1903 Rules Patch

[Walter]

I find it ridiculous that players have to convince you with evidence that those islands should be considered homeland instead of colony. It really should be the other way around. You should convince us that those islands are colonies instead of homeland with evidence. That comment of yours Logi really comes over as a raised middle finger and a big 'FU' towards the players who have a problem with this rule. I was busy with some ideas when my computer locked up for some reason and I had to reset it and lost the text. Now after having read that bit of yours, I'm not going to bother with trying to retype what I can remember of the lost message. Hell, I already threw out something simple regarding the unrealistic aspect of too much investment being always negative and I get the impression that that is being completely ignored.

Therefore opinion of a few pages back will not change. If you like the idea of revolts so much then you are welcome to apply it to your territories but do not bother others with it who do not want it. Looking at this thread, I feel that we are better of without it.

[Tanthalas]

What I fail to understand is why the shift from the original start up position on expansion.  I wasn't allowed to have Congo as a Colony from the beginning because yall wanted a "Race for Africa".  But apparently since only a few of us bothered to ya know race now ya want to penalize us.  Basically the people who did what you said you wanted from the start are being told we cant grow our colonies or they will revolt at some point from instantly to 5 years from now.  That isn't consistent with the original vision (which I actually kind of liked).  I understand yall want more "realism" but the reality is there were no problems in most of these places OTL, or at least if there was it wasn't in our period (roughly 1900-1940).  I personally have never viewd more rules and complexity as the answer... the really sad thing about this is there are only 2 mods and you both like more rules as the answer to everything, there isn't a dissenting voice in the modworld.  So there isn't someone saying "so what if growth is out of control do we really honestly care, will it really matter long term? Didn't we want them to Colonize? (I am sure we wanted them to build Colonies)"... which is fine, but when the players it will actually effect are so viciously against something (I can understand people it wont have any effect on not having opinions) perhaps reconsideration is something you should consider.

on a side note, yall have accomplished one thing with this, you actually got Walter, Kirk and myself to agree on something... now that is not something that given our divergent world views that I personally ever saw coming.

[Logi]

Please read the alternative proposal. It does not include any revolt risk. A simple 3x IC cost increase to add weight to the decision to expand up or out. Right now out is the clear "right way" from a min-max perspective, and due to player concern we wanted to make that choice less obvious.

Tan and Walter, the mods do not la-de-da come up with ruleset proposals. It is not work that we want to be doing. After all, thinking over new rulesets and balancing them takes a lot of thinking, time and discussion - and that's just between the mods. The ruleset was created because as we were playing the sim out, several players expressed concerned over the lack of any control on colonial expansion. It is for that reason and only that reason, that we even started discussing the issue at all. At no point do we "look at more rules as the answer".

There are many things (such as actually designing ships) that I would rather be doing with my time than coming up with ruleset - the same is true of Snip. It's not like we go home from work one day and say: "You know what I really want to be doing right now? More work. Let's cook up a ruleset change." I don't think most moderators in any game behave like that.

Please do not mistake personal and moderator opinion. Whilst personally I am fine with increased rules and complexity, as a moderator I am always seeking to limit the expansion of the ruleset. I mention this point several times now and in the past in response to proposals. This is a viewpoint both me and Snip share. In this case, had players not initially expressed concern with colonization, we (the Mods) would not have bothered doing anything to the ruleset in that regard.

The Naval Gun rule changes were provoked by a few players that expressed that they felt the tech was currently pointless. Whilst we did consider simply removing the tech outright to simplify the ruleset, doing so would have opened up holes in the researching of new guns. There was also the matter of how to redistribute the research time. Of course the option of doing nothing was always on the table (we discussed that several times), it was felt that the we needed to address the concerns.
The Foreign Standard changes sought to solve issues players have constantly raised in the current and previous iterations - the prohibitive cost to foreign ship purchases and therefore the foreign ship market.
Canal Projects was provoked by Guinness's Trans-Siberian Rail project and the desire of the US Player for a Central American canal, as soon after we (the Mods) were approached by several other players interested in grand projects of such a scale. As all these players sought an answer from the Mod team, most of them were about Canals, and as it became clear more such projects would likely spring up in the future, we decided to formalize our decisions into a rule to both expedite the process and transparent.
The Colonies and Commonwealth was brought up, as I mentioned, because players were concerned over excessive colonial expansion as well as how it would be managed.
Digestion rules are from concerns raised in N3 and as those rules have not changed since N3, we saw no reason that those concerns would have become any less valid.
Population relocation was brought up because Miketr made an inquiry on this subject. As soon after several players also expressed interest in doing so, again we decided a formal answer was required.
The IC reshuffle that occurred earlier was because our mistake in allocating staring resources was brought to our attention was by a player. As they argued (and we agreed their presented case) that it severely negatively impacted their own gameplay and enjoyment as well as being unfair, we decided it was necessary to rectify the situation posthaste.

Take note that these inquiries are often via PMs or IRC, and so the issue does not normally get brought to public light until it has been discussed behind closed doors for some time.

As you should see, none of the change in the 1903 rules patch was initiated by a Mod in the capacity of a moderator. We want to make sure that the ruleset works in both form and function to create a environment with choices. Occasionally, this requires more then a wording change on a single clause.

I find it ridiculous that players have to convince you with evidence that those islands should be considered homeland instead of colony. It really should be the other way around. You should convince us that those islands are colonies instead of homeland with evidence. That comment of yours Logi really comes over as a raised middle finger and a big 'FU' towards the players who have a problem with this rule

Walter, are you honestly suggesting that the Mods (who are responsible for overseeing the world in the sim) to convince every player on islands in their specific region? Unfortunately we are not omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience. Offloading the task to the player, though a burden, is infinitely better because it is spread out more evenly. In addition, players tend to be more knowledgeable on the history and circumstances of the region their sim nation is in, due to their research and roleplay.

Do you believe that, for example, we would know enough to know whether we should even start arguing whether a island in South America is a colony or homeland when we know almost nothing about the region's history/culture/etc. It is much more believable that a player in South America would know. In addition, because the player in South America is likely to know, they are also more likely to actually contribute convincing evidence - i.e. the decision will be more fair and just.

Not to mention the player by nature have an incentive to disagree with any decision that negatively impacts them such as turning a homeland to a colony. The Mods have no such incentive - we (the Mods) have nothing to lose or gain from whether an island is considered colony or homeland. To be frank, we find your assertion ridiculous.

We also don't understand either how it is a middle finger to players. If you have a decent case, it's fairly straightforward for the Mods to see that it should be so. The Mods will fairly consider any case from a neutral perspective. It really feels to us like you're continually attributing malice to the Mods against specific players where there is none. Various aspects of fixing errors, some which were initially made by the mods, or addressing concerns that have cropped up in the sim so far have targeted specific nations, but the integrity of the player of said nation was never questioned. The Mods have not and will never persecute against a player - to insinuate that would ever be the case, as you know, would be a major insult.

[The Rock Doctor]

We should bear in mind, when considering drawbacks to expansion, that we will be paying for the military forces and military infrastructure necessary to garrison a colony, and that the act of expansion in itself presents the risk of coming into conflict with other player-nations. 

[Tanthalas]

I agree Rock, there are expenses above and beyond the "normal" ones and risks of warfare with other "less than friendly" neighbors.

We should bear in mind, when considering drawbacks to expansion, that we will be paying for the military forces and military infrastructure necessary to garrison a colony, and that the act of expansion in itself presents the risk of coming into conflict with other player-nations.

Is an even higher cost in the colonies necessary note I don't necessarily disagree with that idea I am just curious about the impact of it (I somehow managed to miss that post *smacks self in the forehead*).  With the sliding scale based on income we already agreed on (least I think we agreed on it), costs for all IC will be going up rather substantially in some cases, I can say for a fact that building in the Jungle/Desert/mountains is more expensive than building in say downtown LA (IDK if it is as much more expensive as you are proposing but possibly double the cost?)...

[The Rock Doctor]

Alright, guys, this is beginning to wear on me. 

A)  WTF is a colony?

I think it stands to reason that anything added by players since the game started is a colony.  Even the former A-H bits absorbed into other European states.

As for land in a nation's starting 1900 borders, some folks want the players to prove what is and isn't a colony, others want the Mods to do it. I will offer to do it.  For everybody.  Although if somebody else wants to do the Ottomans, in the interests of fairness, that's perfectly fine with me.

This will render the arbitrary geographic distances moot.

B)  Delta-Pop:IC

I'm going to agree with the Mods that adding IC to a region is not a wholly positive affair when considered from the native perspective.  A great deal of the difficulties Canada has had with its native population is that the natives simply can't adjust their culture to meet the rate of change; they get culture-shock.  It'd be like the Inuit going from a nomadic, bones-and-stones tool, hunter-gathering lifestyle to permanent settlement, skidoos, and airplanes inside one generation.  Consider the establishment of residential schools - seemingly an innocent-sounding initiative ("education") that has recently been re-considered a form of cultural genocide by many.

If that IC happens to represent a new mine in traditional sacred territory, or Belgian-style rubber plantations, the locals will also be grumpy.

C)  Revolt Risk

I do think there must be a risk of revolution.  Otherwise, we get a repeat of Wesworld where, frankly, nobody's going to lose anything of value, ever, for any reason. 

I'm okay with the basic 10% roll per turn.  I'm okay with the second D20 roll, with a modifier for the Pop:IC change.

I think the time penalty should be scrapped - probability alone dictates that sooner or later, a territory be the site of considerable excitement. 

D)  Drawbacks to Expansion

I think that, between military garrisons and infrastructure, the risk of revolt, the risk of conflict with adjacent colonial powers, and the vulnerability of overseas colonies to trade warfare, we have sufficient checks against excessive land-grabbing. 

We do not need higher IC costs in addition to this.

I will agree with the premise that we generally want expansion in this game.  It creates opportunities for story-telling, for ship and fleet-design work, and it creates change.  We do not want the rules base to allow people to run hog-wild, but we do not players discouraged from venturing offshore.

What did I miss?

[snip]

Point by point:

A)  WTF is a colony?

I think it stands to reason that anything added by players since the game started is a colony.  Even the former A-H bits absorbed into other European states.

As for land in a nation's starting 1900 borders, some folks want the players to prove what is and isn't a colony, others want the Mods to do it. I will offer to do it.  For everybody.  Although if somebody else wants to do the Ottomans, in the interests of fairness, that's perfectly fine with me.

This will render the arbitrary geographic distances moot.

Anything added after 1900 is, because it gets caught under this clause. "A Colony also is any territory taken over by a nation from another nation or non-incorporated territory for a period of 25 years." That clause applies wherever the land in question is. The only difference between this and the geographic based provision is that these lands, if they do not meet the other colonial definition, become homeland after the 25 years have elapsed.

We would like to keep the geographic stuff in to guide things in the future. Thank you for volunteering, but I really hope the players will take care of this themselves.

B)  Delta-Pop:IC

I'm going to agree with the Mods that adding IC to a region is not a wholly positive affair when considered from the native perspective.  A great deal of the difficulties Canada has had with its native population is that the natives simply can't adjust their culture to meet the rate of change; they get culture-shock.  It'd be like the Inuit going from a nomadic, bones-and-stones tool, hunter-gathering lifestyle to permanent settlement, skidoos, and airplanes inside one generation.  Consider the establishment of residential schools - seemingly an innocent-sounding initiative ("education") that has recently been re-considered a form of cultural genocide by many.

If that IC happens to represent a new mine in traditional sacred territory, or Belgian-style rubber plantations, the locals will also be grumpy.

Well said.

C)  Revolt Risk

I do think there must be a risk of revolution.  Otherwise, we get a repeat of Wesworld where, frankly, nobody's going to lose anything of value, ever, for any reason. 

I'm okay with the basic 10% roll per turn.  I'm okay with the second D20 roll, with a modifier for the Pop:IC change.

I think the time penalty should be scrapped - probability alone dictates that sooner or later, a territory be the site of considerable excitement. 

Well said, bold part especially. Logi and I will powow about the Time penalty. It is intended to make building up slowly not the be-all-end-all solution, with the delta(Pop:IC) covering the fast buildup end. Do you have any ideas on how to add in something to have a to-slow buildup influence the roll or is the idea just flawed?

D)  Drawbacks to Expansion

I think that, between military garrisons and infrastructure, the risk of revolt, the risk of conflict with adjacent colonial powers, and the vulnerability of overseas colonies to trade warfare, we have sufficient checks against excessive land-grabbing. 

We do not need higher IC costs in addition to this.

I will agree with the premise that we generally want expansion in this game.  It creates opportunities for story-telling, for ship and fleet-design work, and it creates change.  We do not want the rules base to allow people to run hog-wild, but we do not players discouraged from venturing offshore.

The increase in IC cost is an alternative to revolt risk, not an addition to. Because some came out strong against revolt risk, but did not offer an alternative drawback, we decided to present one. We really prefer the revolt risk option because it is far more dynamic.

[The Rock Doctor]

I think the time penalty just isn't necessary.  Statistically, we'd be expecting a disturbance of some sort every five years, which is plenty.  The larger empires will be constantly dealing with problems of one kind or another.

I had the thought that there should actually be a "cool down" period after a rebellion, in which there's no chance (or reduced chance) of a second trouble period.  That'd reflect the military successfully squashing rebels or the government successfully placating angry farmers or whatever.  But that'd be another rule to follow.

[Tanthalas]

Ok I know Congo is a Colony, but I am slightly confused by the 25 year clause... is DEI a Colony, I have been listing it as one but if I am reading the rules right then it wouldn't be (for Rule purposes, even though it would continue to be listed as such for my purposes).

[snip]

It would always be a colony, until the Pop:IC ratio was correct, because it meets the other definitions. The 25 year clause is there to cover someone gobbling up a neighboring territory. We wanted to make sure that the mechanic covered all forms of expansion.

[Kaiser Kirk]

We have to draw the line somewhere, and no matter what its going to leave some place out that someone feels should be homeland or include someplace that someone feels should be a colony. Logi and I have both not seen a better objective proposal for cataloging this.

However, you've gone off and picked a line that is...

You have managed to pick a line which means Poland has been a faithful part of Germany since 1820, Alsace-Lorraine will be a colony but magically become part of the German Homeland in 1906, the former Austrian lands will be colonies until 1925,
but Sardinia will suddenly become a colony, and prone to revolts. For that matter, the majority-Italian areas just regained from Austria will suddenly be colonies...

Granted, if Rocky takes up this task, thanks be to Rocky.

And no, unlike Rocky's assertion, I don't think they should fall under that status if they are ethnically and culturally similar to the host country.

Meanwhile, it make no logical sense that if Spain takes over North Africa, it's not a colony after 25 years, while if France does, it is a colony.

By default the 12nm holds unless the player petitions their "colony" be considered homeland, in which case the onus falls on their shoulders to present a case backed with ample evidence. If a player petitions for a region to be considered a colony, but is regarded as homeland under the geographical limit we can review it case-by-case to determine what natural severity modifier should be added.

We have also come up with an alternative to revolt risk. Building IC in a colony costs 3x more than usual and will continue to cost that much until the Colony has a higher IC/Pop ratio than the homeland (calculated as a total).

Instead of just shouting NOOOOOoooooooo!  Trying to be construtive.
The onus...is onerous, and a little strange, I would the starter map would be of help...but it's doable. Again, Rocky could be a solution, but I don't mind defending my provinces.

While we're at it- can we prove other folks territories should be part of OUR or someother homeland based on Ethnicity and history?

How about – if you exploit native workers, IC costs are 50% normal, but there is a revolt risk. If you rely on imported European workers, IC costs are normal?

I am aware of your concerns but we haven't had a good idea of how to differentiate between large native and large settler populations without creating an undue amount of paperwork. The problem with simply relying on spreadsheets is that we would need different rules for native and settler populations. As Snip has said, if you have a proposal (other than do nothing), please bring it forward.

Regarding the average population. We could consider making it better than the total Pop / total IC rather than the average of the regions. That would reduce the outlier effect of those research centers.

Considering how many numbers we do track, and the multipage spreadsheet, the need to keep updated OOBs, mount types, weapon types....and you're worried about a little paperwork? An extra couple cells of data? Really?

Total Pop/IC......
Well I mucked up – I was using the  HY1 1903 Pop:IC ratio for Italy as a whole, not the average of the regions. So..how does that change things? Average of the regions is 2.12:1..which means only 19 million, or 54% of my population fall below.  My error.

However, that still means that my colonies will revolt unless better off than over half my population.
That's still, to reuse a fragrant phrase, bull pucky.

My Caribbean holdings have more or less zero chance of revolt, while the DEI didn't have anything worth noting (few angry letters etc) until basically post ww2.

From what I understand by actually being here in the land that you control, the main reason why you had that post war colonial conflict in the DEI is because the locals had seen how one Asian nation had kicked the @$$es of all those colonial powers. I'm pretty sure that without WW2 the DEI would have followed a similar path to that of Suriname. And from what I am reading, the way Suriname became independent from the Netherlands has nothing to do with any unrest/riot rolls and everything about politics and negotiations.

From my years playing the Dutch, I am aware there were many nationalist groups prior to the war, and actually the native students seeing Holland and it's prosperity compared to that of the DEI did have something to do with the unrest- the Mods do have some basis for their concept.  The corruption and poor budgeting that undermined the Queen's Ethical Policy also harmed efforts. The Dutch were planning a road to independence for the DEI, but it was to be a 50-100 year arc.  However, the war did have a lot to do with it...and a key point here is nationalism – a disparity between the rulers and the ruled, in addition to feeling exploited due to persistent income inequality and 2nd rate citizen status in their own land. 

There are many things (such as actually designing ships) that I would rather be doing with my time than coming up with ruleset - the same is true of Snip. It's not like we go home from work one day and say: "You know what I really want to be doing right now? More work. Let's cook up a ruleset change." I don't think most moderators in any game behave like that.

I am aware, and appreciate the additional effort being a volunteer moderator requires.
I attempt to be respectful in my discourse, even when I strongly disagree with your pronouncements.

However, I had made both public and private statements regarding my intent in grabbing some African land, evicting the locals and importing my people, and that I intended to use the digestion rules to compensate for Italy's lower research capacity.

These choices were based on the rules at start, plus that "Race for Africa" concept pregame, so suddenly adding rules to include both a revolt risk and a limitation on people moving, and changing those on digestion has a rather direct effect on me, and very little on a bunch of other people. So perhaps you can understand why I am not thrilled with your patch, even if I'm not the one most adversely effected by it. Hence my repeated posts in this thread.

[Logi]

You have managed to pick a line which means Poland has been a faithful part of Germany since 1820, Alsace-Lorraine will be a colony but magically become part of the German Homeland in 1906, the former Austrian lands will be colonies until 1925,
but Sardinia will suddenly become a colony, and prone to revolts. For that matter, the majority-Italian areas just regained from Austria will suddenly be colonies...

Granted, if Rocky takes up this task, thanks be to Rocky.

It is possible, if the frequency of territory being acquired or changing hands remains low, that the Mods / (or Rocky if we do decide to accept the volunteering) handle the issue case by case. It is perhaps not objective, but it will at the same time likely be less arbitrary. As far as I can tell, the objection with the proposed limit is that, whilst objectively and clearly defined, it is quite arbitrary and does not cover sufficient base cases.

What it comes down to is the frequency with which we expect the situation to occur.

Instead of just shouting NOOOOOoooooooo!  Trying to be constructive.
The onus...is onerous, and a little strange, I would the starter map would be of help...but it's doable. Again, Rocky could be a solution, but I don't mind defending my provinces.

While we're at it- can we prove other folks territories should be part of OUR or some other homeland based on Ethnicity and history?

Do you mean something to the effect of creating a map with ethnicity, etc. based on our starter map with which to help decide homelands territories?

How about – if you exploit native workers, IC costs are 50% normal, but there is a revolt risk. If you rely on imported European workers, IC costs are normal?

That would be possible if we decide you can split native and imported populations in the sim report (ala pretending they are separate regions).

Considering how many numbers we do track, and the multipage spreadsheet, the need to keep updated OOBs, mount types, weapon types....and you're worried about a little paperwork? An extra couple cells of data? Really?

Like I said, my opinion as a player and moderator is different. As I player I think those couple of cells are hardly a big deal. However, perhaps I've misjudged people's great reluctance to include any additional work. I think it's a better solution than we currently have, but what do the rest of the playerbase think?

Total Pop/IC......
Well I mucked up – I was using the  HY1 1903 Pop:IC ratio for Italy as a whole, not the average of the regions. So..how does that change things? Average of the regions is 2.12:1..which means only 19 million, or 54% of my population fall below.  My error.

However, that still means that my colonies will revolt unless better off than over half my population.
That's still, to reuse a fragrant phrase, bull pucky.

I feel it ought to still be tied in some fashion to homeland IC/Pop ratios - simply because what is considered normal for people rises as countries become more developed and typically people expect more from wealthy occupiers than poor ones. Perhaps we reduce it to something like 75% of the homeland IC/Pop ratio?

Recall this is when a colony becomes a commonwealth, i.e. full integration. Dragging the bottom ring of the homeland isn't likely to make for a commonwealth IMO.

I am aware, and appreciate the additional effort being a volunteer moderator requires.
I attempt to be respectful in my discourse, even when I strongly disagree with your pronouncements.

I have never personally felt a problem with the manner with which you conducted your discourse with us.

[Kaiser Kirk]

In such discussions I like to pause to let others give their points of view and input. My POV is only mine. So I'll chime in tomorrow :)

[Kaiser Kirk]

Do you mean something to the effect of creating a map with ethnicity, etc. based on our starter map with which to help decide homelands territories?

I guess that is kinda what I'm suggesting. Though we can vastly simplify things by simply paying attention to the player nations and adjacent territories to show where they have large culturally distinct groups both inside and outside their borders.
We really shouldn't be overly detailed for all the smaller groups, lump em. Everyone else we can classify as "other".  If a player takes Spain, then we worry about what is culturally Spanish. Etc.

Take, your note on commonwealth, I'd argue that in this period most of Canada and Australia didn't meet that wealth standard - England was one of the most industrialized nations in the world, Australia had lonely men and scared sheep.
Likewise, the IC of the American west is pitiful compared to the original colonies. Due to immigration, war and deportation, the Natives weren't the majority anymore, but the Pop:IC from Mississippi R west to the Sacramento Valley was probably very low compared to parts east of the river. Hence why I think cultural aspects matter nearly as much as economic.

Alsace actually has German speakers, Lorraine not as much.  4/5ths of Ireland are rather distinct from the rest of the UK and had a history of being destitute and attempted revolts.
I think some nations - UK (Brits+Welsh+Scots), Ottomans (Muslim Turks/Arabs)- can show a couple different ethnic groups that are "core"...hmm guess I'm borrowing from Europa Universalis there.
Now, I expect that the Russian player (if he ever shows) might not be in favor because they conquered alot of folks.

It's a bit of work, but there are ethnic/religeous maps out there so I doubt it would be too hideous, and  it would ID areas more likely to be unsettled, or map natural claims on foriegn lands.
It also means there would be a basis to evaluate when you import/grow a majority of your own ethnicity, that revolt risk drops.

That would be possible if we decide you can split native and imported populations in the sim report (ala pretending they are separate regions).

I figured I'd set up my sheet so that between Research and Growth Rate I'd have 2 columns - Italian & Other.   The population column for the region would just total that pop.   Then over on the far right I'd have Italian & Other columns showing the effect of population growth so that when the calendar turns, I can update by select, copy, paste as numbers over the first set. Seems terribly simple to me in practice, if a little hard to explain a spreadsheet in text....

Perhaps we reduce it to something like 75% of the homeland IC/Pop ratio?

I'll continue my principled opposition to the entire revolt concept, but I do concede that takes the teeth out of a major objection. Though I will observe I got different results of IC/Pop ration between a national average, and an average of the provinces. The latter was in my case lower.

My contention is that as long as the folks in the colonies feel that they aren't greatly worse off than folks at home, they shouldn't feel horribly exploited. This proposal would indeed meet that target.

[miketr]

*de-cloaking**raising shields*

I have decided to stay out of the rules debate by and large.  I just want a decision made.

On the question of ethnic make up, I have no objection to a map.

Off the top of my head it would look something like this for Germany (see attachment).  I am not saying these are ethnic majority areas, just areas that have notable numbers of said ethnic population.  More than a few aren't majority but some are without a doubt.  Take A-L its a mess, there are 3 flavors of German spoken there and the French speakers. NW corner of the province IS Majority French speakers but they don't even make up 20% of the population of the province as a whole.  At same time for the province produced deputies to the Reichstag that refused to join the major parties and votes as regionalist.  By 1914 this had started to weaken but was hardly gone.  So beware on using ethnic and religious markers as the be all that ends all of sorting.  Of course if we want KISS then we can accept its limitations and just keep it simple.

Michael