Roll Call

[Walter]

Again, given that Red is the geographic toilet here, I'm going to be taking it.

Considering that, is it an idea to shift it with light green so red holds the southern parts of France, Spain and Portugal as well as the Northern African coast bit so they too have an access? At the same time make the Northern parts of France, Spain and Portugal and the bits of the lowlands to the south of the Rhine as the other nation (and since Jef dislikes the Brits because of Brexit and I like the Brits because of Brexit, I'll just gobble up those bits while changing the regions I split up back to normal).

[snip]

BTW what time period are we looking at here?  I'm just sort of looking at what sort of a military I'd like to build.  Baltic ports kind of limit me but I also need vessels capable of reaching further away.  And I have extensive land borders that need to be defended.  Ports that will need to be defended.  A canal that might need to be built.

My thought is 1910ish, but take that with a small salt mine.

Again, given that Red is the geographic toilet here, I'm going to be taking it.

Considering that, is it an idea to shift it with light green so red holds the southern parts of France, Spain and Portugal as well as the Northern African coast bit so they too have an access? At the same time make the Northern parts of France, Spain and Portugal and the bits of the lowlands to the south of the Rhine as the other nation (and since Jef dislikes the Brits because of Brexit and I like the Brits because of Brexit, I'll just gobble up those bits while changing the regions I split up back to normal).

Eh, Im not realy a fan since we still need to lock a Purple player down (asuminging what we talked about with the Orange option is going to be a thing)

[Darman]

My thought is 1910ish, but take that with a small salt mine.

Okay.  I was curious because I'm trying to figure out what sort of dream budget I'd have at startup.  But some important questions are things like will airfields be important or coastal defense batteries?  Cuz 1910 vs 1940 coastal defense are very different. 

[Jefgte]

...and since Jef dislikes the Brits because of Brexit...

It's the opposit, Brits dislikes Europe: France, Italy, Germany...

I had like them but now, they don't like me,so, I didn't like them.

;D

[Kaiser Kirk]

Total : 488k tons over 20 years, aka 40 turns = 12.2 BP / Turn.

... not such a low value again...

In quite a few Navalism versions I had ~12 BPs to work with. For once I would like to have a bit more than that to play with (something in the 15-20 BP range). Also 12 BP/HY might be fine to give you that kind of a fleet but it does not take the non-naval stuff into account.

Walter, I think if you look back, you'll find that I'm advocating 12-13BP as the absolute minimum for any player country, not a suggested starting amount.
In N6,  China, Japan, Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, and Spain and Sweden (repeatedly offered as PC) all started under 12.2 BP.  For that matter, my Bavaria in N2(?) had less. Meanwhile I did turns for several Wesworld nations with effectively less.

As for the "extra", what exactly is going to happen with Land and Air forces, and how much they cost is not yet even established, so it's a bit hard to make starting BP minimum projections.

I would suggest the starter nations have more than 13BP, probably at least 2- 3x  that, and that add-on nations of new players start at least with 13BP.

[Darman]

My understanding of at least one proposal that has been hinted at is that everyone will get a starting budget, and you will be able to determine your own IC, BP, and pop (for a price), in addition to ports and other naval infrastructure, as well as armies, fortresses, and aviation. 
I could be wrong though. 

[The Rock Doctor]

Sorry for flaming out, guys.  2016 was pretty tough, and in some respects - workload, certainly - 2017 isn't likely to be better.  So I don't know whether or not I'm back.

From a gaming perspective, since you're talking about adjustments, I'd agree with points already made:

-Early halts due to rules changes and wars killed momentum.

-Building at the very end of the pre-Dreadnought era was a bummer; I knew everything I was laying down was going to be horridly outclassed by stuff built just three or four years later.

-Not enough players to sustain things in its current form.

-Tech tree is good, but it was REALLY crowded in the 1904-1914 period and ought to focus on tech breakthroughs, rather than incremental improvements.

-Economic rules and provisions for armies/aircraft are positive things; they quantify other important elements of the sim.

-I did enjoy the nation-building/colonization elements of the sim.

-I agree with Kirk that higher BP is a good thing; realistic or not, the initial draw of the sim is to build ships, so being able to build more is ideal.

If you're resetting with fewer nations, I would suggest that a VERY HIGH LEVEL world history be constructed so there's a bit of context for international relations.

[snip]

Rocky, know you are always welcome around here in whatever capacity you care to be. I would like to pick your brain on a couple of these points.

-Early halts due to rules changes and wars killed momentum.

I will take my share of the blame for that.

-Building at the very end of the pre-Dreadnought era was a bummer; I knew everything I was laying down was going to be horridly outclassed by stuff built just three or four years later.

Personally, do you feel its a better solution to go back further (1890 or earlier) or jump into the early Dreadnaught era (1910ish)?

-Tech tree is good, but it was REALLY crowded in the 1904-1914 period and ought to focus on tech breakthroughs, rather than incremental improvements.

Been focusing on combining techs (eg, the aircraft tech now also covers the countermeasures as well) to cut down on how much there is. Would you consider the various Architecture techs places that need to be looked at in this regard?

-Economic rules and provisions for armies/aircraft are positive things; they quantify other important elements of the sim.

Yep, tho I have my disagreements with the hows of their implementation. Do you feel its important for the system to define absolute values or would a more abstract view of non-naval stuff still cover this?

[snip]

Ok, new month so figure you guys deserve an update as to how things are going. Again, many thanks to Walter for putting up with me and my hairbrained ideas for this long. I've also invited Darman to look at the documents for this stage, to catch things that Walter and I missed or beat each other into bad agreements on.

--We are making good progress on a full review of the ruleset. We have cleared up a lot of things and made some changes. These changes range from things that should be universally liked to things I know at least one of you is going to take a frying pan to my head for. Our current task in addition to resolving existing comments is going over all the numbers.

--The Tech Tree is getting some major adjustments. Lots of combinations to cut down on the sort of tiny standalone techs that make the tree look very unkept.

--I'm going to be prepping a document detailing how the nationbuilding process will work. This will undergo the same comment review as the Rule and Tech, but since its new work and not a major refit of an existing document we should be able to get through it faster.

--Also, I plan on conducting some High-Level worldbuilding as per Rocky's suggestion to give you guys an idea of my intended diplomatic frame here. This will get a brief review before going out the door.

In an ideal world, this is what I envision for you guys getting your hands on the rules.
--Once we get done with the numbers focused review, I think that is the point I will turn them over for public comment. What will be up for major tweaking will be limited in order to prevent a complete and total rewrite, but I do want to give you guys an opportunity to break things.
--At the same time, or shortly after, I will kick the nationbuilding stuff out to you guys for comment and allowing you to begin planning.
--After both of these periods of comment, we will give the documents one last revision run. The final versions will then be published. Time permitting, I may hand them off to a 3rd party editor to clean them up.
--Whenever it ends up being ready, the World Document will be published. Since it's intended to be a high-level thing, it's not something I intend for there to be lots of public comment on before it becomes official. Please feel free to do some lore stuff on your own in the meantime, just be ready to tweak it to fit underneath what gets published.

Any questions/comments?

[Jefgte]

I do not participate in the elaboration of the rules because I do not understand all the subtlety of English.
Thank you for your work and your time.

Jef  ;)

[olekit24]

Snip, no any questions for now. Except lot of unclear details ) But in general it is okay )

[Kaiser Kirk]

Thank you for the update

[snip]

Question for the house. At what point do you want to see a Report Spreadsheet come out along that timeline?

[The Rock Doctor]

Rocky, know you are always welcome around here in whatever capacity you care to be. I would like to pick your brain on a couple of these points.

-Early halts due to rules changes and wars killed momentum.

I will take my share of the blame for that.

-Building at the very end of the pre-Dreadnought era was a bummer; I knew everything I was laying down was going to be horridly outclassed by stuff built just three or four years later.

Personally, do you feel its a better solution to go back further (1890 or earlier) or jump into the early Dreadnaught era (1910ish)?

-Tech tree is good, but it was REALLY crowded in the 1904-1914 period and ought to focus on tech breakthroughs, rather than incremental improvements.

Been focusing on combining techs (eg, the aircraft tech now also covers the countermeasures as well) to cut down on how much there is. Would you consider the various Architecture techs places that need to be looked at in this regard?

-Economic rules and provisions for armies/aircraft are positive things; they quantify other important elements of the sim.

Yep, tho I have my disagreements with the hows of their implementation. Do you feel its important for the system to define absolute values or would a more abstract view of non-naval stuff still cover this?

My personal bias is towards post-Dreadnought; one will build some pre-dreads as part of the nation-building, but can focus on modern stuff.  I suppose going ten or fifteen years pre-Dreadnought has the effect of leaving turbine-driven all-big-gun ships far enough out in the future that one doesn't really care so much about it.

For land tech, I'd do away with specialty stuff like siege artillery and armored trains.  Maybe reduce the number of types of coastal artillery.

At sea, I'd:

-Get rid of a few categories of torpedoes; reduce it to just 18"/21"/24" and lump the electric propulsion in with one of them.

-Turbines:  When you have them, you have them.  Engine year is the year you lay down the ship.  Total plausible power output is captured in machinery weight by SS, so ship speed is constrained and becomes a value judgement for players looking at highish speeds.

-Merge naval artillery and the armor-piercing stuff so it's just a little more generic "naval artillery".  Maybe one or two less categories of it - up to 12", 12.1 to 15", 15.1 to 18".

-Merge Fire Control into the capital ship architecture category. 

-Armor plate.  It's relevant, but also a complete pain in the butt to track.

I thought land/air unit detail was a good balance of detail and playability, although I'd rejig unit sizes.  25,000 divisions are just too big and clumsy.  Make the core unit a division of 15,000 or 16,000.  It divides into brigades, and people can arbitrarily lump them into corps or armies as they wish.

[Jefgte]

...Turbines:  When you have them, you have them.  Engine year is the year you lay down the ship...

For this point, I agree totaly with Rocky.

Jef