Nobody here...

[Darman]

Okay I think I understand, and yes I believe we're mostly in agreement.  I think the only difference in opinion is that you want to go in assuming that we're going to edit/delete two specific sections.  Myself, on the other hand, I want to go back assuming no changes to the rules until we know who's participating, and then we discuss changing the two sections that you want to edit/delete. 

[Logi]

Yes, I believe we are mostly in agreement. I want to make the changes quickly to avoid stalling at the gate, so to speak, but we can go with your position as well. As long as all the initial players keep in mind that we need to get to agreement quickly and execute on it, I see no issues with your approach.

[Darman]

I agree it needs to be done quickly. 

Sidenote: While I personally enjoyed creating my own armies, corps, divisions, etc, it was extremely time consuming.  Returning to the N3 whole corps system  is perfectly acceptable to me. 

[Walter]

One thing I had a problem with is that we agreed to have an equal start and right from the beginning that was not the case with various nations getting colonies. After bringing that up, it was apparently still necessary for GB to get Gibraltar and Iberia the Azores and the Dutch to have various colonies. I ask for Switzerland to be added which has absolutely no influence at all on the Naval aspect of navalism (unlike all the colonies the Dutch got or Gibraltar) and never got a clear 'yes' or 'no' as an answer.

If something is agreed upon, we should stick to that and not throw it out of the window right away.

[Darman]

One thing I had a problem with is that we agreed to have an equal start and right from the beginning that was not the case with various nations getting colonies. After bringing that up, it was apparently still necessary for GB to get Gibraltar and Iberia the Azores and the Dutch to have various colonies. I ask for Switzerland to be added which has absolutely no influence at all on the Naval aspect of navalism (unlike all the colonies the Dutch got or Gibraltar) and never got a clear 'yes' or 'no' as an answer.

If something is agreed upon, we should stick to that and not throw it out of the window right away.

Not that its an unbiased opinion, considering I was both the UK and the Dutch, but there was a reason for at least the Dutch getting colonies.  Why England got Gibraltar is still beyond me, but the moderator decried it should be so and thus I didn't argue the matter.  Why the Dutch got colonies is because Holland was/is so small that she need additional territory somewhere to compensate.  I realize this may have appeared to be unfair, but I assure you that the Dutch Navy would have gotten its ass whipped in any war simply because it was too small to cover the area assigned to it.  As it was, the Dutch colonies put them on an equal footing with the other European nations, at least until such time as enterprising Europeans decided to capture Dutch colonies for their own. 

[Logi]

I disagreed completely with the equal start idea and even more so the issue of colonies. I think I did display using historical numbers how utterly ahistoric the population and economic powers detailed by an equal start were, even with colonies. The colonies were totally unnecessary. I agree with Walter's latter point as well.

I also dislike the disregard for historic event that happened before the time period of interest. That is, I am interested in playing a historical sim with a POD, not fantasy/risk set in a certain time period's technology. Hence we should stick with the events before our POD. We could pick a POD and then sim the diplomatic interactions at the meta level for 10 years before starting to do sim reports.

[Darman]

Hence we should stick with the events before our POD. We could pick a POD and then sim the diplomatic interactions at the meta level for 10 years before starting to do sim reports.

For our new version I agree with this statement. 

Just for the record; I thought that the equal start would work (and it may well have worked if enough people stuck with it).  However, I'd much rather do away with any ambiguity at our POD this time around. 

[Logi]

If we could get a roll call of those were are still interested in playing, maybe with a 1 week response deadline, then we can get started discussing sections of the rules to edit.

[Darman]

well I'm here and I'm good with your suggestion for the edit of the N3 rules

[Walter]

Well I'll be there to see what will happen this time. :)

Not that its an unbiased opinion, considering I was both the UK and the Dutch, but there was a reason for at least the Dutch getting colonies.

IIRC you made startup calculations for the Dutch with reduced figures as you considered them being a 'B' nation. Because of that I really didn't see the need for the Dutch to have those colonies at all. Another thing is that because you also played Britain, you would already have a nation that would be equal to the other 'A' nations so there would not have been a need for the Netherlands to be equal to the other nations as well.

I think I did display using historical numbers how utterly ahistoric the population and economic powers detailed by an equal start were

Good thing you mentioned that. Population was another thing that was ignored after the decision was made for an equal start and which had to be brought up in order to be dealt with.

I thought that the equal start would work (and it may well have worked if enough people stuck with it)

It does work... but in another part of the multiverse. It just didn't work in our reality because of all the obstacles being thown into the sim's path. :)

[snip]

Logi, we could always polish off the set of rules we were collaborating on? Also, hi.



EDIT: Basicly, it would boil down to replacing this with the following.

Goal: Make a simple, but flexible system to replace the current ruleset as the economic driver of a game.

Currencies: There should be two types of currency, one representing "How much can this nation afford?" and one representing "How much can this nation build?". The goal of this is the split apart a nation's ability to build and afford military hardware to allow for more flexibility with more national development based on the game conditions as opposed to a locked-growth system with a single currency that does not allow for flexibility in national strength.

The "Build?" Currency: The "Build?" currency is called Production. This currency is meant to cover the nations ability to manufacture military equipment such as warships, tanks, bombers etc. In game, it is used to pay for sea, land, and air forces. A nation produces a number of points per turn that are allocated to these projects. A nation gains more points by investing "Afford?" currency.

Using Production during a game turn: Each military project has a point requirement. An amount of that requirement may be spent each turn from the pool of "Build?" the nation has. "Build?" unused at the end of the turn rolls over the next, and then is lost if unused.

Gaining more Production Points: A nation may invest Budget into gaining more Production points. Each point has a fixed cost which is modified by the ratio of Production to Budget. The Budget investment is multiplied by this figure to determine the increase in Production for the next turn. [math]First we have a base value for improving the Production value by 1 full point, for now call this S. This is a fixed value for all nations. Next, take the ratio of Production to Budget, P/B, where P represents the number of Production points available this turn and B the same for Budget. This creates a modifier that is directly effected by the current status of the nation. The cost for adding a full Production point in a given turn S*[P/B], call this C. Then the value invested in the turn, I, is multiplied by C, and the resultant value is added to the Production pool [P] for the next turn's value [P_n]. To fill it out in one equation, P_n = {I * [S * [P/B]]} + P[/math]

How is the starting Production value determined?: The starting Production value is related to the Pig Iron production of the nation in question adjusted by its Steel production.

The "Afford?" currency: This currency, called Budget, is meant to represent a number of features of a real-world economy, such as political will, GDP, taxation, deficit spending, etc. In game, it is used to pay for everything, ranging from Production development projects, to battlecruisers. Each nation has a base value that they use for each turn, tho they can go as far over, or under, this total as they like, up to 200% of the base value. How much a nation over or underspends affects the growth of the base value for the next turn.

Using Budget during a game turn: Each project has a point requirement. An amount of that requirement may be spent each turn from the Budget the nation has. The nation's used budget can vary from the base pool by up to 200%.

Adjusting the Budget base: Each turn, the afford base is adjusted by a percentage of the total spent less the base value from the previous turn. Note this adjustment can be positive or negative depending on how much the player under or overspent. 10% of the previous turns surplus (or deficit) is used to adjust the afford base. Supplemental: The growth value as previously calculated is multiplied by [World Average Budget]/[National Base Budget]. This is to help spur growth in smaller economies.

How is the starting Budget determined?: The starting budget is 1/100th of the 1870 GDP per Capita of the nation in question, adjusted for starting year and by relative economic strength based on GDP and population.

Logi and I already mapped out the production values, so this could be a plug-and-play replacement.

[Logi]

Hi snip. We could do that, but I want us to hold off until we are certain no one else wants to play. For example, Jeftge hasn't responded to the roll call yet.

To make things more clear on my intention:
I want us to end the roll call by Saturday (March 22) so we can start to discuss things on the weekend, which is generally when we are all available. At that point I or someone else can make a seperate thread for the discussion of the changes we want with a deadline as determined by the extent of the changes desired (1 week barring no significant changes, 2-3 week for more significant changes).

Non-updated Nations
I think since our group is small right now, I believe nations that aren't the player's selected "main" nation should have it's sim reports be subjected to heavier public review to make sure there is no merging of interests.

[snip]

Hi snip. We could do that, but I want us to hold off until we are certain no one else wants to play. For example, Jeftge hasn't responded to the roll call yet.

To make things more clear on my intention:
I want us to end the roll call by Saturday (March 22) so we can start to discuss things on the weekend, which is generally when we are all available. At that point I or someone else can make a seperate thread for the discussion of the changes we want with a deadline as determined by the extent of the changes desired (1 week barring no significant changes, 2-3 week for more significant changes).

Non-updated Nations
I think since our group is small right now, I believe nations that aren't the player's selected "main" nation should have it's sim reports be subjected to heavier public review to make sure there is no merging of interests.

Fair enough, figured I would throw it out there.

That seems fair to me. Consider me a "here" entry. I think we can just throw Jef into France without much issue, doubt he would object to that.

My thought on NPCs would be that whoever the mod staff ends up being could push barebones reports [just the Cash/BP or whatever-the-hell-they-are-called-this-time in each catagory] for those nations to allow a future player to still do some customization while still havinging an idea of what said nations are capable of.

[Walter]

When money is involved, there is always a merging of interests. :) If you control Nation A and Nation B, a trade agreement between the two nations is as far as it should go.

I can understand that being applied when a player were to control both France and Great Britain for example. But what about smaller nations? If a player wants to play some South American League that consists of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, would he be allowed to start them as three separate nations and build towards unification?

[Jefgte]

Jef is always ready to play.
Like I said, I prefer N3 rules restart.

Just one thing that I claim always to add in the rules.
Possible use of historical material

Use HMS Hood, Surcouf submarine, JU87 Stuka, T34 russian tank, F4B Boeing...

Play France... OK

Jef