www.navalism.org

Various thoughts and ideas have or had. Not all are are realistic, hardly any has been planned through and some ideas exclude each other.

Note: This list is subject to changes.

• Time and turns   
• Terms (3 turns per year), because 4 is too much, but with only 2 time might progress too fast.
     
• maybe tie them to seasons, e.g. more difficult fighting conditions in the winter
     
• early start, so we have time to build or ports and develop pre-dreadnought navies. Also gives time for further tech development discussions
• Economics   
• Mostly money based, but with a production capacity limit which only becomes important in extreme circumstances or to e.g. "2nd world" countries with no Industry to speak of
     
• Resources. Some want them, others not. If we do them, they should probably have only a limited effect (increase tax, oil could reduce the upkeep of oil fired ships, etc.)
     
• How about a system that's similar to what you learn in school about economics? That is with a primary(agriculture, mining etc.) secondary(industry) and tertiary(service and trading) sector. The primary sector would a necessity and (with resources) a money source. Industry would be expansive to get but provide production and additional research. The tertiary sector would be all about money (especially in combination with the primary). --> Aim of the system would be that the player can have either a heavily industrialized country (UK, US, F, D) which might have to rely on exports to finance its military or one (like Argentina at the end of the 19th century) which is very rich (because of trading with resources) but has hardly any heavy industry and has to import most things except ammunition(in war time)
     
• automatic loans/debts, surplus money is carried over, maybe with a penalty(inflation)
• Infrastructure and support   
• I would love to see railways playing an important part in infrastructure and economics, but I don't see a (relatively) simple way of doing so
     
• I like variable harbors, but maybe we should limit them to a certain number of ships and a maximum size instead of a total supported tonnage
     
• we need draft limits. Not only for ports but also seas or at least coastal areas. It should at least be distinguished between ships which have a low enough draft to operate freely and big ones which are confined to major shipping lanes - but those should only be known to those who have done something to know them (live there or having sent survey ships)
• Technology   
• no country should be able to build a ship which is the best in every aspect alone
• Shipbuilding   
• closely tied to the tech tree. If your country can't make certain things you either have to develop or by them
     
• harbor draft limits
     
• slips are simple structures mostly limited by their length, that should also define their price
     
• drydocks are big holes, limited by length, width and depth. Expansive, but most versatile.
     
• floating drydocks are limited by the tonnage they can carry. Can't build ships.
• Land Warfare   
• boni for defending the home soil and for units being stationed and extended period of time
     
• mali for fighting on foreign and unknown territory   --> as a result defending is easy attacking difficult. So no one would have to be worried of being overrun. On the other hand colonial battles would happen on equal terms
• Countries, borders, colonies and starting positions   
• how about starting only in a "core" area with no direct contact to neighbors and expanding from there? Leaves room for achievements (e.g. finally growing to historic borders)

Quote■Time and turns   
•Terms (3 turns per year), because 4 is too much, but with only 2 time might progress too fast.

2 turns per year. I hope to progress @ good speed.
Made a turn every month, we progress  by 6 years (1910-1916) in one year.
---
Have a building tonnage (steel) per turn & work on a building board (EXCEL).
...

Jef

Re: Technology:

    The UK couldn't build a state of the art ship by itself in 1905?  Germany or the US could not build state of the art ships by themselves in 1905?  REALLY?????  I disagree with this thesis entirely.  Now, some technologies (cemented (Krupp) armor, for example) were invented elsewhere, but these were rapidly spread around the world as they were commercial processes that were patented and licensed to other companies.  And some countries (Russia, for example) were either rapidly industrializing or had holes in their industrial base that required them to get outside assistance.  Japan bought guns from Vickers and Armstrongs, Russia bought a few guns from Vickers, and Italy bought guns from Elswick and Armstrongs (and had branches of both companies in Italy producing guns), for example, and Russia had turbines on order in Germany at the start of the war.
    If we're talking about 1870-1890, then there's a little bit more basis here, but again the technological advances spread rapidly because the technology was commercially developed and sold.

Draft & shallow waters:

     Maritime charts have been available for a long time, and they show depths.  They'll tell you, roughly, where your ships can, and can't, go, but if you push your luck you'll have to be good with your position reckoning because if you're not, that reef or sandbar may have your name on it.  If we're dealing with a OTL or near OTL timeline, or really any timeline where the various countries have been trading with one another for years, this is going to be the case.

Floating Drydocks:

     Not sure why these couldn't build ships.  They normally haven't, but that's different from couldn't.



"Expanding" countries:

     Compatible only with a fantasy world, like the one we were doing with 4.5.   That map, with a slightly different layout (smaller home islands for each country, basically), we could have done this with.

Quote from: KWorld on August 29, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
"Expanding" countries:

     Compatible only with a fantasy world, like the one we were doing with 4.5.   That map, with a slightly different layout (smaller home islands for each country, basically), we could have done this with.

I agree with this.  Unless we go REALLY far back with our time line then this isn't feasible. 

Quote from: KWorld on August 29, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
The UK couldn't build a state of the art ship by itself in 1905?  Germany or the US could not build state of the art ships by themselves in 1905?  REALLY?????  I disagree with this thesis entirely.

Calm down. That's not the point. It's not a thesis either, it's an idea to make the game interesting.
And your are misinterpreting. And besides their ships were indeed not the best in every aspect. The British wire wound guns weren't (to my knowledge) the best/most advanced guns in the world. And the British shells had a very poor performance before ~1916 (greenboy).

QuoteNow, some technologies (cemented (Krupp) armor, for example) were invented elsewhere, but these were rapidly spread around the world as they were commercial processes that were patented and licensed to other companies.

Exactly, but than you're not state of the the art (in that field), but keeping pace/close behind!

QuoteAnd some countries (Russia, for example) were either rapidly industrializing or had holes in their industrial base that required them to get outside assistance.  Japan bought guns from Vickers and Armstrongs, Russia bought a few guns from Vickers, and Italy bought guns from Elswick and Armstrongs (and had branches of both companies in Italy producing guns), for example, and Russia had turbines on order in Germany at the start of the war.

And that's exactly what I would like to see.

QuoteIf we're talking about 1870-1890, then there's a little bit more basis here, but again the technological advances spread rapidly because the technology was commercially developed and sold.

Yet another reason why I want to start early. Besides as countries grow they can do more research and need less imports. All as it should be.

Quote
Draft & shallow waters:
     Maritime charts have been available for a long time, and they show depths.  They'll tell you, roughly, where your ships can, and can't, go, but if you push your luck you'll have to be good with your position reckoning because if you're not, that reef or sandbar may have your name on it.  If we're dealing with a OTL or near OTL timeline, or really any timeline where the various countries have been trading with one another for years, this is going to be the case.

Exactly. Now keep in mind that e.g. North sea maps get obsolete very quickly and are useless after every storm - which happen often.

QuoteFloating Drydocks:
     Not sure why these couldn't build ships.  They normally haven't, but that's different from couldn't.

Just intended as a sort of "flavor" and to make sure no element get overpowered. Alternatively you could make them more expensive so people don't build only floating drydocks.

Quote"Expanding" countries:
     Compatible only with a fantasy world, like the one we were doing with 4.5.   That map, with a slightly different layout (smaller home islands for each country, basically), we could have done this with.

It's still an idea that I wanted to mention.

Quote from: Darman on August 29, 2012, 08:08:55 AM

Quote from: KWorld on August 29, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
"Expanding" countries:

     Compatible only with a fantasy world, like the one we were doing with 4.5.   That map, with a slightly different layout (smaller home islands for each country, basically), we could have done this with.

I agree with this.  Unless we go REALLY far back with our time line then this isn't feasible.

With the exception of Germany, which has only just been born from a zillion of micro-states. ^^

Even then, the states that became Germany had long had contact with their neighbors.  Prussia, for instance, might not have had a direct border with France for a while, but they certainly had had contact with France for a very long time.

I have had a chance to read this, but will not be able to fully respond until later today. First impressions: There are some very good points (ie. port depth as it should be readily locatable data) some that will need to be debaited (ie. Turn time) some that are not quite relevant (ie Land warfare as there will be no official simming, all conflicts must be scripted or otherwise resolved between the two parties) and some that I decidedly dont like (ie. tracking railroads. This is a naval sim is it not?) Will comment more after class.

"This is a naval sim, isn't it?"  Well, by including primarily land powers like Russia, France, and Germany, I can't see that there's really a way around including land affairs to one degree or another.   If Germany goes to war with France or Russia (or both, or both plus the UK and Italy), the decisive battles will be on land, not at sea (even if Germany can decisively win Jutland and break the blockade, the land battles still have to be won).  As long as conflicts are confined to minor colonial affairs and are settled by who can blockade whose colonial port, it will be a naval sim.  The instant someone decides to invade a colony from their adjacent colony by land.... it's a world sim.

QuoteI would love to see railways playing an important part in infrastructure and economics, but I don't see a (relatively) simple way of doing so

I suppose they could have a nonlinear increase in cost as industry expands (railroads being used as something of an "industry upkeep"). Historically (as in until the 1990s) railroad gridlock from too much traffic trying to enter major cities was a problem. It was solved by putting cargo with the major city as their destination on separate trains from those that were just going to a transfer junction. Problems with cargo handling and communications are going to pop up at certain points and they cost more than just putting down another line of track.

Quote

QuoteThe UK couldn't build a state of the art ship by itself in 1905?  Germany or the US could not build state of the art ships by themselves in 1905?  REALLY?????  I disagree with this thesis entirely.

Calm down. That's not the point. It's not a thesis either, it's an idea to make the game interesting.
And your are misinterpreting. And besides their ships were indeed not the best in every aspect. The British wire wound guns weren't (to my knowledge) the best/most advanced guns in the world. And the British shells had a very poor performance before ~1916 (greenboy).

It could be used as a way to reflect the bureaucratic inertia in the navies. For example, the Royal Navy used heavy guns but in double turrets, the USN was a leader in architecture (triple turrets and superfiring turrets) and its ships had strong armor but were late to adopt larger naval guns and turbine engines. Even the Japanese had their limitations, while they certainly did a number of innovations in naval doctrine and ships that combined the advances of navies around the world they were weak in some areas (making 18 inch guns instead of 16 inch guns with superheavy shells, armor not as advanced as those of the Western powers).

The bureaucracy can be as large as impediment to adopting new technologies as the development of technologies themselves. As players we know OOC that superfiring guns won't incapacitate the lower turret crew, that triple turrets are able to keep pace with doubles in rate of fire, and that oil has so many more advantages over coal as a power source. The people making naval procurement choices historically did not know that, so they were worried about all of those things until someone built a ship that proved it feasible.

Quote

QuoteFloating Drydocks:
     Not sure why these couldn't build ships.  They normally haven't, but that's different from couldn't.

Just intended as a sort of "flavor" and to make sure no element get overpowered. Alternatively you could make them more expensive so people don't build only floating drydocks.

I lived in Norfolk, Virginia, for a number of years and can say that there are a number of floating drydocks that maintain the USN ships there. I have seen them around two amphibious assault aircraft carriers at the same time (large 40,000 ton + ships) and I think some of the cruisers and destroyers may also have been in floating drydocks as well. Same thing at Pearl Harbor, there were a lot of floating drydocks. I am not sure how common they are for other navies (USN having much more tonnage and ships to repair and more funding) but for those who want them floating drydocks are not really an unusual thing. I think building from one would be far more unusual, to my knowledge Norfolk only builds new ships from its standard drydocks (using floating drydocks for repairs).

Quote from: KWorld on August 29, 2012, 11:12:17 AM
"This is a naval sim, isn't it?"  Well, by including primarily land powers like Russia, France, and Germany, I can't see that there's really a way around including land affairs to one degree or another.   If Germany goes to war with France or Russia (or both, or both plus the UK and Italy), the decisive battles will be on land, not at sea (even if Germany can decisively win Jutland and break the blockade, the land battles still have to be won).  As long as conflicts are confined to minor colonial affairs and are settled by who can blockade whose colonial port, it will be a naval sim.  The instant someone decides to invade a colony from their adjacent colony by land.... it's a world sim.

I really should clarify that point, was trying to squeeze of a reply before class. The previous iterations of the sim have been focused more on the Navy then on the other aspects in terms of complexity. I do feel that armies, and eventually air forces, should be included in what we budget and pay for due to both there role in international affairs (as you correctly point out) and there effects on the military budget and industrial output available for the Navy. These are both reason enough why I have included these non-naval aspects in the econ rules that I wrote and will included them in any ones that are written or modified for this restart attempt. I do fell however, that going to far beyond this boundary removes the emphasis from the naval aspect and transforms the sim into a "pencil-and-paper" version of Victoria II. Railroads are something that I feel will push the sim more in that direction, and I feel we can deal with there effects in a simpler way then tracking them explicitly.

Oh, I'll agree that tracking railroads (or roads in general, or telegraph/telephone lines) in anything other than a VERY abstract manner (some level of infrastructure, where 1905 Russia is lacking compared to 1905 UK, for example), is going further than we really want to go.  I was surprised, when I looked at the NVerse 3 rules to see the mention of cables and radio towers, for instance, I'd think those were more detailed than we really want.

Seeing as most want a N3-like rule system, I plan on working to trim fat from that.

Nobody, Here are my thoughts on your list. I think it is a great tool for promoting talk about what the community would like.

Time and Turns: I can see the argument for trimesters, but if you want seasons, quarters is a bit better fit IMO. The start period is still up in the air, tho it looks like a ~ Dreadnought era start is in the lead. I understand your reasons for wanting to start early, but I think a later start has its merrits as well.

Economics: Your ideas make for a bit more (ok, at first glance and without number/tables much more) complicated then what I would like to see. I think the Pop/IC/BP system, with some tweeks, is about as complex as I want to go. KISS should be paramount. Also, your proposals would IMO nessessitate a entirely new ruleset, which is something I think we do not have time for.

Infra and support: I love the draft limits of harbors. Historical data would be easy to find on this, making it not to difficult to use. I would need to see what sort of cost system you have in mind for harbor capacity before I say yay/nay to it. As stated before, I am firmly against the tracking of railroads as unique entities.

Tech: Agreed, as then it becomes more of a who is the best at manipulating the program and less about working within restrictions and coming up with solutions therein.

Shipbuilding: I think a KISS system would work best here. The N4 system of Drydocks, for example, I will not use due to complexity.

Land warfare: Wile all are valid points, they are all sort of mute, as there will be no official simming of conflicts.

Countries ect.: KWorld sort of hit this one on the head. I dont need to dig it back up.

Time and Turns:
I agree with the need for more turns. I think, unlike snip, that 3 turns is ok and we don't need 4. If we are talking about seasons that matter there's really no need for 4. We can split the seasons in 3 portions easily (Winter, Spring, Summer + Fall). To balance the time, winter would extend a bit into Fall and Spring would extend a bit into Summer. However, in this format the seasonal difficulties can be well simulated IMO.

Economics:
I like Nobody's idea but there needs to be greater abstraction IMO. However I don't endorse the old 2-tier system of IC/BP in N3 because I thought it rather poorly simulated economics. It needs to be possible to grow the economy of a nation quickly and even overheat it somewhat like in Supreme Ruler Cold War.

I'll think of something and propose it over the labor day weekend.

Infrastructure and Support:
I agree that the draft limit for harbors is a good idea.

As for rails ad other transportation, I think it would be sufficient to divide the map into general regions (with a rule regarding their minimum and maximum approximate size) and represent infrastructure as levels. We could also represent it as a number which we model onto a decaying function but I presume that would be too much work.

Technology:
I agree with premise. My opinion on technology is that it should be a gradual tech tree rather than the N3 system of hard dates for researching certain techs. Rather than time unlocking technology, having technology time exponentially increase as you go deeper into the field would be a good counter to people rushing for a technology due to hindsightis. This works the opposite way too so further behind countries can tech faster.

In addition, that could support cooperative research agreements in which countries can decide to research a tech together and shorten it but having to spend much more money jointly. This should replace things like tech buying that happened in N3.

Shipbuilding:
I like the idea of requiring component based construction. Rather than building a ship, we thing of it as the sum of it's parts. If the parts cannot be made in that country they would have to buy it (like turbines).

Land Warfare:
I think we would have to go into more detail if we were simming land battles - but I think we aren't doing land battles so the point is moot.

Countries:
I think assigning regions risk style like in N3's start-up would be good. Provided it had a condition - you can only claim territory that is directly connected to your existing regions by land. So no weird nations like New Switzerland in N3 (Alaska, Australia and islands in Pacific). The core of those nations should be historical cores so we have nations vaguely resembling real ones, not complete hand-wavium ones.

Quote from: Logi on August 29, 2012, 03:25:20 PM
Time and Turns:
I agree with the need for more turns. I think, unlike snip, that 3 turns is ok and we don't need 4. If we are talking about seasons that matter there's really no need for 4. We can split the seasons in 3 portions easily (Winter, Spring, Summer + Fall). To balance the time, winter would extend a bit into Fall and Spring would extend a bit into Summer. However, in this format the seasonal difficulties can be well simulated IMO.

Economics:
I like Nobody's idea but there needs to be greater abstraction IMO. However I don't endorse the old 2-tier system of IC/BP in N3 because I thought it rather poorly simulated economics. It needs to be possible to grow the economy of a nation quickly and even overheat it somewhat like in Supreme Ruler Cold War.

I'll think of something and propose it over the labor day weekend.

Infrastructure and Support:
I agree that the draft limit for harbors is a good idea.

As for rails ad other transportation, I think it would be sufficient to divide the map into general regions (with a rule regarding their minimum and maximum approximate size) and represent infrastructure as levels. We could also represent it as a number which we model onto a decaying function but I presume that would be too much work.

Technology:
I agree with premise. My opinion on technology is that it should be a gradual tech tree rather than the N3 system of hard dates for researching certain techs. Rather than time unlocking technology, having technology time exponentially increase as you go deeper into the field would be a good counter to people rushing for a technology due to hindsightis. This works the opposite way too so further behind countries can tech faster.

In addition, that could support cooperative research agreements in which countries can decide to research a tech together and shorten it but having to spend much more money jointly. This should replace things like tech buying that happened in N3.

Shipbuilding:
I like the idea of requiring component based construction. Rather than building a ship, we thing of it as the sum of it's parts. If the parts cannot be made in that country they would have to buy it (like turbines).

Land Warfare:
I think we would have to go into more detail if we were simming land battles - but I think we aren't doing land battles so the point is moot.

Countries:
I think assigning regions risk style like in N3's start-up would be good. Provided it had a condition - you can only claim territory that is directly connected to your existing regions by land. So no weird nations like New Switzerland in N3 (Alaska, Australia and islands in Pacific). The core of those nations should be historical cores so we have nations vaguely resembling real ones, not complete hand-wavium ones.

Im not really set on a number of turns per year. Will have to see what works.

My reason for wanting to use the IC/BP system with modifications is that it is a known quantity. For its flaws, it works. What flaws it does have can be fixed/minimised. I do not want to spend the time to develop a new system or have one developed because the time it will take could very well kill off the sim, again.

No railroads/transport networks/infrastructure as independent entities. Tying it to IC (or whatever it gets called) allows for the most simplicity while still allowing comparison between two regions.

I am open to reworking how Tech is handled. Give me a more detailed proposal if you would.

I think that roping shipbuilding restrictions into tech (ie, Russia does not have the ability to build 20000SHP turbines and needs them for the latest ship. They buy them from the UK as a result) would be the best way of doing this. Tracking individual factories and such is to detailed, and will not happen.

Countries will be historical, with some modifications as needed for game balance. Doing rounds of picking territory like you sugest will take to much time, which could once again kill the sim before it starts.

Got an idea, why not tie tech to economy. Say if using the BP/IC model, you delegate a certain number of IC's to techs.

Say I have 20 IC, I split them up, say 5 to Turbines, 4 to Capital Ship Design, 3 to Guns, rest spread around. Say no one else has more than 4 to Turbines, then I would be the leader in that field, and would remain so till someone added more ICs to their turbines. Now say someone has 5 for Capital ships, they get dreadnoughts first, but Im close behind, so can build them say a year after first person. Now say I didnt dedicate any to torpedoes, well then will have to import them from outside as wont be able to build even really basic ones. And so on. Not sure I made myself clear.

Interesting idea Foxy, Im sort of fond of it. Can you flesh it out more so I have a better idea of how such a system would work? Personaly, I would like it tied to BP, but the concept is quite promissing.

Economics
My idea could probably be simplified to a two based system.
Concerning the N3 system there are at least 2 things I would like to revise:

• growth: investing into the production was economically a bad idea, new factories would never ever return their cost. I would also like a more automatic growth
• BP: in N3 BPs were too valuable to be not used. I would like that to be different. The BPs should represent a potential that can be used if things get hot but are rarely used. It should also be interesting to not have that big industry (e.g. because making cash is easier and makes one more flexible)

Harbors
Shouldn't be too expansive. Cost based on number_of_ships*max_ship_size. Upkeep is paid for mostly through the ships themselves.

Ship Upkeep
The more I think about it the better I find an upkeep based on two things:

• fuel consumption
  
• ship size/crew
  I think I can make an example showing that it's not too difficult. But yes you will have to copy a few more SpringSharp numbers than only the size, but that's it.
  in addition to that, the need to overhaul ships as in N3.
  
  Technology and Shipbuilding
  should be closely tied together.
  Developing something first should be most expansive. For every nation that finishes it, it gets cheaper. It get also cheaper by using it.
  I propose no buying of technology or if than only to speed up own efforts.
  I would like to distinguish between the six types of propulsion SpringSharp has to offer. I know how to do it, now I "only" have to persuade you.
  Other things I would like to see:
  
• basic shipbuilding techs: Iron, Steel, partially welded and fully welded hulls.
  
• the need to "unlock" bigger (and smaller) hulls
  
• power limits
  
  Land Warfare
  Even if we don't want it, we should have some basics. So that if some blockheads really go against each other a mod can point there to back up his final decision.
  
  @Desertfox: Interesting (alternate) idea! Not entirely compatible with my tech tree though and i would use BPs.

Quote from: Nobody on August 29, 2012, 05:08:10 PM
Concerning the N3 system there are at least 2 things I would like to revise:
growth: investing into the production was economically a bad idea, new factories would never ever return their cost. I would also like a more automatic growth
BP: in N3 BPs were too valuable to be not used. I would like that to be different. The BPs should represent a potential that can be used if things get hot but are rarely used. It should also be interesting to not have that big industry (e.g. because making cash is easier and makes one more flexible)

Can you provide some more examples of how these would work? As I said before, I really dont want to develop a new system or have a new one developed. The N3 system works, for better or worse. I am compleatly open to tweeking and ajusting aspects, but the N3 ruleset will be the framework.

harbors: I like that little equation. Simple and to the point. :)

Ship upkeep: I would really like to keep just one "currency" tonnage. It makes bookkeeping simple, even if only a few more numbers are needed.

Tech: Show me (and the rest of us) what you have in mind for engeins. I think there is a way to mesh Foxy's system and a teired tree. (see below) I like the tech getting cheaper as more aquier it, and think it will work well. I'm not enthused about adding building techneques, but if we decide to start very early (ie, not the close to Dreadnaught era that currently leads the way) I could be convinced otherwise. I dont know what you mean by "unlock" hulls. Can you explain this a bit more? (I will note I am not a fan of what is implied, but want to hear the pitch before I make up my mind)

Land warfare: As stated, all conflicts must be scripted or otherwise resolved between the involved parties. Should they chose to script it, they will have to decide how to do such. I really dont want to get involved unless needed.


My thoughts on tech are this. Let me know if anyone needs some more detail on parts of it. Foxy, this I how I would imagine your system working.

There would be a number of catagories (ie. Ship Archatecture, Naval Guns, etc.) Each of these catagories would have several milestones in it (ie. All-big-gun Battleships and Armored Cruisers, Superheavy Shells, etc.) Each milestone would have a point value assigned to it. Nations would put points to each catagory, tho there would be enough catagories or few enough points that one nation could not lead in all. Once a nation meets the requiered number of points for reaching a milestone, they can then use tech that the milestone unlocks. Each nation that reaches the milestone decreases the points needed for other nations to hit the milestone.

Thoughts?

Quote from: snip on August 29, 2012, 05:53:55 PM
I only see 9 votes in that poll. Im sure some have lent there opinon who have not staked a country yet.

Where do we stake a country? :-\

Quote from: Logi on August 29, 2012, 09:36:28 PM

Quote from: snip on August 29, 2012, 05:53:55 PM
I only see 9 votes in that poll. Im sure some have lent there opinon who have not staked a country yet.

Where do we stake a country? :-\

Just take a hatchet, cut a branch off a tree, sharpen it, and stab the ground where you wish to claim it....

The ones that still need to be filled out of the Major Powers are

Russia
Spain/Iberia (in effect the same, or close enough for army work)
Italy

Take your pick.

This is how I see it working.
First I'd rather not tie it directly to the nation's manufacturing capacity (ie BP's), because innovation comes from many places, small countries such as Sweden have introduced high techs before other larger ones. In addition tying it to IC (or equivalent) will promote economic growth, as there will be an incentive to spend on such things.

So first we have a tech tree with fixed start dates.

Tech 1 (say Torpedoes)
Level 1
Level 2
...

Tech 2 (say Airplanes)
...

Tech 3 (say Turret Design)
...

Country 1 has say 10 IC, Country 2 has say 13 IC.

Country 1 distributes its IC as 7 torpedoes, 3 turret design

Country 2 distributes its IC as 4, 4, 4.

Because of investment in torpedoes C1 gets them automatically when they become available and levels up automatically. C2 will remain a level behind (cannot be same level) as the gap between the two countries is significant.  The inverse is true with aircraft, however C1 simply cannot build any aircraft no matter the date, until it builds an extra IC for aircraft. Now both countries are pretty evenly matched in Turret Design. C2 is the first one to level up, but C1 can level up to C2's level after a reasonable wait, say 1 year?

So country with highest level of investment, gets the technology first, depending on how close other countries are, decides when they can use it. Technology can't be sold like in N-verse 2.0, but you can sell finished products, so C2 would sell aircraft to C1, while C1 would sell torpedoes to C2.

You would not spend directly on tech, but rather on the economy. Each IC would then represent say a factory, or a research center, or say just people (ie Wright brothers, Tesla). Also IC's could be dedicated towards say gun sizes. You would need a dedicated IC for say ever gun size you have over 12", or 1 IC per every 2 gun sizes between 8" and 12" and so on.

Hope I made myself clear.

I split some stuff of at Nobody's request. Please continue those threads in there proper place :)

Foxy, your thoughts are close to my own.

Quote from: snip on August 29, 2012, 05:34:23 PM
There would be a number of catagories (ie. Ship Archatecture, Naval Guns, etc.) Each of these catagories would have several milestones in it (ie. All-big-gun Battleships and Armored Cruisers, Superheavy Shells, etc.) Each milestone would have a point value assigned to it. Nations would put points to each catagory, tho there would be enough catagories or few enough points that one nation could not lead in all. Once a nation meets the requiered number of points for reaching a milestone, they can then use tech that the milestone unlocks. Each nation that reaches the milestone decreases the points needed for other nations to hit the milestone.

I will need to flesh out the math, but I think we are barking up the same tree (punny of me)

I would prefer to keep paying for guns and mountings on a separate basis with cash.

Quote from: snip on August 29, 2012, 09:54:36 PM
The ones that still need to be filled out of the Major Powers are

Russia
Spain/Iberia (in effect the same, or close enough for army work)
Italy

Take your pick.

I might be interested in Russia but I don't really know anything about their navy apart from the Russo-Japanese War era (which isn't that useful seeing as almost all the Russian doctrine, ships, and sailors who went into that did not come back out). Any suggestions for research?

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/frames0.html


The good news is, if we start at 1905, the Imperial Russian Navy has gotten rid of (with the help, granted, of the Imperial Japanese Navy) of a bunch of ships of dubious design and construction.  Of course, that happens to leave the fleet a bit short (outside of the Black Sea Fleet, which didn't participate in the Russo-Japanese War), but at least you're not having to pay for some of those things......

My order of preference for staking a country is Russia then Iberia.

By first-come-first-served, Delta gets Russia and Logi gets Spain/Iberia

Yeah I think we have the same basic idea.

QuoteI would prefer to keep paying for guns and mountings on a separate basis with cash.

Not suggesting the actual guns come from there, but that IC's be dedicated for the research of new types of guns. We had to pay similarly in N-verse 2.0 to develop new weapons.

Also there should be economic bonuses for un-delegated IC's. So technologically advanced countries would grow less rapidly than those less advanced. Also there would be penalties if you wanted to switch an IC from one tech to another. Say the IC would be offline for a year, this would represent say a factory converting from say making torpedoes to guns.

Quote from: Desertfox on August 30, 2012, 11:31:42 PM

QuoteI would prefer to keep paying for guns and mountings on a separate basis with cash.

Not suggesting the actual guns come from there, but that IC's be dedicated for the research of new types of guns. We had to pay similarly in N-verse 2.0 to develop new weapons.

What I am thinking about useing right now is a "gun tech" sort of like that from N3 that would need these points assigned to it to be able to construct larger weapons. Then to develop said weapons, you would need to pay cash, again ala N3. Is that what you are refering to?

Quote from: Desertfox on August 30, 2012, 11:31:42 PM
Also there should be economic bonuses for un-delegated IC's. So technologically advanced countries would grow less rapidly than those less advanced. Also there would be penalties if you wanted to switch an IC from one tech to another. Say the IC would be offline for a year, this would represent say a factory converting from say making torpedoes to guns.

The system I have in mind would have the points based on IC or BP. There would not really be a assigning of the IC/BP to research. The points would just come from there. Still working on a way to make growth less linear, but having a hard time with it.

Quote from: snip on August 30, 2012, 11:39:59 PM

Quote from: Desertfox on August 30, 2012, 11:31:42 PM
Also there should be economic bonuses for un-delegated IC's. So technologically advanced countries would grow less rapidly than those less advanced. Also there would be penalties if you wanted to switch an IC from one tech to another. Say the IC would be offline for a year, this would represent say a factory converting from say making torpedoes to guns.

The system I have in mind would have the points based on IC or BP. There would not really be a assigning of the IC/BP to research. The points would just come from there. Still working on a way to make growth less linear, but having a hard time with it.

I think that DF's idea would help make growth less linear.  An alternative to shutting down the IC for a year would be allowing a minimum of one IC to be transferred yearly or say, 5% (rounded up?) of IC whichever is more.  Does this make sense?  So that a nation with a 50/50 split between economy and research doesn't all of a sudden have 90% in research after a 1 year hiatus. 

I think I get it now. Each IC would ether generate $1 or 1 Research point per turn. That would also help with limiting BP as the big factor in shipbuilding... Im fond of this idea.

Quote from: Logi on August 30, 2012, 09:41:06 PM
My order of preference for staking a country is Russia then Iberia.

Depending on the start era I might be willing to let you have Russia.

Just a random thought.  I know this is primarily a Naval Sim, with all the emphasis the Navy deserves.  But there is definitely a need for Military/Air Force rules (Air Force eventually).  I liked the N3 system for armies with one minor nit.  A corps (50,000 men) could be divided either in half or into tenths.  So half a corps was a division (25,000) and a tenth of a corps was a brigade (5,000).  In my humble opinion a brigade is too small a unit to be keeping track of, and in 1900 very few European armies were prepared to deploy independent brigades, they would have deployed a division.  So I advocate eliminating brigades or the option to use brigades except for roleplay purposes.  Instead, I offer a half-sized division. In 1914 most European armies had divisions numbering closer to 10,000 than 20,000.  American divisions later in that war were roughly double the size of a European division at 25,000 men.  I advocate an army corps having four divisions of 12,500 men apiece.  Most players arent even going to use them but for smaller players or those with smaller armies can use them. 

Brigade sized units are useful for colonial actions and troop transportation. It's hard to keep a division supplied in undeveloped colonies (not to mention being a waste of manpower) and also difficult to do a sealift of that many soldiers at once.

If we keep the "army"/"corp" size at ~50000, how about dividing it by 5 to get the smaller units if needed? --> 10000 and 2000.

The disadvantages of the N3 system (IMHO):

• too linear, especially the linear upkeep is overkill
  
• too simple upgrades
  
• btc
  
  My army ideas:
  
  
  
  • make upgrades twice as expansive as the difference between the new and the old level:
       Upgrade_Cost = (Cost_NewLevel - Cost_OldLevel) * 2
  • a newer units effectiveness should be higher, that is the build cost should grow faster than the upkeep and/or the fighting power

I intend to stay largely out of this discussion because if you let me get going I will end up pushing for so much detail it becomes insane... Personaly I say we just kidnap the Wesworld land system and call it good.

For colonial work, a regiment's more appropriate than a brigade in most cases.  In an established colony, very often in period you'd recruit local soldiers to fight under your flag.

Quote from: Delta Force on September 08, 2012, 05:39:52 PM
Brigade sized units are useful for colonial actions and troop transportation. It's hard to keep a division supplied in undeveloped colonies (not to mention being a waste of manpower) and also difficult to do a sealift of that many soldiers at once.

I don't disagree but from a book-keeping perspective I believe that being able to divide a corps into tenths it too tiny.  At that level we may as well start getting into details.  Divisions are more likely to be combined arms units.  A brigade might have units attached but they wont be organic to the brigade.  I just feel that it simplifies the book-keeping and yet you have a division.  If you want to divide the division up for colonial defense then just mention that 1st division, 7th infantry corps is on colonial defense duties in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia.  There is not going to be any simming of battles (from what I understand), at least not on land, unless we really cant figure it out between ourselves.  So with no simming the two powers at war can talk amongst themselves and discuss what is feasible and what isn't.  So exact details of who is where down to brigade or regimental strength isn't necessary.  You can do that prior to your wars. 
As far as sea-lift goes... well its not really feasible to be shipping out an entire brigade on one ship anyways.  So you just say that it takes X tonnage to move a corps or a division or however we want to handle it and you build ships or hire merchant ships.  You already know that only a fraction of your brigade or corps is going to be on each ship.  I just don't see transporting troops as being an issue here for unit size.  If you are trying to capture an island from a hostile force you probably want a division to be going in no matter what anyways.