Like we all know, Modos are "sleeping"
So, I propose, because we are not sleeping, to complet the rules to work quietly on our Fleet.
The real start of the game on Terra Nova is 1920 techno year.
In the idea, we could adapt the rules of the dead 1880 restart.
built 50 000t from 1900 to 1909 - cost x 0.5 (25 000t)
built 50 000t from 1910 to 1915 - cost x 0.75 (37 500t)
built 60 000t from 1916 to 1919 - cost x 1 (60 000t)
Finaly, you could built 160 000t for a cost of 122.5$
SS with the techno of the LD year.
Remember, we are in possession of old plans & books of warships before 1920.
We could build nearly identical to the Existing or NeverWere warships.
Feed back...
Jef
I agree, Jef. Lets move forward, with or without the mods. Snip is, I think working on some economic guidelines, and I am conspiring with him to try to make some very simple land/air force rules that fit well within the framework. I also suggest that we simply mod the old sub and MTB charts from N3 for the light unitts.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 21, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
Snip is, I think working on some economic guidelines, and I am conspiring with him to try to make some very simple land/air force rules that fit well within the framework.
Well, spring break is coming up and I have a bit of a flight ahead of me...
I have a two main thoughts on another restart attempt.
- It must be simple
- It must be naval focused
for this game to succeed, these have to be paramount. Wesworld has been going on for many years because it follows these guidelines. It does have some flaws however in not accounting for some of the remaining aspects that N3-5 did. I think it can be done in the same manor. The rules I have do the folowing to acheve that goal.
- Create a very simple system for building armies and airforces that still interacts with the total military buget
- Puts naval matters first and formost
- Has a simple way of creating reports.
I am going to have Carth help me with geting a draft ready for the rest of you to look at, tho I will ask one or two others to check things before then. Will keep you updated.
Boo....
Im not sleeping just nothing has been going on here I check in a couple of times a week usually.
If you want help with anything let me know...
Quote...If you want help with anything let me know...
I could certainly.
What about my first post ?
Jef
Personally I would put the starting year a little bit earlier, around 1900 to 1910. The principle Terra Nova setting is that history is known to them but they have to rediscover the way of making things. Since building turbines and gearings is quite complicated (and not covered by any book I know) I would therefore put the starting point in the era of the very first bigger turbine ships (and make compound engines completable for some time - but thats a different matter).
I think SS year = year laid down is too simple except fore the starting vessels.
Ship shouldn't get (much) better just by waiting. It also should be possible to get an advantage (in certain areas) over your rivals. AFAIK technical progression (and competing in it) is a vital element for most games.
I agree to start early, 1910 & built the first ships with 1890 technos.
SS with the LD year is simple & easy. but we can have engines techno earlier - no problemo-.
...
Jef
Nobody - I'm working on a simple tech ruleset that Snip and I will hopefully have ready early April-ish when he gets back from Spring Break. Its not going to be as big as the N3 tech tree and will exist mostly to keep people from doing nothing and getting better.
Since sitting down and making a large ruleset that covered everything didn't seem to work, this effort is going to go the other way.
Quote from: Nobody on March 22, 2012, 03:32:00 AMSince building turbines and gearings is quite complicated (and not covered by any book I know)
It's covered by a book somewhere, because our engineers learn how to do it. I'm pretty sure that a tried-and-true engineer could point us in the right direction- we juts don't have one on the boards here.
Simplicity will be paramount. That is the guiding rule.
We're not sleeping, just really busy. ;) I for one changed jobs, got more responsibility, and have been immersed in that for a while. Look out Europe, as soon as some budget stuff works out, I'm going to be spending an appreciable amount of time in Berlin.
If you guys want to hash some stuff out, feel free.
Thanks for your support :)
At some point we may need to clean up the N4 forums here. Would you be able to help with that if we get to that stage?
Quote...It's covered by a book somewhere, because our engineers learn how to do it. ..
Humans arrive on Terra Nova a pair of centuries ago.
They kill much predators, build protected cities, roads, factories... schools & universities.
Built turbines prototypes & then instal them on ship is probably not too difficult.
Jef ;)
Hmmmm... Terra Nova....
I really dont know where to go to help with that you would need The Rock Doctor and those who were involved in that. I honestly was never that interested in the Terra Nova spin off.
However anything I can help with I will.
We're looking hard at getting a rudimentary economic and land/air combat system going- both of them somewhere between 'Wesworld' and 'Axis & Allies' on the complexity scale. This will allow a lot more time for worrying about naval matters as opposed to getting involved in land wars that bog down the action.
QuoteI really dont know where to go to help with that you would need The Rock Doctor and those who were involved in that. I honestly was never that interested in the Terra Nova spin off.
Play France or Nova Francia...
Start in 1880 or 1920...
No problemo, I can SS & draw indifferently.
----------
QuoteWe're looking hard at getting a rudimentary economic and land/air combat system going- both of them somewhere between 'Wesworld' and 'Axis & Allies' on the complexity scale. This will allow a lot more time for worrying about naval matters as opposed to getting involved in land wars that bog down the action.
That's exactly what I hope.
I like Aircrafts & Panzers but I am first, a "Battleships Lover".
Jef ;)
I agree, it should be possible to take part with minimal amount of bookkeeping. At the same time I wish there was more room to do things differently and not only in writing stories (which I'm 'not very good' at).
So if I was in charge of making rules I would try to make to 100% compatible versions. One short and straightforward and one with many possibilities - one of which would be the simple choice of course.
That said I'm looking forward to any proposal. And since I have some free time time know I would like to help you (two?) wherever i can.
AFIK, I think Snip intends to make the economic rules as simple as possible; I'm also aiming for something just as simple as possible for the army & air force. When I say simple, I'm talking about the following:
1.) A Single Level of Organization
Army units will have only one single unit level, the Corps. Four Corps will be able to (after one quarter) be merged into an Army Group for a slight combat advantage... but that's it. Air Forces will have a single unit level, the Wing. Four Wings can become a 'Numbered' Air Force, with a similar combat bonus to that of an Army Group.
You won't be able to subdivide a Corps or Wing, you won't be able to deploy elements separately, and you won't be able to have 'special' units (with a single exception).
2.) Small Number of Unit Types
There will be Infantry and Armor Corps, along with Fighter and Bomber Wings and that's going to be it. These units are considered to have necessary support elements integral to their TO&E. Later, Anti-Aircraft 'sections' will be able to be purchased and attached- but that's about it. You don't have to worry about whether or not your Jungle unit or your Mountain unit is deployed in the right theater... because there ain't none.
3.) Focus on Naval Matters
The Naval rules will be rather developed and allow for significant flexibility... but they won't be complicated. N3 rules are going to represent the desired MAXIMUM complexity level. If we can go simpler, then we shall. I plan to keep the Submarine and MTB tables from N3, though there will be a 'modification point' system to determine things like number of torpedo tubes vs number of mines carried by a submarine.
We're yet to determine exactly how much each unit will cost... but the plan is to keep things small and simple.
Quote from: snip on March 22, 2012, 01:06:32 PM
Thanks for your support :)
At some point we may need to clean up the N4 forums here. Would you be able to help with that if we get to that stage?
Yeah, I'm still committed to forum upkeep, etc. as necessary.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 24, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
2.) Small Number of Unit Types
There will be Infantry and Armor Corps, along with Fighter and Bomber Wings and that's going to be it. These units are considered to have necessary support elements integral to their TO&E. Later, Anti-Aircraft 'sections' will be able to be purchased and attached- but that's about it. You don't have to worry about whether or not your Jungle unit or your Mountain unit is deployed in the right theater... because there ain't none.
What if you started with an Infantry and Cavalry corps and just paid to motorize/mechanize them (similar to adding the Anti-aircraft element). I only suggest it because if we are starting at a 1900-level there wouldnt be an armored corps. An Infantry corps would turn into a Heavy Armored Corps (as mobility of a Cavalry Corps but more firepower then an Infantry Corps). A Cavalry corps would upgrade to a Light Armored Corps (proportionally more mobile than a Heavy Armored Corps but less firepower). If this seems too complicated we don't have to run with it.
Infantry Corps (mobility=2) (firepower=2)
Cavalry Corps (mobility=3) (firepower=1)
Heavy Armor (mobility=3) (firepower=3)
Light Armor (mobility=4) (firepower=2)
Or something like that. The numbers arent exact just to give you an idea of what I mean.
We are likely to be starting at 1920's levels.
At that tech level, tanks are viable... even thought hey weren't widespread on Earth. This new world will already know WHAT they can build, and HOW they can build it- something that we didn't exactly know. Thus, there will be no horse cavalry to start with. This little bit of 'handwavium' will allow for some major hindsightus to be dealt with without having it cause problems.
Don't worry, I'm chugging away on things. Just been hiking my but off these past few days and will be doing so till Friday. I'm thinking things wil be ready within a few weeks, just fiddling with numbers atm.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 27, 2012, 10:55:33 PM
We are likely to be starting at 1920's levels.
At that tech level, tanks are viable... even thought hey weren't widespread on Earth. This new world will already know WHAT they can build, and HOW they can build it- something that we didn't exactly know. Thus, there will be no horse cavalry to start with. This little bit of 'handwavium' will allow for some major hindsightus to be dealt with without having it cause problems.
Okay 1920s makes sense. Sorry I thought it was going to be earlier.
1920 for Army & Airforces, but Warships start in 1900 I think.
Quotebuilt 50 000t from 1900 to 1909 - cost x 0.5 (25 000t)
built 50 000t from 1910 to 1915 - cost x 0.75 (37 500t)
built 60 000t from 1916 to 1919 - cost x 1 (60 000t)
We could increase global tonnage if you hope to have big BBs
Jef ;)
Quote from: Darman on March 28, 2012, 04:10:10 AMOkay 1920s makes sense. Sorry I thought it was going to be earlier.
Earlier does not necessarily invalidate the point, since the earliest starting date we discussed was 1900ish, late enough that someone who was determined to try could probably put together at least a basic tank.
What I'd like to know is, are we keeping Rock's setting?
Quote from: Valles on March 28, 2012, 09:38:17 AM
What I'd like to know is, are we keeping Rock's setting?
Yes and no, Valles.
We will be keeping the basic premise- that this is a far-future colony of mankind, that is has been around several hundred generations, and that we are just emerging from the coal-burning warship era into what we might consider 'modern' naval architecture.
Some of the things I'm considering tech-wise ATM:
NAVAL TECHS:
Start-up ships 1900- 1909: coal-fired, no turbines, guns of 12" or less, no more than 20,000t per ship.
Start-up ships 1910- 1915: coal-fired, oil sprayers, guns of 14" or less, no more than 25,000t per ship.
Start-up ships 1915- 1920: oil-Fired, triple turrets, guns of 15" or less, no more than 30,000t per ship.
Other issues like subs and aircraft are being worked out. Probably, aircraft will be hindered in other ways than the 'man eating bird' idea... but we'd like to keep aircraft approximately 10 years behind OTL in order to make them less viable as a weapon system and to protect the big-gun battleships longer. We might simply do as WesWorld and have a world-wide treaty that has prevented the use of aircraft in naval warfare and continues to regulate it's use. Submarines will also be regulated, will generally use the N3 chart to build, and will be considered 'damned un-English.'
The simplicity of the rules will mean that land combat will not just take a backseat, it will be a total sideline to naval warfare. I am very serious about simply using
Axis and Allies as the basis for gaming out the land battles; we're here to build ships, not fight a land war in Asia (the very thing that seemed to kill N3). Aircraft will be similarly abstract, really you will only have Fighters (which protect against Bombers or attack Infantry or Armor) and Bombers (which can either Scout or destroy enemy Infrastructure). When we allow Carriers to come on the scene, their aircraft will be treated similarly.
We will probably keep the current map, though the close-up map will not be developed. I like Rock's idea of an 'Old World/New World' start, encouraging the development of overseas colonies as our nations grow; this will be a central feature of our game. I do plan to have a way of introducing PC's later if more people get interested in playing... so one or two small 'reservations' might be kept for that.
Animal life will largely be reptile and avian; mammals will be very small and very inconsequential. There will be reasons that mankind decided to make their settlements small and easily defended, and why civilization overall has remained in a small area compared to the size of the planet.
Finally, we've been here several thousand years- largely because
we have to have enough population to support our militaries. You will have to watch the manpower of those ships you put in the water, because you will only have so many people to go around... and to get that whiz-bang modern
Yamato-clone in the water, you might have to scrap two older cruisers or battleships!
Timeline-wise, my recommendation would honestly be that the year is 1920 After Landing, just to make it easy to keep terminology straight. Or 1905, maybe, but that's not a big deal either way.
Regarding aircraft, the 'treaty approach' has a number of advantages, but seems to me to be likely to be hard to explain in-character - 'How in the World did this happen?'. A shortage of exploitable aluminum ore deposits increasing the stuff's rarity and thereby retarding the technologies - like aero engines - requiring its use would seem to me to make more sense.
Either way, for my own part, I'd like to request that airship technology be in keeping with OTL and the tech limitation be restricted to airplanes. Given the vulnerability of the airship to proper ground fire, the cost of building the hangers they require, and so forth, I don't think that they'll have much functional utility beyond the scouting role...
...and looking damned cool, which is what I'm after.
My - passionate - objection to the startup system proposed for N4 (the on-earth game) was based in part on the arbitrary dictation of a global scope to the player's operations from the get-go, and also - more so - on the way the system attempted to dictate the players' rightful control over their own roleplaying and decision making within the territories expanded to. To get either effect in a 'vacuum' such as an empty alien planet with player-sited starting positions would require an active will to harm peoples' experience rather than the simple lack of manners and consideration, which is one of the reasons that I was, or am, so enthusiastic about Rocky's 'N4.5' concept, which this seems more than close enough to.
Which, boiled down by the removal of my harping on old feuds, means that I'm cool with this.
Valles,
I'm not too concerned about whether we call the year 10,241, 3614 K.R., or 1920 A.S., or Six Monkey Slap-Slap... it's all the same. In all honesty, I was planning on trying to work the X920 formula as the start date- but it would probably be 3920 rather than 1920. This is simply to give the population some time to expand. ;)
Airships.
They will possibly be allowed by treaty- but will be completely forbidden from being used in any military capacity whatsoever... meaning not even as scouts. They make sense as load-lifters and for transporting over long distances; but I don't really even want to see them in military applications, since they had such narrow uses there, anyway.
Treaty Approach.
I'm going for something like Battletech's 'Ares Treaty' rather than a 'Washington/London Naval Treaty' clone. Our little colony noticed that not regulating the way that wars were fought lead to no end of heartache for Earth... so upon settling down and determining how they wanted their world to work, they laid out certain rules for the waging of war. They had the benefits of knowing what technology that they would have access to in the near (and not so near) future, and they placed limitations on what would be allowed and what would not. Some ideas I'm batting around:
1.) Assaulting you enemy's capital was forbidden, but outlying areas are not.
2.) Nuclear weapons shall not be developed.
3.) Landmines are not to be used within X miles of settled areas.
The overall goal is to make wars easier to fight by dent of making them less damaging to the civilian population... and by limiting the size of individual assets (like ships) to make them 'expendable.'
A few more little thoughts: 1.) Navies might be limited by manpower rather than tonnage. Since we will have a mandatory need to monitor population, we might just cap military size at 10-20% of national population. This will 'feel' more natural than tonnage limits and also result in a smaller treaty to write.
That's not bad for me.
I'm just waiting the population/tonnage for Nova Francia to start seriously the Plan.
Jef ;)
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 28, 2012, 12:54:14 PMI'm not too concerned about whether we call the year 10,241, 3614 K.R., or 1920 A.S., or Six Monkey Slap-Slap... it's all the same. In all honesty, I was planning on trying to work the X920 formula as the start date- but it would probably be 3920 rather than 1920. This is simply to give the population some time to expand. ;)
My inclination would have been to assume a starting population of three-to-ten million rather than three-to-ten thousand, but, honestly, depending on birth rates and mortality, almost two thousand years could easily be enough. Geometric progression, and all.
Either way, I can't say it's a big enough deal for me to bother caring about, I just think that the numbers lining up like that would be amusing.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 28, 2012, 12:54:14 PMAirships.
They will possibly be allowed by treaty- but will be completely forbidden from being used in any military capacity whatsoever... meaning not even as scouts. They make sense as load-lifters and for transporting over long distances; but I don't really even want to see them in military applications, since they had such narrow uses there, anyway.
That last is more or less exactly why I don't see the point in going to the trouble of writing an explicit rule forbidding them.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 28, 2012, 12:54:14 PMTreaty Approach.
I'm going for something like Battletech's 'Ares Treaty' rather than a 'Washington/London Naval Treaty' clone. Our little colony noticed that not regulating the way that wars were fought lead to no end of heartache for Earth... so upon settling down and determining how they wanted their world to work, they laid out certain rules for the waging of war. They had the benefits of knowing what technology that they would have access to in the near (and not so near) future, and they placed limitations on what would be allowed and what would not. Some ideas I'm batting around:
1.) Assaulting you enemy's capital was forbidden, but outlying areas are not.
2.) Nuclear weapons shall not be developed.
3.) Landmines are not to be used within X miles of settled areas.
The overall goal is to make wars easier to fight by dent of making them less damaging to the civilian population... and by limiting the size of individual assets (like ships) to make them 'expendable.'
Given the range in size and significance between capital cities, I don't think that 1 is really workable. Especially since the failure to protect
other centers would mean that all it would do would be remove an option for the quick resolution of a conflict.
My own suggestion would run something like...
Article 1: Area denial weapons may be employed only in universally announced zones, and then only in times of declared war. All such weapons must be individually placed and logged by the responsible power, who shall be legally obligated to publish said logs at the end of the conflict.
Article 2: Weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to atomic, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as the use of kinetic bolide strikes, are absolutely forbidden. Related civilian and non-offensive technologies are permitted only under the inspection of the international community.
Article 3: The provision of offensive armament, including but not limited to guns, missiles, and gravity bombs, on aircraft of any sort is absolutely forbidden.
Article 4: The installation of defensive works within and among civilian populations and population centers, as defined in Appendix A, is forbidden. Defensive works separated from or surrounding civilian areas are permitted.
Article 5: Civilian populations and areas of any and all nations are required to surrender when summoned to by a hostile military force, unless allied military forces are present to contest said territory.
Article 6: Under no circumstances shall military action be undertaken within civilian population zones. Police forces, as defined in Appendix A, may only be employed within their own or formally surrendered settlements.
Article 7: Military forces may not interfere with the flow of vital goods, fully defined in Appendix A but explicitly including food, medicine, and fresh water, into or out of a civilian population zone under any circumstances not explicitly covered in Article 8.
Article 8: If an undefended civilian population center refuses to surrender as dictated under Article 5, hostile military forces may, at their discretion, use force to impede the flow of goods into and out of said settlement. Article 8 is subordinate to and may not override Article 6.
Article 9: Captured settlements shall be governed in accordance with the provision of their original nation's civil or martial law statutes until or unless ceded to the capturing nation by formal treaty or until the dissolution of their original nation following the capture of all of its former population.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 28, 2012, 01:47:56 PM
A few more little thoughts: 1.) Navies might be limited by manpower rather than tonnage. Since we will have a mandatory need to monitor population, we might just cap military size at 10-20% of national population. This will 'feel' more natural than tonnage limits and also result in a smaller treaty to write.
I don't see any need for a 'legal' cap on military expenditure. The natural balance produced by economics and the international situation - between growth and defense - should be more than adequate.
Valles - with your permission, I would like to keep the entire text of your treaty as a starting point for our pre-start Worldwide Treaty of the Rules of Warfare. It is, quite honestly, exactly what I had hoped to see someone write.
Quote from: Valles on March 28, 2012, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 28, 2012, 12:54:14 PMAirships.
They will possibly be allowed by treaty- but will be completely forbidden from being used in any military capacity whatsoever... meaning not even as scouts. They make sense as load-lifters and for transporting over long distances; but I don't really even want to see them in military applications, since they had such narrow uses there, anyway.
That last is more or less exactly why I don't see the point in going to the trouble of writing an explicit rule forbidding them.
The reason is that if there isn't a rule, then some will indeed abuse the lack thereof.
There will be a rule that zeppelins will only be allowed in fluff until a certain point, at which time they will be considered recon elements attached to existing forces, in numbers to be determined.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 28, 2012, 01:47:56 PM
A few more little thoughts: 1.) Navies might be limited by manpower rather than tonnage. Since we will have a mandatory need to monitor population, we might just cap military size at 10-20% of national population. This will 'feel' more natural than tonnage limits and also result in a smaller treaty to write.
The crew size would be a very nice limit - if SpringSharp would make a difference between an unmanned float and a Flak blazing warship. However, it does not. AFAIK it is estimated just on the ships size.
So I like the idea, but I would currently see it as an unnecessary extra.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 28, 2012, 11:14:39 PM
Valles - with your permission, I would like to keep the entire text of your treaty as a starting point for our pre-start Worldwide Treaty of the Rules of Warfare. It is, quite honestly, exactly what I had hoped to see someone write.
You may feel free to make use of it, then.
Quote from: Carthaginian on March 28, 2012, 11:14:39 PMThe reason is that if there isn't a rule, then some will indeed abuse the lack thereof.
There will be a rule that zeppelins will only be allowed in fluff until a certain point, at which time they will be considered recon elements attached to existing forces, in numbers to be determined.
I'd tend to consider a large airship to be equivalent, cost wise, to an escort sloop or mine warfare ship, or to an airplane squadron, and would thus tend to think of them as being individually tracked the way all of those things are... But perhaps, instead, we could track the hangers they operate out of?
Put another way, I think that airships have too much range for tying them to specific units that way to make sense.
Still, this is quibbling. Yay, airships!
Ok Cart.
Could we list the countries on Terra Nova & affect the population ?
Jef ;)
Here is a board about a fleet with Crews
| technos | TYPE | CREW | ships Qty | CREW x Ships | NORMAL DISP. |
| 1900 | Patrol Gunboat | 67-88 | 10 | 880 | 700t-775t |
| 1901 | Patrol Gunboat | 67-88 | 10 | 880 | 700t-775t |
| 1902 | Squadron Gunboat ex PC | 274-357 | 4 | 1428 | 4500t-4995t |
| 1903 | Squadron Gunboat ex PC | 274-357 | 4 | 1428 | 4500t-4995t |
| 1904 | Escort Cruiser ex AC | 446-580 | 2 | 1160 | 8600t-9341t |
| 1905 | Escort Cruiser ex AC | 446-580 | 2 | 1160 | 8600t-9341t |
| 1906 | Torpedo Boat (Chasseur) | 69-91 | 6 | 546 | 731t-796t |
| 1907 | Torpedo Boat (Chasseur) | 69-91 | 6 | 546 | 731t-796t |
| 1908 | 3rd class BB | 626-814 | 2 | 1628 | 13500t-14386t |
| 1909 | 3rd class BB | 626-814 | 2 | 1628 | 13500t-14386t |
| 1910 | 3nd class BB -Courbet | 683-889 | 1 | 889 | 15200t-15684 |
| 1911 | 3nd class BB -Courbet | 683-889 | 1 | 889 | 15200t-15684 |
| 1912 | Torpedo Boat | 88-115 | 6 | 690 | 750t |
| 1913 | Torpedo Boat | 88-115 | 6 | 690 | 750t |
| 1914 | Cruiser NOVA | 241-314 | 2 | 628 | 3800t-4020t |
| 1915 | Cruiser (Dupleix) | 390-508 | 2 | 1016 | 7200t-7522t |
| 1916 | Cruiser Leon (Gambetta) | 536-698 | 2 | 1396 | 11000t-10398t |
| 1917 | BB Normandie class | 1058-1376 | 1 | 1396 | 27200t-28197t |
| 1918 | BB Normandie class | 1058-1376 | 1 | 1396 | 27200t-28197t |
| 1919 | BB Lyon class | 1237-1609 | 1 | 1609 | 33500t-34624t |
| 1920 | BB Lyon class | 1237-1609 | 1 | 1609 | 33500t-34624t |
| 1921 | Torpedo Boat | 95-125 | 6 | 750 | 800t |
| 1922 | Torpedo Boat | 95-125 | 6 | 750 | 800t |
| 1922 | | | 84 | 24992 | |
Complement number is about 25 000 men (24992) for 84 ships
I think that the minimal could be 22 000 for minor Countries & the max about 32 000.
That depend also the "density" of Countries/players/Fleet you hope.
Jef ;)
Got an idea for a tech tree rolling around in my head...
Also thinking about some numbers for population- I'll have to go over them with Snip to see how they'll work with his economics ideas. We want a big enough starting navy that we can have some fun, you know.
Also, I'm working on some treaty terms, and playing with some ships of the appropriate era- and a bit earlier and later... to see how things would start and progress. I will say that you can do some things with 35,000 tons (+/- 10%) that might amaze some!
econ rules are getting close
The ship construction rules are getting close as well; tonight, maybe tomorrow morning for them.
Army/Air Force rules (such that they are) will be done by the end of the weekend.
The rules will have a bit of a unique structure to handle the tech progression... I think it's a wrinkle people will like.