Combat Blurb to follow.
Army Units have the following characteristics:
Combat Rating: The ability of the unit to do damaged expressed in decimal numbers, EG 2.2
Unit Strength: A corps has 100%, a division 50%, a brigade 10% and a fortress citadel count as 5%. If a unit has taken damage round unit to the nearest fraction 74% intact Corps would count as a division for example. In gross terms this represents the amount of manpower in a given unit.
Unit Morale: Represents the confidence and willingness to fight of a unit. Reserves have 2.0 moral, Conscripts 3.0, Regulars, 4.0 and fortress troops 5.0 base morale.
Unit Speed: Infantry Corps can move 3 provinces a month while Cavalry can move 5 provinces a month. Specialist light infantry can ignore movement penalties when moving through their terrain type.
Unit Quality: There are three unit types available, Regular, Conscript and Reserve. Regular units are at full war strength all the time and can fight at moment's notice. Conscript and reserve units have half or all of their unit strength made up of reservists that are only available in time of war. It takes time to mobilize conscript and reserve units; exactly how long is a function of your Research Establishment.
Subject to Moderator approval a unit may receive Elite and or Veteran rating; said unit will receive a bonus to its combat rating and it its moral.
As in N3 the base unit of the game is the Army Corps. A formation of 50,000 men for infantry and 15,000 for Cavalry. Divisions have 25,000 and 7,500 men. While Brigade are 5,000 and 1,500 men. A citadel is 2,500 men. Smaller units are less effective in combat and receive a size penalty, see the combat chart for specific value.
In peace time a nation can keep no more than 3% of its manpower under arms, the percentage possible increases as new technologies become available through your Army Establishment Research.
As in N3 there are three types of Army Units. General Infantry, Cavalry and Specialist Light Infantry. The specialist light infantry have special movement capabilities in certain type of terrain; mountain, jungle, desert and amphibious. Light Infantry use the Cavalry Charts for their Unit Strength. At start of the game there will be NO amphibious light infantry to start. You may have units called marines or naval infantry if you wish but they have no special abilities. Once your army and naval research establishment reaches the correct level the Marine Light Infantry unit will be introduced.
The cost to build and maintain army units can be found on the following two tables.
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2750/armyv2.png
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1430/fortv2.png
If you wish to upgrade an army unit from one date level to the next you just pay the difference between the two. The time to build or train a new unit is 3 months and the units then counted as reserve in terms of quality. After another 3 months the unit will move up to reserve and then after a final 6 months to regular. Reserve or Conscript units on active duty would move up in quality the same way if on active duty. The number of units a nation can have in reserve status is a function of their Army Establishment. To achieve Elite and or Veteran status takes two years and has special conditions, in particular Moderator approval.
If a player wishes to they may choose to build equipment and just have sit in a warehouse as an equipment stockpile. It costs nothing and there are no troops attached to it. As a result to active an equipment stockpile will take at least 3 months and then you have a formation of reserve quality. There is no cost in activating stockpile unit beyond having to pay its upkeep; amount will be prorated for the year.
Digging In: It takes a land unit 3 movements to completely digging in. One movement provides a 10% defensive bonus, two movements provide a 25% defensive bonus and three movements provide a 50% defensive bonus. Digging in levels take effect the following week.
If a unit has dug in to any degree it takes one movement to exit the field defenses.
Cavalry are incapable of digging in.
Siege Artillery: Siege Artillery can only be used vs. dug in units or fortifications. They have zero combat value in war of movement. Also if siege artillery unit faces an older generation fort then there will be a combat multiplier. Modern guns have habit of ripping apart outdated forts very quickly.
Naval Artillery on Land: When moving naval guns over to land we are going to us a KISS. Let us say that your land combat tech is 1905 Infantry which costs $27.5 a corps for 5 points of combat power. Which gives you a 0.18 ratio of combat power to cash. Now if you have $2 worth of naval artillery to move over AND it is of similar generation then it would get you 0.18 * $2 = 0.36 combat rating worth of Heavy / Rail Artillery. This is a case of recycling more than anything else IMHO. You have the guns already from some source and want to do something else with them.
Constables, Depots and Engineers:
Conquered Territory and Colonies have populations that are inherently hostile to your rule and view you as enemy aliens. As such you will need to have troops to keep order in such provinces. For every million people in a hostile province you will need one Corps of troops, infantry or cavalry, to keep order or two brigades of Constables. A constable unit is best described as a form of military police unit.
When on Enemy territory in time of war your armies will require depot brigades to keep your units in supply. Units are in supply when on their own territory and with a connection to the capital. If a unit is cut off from the capital by enemy controlled province the moderators will make a determination as to supply status. A depot can provide supply to 5 Army Corps one province over. A supply Chain is a line of Depot Brigades in adjacent provinces going back to a supply source. Provide their own supply when next to national territory and or when along a coast and the moderators determine if there is a valid line of sea supply.
Units out of supply loose 0.5 to their current moral total and cannot attack but only defend. Out of supply units do not recover moral as normal. If units are out of supply for consecutive turns (months) and have zero or negative current moral they will surrender.
To build or repair things such as fortress citadels, ports, railroads or other projects that the moderators so designate require the service of an engineer brigade. To be actively working on a project requires the engineer to be mobilized.
It's nice to see that things continue, but...
Before I start criticizing, I have a question: Did you even make a single change that was suggested by the players? Or is the only difference that a few details that had been missing, and an outline of how the combat system works, have been added?
For player comments changes where made but the costs, etc have become fixed and been that way for a bit now.
This is the first thing with hint of mechanics to be displayed for army. So by all means take some shots at things if want.
Now I don't have time to get locked into endless arguments over stuff, its a good sign that if I am not responding to something that I am not reading it. For example I have not read the players economic talk for some time now.
Michael
The tables are fixed? That's good. I don't really like them, but they are good and should work.
But please, can you change the upgrade costs? (or explain why not)
Paying only for the difference just makes no sense. We should at least have to pay a multiple of difference or something like "upgrade = new - old/2". Otherwise it would be like "We got a new gun with 50% more firepower which cost only 12.5% more. That's great, make sure you get a full refund and we pay the rest."* It also makes - as elsewhere pointed out - investing starting money in armies, rather than ships much more attractive, because the ships will be obsolete very soon while the armies can be kept up to date for a fraction of their price.
*) these are the real numbers for the game start (Army level 1 compared to 2)
Or you could look at it as deliberately not punishing people who are going to be investing in their army anyway, which is something I do appreciate, BTW.
The entire army system is geared towards the following concept.
Its VERY SIMPLE.
Vallas I do not see how you view the current system as a punishment of who want to upgrade? As you upgrade units the upkeep stays the same and so on a cost and upkeep bases higher grade units become MORE effective in terms of those expenses. There is every incentive that I can see to upgrade units.
Nobody yes someone could favor their army at the expense of their navy BUT there is a price to pay in doing so. The biggest is that this is to be a naval game and in the mean time you will be limited into what you can do on the high seas.
I am not locked in stone on the upgrade costs but this is the same system from N3 in effect; IE difference between old level and new level.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,87.0.html
Does this help? Does this make more sense?
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 29, 2011, 09:42:07 AMVallas I do not see how you view the current system as a punishment of who want to upgrade? As you upgrade units the upkeep stays the same and so on a cost and upkeep bases higher grade units become MORE effective in terms of those expenses. There is every incentive that I can see to upgrade units.
Indeed, that's kind of my point. My feeling, accurate or not, about the N3 system is that no such incentive was present, given the scaling upkeep costs. Since I
am going to be building 'land power' as one of the Japanese's core competencies, easier upgrading is something I'm pleased to see.
Quote from: miketr on August 29, 2011, 09:42:07 AM
Nobody yes someone could favor their army at the expense of their navy BUT there is a price to pay in doing so. The biggest is that this is to be a naval game and in the mean time you will be limited into what you can do on the high seas.
Somewhat related to what some wrote in the Spanish navy-thread:
I do not quite buy that argument. All countries are not equal in their needs; just looking at European countries countries such as Germany and Austria can afford skip pouring allot of money into ships in the beginning as a small navy can meet their strategic requirements just as well as a huge one and the coastlines are short enough that they can easily be protected by ground forces. Others, such as the Nordic Kingdoms, would suffer economic collapse if costal traffic was interrupted for any longer periods and hence need a larger relative their neighbour's fleet. Given the relative short efficient service that can be expected from warships in this period (5-10 years front-line service) there is a major advantage potential advantage four countries that only need to invest in things that never loose value such as infrastructure and armies.
On infrastructure I for one would like to see a fairly steep increase in cost of huge bases in the start-up to not excessively punish countries such as Mexico that has very long coastlines and hence need more bases just to cover it.
There is no way to make a perfect system to cover all basis. All systems are going to be subject to MIN-MAXing to one degree or another. All I can say is if someone wants to avoid doing naval stuff and focus a mass army and their economy that is an option. At the same time I don't know what the heck they are going to be doing in the game especially as the Mods have said repeatedly that we are not going to allow great wars or wars to destruction.
As to naval bases there is not difference between building one base that can support 500,000 tons of shipping or ten bases able to each support 50,000 tons. If you want to get into naval costs, etc please start a separate thread.
Michael
There are also people - like me - who are worried they won't be able to have a navy at all, because they are surrounded and might have to spend all their money into the army...
Mike, yes it's the same as before. But that's the problem, because the system itself has changed (to the better I think). In the old system, buying a new (entry level) or upgrading an existing unit was the same. Now it would be one new unit or EIGHT upgrades! And I don't think it was a good idea back than either.
If you don't want an upgrade rule that involves multiplication you should not give us that option in the first place.
QuoteThere are also people - like me - who are worried they won't be able to have a navy at all, because they are surrounded and might have to spend all their money into the army...
Like me too...
I suggest to limit the money for Army at about 25 to 30% of the total budget
We are in NAVALISM, not in ARMY...ISM
Jef
No limits, I need both a big army and a big navy.
Some nations will need a massive army, some will need a massive navy.
There should be no limits on how much can be spent on either... though I'm becoming a fan on limiting the amount of money that can be spent on the military in general.
I see no reason to limit people from shooting themselves in the foot for not building enough infrastructural.
*stabs snip in the foot*
Quote from: Jefgte on August 30, 2011, 04:25:50 PMI suggest to limit the money for Army at about 25 to 30% of the total budget
We are in NAVALISM, not in ARMY...ISM
Unfortunately, I need an army to eat Ithekro.
But I've already kind of decided I want to structure it as an all-standing-professional force, so absolute army size probably isn't going to be terribly large given upkeep costs for mobilized troops.
I though wars between player nations were going to be limited or downright outlawed in the case of wars of annihilation?
Quote from: snip on August 31, 2011, 07:37:04 PM
I though wars between player nations were going to be limited or downright outlawed in the case of wars of annihilation?
they are im fairly sure, somthing about critical mass for captured teritory.
I don't recall any such thing being phrased as an explicit rule, though there have been players speaking up and saying that they think such things are 'implausible', and my reading of the GM attitudes is that they'd rather not deal with either the drama or the amount of military bookkeeping that such would imply. This is something I'm very much on board with; Maoria's expansionism ultimately gave me nothing but grief, though based on the information available to me at the time I picked up playing them, I don't see what else I could have done.
Unfortunately, my desired DN-era building program is ambitious to say the least, and Maoria's limited construction resources have left me somewhat paranoid about being 'starved' again. When I went to do the first drafts of the East Asia map, I attempted to block off a large enough 'Japanese Homeland' that I'd be plausibly able to make up the needed growth by internal improvement and so forth; I don't think I ever got a clear and explicit explanation of why it was considered unacceptable, but the conclusions I've drawn since are that they desired smaller blocks in the region partly to make such a 'stay-at-home' approach impossible, and that the particular geography of the area made a 'large Japanese state' unacceptably well positioned to block/strangle other player nations' access to the worldsea. Since I wouldn't've been intending to get involved in any wars I could reasonably avoid, this wouldn't've been a factor for me, but another player taking over after me would've had a bit of an advantage that way.
Anyway. Needing to start small and expand militarily is a perfectly sensible game-based call, as is the unwillingness to provide any kind of 'noose' - though in the latter case, I'll confess to a kind of lingering insulted feeling that just asking that I not apply unfair leverage on another player was apparently never even considered. Wanting to keep wars short and sweet I certainly understand, and am actually entirely in favor of.
Sadly, however, I have no interest in managing a discontinuous worldwide empire, as I made very clear from the earliest stages of setting up N4. I have no intention of repeating the unpleasant experience of trying to obtain adequate resources to manage some task in distant parts, and the fact that the starting positions were deliberately biased to make such the 'smart choice' feels more like an attempt to push or dictate a particular play than a design choice... and, like when some overeager fan keeps talking about and pushing endlessly to watch a particular show, the response shifts from, "Enh, if a chance comes up," to "Absolutely not and under no circumstances," out of sheer contrary irritation.
Since all players have been clustered together with no 'inland' expansion permitted (even if I had an inland as don't), the only way to acquire the territory and resources I need 'locally' is by taking them from another player. Since I'm going to need quite a lot of those additional resources, one or two minor 'border' wars aren't going to do it - I'll have to either fight a lot of different conflicts, or fight one very large one.
The latter approach has the advantage of being over and done with relatively quickly and letting people get on with their game once it's over, rather than repeating the process constantly, therefore, it'll be the one adopted.
Quote from: miketr on August 30, 2011, 07:52:17 AM
There is no way to make a perfect system to cover all basis. All systems are going to be subject to MIN-MAXing to one degree or another. All I can say is if someone wants to avoid doing naval stuff and focus a mass army and their economy that is an option. At the same time I don't know what the heck they are going to be doing in the game especially as the Mods have said repeatedly that we are not going to allow great wars or wars to destruction.
well that looks to me like an explicit ruling on the matter.
So it does. Oops.
...Apparently I won't be building anything interesting at all, then.
Im sure interesting things can still be done. Just remember the N^2 law (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-076.htm)
I *think* that the point is suposed to be internal growth and trade, especialy with each of us having to have atleast one over seas trade partner. We are esentialy outside the era of Colonies and truely sucesful wars of expansion. im still waiting for the rules so I can get a good fealing for the Operational restrictions however.
Quote from: snip on August 31, 2011, 11:15:24 PM
Im sure interesting things can still be done. Just remember the N^2 law (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-076.htm)
Well, I can be slightly snide and exaggerated, or I can cuss and fulminate for five paragraphs, which would you prefer to deal with? In a few days I'll probably be calm enough to start being productive again, but for now, 'civil' is a struggle.
*sighs*
If you goal in the game is to Gobble up one of your neighboring player countries well i guess it is possible if you take small bites and chew very very slowly.
But What We the Moderators do not want is All or Nothing Wars of Expansion and Conquest. China on China was suicide givent the number of Rivers, Mountains the defender had a huge advantage and it was going to turn into a blood bath with litterally millions and millions of people killed.
In addition everyone seemed to think that the battle was one continous series of fights. But logistically that simply is not possible. Even in WWI and WWII there were pauses for weeks if not months in operational tempo as both sides struggled to move in more men, material, and munitions. In WW1 major offensives kicked off ran for a month or two and then stalled and production of replacement munitions had to catch up with expenditures.
Here we want to keep the fighting more to the flavor of an earlier era. Where France and Germany fight the Loser gets Alsace Loraine... :o ::) I think you get my point the war has limited aims and limited objectives. Its not an all or nothing throw of the dice.
If you get to the point where you are risking your nations entire navy or even it national survival to achieve your objective. Well your Admirals and Army Commanders will look at each other, nod and El Dictator for life will be pushing up dasieys.
If I could attain my goal in the game with starting resources, I'd never start a single fight.
But this, it has been made clear, is intentionally and explicitly impossible.
If I could attain my goal without people trying to railroad me into using a gameplay element I never expressed the slightest interest in, I'd be a lot more willing to adapt.
But too late for that.
If I could attain my goal without ever tangling with another player, I'd be happy to go out of my way to avoid them.
But there's nowhere to do that except down the rails, and I refuse to be forced there no matter what I have to do to avoid it.
If I could attain my goal with a minimum of geargrinding and general interference in others routines, I'd be delighted.
But apparently, having only one war to deal with isn't considered desirable.
If you want to keep trying to convince me that it's unreasonable of me to want to be able to build a particular fleet and not find my entire play experience dominated by the fanatic struggle to expand to the bare minimum needed - AGAIN - then you're welcome to.
But personally, I think we'd both waste less energy if you dropped the attempt here.
We are not outlawing wars between players. If you want to beat the crap out of each other, then fine. Just keep in mind that the way things are wars will be matters of weeks / months and not years. The idea is that you guys can mobilize your armies do one big push against each other then the war in effect is over. See 1864 Danish War, 1866 Austro-Prussian War and 1870 Franco Prussian War. For the later the war was in effect over in a few months with Sedan but it took the next couple of months to get the French Government to admit the war was over.
Michael
Valles -
I Honestly do not know what your GOAL is.... and to be honest I am starting not to care ????
If your goal is to build a stable navy and army you can do that. If you have a desire for some specific number of ships well then you either have to do it on the budget provided or find some way to build up your economy. Either through lower taxes to start leading to higher growth or thru expansion.
Expansion here can include exclusive trade agreements with NPC all sorts of things that do not involve Wars.
Valles... you sound as though you're trying to build the 'Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.'
*lets head thump down onto desk and lay there*
I have a list of names - an admittedly rather long one, 34 capital ships; I want to try my hand at a 'Standard' series. I don't want to end up trying to manage another cold war or long-range invasion. That's what I'm coming into this game with as an 'agenda'.
I have tried, as consistently and as politely as I could, to advocate courses and game design decisions that would add to the number of options available to any player, rather than taking them away. I can't deny that part of this is because of the awareness that it would probably help me position myself without entering fields of play I'd rather avoid, but mostly it's because I think that the game will be better and more enjoyable for everyone if people are more free to shape their own courses.
Once that stage of the design effort was past, I looked at my list and its probable costs and started trying to work my way back to necessary preconditions. I tried to create a setup that I felt could plausibly support them - this was overruled. I tried to work out a way that what I was allowed could be enough - and was told it was impossible, that no starting player could be allowed to be 'that large'. Unwilling to adopt the 'One True Path', I started planning on my least favored approach...
And then, yesterday, I found out that that is apparently verboten, too.
I was upset, both at the lost effort I'd put in and at the fact that it was happening for effectively the third time. Since I was still calm enough not to want to cause a scene, barely, I tried to say - Who knows, maybe I didn't manage to get it across! - 'Well, that's disappointing, but let's drop it'. People preferred to keep discussing why it should be disappointing, so I answered as well as I could.
And now there's been a scene anyway and it's apparently all my fault for whining.
I apologize, then. It wasn't my intention to belabor any point that's already been decided.
*sigh* Man, I can't wait until we can actually start playing. It's gotta be less stressful.
As to the scale of wars, I find that the arguments presented so far fail to support the thesis that there was something universal about 'limited wars', rather than their being a phenomenon dependent on European mores and conditions of the time. I also don't care enough one way or the other to argue against it. If that's the way it is in N4, fine, go ahead with my blessing.
Honestly I think our Income Doubles at the Standard Tax rate in 20 or 25 years ????? I honestly think you can try your 34 Capital Ships as long as they are not all 40K ton ships if you frugal early lower tax rate. And carefully build some good overseas trading enclaves or even just some good trade agreements with minor powers.
I admit that 34 Capital Ships is alot and honestly WW1 Germany and the UK were the only nations to do it and for Balance purposes no PC or even Mod Power was starting quite that large. But if that is 34 Ships Armored Cruiser and Larger you might be able to do it if you skimp on things like Logistic support ships, Tenders, and even Light Cruisers and Destroyers.
Heck your fleet might look alot like the USN going into 1936 All Battle Ships, Carriers, and a few Cruisers. Most of the Destroyers in Mothballs and just enought Tenders and AO, and AP ships to meet minimum needs. Once war became Obvious well then the building programs kicked in and in 1940 the Two Ocean Navy started building huge numbers of Supply Ships, Tenders and more War Ships.
But honestly the scope of our game was supposed to "SMALLER" We are all Medium Powers there are no Major Powers. No UK or US to dominate the world and force people to do things their way.
Charles
I heard New York got hit by a hurricane and the entire city shut down for over a week :P
If you have a 2% growth rate your economy doubles in 35 years, 2.5% doubles in 28 years and 3% doubles in 23 years.
Michael
a question even if your breaking your army down to Brigades, if your paying for a full Corps worth of Brigades shouldnt the combat power come out to the same ammount as the Corps? I only ask because I wanted to mix and match my units and as it stands that isnt looking very plausable.
Example
1860 Infantry Corps Cost 20.00 Rating 2.2
1860 Infantry Diviso Cost 10.00 Rating .9
wouldnt it make more sence if that was a 1.1 for the Div since it costs half as much as the Corps? I agree with the smaller units, especialy since I was always one of the people that thought a Corps was just to bloody big for our smallest unit. Just feals like we should be geting equivilent value not taking a serious hit.
Quote from: Tanthalas on September 27, 2011, 03:47:06 PM
a question even if your breaking your army down to Brigades, if your paying for a full Corps worth of Brigades shouldnt the combat power come out to the same ammount as the Corps? I only ask because I wanted to mix and match my units and as it stands that isnt looking very plausable.
Example
1860 Infantry Corps Cost 20.00 Rating 2.2
1860 Infantry Diviso Cost 10.00 Rating .9
wouldnt it make more sence if that was a 1.1 for the Div since it costs half as much as the Corps? I agree with the smaller units, especialy since I was always one of the people that thought a Corps was just to bloody big for our smallest unit. Just feals like we should be geting equivilent value not taking a serious hit.
A pair of independent divisions is not equal to a corps unit; this is by design. I did this for a couple of reasons.
1) I feel that there is historic support for this type of synergy effect.
2) I want to force people to use larger formations and not see the world overrun with brigades. I expect that Divisions would be the most commonly used formation to be honest but we will only know for sure when we see the game in action for what people do
Does this make sense / sound reasonable?
Michael
oh its reasonable realy, I just think for the period we would be better off for the period making our Divisions out of mixed Brigades. Posibly somthing like 2/3 of our troops as short service Conscripts with 1/3 as long service Regulars. I may have the Ratio off but its what I was loosley shooting for with Deserets Forces, untill I discoverd im esentialy paying for 1 Corps of Regular Infantry and 2 Corps of Conscript Infantry.
Im all for playing it out, but wouldnt say a 1.00 instead of a 1.1 for a Division make more sence? the Current Ratio just feals like to big a hit to me. Especialy since unless my impresion is wrong most people are going to be happy to just buy Corps and ignore the land game as much as possible.
The way that conscript units of the late 19th century and early - mid 20th worked was something like this.
A conscript division would have maybe 50% of its manpower out of conscripts doing their nation service. Plus officers and long service NCOs. When mobilization occurred troops with most recent experience would be called back to the colors and bring the conscript formations to full readiness.
Very few nations kept units at full strength in peace time. UK being the big exception but they had a small professional army and not a mass army.
So for a nation with conscript system entire divisions / corps were setup this way. They HAD to mobilize to be combat effective, all the leaders and specialists were ready in peace time but the rifles required mobilization.
As to having the Division being the base unit. Might I suggest we see what people do in terms of units and placement? Then re-open the topic? I agree that many people will just ignore their armies as much as possible but again this is navalism.
Michael
I second the idea of using Divisions as the primary units, I for one will not be ignoring the Army, if anything it will be the navy that will be ignored.
Quote from: Desertfox on September 28, 2011, 03:24:19 PM
I second the idea of using Divisions as the primary units, I for one will not be ignoring the Army, if anything it will be the navy that will be ignored.
I think it is a bad idea to move away from corps as the basic unit as it allows for a simple and easily overview composition of the army, and much easier bookkeeping.
But I do not think one should be fixated on the fact that awhile the cops is the main administrative formation it might not represent the operational realities. For example if one out of five divisions in every corps is a light infantry or cavalry division one would then simply add one LI corps for every four ordinary despite the fact that it might be dispersed all over the country.
Quote from: Korpen on September 28, 2011, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: Desertfox on September 28, 2011, 03:24:19 PM
I second the idea of using Divisions as the primary units, I for one will not be ignoring the Army, if anything it will be the navy that will be ignored.
I think it is a bad idea to move away from corps as the basic unit as it allows for a simple and easily overview composition of the army, and much easier bookkeeping.
But I do not think one should be fixated on the fact that awhile the cops is the main administrative formation it might not represent the operational realities. For example if one out of five divisions in every corps is a light infantry or cavalry division one would then simply add one LI corps for every four ordinary despite the fact that it might be dispersed all over the country.
I think people want the numbers to base around the division scale and not the Corps Scale. Its an easy enough change for me to make. Lets see what people do and then we can bring it up. I am not looked into the current Corps Base; I thought it would be the easiest for book keeping is all.
Michael