When restart ?

[snip]

What do you mean by "declared at start"? 

We just say "this is what I have" and everyone gets a chance to voice objection. At least that makes sense to me.

[Darman]

What do you mean by "declared at start"? 

We just say "this is what I have" and everyone gets a chance to voice objection. At least that makes sense to me.

Fair enough description.  Personally, I prefer a BP-limited startup budget.  It allows us to potentially alter the OTL trend and build a bigger army than normal.  Or maybe we build a bigger navy.  Or maybe we set the groundwork for building a bigger navy (infrastructure, etc.).

[Logi]

What do you mean by "declared at start"? 

Snip is correct.

Personally, I prefer a BP-limited startup budget.  It allows us to potentially alter the OTL trend and build a bigger army than normal.  Or maybe we build a bigger navy.  Or maybe we set the groundwork for building a bigger navy (infrastructure, etc.).

I don't remember which nations they were, but at some point we had nations with armies 5x and more of their historical size. It was quite disturbing.

The reason I want declared armies is because armies don't really obselete. This is not the case for navies. I am also not as concerned with navies primarily because the ships themselves in reality have a lifespan of ~30 years. When we start most ships will have used 1/3 of their lifespans can we can assume they will eventually get replaced.

The point of these limits is to limit extreme behaviour, which is necessary with any group. People don't opt for slightly larger navies or armies but increases of many multiple of their historical levels. A declared army rather than BP based does not prevent larger armies than historical, but one that has to be publically checked and approved. If we were to rely to just BP-based starting armies it becomes a lot harder to criticize such distributions.

So we get some proportion of Naval tonnage to spend on infra? What are your thoughts on the numbers? How does tech work here^[1]?

[1]: I would propose that everyone starts with all techs pre-1890 and gains access to the 1891-1897 techs 3 years after there research date. 1898-1899 techs can be declared in progress. 1900+ techs are off limits.

Hm, I'm not sure on the proportion. Perhaps a limit on the maximum proportion and have the players decide the specifics? ---> no more than 10% of tonnage used in Naval Infrastructure
I'm in agreement with regard to the tech issue.

[Darman]

So we get some proportion of Naval tonnage to spend on infra? What are your thoughts on the numbers? How does tech work here^[1]?

[1]: I would propose that everyone starts with all techs pre-1890 and gains access to the 1891-1897 techs 3 years after there research date. 1898-1899 techs can be declared in progress. 1900+ techs are off limits.

Hm, I'm not sure on the proportion. Perhaps a limit on the maximum proportion and have the players decide the specifics? ---> no more than 10% of tonnage used in Naval Infrastructure
I'm in agreement with regard to the tech issue.

I agree on tech as well.  If we are going to run with a declared system for armies, then I'd agree with a proportion of fleet tonnage being allocated to infrastructure. 

My suggestion is a combination of a BP budget and a declared army/infra with navy tonnage limits.  Force everyone to declare their army size prior to start and open it up to comments and criticism.  Then the mods decide if the size of the army is so ahistorical as to be ridiculous. 

[snip]

Hm, I'm not sure on the proportion. Perhaps a limit on the maximum proportion and have the players decide the specifics? ---> no more than 10% of tonnage used in Naval Infrastructure

I would argue that there should not be a cap on the infra. Given that some of us have no choice but to effectively duplicate our infra on two coasts (until I can blast a canal though Panama or Nicaragua), I think it should be flexible. Are we free to assume 1,000t=1BP for Infra purposes?

[Darman]

Hm, I'm not sure on the proportion. Perhaps a limit on the maximum proportion and have the players decide the specifics? ---> no more than 10% of tonnage used in Naval Infrastructure

I would argue that there should not be a cap on the infra. Given that some of us have no choice but to effectively duplicate our infra on two coasts (until I can blast a canal though Panama or Nicaragua), I think it should be flexible. Are we free to assume 1,000t=1BP for Infra purposes?

Some of us also have obligations around the world... with a resultant need to build bases and ports and depots around the world. 

[snip]

Hm, I'm not sure on the proportion. Perhaps a limit on the maximum proportion and have the players decide the specifics? ---> no more than 10% of tonnage used in Naval Infrastructure

I would argue that there should not be a cap on the infra. Given that some of us have no choice but to effectively duplicate our infra on two coasts (until I can blast a canal though Panama or Nicaragua), I think it should be flexible. Are we free to assume 1,000t=1BP for Infra purposes?

Some of us also have obligations around the world... with a resultant need to build bases and ports and depots around the world.

Bah, bloody colonialists making a fuss. Go drink your tea and let the adults talk.  :P :P :P :P :P :P

EDIT: Post 1776 could not have come at a better time.

[Darman]

Bah, bloody colonialists making a fuss. Go drink your tea and let the adults talk.  :P :P :P :P :P :P

That beautiful amber liquid is actually scotch, thank you very much :P

[Logi]

My suggestion is a combination of a BP budget and a declared army/infra with navy tonnage limits.  Force everyone to declare their army size prior to start and open it up to comments and criticism.  Then the mods decide if the size of the army is so ahistorical as to be ridiculous.

That could be done.

Are we free to assume 1,000t=1BP for Infra purposes?

Yes.

Some of us also have obligations around the world... with a resultant need to build bases and ports and depots around the world.

That's why the British have a much larger BP pool than it should have based on it's industrial power. Why else would it have ~3.6x more BP to spend at startup than the US when it has less BP produced per half?

Also keep in mind that the British had a lot of recoaling ports not a lot of drydocks/slipways spread about. The actual ports of production (heavy naval infrastructure) were few and far in between.

I would argue that there should not be a cap on the infra. Given that some of us have no choice but to effectively duplicate our infra on two coasts (until I can blast a canal though Panama or Nicaragua), I think it should be flexible.

1900 following the Spanish-American War is the start of increased focus on the Pacific. Prior to that despite what we hear today, the Pacific Fleet and it's naval bases were minute and not nearly as important. The US should not have equal naval infrastructure on both coasts. The whole two-fleet navy historical narrative is the result of later generation's interpretation of events in order to suit their own purposes of American imperialism and Pacific focus.

In 1900, most of the US's pacific ports are recoaling ports much like Britain. There isn't much heavy infrastructure in those places.

There is good reason why even in WW2, most of the major naval ports (which could produce battleships / large carriers) were located on the East coast.



Recall minor ports (Port Type 1) in N3 are relatively inexpensive. These are the majority of island ports (British, etc.). There is no significant BP cost to these.

[Walter]

Go drink your tea

Like they did in Boston? :)

and let the adults talk.

Like they didn't in Boston? :D

That beautiful amber liquid is actually scotch, thank you very much

It can't be Scotch, unless there are Stuarts on the thone instead of Hanoverians cause if you have the latter, it will be beer and bratwurst for you mate. ;D

[snip]

In 1900, most of the US's pacific ports are recoaling ports much like Britain. There isn't much heavy infrastructure in those places.

There is enough stuff in Washington and California that some infra is going to be duplicated. Not the majority of the big stuff, but some. Seeing as at lease one (the USS Oregon) battleship was built on the West Coast during this era, it makes sense to me to have the ability to do that in game.

[Logi]

With 300,000t to spend the US gets to spend 30 BP on naval infrastructure.

What is your current estimate on the amount needed for near historical infrastructural capability?

[snip]

I will figure out a better guess then "something between zero and all the things" shortly.

[Darman]

That beautiful amber liquid is actually scotch, thank you very much

It can't be Scotch, unless there are Stuarts on the thone instead of Hanoverians cause if you have the latter, it will be beer and bratwurst for you mate. ;D

Thank god!  I can't stand scotch.... beer is my drink of choice. 

[snip]

I will figure out a better guess then "something between zero and all the things" shortly.

Ok, here is what I am getting for my starting figures. Total investment is 41.5, but I am not at this time using my total naval tonnage and would be more then willing to cut my limit there to allow for infra.

Location	Class	BP (Unit)	BP (Total)
Boston Navy Yard	2	3	3
Brooklyn Navy Yard	1	2	2
Long Beach Naval Shipyard	0	0.5	0.5
Mare Island Naval Shipyard	0	0.5	0.5
Norfolk Naval Shipyard	2	3	3
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard	2	3	3
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard	0	0.5	0.5
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard	1	2	2
San Deago Navy Yard	0	0.5	0.5
San Francisco Naval Shipyard	2	3	3
Washington Navy Yard	0	0.5	0.5
			18.5
Infrastructure
Class and Type	Number	BP (Unit)	BP (Total)	Location
Type 2 Slipway	2	2	4	San Francisco, Philadelphia
Type 2 Drydock	2	2	4	San Francisco, Philadelphia
Type 1 Slipway	7	1	7	San Francisco, Philadelphia, Bostonx2, Norfolkx2 Brooklyn
Type 1 Drydock	8	1	8	San Francisco, Philadelphia, Bostonx2, Norfolkx2, Brooklyn, Puget Sound
Type 0 Slipway	9	0	0	Mare Islandx2, Long Beach, Portsmouth, Puget Soundx2, Washington, Boston, Norfolk
Type 0 Drydock	8	0	0	Long Beach, Portsmouth, San Deagox2, Washington, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, San Francisco
	36		23
		Total BP	41.5