The Way Forward

[snip]

All,

I know communication from me has been light nonexistent for a while now. I can trot out excuses/reasons, but I respect your time. Long story short I've been dealing with a loss of motivation for most "fun" things for a while now. I should have said something sooner and for that, I can only ask forgiveness. To have some movement on that front, Kirk has volunteered to help a little bit here and there. I'm grateful for the offer of help and once he and I have a chance to iron out some details we will communicate on what things will look like going forward. I think that not having a single point of failure trying to breathe life back into the game is good, and will help things be more consistent.

On the subject of moving forward; there are a few things we as a community need to address. Questions below, which I have attempted to provide my answers to. I would like answers from all active members of the forum at this point in time. I'm asking these questions so I have a better understanding of where the group is at so we can make any necessary adjustments as we get things rolling again.

What is it that you personally want out of a Navalism-like game/sim?

What really drew me into Navalism (and eventually Wesworld) way back in 2010 was the shared universe that stories were told in. The tales of some of the old wars and such were wonderful to read and being able to take part in some of them near the end of N3 was wonderful. Telling stories has always been something I have enjoyed, but I was really held back from doing that in writing for a long time. In case you haven't noticed in 9 years, I can't spell for shit. This is not exactly a confidence booster when it comes to telling stories. The tail end of N3 was the first time I got over that and put stuff out there. Throw in the naval design aspect and I was hooked for all the positive reasons. When N3 fizzled out, I really wanted to have that sort of outlet again. I still want that, and its the most important aspect of a revitalized Navalism for me.

Do you feel the current state of the rules work for or against what you want out of Navalism?

Little bias here because I worked the rules into there current state. I think the rule help more than hinder what I want. They form the structure around which the interaction between us as players takes place. I think there is room for some adjustments having done some reports, but nothing that warrants urgent intervention.

If I had to pick one thing to tweek, it would be the colony rules. I think the landgrab idea has not worked well and has bogged things down a lot. Ulitmently that's on me.

What do you feel is an appropriate pace for the sim?

I think that one report every 4 weeks is about the right cadence. That provides some flexibility while not being to strung out.

Do you feel the backstory of the current universe is in a good place?

I feel worse about this than I did at the start of the game. I did want to leave some flexibility for each player at the time to mold what they wanted out of the constraints of the map, but that has come at the cost of lots of people having different ideas about why some things are the way they are. I would manage this different from a GM seat if I could go back and do so.

I look forward to your responses so we can get this ship righted together.

[The Rock Doctor]

Thanks for posting this, snip.

What is it that you personally want out of a Navalism-like game/sim?

What really drew me into Navalism (and eventually Wesworld) way back in 2010 was the shared universe that stories were told in. The tales of some of the old wars and such were wonderful to read and being able to take part in some of them near the end of N3 was wonderful. Telling stories has always been something I have enjoyed, but I was really held back from doing that in writing for a long time. In case you haven't noticed in 9 years, I can't spell for shit. This is not exactly a confidence booster when it comes to telling stories. The tail end of N3 was the first time I got over that and put stuff out there. Throw in the naval design aspect and I was hooked for all the positive reasons. When N3 fizzled out, I really wanted to have that sort of outlet again. I still want that, and its the most important aspect of a revitalized Navalism for me.

First, never let your spelling hold you back here.  Nobody's going to judge you for that. 

My primary interest here is in creating and building the nation as an entity; this makes the colonial stuff, economic development and infrastructure development as the primary interest and the shipbuilding and R&D as means to an end.

Do you feel the current state of the rules work for or against what you want out of Navalism?

I think the Tech rules remain too widespread and consequently too restrictive.  They draw away too many resources for generic research and require too much pre-planning.

I would prefer to see a guideline of when technical changes can be introduced at no cost, with a rule governing how much research money you'd need to invest if you want to get ahead of that date for any one specific tech.

The colonial rules are okay, but in retrospect, we might've want to limit how far we could jump or how many areas we could grab at a time.

What do you feel is an appropriate pace for the sim?

One half-year a month, beginning at the beginning of the month.  This will be easy to keep track of.

Do you feel the backstory of the current universe is in a good place?

It's good enough for the actual player nations.  Working out relations between the various NPCs will be an ungodly mess and is best left at a very general scale. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

What is it that you personally want out of a Navalism-like game/sim?

The first part is I like the backdrop to develop a navy against parameters created by the players and the world.
As the Dutch, Bavarians, Italians and Parthians, the needs of the fleet and it's appearance have each changed in response to the geographic and political situation.
The Dutch needed huge ranges on their capital ships, and built a ton of powerful escort vessels. The Bavarians needed neither.  The Parthians have a very specific 2 part warplan, and are building to follow that.

The second part is I like to tell the story, explore a different ruling concept, put together some characters.
I'm still grasping with that in Navalism, I miss my Wesworld Dutch who were well fleshed out, but I expect to get there.
Parthia nearly a from scratch nation, which makes it a little harder, and why I have unposted scraps of this and that. Still it's intriguingly different. A hydraulic empire with a technocratic bureaucracy, the possibility of no/limited slaves and (semi?)equality of genders in historical Persia - Sassanids, at the crossroads of the Byzantine/Indian/Chinese trade routes and cultures. An ancient glorious civilization up until about 1216...when the mongols depopulated large parts and centuries of Turkish nomadic tribes migrated in.

The third is I'd really like to have some battles. Mod'd or unmodded. I liked describing the Bavarian advance.
I'd like to see my ships in battle. I have a feeling I'd whine about misunderstandings on how they'd be used, but I'd try to avoid being that guy.

Do you feel the current state of the rules work for or against what you want out of Navalism?

The Rules in Navalism were a strong attractant from Wesworld.
I saw to many tech and productivity based arguments.  From folks like Red Admiral magically having bleeding edge limited use tech be magically fully functional and common, to folks laying no backstory and then suddenly producing huge numbers of a world leading tech, to players berating some of the minor players that they weren't allowed to produce some piece of kit due to ill-defined resource rules, and completely weird diplomatic changes with new players.

This made the Tech rules and the Production rules of Navalism very attractive- we'd all be on a common playground, and all agree on the rules. That has proven correct.

Overall, this current set of rules fall short in some areas for me.
I'd like more detail and complexity, but I realize that's not for everyone. The choice Snip made to KISS the system is a defensible one, and so I decided what ever the set up results were, I'd back that play. Which I think I have.

IF I was going to change something...
I'd really like a simple strategic resource system to ensure there was need for colonies, and preserving those trade routes.
I'd like the transport unit thing to be..different.  It is nonsensical to me that to march a land unit North to the Golden Horde takes the same resources as to sail it around the world to put down in Jamaica.

I'd like to see 5$ 4-engine, $3 2-engine, $1 1-engine Air Units as "Air Wings".    Players can define as bomber/reconn/fighter etc.  The prices are still way off, but If we wanted more realism we'd have to jigger prices, then our economy so that part is probably not doable. 

I'd like the "Land Units" defined better. N3s breakdowns were fine, but I liked KWorld's system, and would have preferred if a "Land Unit" was a predefined KWorld "Standard" which then folks could customize if they wanted. These "Feel" like they are Corps...but it's been emphatically declared they are amorphous.

Addendum Peeking at Rocky's.
Frankly the Tech rules have confused me, and I've had trouble with them. I dunno why, I think there were draft->final changes I may have skipped. I know I got bolluxed up in pregame over the dates.

Due to the Wesworld experience, I am absolutely convinced they are needed in some form.
I liked the random bit of N3 rolling. I get the mod burden.
But I also think having the "knowledge" a tech is just around the corner distorts things as player wait for it.

I think what might work is for the current chart to be left in place and published as a guide, but the mod(s) secretly roll for each tech in advance and just post each HY which techs are now available for the next HY.
Overall I'd like to see the rate of advancement slowed and stretched a little, so we having something a little different than the real world.
Research would then become a blind investment in a number of categories trying to get the techs slightly early.

On colonies
I for some reason thought everyone would choose to expand in little leaps, probably governed by steaming range of 4,000nm.
I thought grabbing a beachhead and slowly expanding out would be the chosen course.
I thought having a large number of support units would serve me in good stead.
I printed a map of N7 and plotted out a multi-part colonization plan, based on harbors, strategic points, arable land and resources.

I didn't discuss any of my presumptions with anyone.
I found others were following other presumptions.
So I just went and claimed my end goals.

Was this perfect? No.
We're in 1911, we really haven't advanced that far.
I like what I wound up with, because it fits my strategic vision, but there's room to talk , or start back at 1910.

What do you feel is an appropriate pace for the sim?

I think a turn every two weeks is too fast.
I think a turn a month is mostly doable.  I will have some troubles meeting that a couple times a year due to work commitments. I can try to plan ahead.
I think a turn every 2 months is acceptable.
I think slower than that...starves us of material. To slow, it dies.

So I think either Turn/Mo or Turn/2 Mo is reasonable.
One is 6 game years / real year.    The other is 3 game years / real year.


I think some agreement on the results of skipping a turn needs to agreed.
Something simple like - you have until the next turn is due to get the prior on in.
If a turn is not submitted, it is presumed all construction (navy/air/land) continues at the same pace. New units of the same class will be laid down if the existing vessel is completed.
Extra BP/IC is banked. You can't bank more than 1 turn.

Do you feel the backstory of the current universe is in a good place?

I love history, particularly military history. AND I like digging into obscure details.
BUT
I realize that's not needed, nor does everyone enjoy that, and creates a barrier to both entry and to flexibility.

Currently for NPCs, we have basically blank canvas with a name plate. They may as well be "Don't go here unless you want a small fight"
That is not quite enough. But rather than a full complex portrait of the NPCs and the world, I think we need a sketch of what is there.
Folks can then color them in as needed.

Overall,  Changing things so everything went as historical, with our states in the place of the historic ones, and some defined changes - I think that works. I love history, but we don't have to define every little bit.  Fox and I went back and forth abit about the slave trade, because while repugnant to modern sensibilities, it was a major demographic event.

I think formalizing a little bit what the blank spaces mean should be done.  My take is the blank spaces represent small independent kingdoms/state/tribes.  They have no critical links to NPCs or PC nations. They range in technology from 1848 (coastal) and middle ages (interior). In some cases they are remnants of historical empires or confederations...which have collapsed. Small independent trading posts scattered along maritime and land trade routes facilitate some trade and contact. I think everyone is roughly ok with that, but it discussed &U modified/written down for posterity.

I think very loose descriptors of who the NPCs are, and what their interests are would be useful, and make it a little more vibrant.
We don't have the will/energy to fully flesh them out or make them active participants via moderator control.   
I'd like to make them a low-maintenance part of the game where Players and Guests can provide designs to meet the individual needs of the NPCs.
If say the Maya make a horde of torpedo boats, then PCs should know that and consider appropriate colonial guardships.

[Jefgte]

What is it what you personally want out of a Navalism-like game / sim?

I like Navalism since 12 years.
I have great memories of N3 (I played Peru)
I'm still struggling with the French / English translations and I think you should have a good laugh behind your screens when your'reading my stories... but I'm a battleship lover and SpringSharp is a treat and allows me original designs.
Bringing them to life by completing missions is exciting.
I have the film of my battles in my head ... (I imagine poor D58 at Majunga Battle ...)
But, I think my stories (battles) are too long and slow down my HY report.

Do you feel the current state of the rules work for or against what you want out of Navalism?

I regret that the rules are sometimes an obstacle to innovation (BB / AC / CL)
If the engineers knew how to produce T2x305 in 1895, they could make all T2 of smaller caliber.
However, I am adapting to the rules of the game.

What do you feel is an appropriate pace for the sim?

A report should include the full year (resources x2) to save time and move faster. In this case, advancing one report every 5 to 6 weeks seems correct to me.
In the event of war, the advance will be slower, of course.

Do you feel the backstory of the current universe is in a good place?

It would be good to create the navy of secondary nations, to flesh out the game.
These neutral Nations would have the same tech as the country / player.
If other players arrived, these nations could come to life.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Side comment :
1) Spelling - don't worry Snip, right there with you. Spellcheck, and underlined misspelled words are my friend. Right click on the misspelling, and pick the correct word.

2) French/Dutch/Other ->English :  Jefgte, you do very well in English. Walter's great. Meanwhile my ability to communicate in any language but English is near nil.  I have some shreds of German, that's it.  If anything, it's embarrassing how limited I am compared to the various Europeans that post. 

I do try to avoid or minimize slang, and idioms, as I understand those are frequently problematic. Let me know how else I can help with my one language.

3) I don't have a 3...

[Desertfox]

English is also my second language and I'm an engineer, so writing and grammar are definitely not my strong suits. 

What is it that you personally want out of a Navalism-like game/sim?

To have fun and try out new things. I love alternate history, what-ifs, and never-built designs. Love challenges, whether they are fighting half the world in N-verse 2.0 or building a respectable navy with extremely limited resources.

What do you feel is an appropriate pace for the sim?

I don't mind a slow pace, but I do feel a brisker one can help keep people engaged.

Do you feel the backstory of the current universe is in a good place?

I feel its a good backbone, that still leaves space for some flexibility with the NPCs.

Do you feel the current state of the rules work for or against what you want out of Navalism?

No one will ever be quite happy with the rules, but that's what makes a good compromise. I feel like some of the research rules can be simplified, but I don't have any major issues with the rules as they are. 

I would prefer to see a guideline of when technical changes can be introduced at no cost, with a rule governing how much research money you'd need to invest if you want to get ahead of that date for any one specific tech.

I like this idea. Basically "free research" if you dont want to deal with R&D, but you have the option of "getting ahead" if you so desire.

The colonial rules are okay, but in retrospect, we might've want to limit how far we could jump or how many areas we could grab at a time.

How about you can expand one province for "free" from a current colony every report, but if you want to expand further there is a failure roll? (75% success for 2nd province, 50% 3rd province, etc...)

The third is I'd really like to have some battles. Mod'd or unmodded. I liked describing the Bavarian advance.
I'd like to see my ships in battle. I have a feeling I'd whine about misunderstandings on how they'd be used, but I'd try to avoid being that guy.

I wouldn't mind some battles either... If I can take over the Aztecs, I'm sure we could come up with scripted or unscripted battles, I do have quite a bit of experience with both...

[snip]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I really appreciate it. I wanted to share some thoughts on technology and the feedback so far on it while presenting a couple of proposals for your consideration.

First, I'm glad the feeling seems to be that there needs to be tech of some sort. I agree with this a lot, as I think in a lot of ways it will help bring a carved-in-stone answer to disputes. Second, I'm really opposed to random rolling, ether on a global or national level. While the randomness is in some ways more realistic, I think it creates an issue with the sim as a game. If the randomness is on a national level, then the game can only move forward as fast as its slowest player (plus GM time). Ultimately, this makes it harder to also catch nations up, which we will have to do with NPCs. If the randomness is on a sim level, it takes away player control which I don't think is the right move when we want player engagement between just posting reports. While the system we have now does have its flaws, I feel the concept has a well-developed history of functionality and engagement that I do not want to move away from. Rather the devil we know then the one we do not.

That said, I do agree there are a few "filler" techs within the current list that could be folded into existing categories to hopefully clean up the list a little bit and add some flexibility due to a reduced number of techs overall. The proposals are below.

Proposal 1: Fold the Night Fighting and Remote Sensing Devices into the Rangefinding, Fire Control, and Gunnery tech. I think these two categories are both things we want to track, but I think the benefits are not outweighed by the cost of keeping them separate. The new R,FC,G proposal, renamed to Target Aquisition and Fire Control is below.

Target Aquisition and Fire Control:
Baseline: 2km effective fire control range. Local control of individual guns. Limited non-rangefinding magnification equipment for main batteries. Iron sight aiming. All ships equipped w/o misc weight allocation. Mk1 Eyeball with limited optical enhancement (eg Binoculars). Standard searchlights in regular mountings.
1905: 6km effective fire control range. Continuous Aim Systems. Short-base rangefinders. Dedicated Spotting infrastructure. Primitive centralization. Early Huelsmeyer-type "radar", listening dishes, War tuba's.
1908: 10km effective fire control range. Centralized FC, early directors. Specialised nighttime acquisition Searchlight mounts, night scopes.
1912: 14km effective fire control range. Primitive FC computers. Starshells, Improved tactics
1918: 24km effective fire control range. Spotting planes, Central director stations, long base-length RF. Refined Huelsmeyer-type "radar". Illuminating shells with parachute, improved night scopes.
1930: 30km effective fire control range. Electromechanical FC computers. Primitive search RADAR

Proposal 2: Fold Mine Warfare into Torpedos. As with proposal 1, a simplification via merger so capabilities are still developed without the overhead of a full tech.

Torpedo, Mine & Countermeasure Technologies:
Baseline: Spar mounted Torpedo, Primitive Self-Propelled Torpedoes with improvised warheads. Hand detonated mines.
1890: Early Self-Propelled Torpedoes with Compressed Air engines. Primitive warheads. Early contact fuses. Primitive Horn Mines.
1899: Early Wet Heater engines Early warheads. Reliable Horn mines. Primitive paravanes and dragged booms behind small vessels.
1905: Improved Wet Heater engines. Improved fuses
1908: Improved warheads. Early antenna mines. Advanced paravanes, active charges.
1913: Advanced Wet Heater engines
1918: Advanced warheads. Advanced contact fuses. Reliable antenna mines.
1922: Unreliable magnetic mines & countermeasures.
1928: Early Oxygen Torpedoes. Primitive magnetic firing pistols.
1935: Improved Oxygen Torpedoes. Early magnetic firing pistols.
1940: Advanced Oxygen Torpedoes. Improved Magnetic firing pistols. Primitive programmable paths.
1945: Advanced magnetic firing pistols. Early programmable paths. Primitive remote guidance methods.

Proposal 3: Merge the Army Unit and Artillery Unit techs. With these techs serving as multipliers rather than capability definers, I don't see a real need to keep these separated.

Proposal 4: Fold Amphibious Tech into Logistics. Same logic as the first proposals.

Logistics:
Baseline: Horsedrawn limbers, covered waggons, foraging. Use of rail networks. Lifeboats and the use of enemy harbors.
1900: Improved coordination. Experimental use of motorised equipment. Shallow draft barges and shallow draft support ships.
1910: Motorized Headquarters and communication units. Purpase built small landing craft
1920: Motorized logistics trains. Landing support ships and landing craft carriers. Primitive amphibious vehicles.
1930: Small-scale battlefield transport. Artificial harbors. Early amphibious vehicles.
1940: Large-scale battlefield transport. Improved amphibious vehicles.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

[Kaiser Kirk]

1.  Works well enough.   Two considerations : Ships could have good fire control and bad nightfighting ability (Italians) or Great nightfighting, but no Radar (Japanese).
There's also an old issue- a weird caveat though, from ...I think it's 18km-24km, you can't see the opposing ships hull, just the masts, so shell splashes are not very effecting, and the spotting aircraft of the 1918 tech are somewhat required. Even then, I'm not sure it was as fully effective.

2. I am torn. They are very different things.  But I don't like having to invest in mine research as a separate category anyhow. Mines are very effective and yet boring.

3. As long as we have "Land units", I don't see why not. 

4. Don't like this one. Wheeled transport and specialized amphibious craft are two very very different things.  The question of if you can effectively move, land and support troops overseas without good harbors and ports is an important one.

[The Rock Doctor]

To my thinking, the torpedo tech is much more expansive than it needs to be.  We have no means to quantify improved warheads or wet heater propulsion in our SS designs, and no combat rules to apply either, so what we regulate through tech rules should be limited to quantifiable design elements and breakthroughs.

I'd be more inclined to limit the "Underwater Weapons" to:

~1900:  Horned mines and paravanes
~19xx:  Max 18" torpedoes
~19xy:  Max 21" torpedoes
~19xz:  Max 24" torpedoes

If the sim goes long enough, we could add reliable magnetic mines and reliable oxygen-fueled torpedoes.

I'd simply dispense with the artillery table altogether since we don't have artillery units.  I'm not sure the logistics table does us much good either, given how simplified the land units are right now, but I do agree with Kirk that logistics and amphibs are different critters.

Nightfighting is more of a doctrinal thing than a hardware thing, I'd be inclined to just ditch it as a tech.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Nightfighting is more of a doctrinal thing than a hardware thing, I'd be inclined to just ditch it as a tech.

Actually that's also a question - how does one sim searchlight towers? Are they just part of miscellaneous fittings?
Or the IJN's 70mm binoculars for night vision?


As for combat, If I wind up modding one, I was planning on using Seekrieg as a basis.  I've got it somewhere and have used it for small combats.
Using Logi's ballistics tool to sim N7 guns vs armor, and then figuring out some way to incorporate our fire control tech- probably by making that range the one where 10% hits are made on a battleship sized target.  I'd probably try to figure a logical way of where on the hull the shell impacted as well, so our choices on belts/decks could be better shown.
That's just geometry, and I should be able to figure out an easy way to apply it. 
But right now I'm kinda busy, so I seriously hope that's not needed until March at the earliest :)

[snip]

To my thinking, the torpedo tech is much more expansive than it needs to be.  We have no means to quantify improved warheads or wet heater propulsion in our SS designs, and no combat rules to apply either, so what we regulate through tech rules should be limited to quantifiable design elements and breakthroughs.

I'd be more inclined to limit the "Underwater Weapons" to:

~1900:  Horned mines and paravanes
~19xx:  Max 18" torpedoes
~19xy:  Max 21" torpedoes
~19xz:  Max 24" torpedoes

If the sim goes long enough, we could add reliable magnetic mines and reliable oxygen-fueled torpedoes.

I think thats a little light, but I agree some fusing and such could be done with that tech to reduce levels and quantify things. I'm hesitant to forgo descriptors entirely as I do want to capture torpedo development as a whole, not just max sizes. Based off the NavWeps pages for Pre-WWII torps, tracking size only really leaves a lot of development in the eather. Let me take a whack at reforming it.

[The Rock Doctor]

No worries.  I'm kind of thinking we shouldn't have techs of a specific "tree" less than five years apart except for exceptional circumstances. 

Speaking to a point Kirk raised - yeah, we could spread some of the tech out a bit.  We haven't got WW1 accelerating tech in the 1914-18 period. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

Update :

1) Next Turn
My intent is to start the 'Assistant Mod' duties at the end of the month.
My goal is to help things along.  I view it as important for one person to have final say, and that will remain as Snip.

Parthia's expansion is mostly done, so I won't have conflicts of interest and y'all can move forward.
I will expect desired expansions by the 1st.  I have a wedding to attend the next day, and the Stupor Bowl.
I'm going to have to figure out how long to process them and resolve.
For now I'm saying ASAP.  Probably the next free evening.

2) Players
With Darman back
Snip and I were talking to Foxy about working him in.

I will take expansion requests from both of them, and we can worry about their #land units and support later. I think the most important will to get folks up and running.

Background
Snip and I have put together a better idea of the relative strengths of the various NPCs.  Some, like the Golden Horde, are unbalanced and much stronger in one than the other- for the Horde it's Land over Sea.

That gives us a better basis to fill in that without overkill or binding things up.

I've had the trial Rajasthan synopsis up for a week and a half, no objections
I've got Deccan and Laksmanavati in progress and Foxy has the Aztec and is working on Berbers.

The Aztec have, to me, been a problem.
An important NPC with human sacrifice, and the various PC nations trying to reconcile that with whatever form of Christianity most have specified...and the Zorastorians wouldn't like them either.

The major addition  in that is making the legendary Mali expedition to the New World a reality. This introduced the Muslim religion to the Aztecs.
As a metagame thing, when Foxy suggested it, I thought it was a good solution. This also gave a venue to introduce a modified version of the triangle trade, so the Caribbean can be either like the Original Time Line (if one of the islands with plantations and slaves) or N7 untouched. Sugar crashed with the cultivation in it's homeland...india...in the early 1800s, and so the model of small holdings and free traders the grey areas on the map represent holds true...but there's also a background reason for some infrastructure. 
So that should allow the PCs as much latitude as they wish for their islands.

That's mainly a background historical change.
I don't expect anything else as major, just mainly 'color' .

So we should have the 'slightly more fleshed out' part done.

3 Snip was also dealing with this thread.
He's the one that should tackle tech tree changes.
Changes to such things as tech trees can be done moving forward.

Colonies
I think there should probably be a bit of a quick discussion on colonies.
That expansion did not quite go as folks expected.

Snip and I haven't discussed this specifically, this is more an attempt for us to consider options as a group.

I do not see a point to backpedaling to 1910 and then redoing the same turns and building the same ships.
Does anyone else ?

However, our colonial acquisitions are just starting to take form. There is little invested so far.
We could reset just those and rapidly redo just the expansion aspects.

How?

A) We'd need some ground rules to prevent the giant leaps and land grabs.
Example : We could limit steaming distance to 4,000nm (or another number)
Example : We could specify that on the initial landing turn, only 1 coastal provinces per region could be taken.
Example : We could specify that no more than 5 (or another number) contiguous coastal provinces could be taken, with the next closest being the same number away.  This would prevent entire coastal strips vanishing.
Example : We could limit expansion from there - only expand to provinces touching ones held, or perhaps expand up to 2 provinces adjacent. This would slow giant land grabs and allow others to contest.

B) We could also say that in HY1/ 1910 everyone got 8 provinces overseas as their starter, and then we started the above rules (or variants) Why 8? Because then Jefgte can take Mozambique and his story stays intact :)

C) Something else entirely. 
This part of the thread is about brainstorming and 'moving forward'. 
Are colonies something to correct?
If so, we should do it sooner rather than later.
I tend to come up with overly complex solutions...for example I have a map of natural harbors of the world I made, that at one point I wanted to tie folks too.
So let's get other folks to come up with more elegant solutions.

What did I miss
I dunno, tell me.

[The Rock Doctor]

1)  Thanks for taking on the co-mod function.

2)  So many old ships we could sell Foxy if he were to play...

3)  Background is good, but I don't feel I need huge amounts of it.  I will watch and comment where I see something though.

Tech Trees:  Yes, they can be adjusted going forward.

Colonies: Well, it was a learning experience, certainly.

I think our colonization goals have been distorted a bit by the absence of a need/want to grab actual historical resources.  Spice islands?  Meh.  Sugar?  Eh.  Oil?  Well, maybe.  Mostly I think we - and that's mainly you and to a lesser degree me - grabbing trade routes.  Most of what's left seems to be about big settler colony opportunities.  The historical drivers to nibble up Africa for cocoa, coffee, and all that just aren't there.

It's a bit tough to pin down specific rules given the size variation of the individual provinces.  Walter's northern holdings are huge in surface area terms, while mine are tiny because they're, I guess, nicer real estate.  Rules limiting X contiguous or coastal states limits physical growth in prime territory more than in iffy territory.  But half of Greenland still has the same economic potential as a county in Virginia so in a sense I'm benefitting from having a smaller area of productivity that has to be defended.

Distance might've been something to consider, but Parthia's the only one really showing an interest in truly spanning the globe.  Walter, Snip and I have stuck to the Americas, and almost exclusively the eastern coast at that, and Jef's mostly stuck to eastern Africa.  Guinness had started Iberia toward the East but I don't know if that's going to stick or not.  I've contemplated moving across the Pacific but I just can't see how I'd be able to defend it or afford to invest in those places given my likely need to pay for a canal.

On the whole, I'm not dis-satisfied with what I've grabbed and don't see value in a full reboot.  Maybe there'd be value in an in-character "Conference on the Ericas" that would allow us to identify areas of interest without feeling like we had to furiously grab them all right away.

If we were to retcon one thing, and I know you're tired of me saying canals, it'd be to extend or create an NPC into the isthmus, and have a canal there, either underway or open.  We - especially the European powers - would have much more interest and opportunity to head into the Pacific if that were a thing.  I'd be happy to cede some of the turf I've grabbed in that area and just grab territory elsewhere instead to make it happen.  Heck, I'll trade in a starting BP or two to contribute to pre-game construction efforts.

[Desertfox]

I have a few of ideas on colonies and concessions.

1) Have a set number of "free" provinces per turn (lets say 5 for arguments sake). So each turn you can colonize 5 provinces without problems. You can go over 5, but the next group of 5 (6-10) require 2 army units (instead of 1) and only have a 75% chance of success*, the next 5 (so 11-15) would require 3 army units and have a 50% chance of success*, and so on... This still gives you the ability to expand but also introduces some randomness and potential for more stories (say lost battles, or army units overwhelmed by disease).

*Failure in this case could mean one does not get the province and one of the army units drops to 50% strength

2) Give NPCs, at least the larger ones, the ability to also obtain colonies. Maybe limiting them to only 1 province a turn with any player having veto power. This would keep them as viable options for players down the road and make things interesting.

3) Concessions right now require military force, how about also allowing players to obtain concessions thru bribery and diplomacy? Maybe not a full province but at least basing rights and port cities? If a player drops a big enough bribe (according to the mods) they can obtain basing rights?


On canals. The Mayans already control Nicaragua which is arguably the easier canal route. Maybe they have built that canal already? It could be size limited so the incentive to make it larger or build the Panama Canal is still there?