but I think we aren't doing land battles so the point is moot.

Countries:
I think assigning regions risk style like in N3's start-up would be good. Provided it had a condition - you can only claim territory that is directly connected to your existing regions by land. So no weird nations like New Switzerland in N3 (Alaska, Australia and islands in Pacific). The core of those nations should be historical cores so we have nations vaguely resembling real ones, not complete hand-wavium ones.