www.navalism.org

This thread is for keeping track of various things.

Link to a WebIRC directed to the our IRC Channel (https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.nightstar.net/#Navalism), Alternatively just join #Navalism on irc.nightstar.net

---

What is this place?
Navalism is a forum-based geopolitical role-playing simulation set in a world not quite our own. This style may be recognized as somewhat akin to Pbp.
Much of our activity is focused on the development of our military forces, with international affairs, technology, and economic development playing roles in this.

We play in six-month turns. Game play typically consists of:

1)  A sim report, in which you describe what your country is doing with respect to building/maintaining a military, research and development, infrastructure development, and economic development.  Some of us use a generic spreadsheet for this; others do it freehand.

2)  Posting new warship designs so that others may be humbled by your awesome skills or, if they're feeling brash, offer critiques.  We design the ships with Springsharp 3; some of us also work on drawings.

3)  Any news you'd like to share in order to add color to your nation and set the context for the stuff you mention in your sim report.  This can resemble newspapers clippings, be short stories, or something else.

4)  Any other discussions you'd like to participate in.

---

Players who have thus far shown interest in this restart attempt:
Logi ------------- Japan
Snip ------------ United States
Darman -------- England
Walter --------- China
Jefgte ---------- France
Rock Doctor --- Ottoman Empire
Guinness ------ Russia
Miketr ---------- Germany (Maybe)

Minor Powers Unfilled:
Italy
Netherlands

Countries not mentioned are probably extremely tiny (navy-wise).

Rollcall Status: CLOSED

POD: CLOSED

Discussion of Ruleset Modifications
Technology: CLOSED
Economics: CLOSED
Combat: CLOSED

Deadlines for all currently OPEN is April 13 as determined by the International Date Line.
This date has passed, so topics will start to be rapidly closed with only short notices.

Note: After the roll-call closes, players can still join the restart attempt, however to prevent "too many cooks", I ask that they respectfully limit their involvement in the discussion of changes to the N3 rules.

After the ruleset modifications and POD discussion closes, please cease from further discussion. It is time to make a decision so we can proceed with the sim.

Currently Accepted Proposals:

• POD is 1875 and the sim starts in 1900. Players can start influencing their nation at the meta level in 1885. A stronger Ottoman Empire, China and weaker Spain and Austria-Hungary.
  Murad V of the Ottomans is more normal and moves the Empire to reform towards a Constitutional Monarchy. Hungary declares war on the Ottomans to prevent resurgence and loses, resulting in the partition of Austria-Hungary. China never suffers from the Opium War, Taiping Rebellion, etc. Japan takes the Philippines from Spain and the USA takes Guam, Cuba, and Jamaica in the simultaneous Spanish-Japanese and Spanish-American War.
  
  


• Each nation starts with any technology with a 1890 or earlier date. Technologies for the 1891-1899 period become available 3 years after the date which they would be researched normally (assuming no successful roll, so 1895 engine tech on a 1898 ship for example) at a price of $6 (flat cost of development if completed) OR the maximum amount that would be invested by the first turn in 1900. Any tech dated 1900 or later must start research after game start.
  
  


• 
  Gun and Mount research costs $0.25 for small-caliber and $0.50 for large-caliber. Researching the gun grants one additional mount for it outside of the single M&H allowed under the current rules.
  
  


• 
  Nations can research as many different technologies at the same time as they like. However the price per tech being researching doubles.
  I.E. A nation researching 4 techs at the same time would have to pay $2+$4+$8+$16 or a total of $30.
  
  


• 
  Start-up BP to be spent on navies and naval infrastructure.
  
  
  

  USA	300
  BRI	1,080
  GER	360
  FRA	540
  RUS	360
  TUR	300
  CHI	120
  JAP	180

  
  A maximum of 20% of this start-up BP can be spent on naval infrastructure (ports, drydocks, slips, etc.)
  
  


• 
  Armies sizes for the start of the sim are to be declared publicly for peer-review. Armies sizes are not bound explicitly but expected to be historically reasonable/accurate.
  
  


• Economics
  Pop --> $0.1 / Pop
  IC ----> $2/$1/$0.5 / Pop with the breaks being IC < Pop, .... Pop <= IC < 2*Pop, .... 2*Pop <= IC
  BP ----> 1,000t War Materials.
  
  In peacetime, a nation can spend no more than 50% of its revenue on military projects or civil projects for which there is likely no immediate economic justification.  The remainder may be spent on economic development projects, most typically new IC or BP.  If a nation is mobilized to a war economy, this restriction is lifted.
  Like N3, but Admin can adjust up or down due to tax/tariff and other fluff. In war economy, which is equiv. to nationalizing, nations are subject to admin-induced malus, something like -10% IC next half.
  
  IC costs $10 base, without increase in capital cost.
  BP costs $50 base. Every 10 BP in existence increases base cost of BP by $10 (stacking). Every 100 BP in existence increase base cost of BP by $50 (stacking).
  Population growth increases in increments: 2%/1%/0.5% for IC < Pop, .... Pop <= IC < 2*Pop, .... 2*Pop <= IC. Increases by 0.5% if at peace.
  
  


• Research Budget Limit
  National homelands (colonial regions are not included) are divided into at least but not limited to 4 regions.
  Research budget limit is defined by one half IC over the regional Pop. This would be cumulative of all regions. No penalty for regions with Pop>IC.
  
  
  

Current Map
(http://puu.sh/9L5Qn)

Quote from: Logi on March 21, 2014, 02:20:54 PM
Note: After the roll-call closes, players can still join the restart attempt, however to prevent "too many cooks", I ask that they respectfully limit their involvement in the discussion of changes to the N3 rules.

Good idea.  I agree with this 100%.  However, we really do need to try and recruit some new people. 

Also, I found a Navalism twitter account, does anyone know who has access to it?

Also, I think we should start noting what Nations we would like to play. If each could list there top three, I think that should be sufficient. Mine in no real order; United States, Russia, China.

Well, with the previous restart attempt I initially wanted to give China a shot so I'd put that on 1. Maybe 2 Germany and 3 Russia.

No doubt for Jef it would be 1 France, 2 France and 3 France. ;D

A) England
B) Scotland
C) Wales
D) Ireland
E) All of the Above

I would think that 'B' would be excellent fo you (with A, C and D conquered by B) ;D

Forgot to add to my No. 1 choice: if possible, no foreign presence (so no British in Hong Kong or Portugese in Macao, etc)  :)

I guess my choices would then be:

1) Japan
2) China
3) Russia

To be clear I initially had China as my first choice, but I will gladly yield it to Walter.

Also since it is practically midnight for the West Coast (of USA) as well, I'm closing the rollcall. I guess the only exception would be Nobody, if he wants to join since he has recently commented.

No unfortunately I'm not able to join. I might occasionally be able to do my report, but I would be unable to write any stories whatsoever. I might also be unable to design my ships and .net being broken on my main computer does not simplify that.

However, feel free to ask if anyone has a questing related to Germany, German names or the German language, write me. I will read your mails.

QuoteNo doubt for Jef it would be 1 France, 2 France and 3 France.

Not sure... Germany,   :)  :)  :)
... Japan, England could be interresting.

I remember to have drawing a Tama Cruiser with 3T2x150 for Japan in ... 1972 when I was young, nice & svelt  :)  :)  :)

Jef  ;)

QuoteNot sure... Germany,   :)  :)  :)

You controlling Germany... sounds like trouble to me! ;D

QuoteTo be clear I initially had China as my first choice, but I will gladly yield it to Walter.

Initially I was thinking of waiting until the others had made a choice before I'd give my choice of nation. If you want to give China a shot, I have no problems with that. It's not like it is the end of the world if I play something other than China. I think almost all ideas I have could be altered slightly to fit another nation. The only exception is a religious one.

It's not so much that I desire to play China explicitly, but developing nations in general. For me, the developed nations suffer a severe case of been there done that which limit my desire to play them. I think I will stay with my Japan choice.

I've updated the OP with a new time: Deadline for discussion and agreement on changes to the ruleset.

I've set this at 3-weeks for now, but I will close particular threads if I perceive general agreement or no interest (of a few days, 3+). If perhaps you meant to respond to the thread, etc. but I closed it, just notify me. I'll reopen it. Contacting me a week or more after I've closed it is not the same however, at that point it's tough luck!  ;)

Maybe add a rough-in of who is playing what at this time so we can hash out any problems with that area?

Alright, I've done so. Everyone has gotten their first choice since there were no conflicts.

Quote from: Darman on March 21, 2014, 05:08:29 PM
Also, I found a Navalism twitter account, does anyone know who has access to it?

Sorry but I am interested in knowing if anyone else even knows of this account.  I think it could be used to inform members but also just to get tweets out there and possibly attract some other players. 

I have no idea what account you're referring to. I don't think it belongs to anyone, but you'll have to link it. It most certainly couldn't be me, I'm a bit anti-social media to begin with.

https://twitter.com/Navalism (https://twitter.com/Navalism)

I suppose it might be Guinness then, given there's a tweet about site maintenance and upgrade.

Could be.  I just think that it could be useful to occasionally send out tweets about the sim itself, events in the sim, or even just a little blurb about an interesting article someone read.  I have no idea really, just send out tweets relevant to our subject matter that might attract people with similar interests to at least follow our twitter account, and maybe a few would join the site. 

Also, for the major powers that don't have a player at the helm, they still need sim reports, a representative for diplomacy, etc.  What do you think of each of these non-player-controlled countries having a 2-person team that will organize and run them as a caretaking operation until someone new jumps in and wants to play?  Two players would avoid too much bias during negotiations. 

Quote from: Darman on March 23, 2014, 01:29:17 PM
Also, for the major powers that don't have a player at the helm, they still need sim reports, a representative for diplomacy, etc.  What do you think of each of these non-player-controlled countries having a 2-person team that will organize and run them as a caretaking operation until someone new jumps in and wants to play?  Two players would avoid too much bias during negotiations.

Im thinking we should hit up older players to see if they want to jump back in after we finalize the changes to the rules. The only big notables I see absent are (based of Logi's timeline and presuming we can knock Japan out of major power status via a different Sino-Japanese war) France, Ottomans, Russia. So we really only "need" three more.

Quote from: snip on March 23, 2014, 01:34:55 PM

Quote from: Darman on March 23, 2014, 01:29:17 PM
Also, for the major powers that don't have a player at the helm, they still need sim reports, a representative for diplomacy, etc.  What do you think of each of these non-player-controlled countries having a 2-person team that will organize and run them as a caretaking operation until someone new jumps in and wants to play?  Two players would avoid too much bias during negotiations.

Im thinking we should hit up older players to see if they want to jump back in after we finalize the changes to the rules. The only big notables I see absent are (based of Logi's timeline and presuming we can knock Japan out of major power status via a different Sino-Japanese war) France, Ottomans, Russia. So we really only "need" three more.

My plan is merely in case we fail to find sufficient players. 

Quotepresuming we can knock Japan out of major power status via a different Sino-Japanese war

I am playing Japan ;)

QuoteMy plan is merely in case we fail to find sufficient players.

I think it's a fine plan.

QuoteCould be.  I just think that it could be useful to occasionally send out tweets about the sim itself, events in the sim, or even just a little blurb about an interesting article someone read.  I have no idea really, just send out tweets relevant to our subject matter that might attract people with similar interests to at least follow our twitter account, and maybe a few would join the site.

Could be interesting. I see no problems with this line of effort. You have my blessings.

Im blind, carry on.

Quote from: Logi on March 23, 2014, 01:47:08 PM

QuoteCould be.  I just think that it could be useful to occasionally send out tweets about the sim itself, events in the sim, or even just a little blurb about an interesting article someone read.  I have no idea really, just send out tweets relevant to our subject matter that might attract people with similar interests to at least follow our twitter account, and maybe a few would join the site.

Could be interesting. I see no problems with this line of effort. You have my blessings.

I'll message Guiness then and ask him about it.  And if any of you have twitter accounts then I recommend following the Navalism feed (I already do), just in case we do get it back up and running. 

(http://a.pomf.se/lxqmdb.png)

Is my attempt at filling out the V2 map with our expected national borders in 1900. Since Africa is mostly an open question, I didn't bother specifically filling it up. I also quite randomly gave the Philippines to Germany, but Japan could always take it instead :D

I also quite randomly gave the Philippines to Germany, but Japan could always take it

You could also give them to me. ;D

Germany makes sense since Spain sold those islands to the east to Germany to begin with. Adding the Philippines makes sense.

Although if you keep your hands off Taiwan, you could definitely get my support for Japanese Philippines. :D

If you could remove those annoying green blobs along the south side of China that annoying little green blob on the southcoast of China, I'll be happy. :)

Few Minor little things. Would change them myself, but better to have one cartographer.

1. Mexico has a we bit of Texas north of the Rio Grande
2. Puerta Rico is not a US territory (not sure if intentional or not, just pointing it out.
3. The top of Main is Canadian.
4. Many of the little Pacific islands are undistributed. Thoughts on how to do that/who should own them?

QuoteIf you could remove those annoying green blobs along the south side of China that annoying little green blob on the southcoast of China, I'll be happy. :)

... now I said this jokingly when I was posting it, but thinking of one of the past restart attempts, I found out that there is a lot of cool stuff and structures in Nepal and Bhutan (especially the Dzongs in Bhutan). Would be nice to have that as part of China (instead of 'relocating; those buildings)...
... I might even use the idea I suggested to the Wesworld China player here. :)

Quote from: snip on March 24, 2014, 08:09:00 AM
4. Many of the little Pacific islands are undistributed. Thoughts on how to do that/who should own them?

Let us compete for them

Sell them? Spain did so historically with its Pacific islands.

(http://a.pomf.se/phesob.png)

Corrected, any other mistakes people have spotted?

I don't know much about the ownership of islands historically -hence my Puerto Rico mistake.
With regard to Nepal-Bhutan I think that should be discussed between Britain and China. Although China had some claim to the two nations, I don't want to unilaterally decide the matter especially since it might be an issue of contention with the British player.
Regarding Taiwan, that is something we could discuss ;D

QuoteCorrected, any other mistakes people have spotted?

Disregarding Nepal and Bhutan right now, the little green blob that I initially wanted to be removed is still there...

QuoteWith regard to Nepal-Bhutan I think that should be discussed between Britain and China. Although China had some claim to the two nations, I don't want to unilaterally decide the matter especially since it might be an issue of contention with the British player.

*looks at the evil British* That is probably going to get tough. Good thing those Apaches are currently flying around here in the area for air support. :)

QuoteRegarding Taiwan, that is something we could discuss

Well... Korea is not and should not be Japanese...
... but I am willing to turn a blind eye if... ;D

QuoteDisregarding Nepal and Bhutan right now, the little green blob that I initially wanted to be removed is still there...

I'll get that in the next revision.

Quote from: Walter on March 25, 2014, 05:54:48 AM

QuoteRegarding Taiwan, that is something we could discuss

Well... Korea is not and should not be Japanese...
... but I am willing to turn a blind eye if... ;D

If China wants to help good o' Japan on the Philippines... ;D

That was something I mentioned a few posts back ("Although if you keep your hands off Taiwan, you could definitely get my support for Japanese Philippines.") :)
... and I would think that it may make sense that those former Spanish islands would become Japanese as well. The price for that would be Korea though. ;D ;D ;D

Giving up Korea would be far too expensive to Japan's economy, but I think maybe no Taiwan and I go on an adventure v. Germany for Philippines.

A heads-up but I have made an IRC channel for Navalism at Nightstar (same server as Wesworld).
I'll be in the channel 24/7 though not always around. Free feel to join.

Link to a WebIRC directed to the Channel (https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.nightstar.net/#Navalism)

Quote from: Logi on March 25, 2014, 09:30:25 AM
A heads-up but I have made an IRC channel for Navalism at Nightstar (same server as Wesworld).

Link to a WebIRC directed to the Channel (https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.nightstar.net/#Navalism")

Tent pitched, come on by guys!

It told me I had exceeded my IP address's limit and disconnected me. 

That's cute. Try restarting your comp and attempt again.

Quote from: snip on March 25, 2014, 10:33:54 AM
That's cute. Try restarting your comp and attempt again.

Did that, and it didn't work

okay i tried /join #Navalism" and it directed me to a page but nobody is in it. 

Is the direct link not workign?

use this #Navalism"

Sorry, apparently it added an extra quotation mark. I've fixed the link.

BTW, looking at the map, what is that tiny grey speck between Nepal and Bhutan? The Principality of Sikkim? ;D

Yes :)

Side-Note: Currently accepted proposals edited into the OP.

Here is the latest iteration of the map:
Taiwan ........ JAP --> CHI
Philippines .. GER --> JAP
Guam .......... SPA --> USA

Japan color scheme changed to make more distinct from the orange palette of Spain, Netherlands, Chile, and Iran.
Walter... since you want no foreign influence in China, should I give back the Vladivostok etc. (Amur Region) back to China?

(http://puu.sh/7Lckw.png)

QuoteYes :)

Good. A nation for a future player who wants something small. :D

Just hope it does not turn out to be a nation like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick and declare war on the US. Then we would be in real trouble. ;D

QuoteJapan color scheme changed to make more distinct from the orange palette of Spain, Netherlands, Chile, and Iran.

Yes. For a moment I thought the Japanese got their greedy hands on the East Indies... and then I found out they managed to get colonies in Europe and South America as well. ;D

QuoteWalter... since you want no foreign influence in China, should I give back the Vladivostok etc. (Amur Region) back to China?

You could if others have no problems with that. As that region is 'border' and not 'in' , I could live with it if others don't want it to happen (would have been different if it was surrounded on all sides by China).

Haven't heard Britain making any comments here regarding Nepal and Bhutan. Maybe we should assume that the Brits have no problem with it.  :)

Quote from: Walter on March 27, 2014, 04:31:48 AM
Haven't heard Britain making any comments here regarding Nepal and Bhutan. Maybe we should assume that the Brits have no problem with it.  :)

Nope.  The Brits have many problems with those nations being subsumed into China. 

Name them! :)

(... and I was actually thinking the other way. Something like the Great Empire of Nepal...)

Quote from: Logi on March 21, 2014, 02:20:54 PM


Note: After the roll-call closes, players can still join the restart attempt, however to prevent "too many cooks", I ask that they respectfully limit their involvement in the discussion of changes to the N3 rules.

After the ruleset modifications and POD discussion closes, please cease from further discussion. It is time to make a decision so we can proceed with the sim.

I'm glad I read this before commenting :)

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on March 29, 2014, 04:17:06 PM

Quote from: Logi on March 21, 2014, 02:20:54 PM


Note: After the roll-call closes, players can still join the restart attempt, however to prevent "too many cooks", I ask that they respectfully limit their involvement in the discussion of changes to the N3 rules.

After the ruleset modifications and POD discussion closes, please cease from further discussion. It is time to make a decision so we can proceed with the sim.

I'm glad I read this before commenting :)

Does this mean you're interested in playing?

I do have some interest, but I have 3 months of training to get through, I certainly can't consider joining at this time. Once I get back I will evaluate my interest & available time prior to making a commitment.

However, that note means that I won't comment on nations/POD/etc but  I'll keep any comments I may have to changes in the N3 rules.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on March 29, 2014, 04:40:34 PM
I do have some interest

Despite your commitments, can we pencil you in somewhere? I cannot for sure say that any of the big nations will remain open, but if you have your eye on something making note cant hurt.

As currently indicated in the opening post, startup BP is this (with BP per turn added)

Country --- BP/turn ---- BP start
USA ------- 31 --------- 30  ------ = 0.97x turn output
ENG ------- 28 --------- 108 ------ = 3.85x turn output
GER ------- 24 --------- 36 ------- = 1.5x turn output
FRA ------- 15 --------- 54 ------- = 3.6x turn output
RUS ------- 12 --------- 36 ------- = 3x turn output
TUR -------- 9 --------- 30 ------- = 3.33x turn output
CHI ------- 12 --------- 12 ------- = 1x turn output
JAP -------- 6 --------- 18 ------- = 3x turn output

To me, startup BP is just all over the place. Why is it that the US and China only have 1 years worth of BPs to spend on a fleet and naval infrastructure while Japan and Ottomans with less BPs are allowed to spend 3 years or more worth of BPs? The difference between France and Germany also don't make sense to me.

Quote from: Walter on March 30, 2014, 02:24:03 PM
As currently indicated in the opening post, startup BP is this (with BP per turn added)

Country --- BP/turn ---- BP start
USA ------- 31 --------- 30  ------ = 0.97x turn output
ENG ------- 28 --------- 108 ------ = 3.85x turn output
GER ------- 24 --------- 36 ------- = 1.5x turn output
FRA ------- 15 --------- 54 ------- = 3.6x turn output
RUS ------- 12 --------- 36 ------- = 3x turn output
TUR -------- 9 --------- 30 ------- = 3.33x turn output
CHI ------- 12 --------- 12 ------- = 1x turn output
JAP -------- 6 --------- 18 ------- = 3x turn output

To me, startup BP is just all over the place. Why is it that the US and China only have 1 years worth of BPs to spend on a fleet and naval infrastructure while Japan and Ottomans with less BPs are allowed to spend 3 years or more worth of BPs? The difference between France and Germany also don't make sense to me.

I think the BP start thing got left in from before we did declared tonnage and such.

I thought so, but since that was there, I began to doubt it (right now it only indicates that the army is to be declared, not navy and navy infrastructure).

Quote from: Walter on March 30, 2014, 02:47:07 PM
I thought so, but since that was there, I began to doubt it (right now it only indicates that the army is to be declared, not navy and navy infrastructure).

We all have the tonnage quotas, that is what I was refering to.

The numbers were based on the historical fleet sizes of the various navies in 1900.

Only the Ottomans' number is conjectured out of thin air. The number for the ottomans is mostly so they ave a navy strong enough to balance the rest of the European powers. What you don't see is that the nations with less xBP to spend on their navy also historically spent much more on their army, like Germany and China for example.

I'm not sure about the whole same tonnage thing, given we have declared armies (which in effect cost nothing).

QuoteThe numbers were based on the historical fleet sizes of the various navies in 1900.

From what I understand the period between 1875 and 1900 is different from real history so I am not sure you can apply historical figures here.

QuoteI'm not sure about the whole same tonnage thing, given we have declared armies (which in effect cost nothing).

Thinking about the armies, one minor flaw of previous navalism versions is that you pay for the whole army which kind of says to me that no army existed for the nation before the specific period where you have the BPs to spend on stuff (usually 10 years). A sizeable part of your army would already be in existence prior to our 1890-1899 'buildup' period so it makes sense not to pay for it, although I would think that it should only be valid for 1880 units. Any army BP useage in the 1890-1899 period would be for barand new units and upgrades of old units to the 1895 level.

In the 1890-1899, China would produce 120 BP. What kind of army would China have when it spends only 12 BP of those 120 BPs on naval stuff and the rest on army? Considering that the 1895 infantry/cavaly/specialists tech can only be used in 1898 and 1899, it would probably end up being a maximum of 84 1895 corps with a leftover of 32 1880 corps that can't be upgraded for a total 116 corps. If we ignore the 25,000/50,000 men talk from the other thread and assume that one corps is 50,000 men stong, you're talking about an army of 5,800,000 being raised in 10 years time. And that is assuming that the 1898 and 1899 BPs are only used for upgrading. If the 1898 and 1899 are used for new 1895 units, that would mean an army of 6,850,000 men. Do I really need an army that big?

The history is indeed different but I used historical numbers it is a more realistic estimate than the next best thing. Due to the flaws in our economic model due to how simplified we have chosen it to be, using it to produce the start-up fleet will result in hugely unrealistic navies.

Since you mentioned China, I'll use it in my example. In 1890-1899 China certainly had steel production but it had almost no modern naval yard to build any ship (only Foochow and Kiangan which both could only build up to 500 ton ironclads) in addition, the steel it produced was exported to foreign countries to help pay bills at home. This additional income was necessary because of the low tax rate within China as well as the corruption rooted in policies formulated hundreds of years prior. The money needed to help the government pay for various normal expenditures. The yards themselves were also extremely inefficient and it was cheaper to buy ships from foreign yards than to build in them.

At the same time neither did I simulate that China's manufacturing base deteriorated tremendously, it had declined to 1/3 of it's 1860 size by 1880 and 1/10 by 1900. These were not the result of foreign intervention, etc. but rather that other countries simply produced cheaper steel than China and China's manufacturers could not compete.

Instead here we have China with already an a-historically large BP base (double that of it's historical size AND no decline) with an a-historically efficient (non-corrupt) tax base. Realistically China would have far less tonnage to spend on it's navy even without foreign intervention and wars. Add to it that the general sentiment in China and it's government has been from hundreds of years very anti-naval. These added with the low capacity of these yards and lack of experience results in a scenario with China having a large navy within ten years starting in 1890 practically impossible.

As an allowance I have already permitted China to be fiercely unhistorical and advantaged, different tonnage limits for start-up fleets is my way of attempting to limit the butterfly effects caused by this shift. Since I have a very strong opinion on the matter, I'm going to leave the call on the nature of these tonnage limits to Snip.

Quote from: Logi on March 30, 2014, 06:16:50 PM
As an allowance I have already permitted China to be fiercely unhistorical and advantaged, different tonnage limits for start-up fleets is my way of attempting to limit the butterfly effects caused by this shift. Since I have a very strong opinion on the matter, I'm going to leave the call on the nature of these tonnage limits to Snip.

Historical modified for altered power shifts, as have been set out previously. OTL is the only metric we have, so it will be used.

The thing with that is that I have just been wasting my time with springsharp.

QuoteThe history is indeed different but I used historical numbers it is a more realistic estimate than the next best thing. Due to the flaws in our economic model due to how simplified we have chosen it to be, using it to produce the start-up fleet will result in hugely unrealistic navies.

Well, according to wiki: "The Qing Chinese navy at its peak consisted of 78 ships, with a total tonnage of 83,900 tons"(*). Not sure what you originally had in mind with those figures but if the 12 BP were to be used as China's limit, 8BP would be required for ports alone (based on the sizes of the 4 Chinese fleets, Type 1 ports are necessary at Weihaiwei, Foochow, Canton and Kiangnan). That would mean there would only be 4 BP left for the startup fleet. Limiting China to a 4000 ton navy at the start of 1900 while about 15 years earlier it was 84,000 tons. In 10 years they build it up to 84,000 tons and in the next 10 years they let it drop to 4,000 tons. To me, that is unrealistic.

4,000 tons. That is probably enough for 1 DD design and 1 TB design then. No point to waste any time simming other stuff...

QuoteThese added with the low capacity of these yards and lack of experience results in a scenario with China having a large navy within ten years starting in 1890 practically impossible.

Define 'large navy'. How big does a navy have to be before you label it 'large navy'?

Going historical, looking at wiki at the 1880s, in 10 years you're looking at about 32,000 tons for the Beiyang fleet, 4,100 tons for the Guangdong Fleet and 7,753 tons for the Nanyang Fleet being aquired by China.(*) I don't see how a-historically something like this can happen in the 1880s, can't happen in the 1890s and will happen in the 1900s. That is just plain weird and inconsistent.

(*) It is true that they're mostly foreign built ships, but for simplicity I would use BPs for them as well with a startup navy (sell those BPs for $ and the use all that $ to buy ships instead of using the BPs to build ships).

I am wondering where you are getting this figure from. Here is the post where the fleet limits are defined (AFAIK, these are the most recent figures)

Quote from: Logi on March 24, 2014, 10:06:21 PM
USA:   300,000t
BRI: 1,080,000t
GER:   360,000t
FRA:   540,000t
RUS:   360,000t
TUR:   300,000t
CHI:   120,000t
JAP:   180,000t

120,000t not enough?

QuoteGoing historical, looking at wiki at the 1880s, in 10 years you're looking at about 32,000 tons for the Beiyang fleet, 4,100 tons for the Guangdong Fleet and 7,753 tons for the Nanyang Fleet being aquired by China.(*) I don't see how a-historically something like this can happen in the 1880s, can't happen in the 1890s and will happen in the 1900s. That is just plain weird and inconsistent.

Practically all of those ships were bought from foreign yards and was not built in either domestic yards.


That said --- I made a mistake in the numbers in the OP. I was using the number that Snip quoted but apparently divided everything by 10 in the OP. This has been fixed.

QuotePractically all of those ships were bought from foreign yards and was not built in either domestic yards.

That is what I said at the bottom of the post.

QuoteThat said --- I made a mistake in the numbers in the OP. I was using the number that Snip quoted but apparently divided everything by 10 in the OP. This has been fixed.

Okay. Got it.

While I appreciate the thought,  my time and internet access is likely to be limited until late June. I really wouldn't want a country "held" on my behalf.  In N3, I took Bavaria with severe nautical limitations and had fun with it. So presuming I find myself with continued interest then, I'll evaluate the nations left and see which ones are of interest. 

Thanks :)

Quote from: snip on March 29, 2014, 08:42:31 PM

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on March 29, 2014, 04:40:34 PM
I do have some interest

Despite your commitments, can we pencil you in somewhere? I cannot for sure say that any of the big nations will remain open, but if you have your eye on something making note cant hurt.

Hello,

Thought I'd pop in and share some random thoughts while you guys contemplate a reboot.

Combat

When I simmed out the Rift War thing in N3, I adapted some rules from a boardgame series called "The Third World War".  It basically had a generic odds table that also accounted for terrain and relatively average skill/quality of the units involved.  So long as players gave me coherent orders, I could sim ground combat pretty quickly.  Big challenge was movement, which I think you guys have licked with this new map of yours.

That same system also had a generic air combat thing I could adapt to our era of air combat - initially just as a recce bonus/penalty to ground combat, but later with limited ground attack and strategic bombing missions.

Naval combat was the time-killer.  Given the emphasis on specific designs, it's difficult to justify going to an abstract system of combat resolution - but that might be what has to be done for anything but the most important battles.  Tally up cruiser/capital ship tonnage on each side, apply penalties or bonuses based on who's got better guns/armor/fire control/speed/more destroyers, roll for a result and modify that based on how intense an action each side wanted to fight (ranging from harassment to decisive battles).   

There was also the issue of simming routine naval stuff - the trade warfare and stuff like that.  It could be abstracted:  How many raiders/subs the attacker commits to a region versus how many escorts the defender commits, roll a table for results that shows raider/escort/merchant losses.
When I did game out the big battles, I still abstracted things a lot, using an ancient Avalon Hill rules set for "Jutland" that (once the leg work was done) let me game out fleet actions in a night.  Despite its generalities, the system worked adequately, given that it was to represent a battle with the hardware and tactics of the N3 period.

Technology

My sense from N3 was that some of the tech tree divisions were unnecessary and amounted to "busy work", such as research on gun mounts, engine year, and such.  I'd suggest limiting research to stuff that is actually new - your first triple turret of any kind, your first turbines, etc.  After that - leaving the incremental upgrade stuff as optional background "fluff".

The other point is to codify how those techs impact the combat resolution system and how they must be accounted for by spending.  If it doesn't affect the actual gaming, there's little point in having it, because players won't bother spending on it.  As an example, "Fire Control" could be treated as specific refits of hardware to specific ships - which will require a lot of bookkeeping, and be difficult to track in a battle sim (especially if not fully introduced to a fleet).  Alternately, it could be considered a "doctrine" of sorts - you pay some generic per-ton cost for your fleet to improve long-range gunner, and when that cost is paid in full, the fleet gains the benefit.  In an absracted battle, it might increase damage to the enemy by some percentage.  Easier for a mod to track.

Army Units

To my thinking, there is very little point in having specific headquarters units unless they provide some sort of add-on to the line combat units:  Increased "stacking limits" or corps-level artillery or whatever.   The old Tactics II board game assigned the player's nuclear component to the headquarters units, and that could apply to gas attacks or seige artillery here. 

Without that bonus effect, you might as well just have 15,000 man divisions that sub-divide into three brigades.

Oh, and:

A big time-waster in the wars was getting coherent and timely orders from players.  Without that, at best, Mods have to wait or engage in conversations with players about what they meant by "Third Corps Firenze".  That can waste a day or two right there.  At worst, the Mod still has to make a call and it ends up pissing off the player and there's a fight.

Three things would help, of which I think I've seen one touched upon already:

-Generic templates for units orders, to reduce the amount of interpretation required.  "Diplomacy" has it right by assigning a name to each "province" so there's no guessing about what "Silesia" means.  While one doesn't need to assign province names right from the start of a sim, a war mod could do so for relevent provinces at the start of a war.

-Adopt the principle that incomplete/incoherent/missing instructions after a set period = "hold and defend self".  Allows avoidance of excessive wait periods for everybody.

-Stuff doesn't exist if it isn't in the national encyclopedia.  War mods should not have to go looking or asking anywhere else about confirming hardware or capabilities.

Welcome back Rocky, you know you are always welcome. Couple followup questions and comments.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 04, 2014, 09:08:10 AM
Hello,

Thought I'd pop in and share some random thoughts while you guys contemplate a reboot.

Combat

When I simmed out the Rift War thing in N3, I adapted some rules from a boardgame series called "The Third World War".  It basically had a generic odds table that also accounted for terrain and relatively average skill/quality of the units involved.  So long as players gave me coherent orders, I could sim ground combat pretty quickly.  Big challenge was movement, which I think you guys have licked with this new map of yours.

Would you be able to share those rules and tables?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 04, 2014, 09:08:10 AM
Naval combat was the time-killer.  Given the emphasis on specific designs, it's difficult to justify going to an abstract system of combat resolution - but that might be what has to be done for anything but the most important battles.  Tally up cruiser/capital ship tonnage on each side, apply penalties or bonuses based on who's got better guns/armor/fire control/speed/more destroyers, roll for a result and modify that based on how intense an action each side wanted to fight (ranging from harassment to decisive battles).   

There was also the issue of simming routine naval stuff - the trade warfare and stuff like that.  It could be abstracted:  How many raiders/subs the attacker commits to a region versus how many escorts the defender commits, roll a table for results that shows raider/escort/merchant losses.
When I did game out the big battles, I still abstracted things a lot, using an ancient Avalon Hill rules set for "Jutland" that (once the leg work was done) let me game out fleet actions in a night.  Despite its generalities, the system worked adequately, given that it was to represent a battle with the hardware and tactics of the N3 period.

I agree that abstracting all but the most important action is the ideal choice.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 04, 2014, 09:19:43 AM
Oh, and:

A big time-waster in the wars was getting coherent and timely orders from players.  Without that, at best, Mods have to wait or engage in conversations with players about what they meant by "Third Corps Firenze".  That can waste a day or two right there.  At worst, the Mod still has to make a call and it ends up pissing off the player and there's a fight.

Three things would help, of which I think I've seen one touched upon already:

-Generic templates for units orders, to reduce the amount of interpretation required.  "Diplomacy" has it right by assigning a name to each "province" so there's no guessing about what "Silesia" means.  While one doesn't need to assign province names right from the start of a sim, a war mod could do so for relevent provinces at the start of a war.

-Adopt the principle that incomplete/incoherent/missing instructions after a set period = "hold and defend self".  Allows avoidance of excessive wait periods for everybody.

-Stuff doesn't exist if it isn't in the national encyclopedia.  War mods should not have to go looking or asking anywhere else about confirming hardware or capabilities.

This, all of this.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 04, 2014, 09:08:10 AM
Technology

My sense from N3 was that some of the tech tree divisions were unnecessary and amounted to "busy work", such as research on gun mounts, engine year, and such.  I'd suggest limiting research to stuff that is actually new - your first triple turret of any kind, your first turbines, etc.  After that - leaving the incremental upgrade stuff as optional background "fluff".

The other point is to codify how those techs impact the combat resolution system and how they must be accounted for by spending.  If it doesn't affect the actual gaming, there's little point in having it, because players won't bother spending on it.  As an example, "Fire Control" could be treated as specific refits of hardware to specific ships - which will require a lot of bookkeeping, and be difficult to track in a battle sim (especially if not fully introduced to a fleet).  Alternately, it could be considered a "doctrine" of sorts - you pay some generic per-ton cost for your fleet to improve long-range gunner, and when that cost is paid in full, the fleet gains the benefit.  In an absracted battle, it might increase damage to the enemy by some percentage.  Easier for a mod to track.

I disagree with a few things here and agree with others. First, there should be no thing as a free lunch when it comes to improvement. Second, when it comes to naval I think we need to have a bit more structure and individual tracking. Now, I do agree that it can get overly complex under some of the rules that we have, but those rules are "battle-tested". The issue with tearing chunks out is how do we replace the pieces that are needed around because players abuse there absence. What are the techs that you would consider having little effect on combat or are so complex as implemented they have little practical effect? I think that Armor, Naval Artillery Shells and Mine Warfare could fall under this category.

I'll see what I can do about the tables.  The games are still around the house somewhere.

As noted, I wasn't keen on the "engine year" machinery tech but that's just me.  Keeping geared/turboelectric/diesel techs only makes sense if the SS reports are altered to reflect their actual outcomes, which I see you've been discussing.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 04, 2014, 10:51:52 AM
I'll see what I can do about the tables.  The games are still around the house somewhere.

Thanks.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 04, 2014, 10:51:52 AM
As noted, I wasn't keen on the "engine year" machinery tech but that's just me.

I think given the historical disparities in engine efficiency between nations the modeling some sort of gap is accurate, tho I would be more then happy to go over the specific concerns. Is there a particular reason you are not keen on the tech that I can further address (I might be missing were you posted said reason)?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 04, 2014, 10:51:52 AM
Keeping geared/turboelectric/diesel techs only makes sense if the SS reports are altered to reflect their actual outcomes, which I see you've been discussing.

If you have specific comments/ideas on ether my proposal or another way to go about making those matter, please comment in the tech thread.

At such time as you guys launch, I might be interested in picking up a vacant Ottoman Empire. 

Cool, Rocky play

:)  :) :)

Jef

I've penciled you in for the Ottoman Empire with (Maybe).

Excellent...

Quote from: Logi on March 21, 2014, 02:20:54 PM

Minor Powers Unfilled:
Italy
Netherlands
Austria-Hungary

Countries not mentioned are probably extremely tiny (navy-wise).

I was thinking that at this juncture - with Rumania expanded into Hungary, and Austria stripped of much of her area- including the Illyrian coast in need of defense, and very limited naval access, she probably wouldn't even be a minor naval power.  Spain is more likely but isn't listed as even a minor. Both would be in a similar category as Brazil and Argentina were.  IMHO.

Hmmm, that's a good point.

The reason I didn't list Spain is I presumed the Spanish-American & Spanish-Japanese Wars effectively wiped out it's fleet.  I'll remove Austria-Hungary from the Minor list.

Well, the historic Dutch fleets were pretty pathetic, while, the temporary destruction of the Spanish fleet would seem more like a reassessment and potential rebuilding period. The only question would be if they had sufficient reason to have one. 

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 10, 2014, 12:06:58 AM
The only question would be if they had sufficient reason to have one.

Revenge? 

Prickly Spanish honor and all. 

Quote from: Logi on March 21, 2014, 02:20:54 PM
Discussion of Ruleset Modifications
Technology: OPEN
Economics: OPEN
Combat: OPEN

Deadlines for all currently OPEN is April 13 as determined by the International Date Line.

Just a freindly reminder that we are getting close to 72 hours before things start getting locked up. If you have comments, proposals, and/or witty retorts, now is the time.

Quote from: Darman on April 10, 2014, 04:02:34 PM

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 10, 2014, 12:06:58 AM
The only question would be if they had sufficient reason to have one.

Revenge? 

Prickly Spanish honor and all.

Here at training on State owned computers, there's a State filter on the internet so I can't see the map, and I can't see the overseas assets (if any) remaining to Spain.

Navies are expensive, though some nations do field them for pride.   Persia is the one I wish was developed enought to be be viable, as it's in a good location for a minor power- but the best it could do is probably on par with Finland. Though I love the Finnish Vainamoinians- all those dinky overarmed CDS.

As to the deadlines, I've made my comments as a kibbitzer. Be interesting to see what you all manage to get going, best of luck.

What image/video containers formats / providers , if any, are allowed through the State filter?

Spain owns no overseas assets, at least that I know of.

Lots of social media and other sites are banned. I think most downloads are banned. All I get here is a big white box that vanishes if I click on it. I remember some of the changes- like to the Austrian Empire, but not all, esp Spain as I wasn't looking at that :)

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 11, 2014, 10:19:20 PM
Lots of social media and other sites are banned. I think most downloads are banned. All I get here is a big white box that vanishes if I click on it. I remember some of the changes- like to the Austrian Empire, but not all, esp Spain as I wasn't looking at that :)

REVENGE!!!!!!

(of course all I can think about when I hear Spanish Honor is Bonzo Madrid from Ender's Game, who wanted revenge no matter what.)

It seems to me that most topics are closed. Is there anything else that you guys can think of that needs to be done before we start posting the rules and setting deadlines for startup reports?

Quote from: snip on April 21, 2014, 08:38:04 AM
It seems to me that most topics are closed. Is there anything else that you guys can think of that needs to be done before we start posting the rules and setting deadlines for startup reports?

Could we get a sample spreadsheet for the start-up reports?  Or more importantly, for the half-year reports?

Quote from: Darman on April 21, 2014, 10:49:57 AM

Quote from: snip on April 21, 2014, 08:38:04 AM
It seems to me that most topics are closed. Is there anything else that you guys can think of that needs to be done before we start posting the rules and setting deadlines for startup reports?

Could we get a sample spreadsheet for the start-up reports?  Or more importantly, for the half-year reports?

I think that as long as everything gets posted in one place, the formatting does not relay matter for startup reports. I will post mine a bit later today. Will need to get to work on a spreadsheet.

If no one has made a spreadsheet by the coming weekend, I'll make one. But otherwise, as Snip said, the formatting doesn't really matter.

Where did everybody go? Been quiet around here.

Had a cold, gardening, finishing a story.

But mainly waiting for final rules sets to be posted.

Been quite busy recently, so I'm going to do everything (posting finished rules, getting first sim report done, etc.) over the weekend.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 25, 2014, 09:17:14 AM
Had a cold, gardening, finishing a story.

But mainly waiting for final rules sets to be posted.

Do you have any specific question(s) that we can answer in the meantime?

I just have intermittent availability for the next..2 months now. So I'll chime in when I can, and think I have something possibly useful to add.

*Predicts what Kirk will play*

*Invades it*

The battleship Aurangzeb the Great led the Mughal fleet into action against the accursed Ottoman invaders....

The Captain of the Negh'Var-class battlecruiser looked curiously at the screen. The inhabitants of this world had cleverly made waterborne vessels with projectile weaponry. How amusing. Turning to the weapons officer he announced "get the disruptors on that turkey", ah victory, a time for Thanksgiving.

So where would I find info on starting IC and population?

Posted in "Starting Information"

Groovy.

Actually, can I get a reference for the population figures?  It'll help me work out the regional distribution.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 28, 2014, 11:05:09 AM
Actually, can I get a reference for the population figures?  It'll help me work out the regional distribution.

*silently praises the US Census*

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 28, 2014, 11:05:09 AM
Actually, can I get a reference for the population figures?  It'll help me work out the regional distribution.

I would assume the numbers come from here...
http://www.populstat.info/populhome.html

While I haven't checked the other nations, I have seen a breakdown of China's population per region so I owuld assume that there is something on that site that can help you out with that.

Very helpful, thanks!

There are a couple other good population sites out there, but that one gives you some of the broadest data.

My initial research points to a population of about 48 million.  That includes:

-All of Sudan, South Sudan, Yemen, Libya, though I only own parts of these.

-50% of Saudi Arabia and Greece, which appears to be a relatively accurate division of population.

I may ask for a couple of tweaks in the Balkans, as the current map shows me owning one small chunk of Hungary and not owning one small chunk of Croatia.  Makes the demographic research easier.

just so you are aware the IRC site has an "untrusted" security thingy.  Or so my computer tells me, and it wont allow me to connect to it. 

Hm, I don't have that on my site. If it's a problem you could always use alternatives like Rizon's Mibbit.

Just a heads up, but I'm been coming down with something so that has thrown a wrench in my plans.

I'll go about correcting the Pop/IC numbers and other minor issues when I get better, hopefully next week. In the meantime I'm going to leave everything to Snip.

Quote from: Logi on May 04, 2014, 08:20:29 PM
In the meantime I'm going to leave everything to Snip.

Oh dear.... when you get back don't be surprised to see most of the world map covered in American blue....

But seriously, hope all gets better quickly. 

Quote from: Logi on May 04, 2014, 08:20:29 PM
Just a heads up, but I'm been coming down with something so that has thrown a wrench in my plans.

I'll go about correcting the Pop/IC numbers and other minor issues when I get better, hopefully next week. In the meantime I'm going to leave everything to Snip.

Also fair warning, my workweek is kind of hectic. I should be able to respond to most things in a timely manor, but please don't hesitate to call things to my attention that I may have missed.

I am also going to add this, it would be really nice if we had everyone's startup reports up by the 17th of this month. Its not a hard deadline at this point, but it might be in the future. Just a head's up.

As I mentioned in the edit for the starting information, I've corrected all the numbers givens. They should all be correct now.

QuoteEdit1: Added Colonies to the British Empire's starting stats. Mongolia & Taiwan included in China's stats. Philippine included in Japan's stats. Madagascar, Indochina, French Guyana, and French Algeria added to France's stats. Finland & Russian Poland added to Russia's stats. German Poland & German Papau New Guinea added to Germany's stats. Did a recount of Ottoman Empire's stats, came out ok.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 29, 2014, 07:08:40 AM
My initial research points to a population of about 48 million.  That includes:

-All of Sudan, South Sudan, Yemen, Libya, though I only own parts of these.

-50% of Saudi Arabia and Greece, which appears to be a relatively accurate division of population.

I may ask for a couple of tweaks in the Balkans, as the current map shows me owning one small chunk of Hungary and not owning one small chunk of Croatia.  Makes the demographic research easier.

I recalculated the numbers and came to about 56 million for the Ottoman Empire. The difference is probably that I took the whole of a few these countries where you only own half or less. I'll list the countries I included:

Turkey
Syria
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Israel
Cyprus
Jordan
Egypt
Eritrea
Sudan (whole) ---> 5.588
Libya (whole) ----> 4.22
Tunisia
Macedonia
Albania
Bulgaria
Greece (whole) --> 4.962
Yugoslavia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Slovenia
Croatia (whole) ---> 3.1615
United Arab Emirates
Qatar
*Yemen (broken by division -> ~79% of total pop)
*Saudi Arabia (broken by division ~52% of total pop)


As for the map issue, point out exactly which provinces you want switched around and I'll do it.

Will do so Monday, when I have better internet.

So I'm building my big spreadsheet to tell me what's built and what costs what.  Should have an initial report ready within a few days.

This is the border change I'm requesting.  Add the province in yellow, subtract the province in red (to Hungary).  This gives me modern Croatian borders.

For my part, I know the POD discussions are closed, which is why I didn't ask then, but I am curious as to a couple of decisions in this region:
1) why does it appear the Post WWII Rumanian borders are used, not the pre-WWI? 
2) Likewise, wouldn't it have been simple to have AH actually disband in 1848, as it nearly did if not for the Russian intervention- that would have also removed it as a power, and created a more natural opportunity for the Ottomans to seize the south. Of course the answer to this could just be I've looked a bit into AH history ....

@ Rock Doctor
I've made the changes to the map as suggested.


@ Kaiser Kirk
1) It was supposed that Romania was able to get a slice Austrian-Hungary pie during the deluge.
2) We had picked the POD to be after the Franco-Prussian war, which means an 1848 divergence would not have worked. Indeed it raises all sorts of questions.
If Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1848, would the North-German Federation, Franco-Prussian War, Kleindeutsche Losung, etc. have occurred as it did? This has much larger effects on the balance of powers in Europe, much more so than a later Austria-Hungarian collapse. That's a bag of worms, I did not want.

I was just curious, as placing the Ottoman gains further back in time would strengthen that regieme, mucked up anyhow. Meant 1866. While there were revolts in 1848, in 1866-67 the AH lost the war vs Prussia, fought- and held off Italy, and had a massive revolt in Hungary which eventually was put down with the Assistance of the Russians.  A tweak there, and Hungary gets spun off, Austria Isolated, the SGC still joins the NGC in 1872, etc.   Seemed the logical place to add an Ottoman gain of territory.
Anyhow, just was curious.

Here's a sample sim report I cooked up. It's missing the Army Construction & Maintenance, Aviation Creation, and Infrastructure Creation sections, but the rest works.

I've included some neat function in it that make organizing things a lot easier. Play with it a bit and let me know if it holds up.

maybe its just a problem with my copy but the "reserve" and "mobilized" costs for my naval units are the same.  Both are higher than my "active" costs. 

I'll look into that as soon as possible.

As a (late) heads up, I've been and still am traveling about since last week, so I haven't had much time to sit down to do any N-verse work.

Gardening's been holding me back.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 26, 2014, 05:26:10 PM
Gardening's been holding me back.

pfft... you Banana Republicans and your gardens :p

Quote from: Darman on May 24, 2014, 10:06:29 PM
maybe its just a problem with my copy but the "reserve" and "mobilized" costs for my naval units are the same.  Both are higher than my "active" costs.

I've been tempted to try and fix it myself but writing Excel formulas is not my forte. 

Quote from: Darman on June 02, 2014, 09:10:50 AM

Quote from: Darman on May 24, 2014, 10:06:29 PM
maybe its just a problem with my copy but the "reserve" and "mobilized" costs for my naval units are the same.  Both are higher than my "active" costs.

I've been tempted to try and fix it myself but writing Excel formulas is not my forte.

I should actually look at this.

Snip, if you would go IRC perhaps at your evening or morning so we can discuss somethings that would be great.

By the by Darman, you have to stay on IRC for more than a few minutes if you want a response. I have spotty internet at the place I am staying... try again in a few hours (when I'll be back). Alternatively, just write what you wanted to say in IRC without my response, I'll read it when I'm back.

Quote from: Logi on June 04, 2014, 10:16:45 PM
By the by Darman, you have to stay on IRC for more than a few minutes if you want a response. I have spotty internet at the place I am staying... try again in a few hours (when I'll be back). Alternatively, just write what you wanted to say in IRC without my response, I'll read it when I'm back.

Yea I know, I've just always got somewhere to be, I'm working a crazy schedule right now, so I've got very little time to stay on IRC.  But I'll just leave a message next time. 

Quote from: Logi on June 04, 2014, 09:06:21 PM
Snip, if you would go IRC perhaps at your evening or morning so we can discuss somethings that would be great.

The tab is open, poke if needed.

Ya, your connection is crappy

Question :
Looking at the map, I've noted that the large British and French African Empires are mostly, but not completely gone, but Portugals remain, Belgium lacks the Kongo, and Germany has lost her colonies...but Italy has picked up the German East African coastline and part of Somalia ?  Then, NE of South Afrika there are an inland light green, coastal pale pink, and an inland umber...which are...independent Africans?? Also, which nation is the yellowish south of French Algeria ?
Is that a correct interpretation ?

NE of South Africa, they might be an independent Orange Free State, Natal, and Transvaal. 

How far along is anyone else on their startup information and first sim reports? 

Well, I have simmed the ships and gave an estimate as to how big the Chinese army would be. It should not be too hard to figure out how to break down the nation into a number of pieces. Not sure what to do with fortifications and coast defenses. Should I try to figure something out what seems to be acceptable to have at the start or should I just forget about that and just begin from scratch in 1900?

Quote from: Walter on June 10, 2014, 07:50:22 AM
Well, I have simmed the ships and gave an estimate as to how big the Chinese army would be. It should not be too hard to figure out how to break down the nation into a number of pieces. Not sure what to do with fortifications and coast defenses. Should I try to figure something out what seems to be acceptable to have at the start or should I just forget about that and just begin from scratch in 1900?

Your call on that. I would think there would be some things in existance, at least covering harbors.

I paid for my coast defenses, so I didn't have to worry about what was there historically or not.  China presents a different challenge as far as fortresses goes though because a lot of the ports will have been under foreign occupation. 

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on June 05, 2014, 10:26:11 PM
Question :
Looking at the map, I've noted that the large British and French African Empires are mostly, but not completely gone, but Portugals remain, Belgium lacks the Kongo, and Germany has lost her colonies...but Italy has picked up the German East African coastline and part of Somalia ?  Then, NE of South Afrika there are an inland light green, coastal pale pink, and an inland umber...which are...independent Africans?? Also, which nation is the yellowish south of French Algeria ?
Is that a correct interpretation ?

I used the default 1870 distribution Victoria 2 gives which came with the map. I didn't modify the distribution of colonies because of the existence of a stronger Ottoman Empire, I had intended those colonies to be part of the diplomatic maneuvers leading up to the first sim report.

As for the South African states, they are as Darman indicated.

Quote from: Darman on June 09, 2014, 09:16:05 AM
How far along is anyone else on their startup information and first sim reports?

Mostly everything is assembled, save for the question of fortifications and coast defenses. We still haven't decided on the fortification/coast-defense rules. That was what I've been meaning to talk to Snip about. I'm also now on a semi-reliable connection in a normal timezone, so you guys should be able to find me in the IRC as usual.

Quote from: Walter on June 10, 2014, 07:50:22 AM
Well, I have simmed the ships and gave an estimate as to how big the Chinese army would be. It should not be too hard to figure out how to break down the nation into a number of pieces. Not sure what to do with fortifications and coast defenses. Should I try to figure something out what seems to be acceptable to have at the start or should I just forget about that and just begin from scratch in 1900?

My stance is the same as Snip's.

I've added Fortification/Coast Defense & Army rules to the N6 rules, the ruleset is now complete for starting

I will post a complete example sim report (excel doc) tomorrow.

Quote from: Logi on June 11, 2014, 04:22:45 PM
complete for starting

In our review. If something major is missing, Im sure you will all be vocal about it.

Holy cow. Good show everyone.

I feel neglectful, as up till about the time this thread got cranking, I'd managed to at least catch up quietly on what was going on.

I just got done putting up about 50k air miles, almost all Trans-Atlantic in the first half of the year, but looking at my calendar, I've got no travel planned for the rest of the year. That'll change, but I don't expect to flying back and forth to Europe every other week....

I was just thinking about how I hadn't opened Springsharp in a while, either.

So, if Rocky wants to play, got room for one more? Or I suppose I could lurk and speak for the NPCs when they need speaking for.

I'm looking into the Twitter terms of service related to joint accounts, and I'll be renewing this website's hosting this month.  ;)

Oh and on rules.

I personally enjoyed obsessing over naval engagments, but they are very time consuming. Our custom ships are of course part of the problem and really the point.

I wonder though if we might boil them down to a simple rating system for simulation. Something like 5 attributes, size, speed, protection, firepower, and combat worthiness. Then we can reduce all combat to weighted rolls fairly easily (I think). How do we get those weights. Well, the Mods probably assign them, but I see no reason why we couldn't do a spreadsheet and share them with the involved players (and give them a chance to object). Fun narratives can still happen, but we can keep things moving along.

Now with real time chat, I suppose an interactive battle or two with some more involved set of rules could get fought too....

We've been working on some rules for ground combat.  We started a simulation, but i think week-long increments for orders is too short an amount of time to keep things moving. 

Quote from: Guinness on June 11, 2014, 07:28:48 PM
So, if Rocky wants to play, got room for one more? Or I suppose I could lurk and speak for the NPCs when they need speaking for.

All hail Czar Guinness! (Russia is the spot that is to be filled before others, and I assume that Logi would be ok with this *awaits fish slapping if wrong*)

Quote from: Darman on June 11, 2014, 08:24:19 PM
We've been working on some rules for ground combat.  We started a simulation, but i think week-long increments for orders is too short an amount of time to keep things moving.

Was I the one who fracked that up?

Quote from: snip on June 11, 2014, 10:55:13 PM
Was I the one who fracked that up?

Might have been me...

Quote from: snip on June 11, 2014, 10:50:36 PM

Quote from: Guinness on June 11, 2014, 07:28:48 PM
So, if Rocky wants to play, got room for one more? Or I suppose I could lurk and speak for the NPCs when they need speaking for.

All hail Czar Guinness! (Russia is the spot that is to be filled before others, and I assume that Logi would be ok with this *awaits fish slapping if wrong*)

No problems with that, we'd be glad to have you on board.

Russia might not have been my first choice, but I'm warming to it. I suppose the Bolsheviks could come early...

I see on the map that Sakhalin Island is divided. In our timeline that didn't happen until the 1904 Russo-Japanese war. This probably isn't a big deal, but I thought it deserved asking/pointing out.

Quote from: Guinness on June 12, 2014, 06:34:46 AM
Russia might not have been my first choice, but I'm warming to it. I suppose the Bolsheviks could come early...

The only reason we want to prod you in that direction is due to Russia being involved basically everywhere important due to being so large, while Germany is not. I support early 1900's Cold War (tho the sides could be different...)

heh, warming to it
(http://i.imgur.com/himZD0M.gif)

It's just in such a disadvantageous position is all. It helps to think of the Pacific coast as a colony, I guess. Holding Finland helps a little with the situation in the Baltic. The Black Sea will depend on the Ottomans, but with Rocky staffing the Ottomans, that's one of biggest plusses to me.

Also, I guess I'm not too motivated by land armies, but Germany would have the same problem, so that nets out as a wash.

I found the startup BP, but can someone point me to each nation's first year IC and BP budget? Or does that depend on what you spend on to start with?

Quote from: Guinness on June 12, 2014, 08:36:23 AM
It's just in such a disadvantageous position is all. It helps to think of the Pacific coast as a colony, I guess. Holding Finland helps a little with the situation in the Baltic. The Black Sea will depend on the Ottomans, but with Rocky staffing the Ottomans, that's one of biggest plusses to me.

Also, I guess I'm not too motivated by land armies, but Germany would have the same problem, so that nets out as a wash.

I found the startup BP, but can someone point me to each nation's first year IC and BP budget? Or does that depend on what you spend on to start with?

*goes digging* Its all here (http://"http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6447.0.html"), but copped the relivent bits below.
Russia: Pop of 149.9 million, 19.5 IC, 12 BP. Startup of 360BP to be spent on Naval Infra (20% maximum) and Naval ships. Anything land-based is declared, but is subject to review (had no real issues outside of India so far). For tech, it is assumed that everyone has everything pre-1890 and that techs between 1890 and 1897 become available 3 years after there research dates during the startup period.

Honestly, I think the dynamic between Russia-China-Japan is going to be much different from OTL as it is a true three-power area, not two powers and a punching bag that we hope never gets it act together. Going to mean that politicking is more important and war is less likely to be a mano-el-mano show as with the historical Ruso-Japanese war.

Quote from: snip on June 12, 2014, 08:52:59 AM

*goes digging* Its all here (http://"http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6447.0.html"), but copped the relivent bits below.
Russia: Pop of 149.9 million, 19.5 IC, 12 BP. Startup of 360BP to be spent on Naval Infra (20% maximum) and Naval ships. Anything land-based is declared, but is subject to review (had no real issues outside of India so far). For tech, it is assumed that everyone has everything pre-1890 and that techs between 1890 and 1897 become available 3 years after there research dates during the startup period.

Thanks.

Quote
Honestly, I think the dynamic between Russia-China-Japan is going to be much different from OTL as it is a true three-power area, not two powers and a punching bag that we hope never gets it act together. Going to mean that politicking is more important and war is less likely to be a mano-el-mano show as with the historical Ruso-Japanese war.

This may be true, but Russia can't hope to concentrate enough forces in the East to counteract both China and Japan. Its only hope is to ally with one of them...

Quote from: Guinness on June 12, 2014, 08:56:02 AM

Quote
Honestly, I think the dynamic between Russia-China-Japan is going to be much different from OTL as it is a true three-power area, not two powers and a punching bag that we hope never gets it act together. Going to mean that politicking is more important and war is less likely to be a mano-el-mano show as with the historical Ruso-Japanese war.

This may be true, but Russia can't hope to concentrate enough forces in the East to counteract both China and Japan. Its only hope is to ally with one of them...

Or make them fight eachother...

You don't fight Russia *and* America. You get Russia and America to fight each other... and destroy each other. -The Sum of All Fears

It would be a diplomatic challenge, yes.

Now there is some cruisery opportunities now that Japan has the Philippines. ;-) That very much changes the dynamic for the USA, btw. Much of US naval strategy was predicated on needing to be able to fight through to Manila.

I think with a much stronger China than historical, there would be more incentive for Russia reach some agreement with Japan. There's likely to be less friction between Japan and Russia since Manchuria is no longer a sphere of influence to be fought over.

If I remember right the slowdown in the simulation was that I gave you both the results of turn 3 and never received orders for turn 4.  We can pick it up again if you'd like?  We're really not that far off from first contact. 

Although, to be honest, I wasn't entirely sure either one of you would be aggressive enough at first. 

Quote from: Darman on June 12, 2014, 04:13:21 PM
Although, to be honest, I wasn't entirely sure either one of you would be aggressive enough at first.

I'm to use to Helo inserts from Wargame: Red Dragon allowing me to take important points and then camp so hard I run out of marshmallows.

Well... strategic depth and all that.

So if I read it correctly, snip, you ran out of marshmallows at the end of turn 3. :)

Quote from: Walter on June 12, 2014, 04:48:08 PM
So if I read it correctly, snip, you ran out of marshmallows at the end of turn 3. :)

Well, Napalm cooks them fast.

Quote from: Walter on June 12, 2014, 04:48:08 PM
So if I read it correctly, snip, you ran out of marshmallows at the end of turn 3. :)

Pretty much. 

Here is the completed sample sim report I mentioned. It's also Japan's 1900 sim report.

Enjoy.

Edit: File removed - see later posts for more updated version

I really like the look of this guy. Will try and get 'Murica all put in so we have another example.

I think there is a slight error with the Revenue calculation.
= (B7*0.1) + IF(C7 >= B7, 2*B7, C7) + IF(C7 >= 2*B7, B7, IF(C7 >= B7, C7-B7, 0)) + IF(C7 >= 2*B7, 0.5*(C7 - 2*B7), 0)
It seems like it is multiplying POP by two rather then IC by two for when the IC is less then POP. Per the econ rules

Quote from: Logi on April 27, 2014, 03:26:34 PM
Each IC produces an amount depending on which bracket it falls in, similar to how progressive taxes are calculated. There are three brackets based on the region's

^Pop⁄_IC

ratio.

Revenue	Satisfies
$2	Pop⁄IC ≤ 1
$1	1 > Pop⁄IC ≤ 2
$0.5	Pop⁄IC > 2

Here's the corrected version.

- The error in revenue calculation was fixed
- The error in Ship Construction required BP not showing up was fixed

Ottomania is still running wild, but it paused to take a breath.  Now that the army stuff is up, I'll get to reporting.

Nice to Guinness again.

Ok, I've been researching the Russians, I'm hoping to start working on startup later today.

I look forward to tweaking the Ottomans. :)

Question/topic: the Russians in the Nverse traditionally had no economic/political subdivisions. I suspect I could mostly get away with that, but I was thinking that a few make sense, including Finland, something in the trans-Caucuses, and maybe breaking out the Far East. Thoughts?

Quote from: Guinness on June 14, 2014, 08:15:34 AM
Question/topic: the Russians in the Nverse traditionally had no economic/political subdivisions. I suspect I could mostly get away with that, but I was thinking that a few make sense, including Finland, something in the trans-Caucuses, and maybe breaking out the Far East. Thoughts?

Somewhere we decided that each country needed to be divided into at least 4 regions.

Dividing up Russia to: European Russia, Siberia, Russian Central Asia, Finland, and Caucasia would probably be my division if I was playing Russia. As Snip mentioned, homelands are required to be split into at least four regions.

Okay just looked at Japan's spreadsheet...

Why are the Northern Mariana, Spratly Islands, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands Japanese? Looking at the map, I don't think they should be on Japan's property list, otherwise I might just as well ignore everything and evertyone and add a few bits of land to China's list. :-\

Another thing is that the spreadsheet shows the weirdness of the research rules. Shikoku does not strike me as the region for Research. Honshu or Kyushu seems more logical regions. Looking at China, the way I have currently broken it up means that I do not get any research cash from the regions... and probably never will in the game unless I put ICs in illogical regions (Mongolia or Uyghur) or split it up even more so that I end up with an entry for Hong Kong and/or Shanghai to dump my ICs in to create anything for the research budget.

Also should you not use whole ICs?

Another thing. I noticed with the start up stuff that Darman is spending BP on coast defense guns and Rocky mentioning it, yet in the Army Set-up Discussion thread, it was indicated that it would fall under the declared stuff like the army and fortresses. I have not seen anything from the mods to indicate that after April 14 they changed their minds again and decided to have the coast defense guns coming from the startup BPs.

I just figured it'd be a pain in the butt to find actual data on Ottoman forts, so would simply pay for the BP out of pocket. 

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:59:05 AM
Another thing. I noticed with the start up stuff that Darman is spending BP on coast defense guns and Rocky mentioning it, yet in the Army Set-up Discussion thread, it was indicated that it would fall under the declared stuff like the army and fortresses. I have not seen anything from the mods to indicate that after April 14 they changed their minds again and decided to have the coast defense guns coming from the startup BPs.

We did not change our minds, they are still declared.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:46:34 AMWhy are the Northern Mariana, Spratly Islands, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands Japanese? Looking at the map, I don't think they should be on Japan's property list, otherwise I might just as well ignore everything and evertyone and add a few bits of land to China's list. :-\

Well the USA, Britain, and Japan met together and discussed how the Pacific pie was to be split. That was part of the distribution we agreed on.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:46:34 AMAnother thing is that the spreadsheet shows the weirdness of the research rules. Shikoku does not strike me as the region for Research. Honshu or Kyushu seems more logical regions.

Why do you feel that way? I feel Kyushu would rather be the opposite of where research should happen. The Boshin rebels came from Kyushu and fleed back to there when they were defeated. They had to be purged eventually, but Kyushu was their base of operations.

Shikoku is securely located, surrounded by Honshu and Kyushu in the direction of the most likely threats (China & Russia). In addition, it is located opposite of the Kure Naval District, which was one of the most advanced shipbuilding facility in Japan OTL. In addition, you don't want to industrialize a region that is heavily populated / already built up. It makes the process more expensive (clearing existing buildings and forcing more people off their land) and makes it hard to localize the effects of the experiment (which industrialization is).

We can draw parallels to the Chinese EEZs in the modern era, Shenzhen and the rest were worthless, impoverished, and tiny villages. Thus any side-effect of industrialization could be localized and nothing of great value would be lost if things went wrong.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:46:34 AMLooking at China, the way I have currently broken it up means that I do not get any research cash from the regions... and probably never will in the game unless I put ICs in illogical regions (Mongolia or Uyghur) or split it up even more so that I end up with an entry for Hong Kong and/or Shanghai to dump my ICs in to create anything for the research budget.

I don't see a problem with the Hong Kong / Shanghai way.... although I wouldn't use Hong Kong. Hong Kong is nothing more than an extremely poor fishing village, like Shenzhen in this period. Without the British controlling Hong Kong, there are no natural incentives for Hong Kong to develop as opposed to Guangzhou. Even then Guangzhou had various reasons it wasn't very developed.

It's just a reality that in 1900, regions where China was poor was extremely, starving to death in the countryside, poor. Cities did often have more GDP than the rest of the next few provinces combined.

In terms of per capita consumption of foreign goods, the average in the 1872-1900 period was 50 custom tael in Shanghai, 17 custom taels in Hankou, and 5 custom taels in Guangzhou¹. That means the foreign import consumption was ~$30.67 for Shanghai, ~$10.43 for Hankou, and ~$3.07 for Guangzhou in foreign consumption alone. Considering that Maddison gives the Chinese GDPpc in 1900 as $545 in 1990 USD, which is ~$34.71 in 1900 USD. Shanghai citizens spending 89% of what their wages would approximately be on limited foreign goods does not sound realistic.

The estimated daily wage for Beijing dwellers was ~9 grams of silver per day². That works to roughly a quarter of a Tael a day. Working backward, this is roughly 14.6 cents (in 1900 USD). Even if the worker works only half of the year (365/2), his annual income is still roughly $2664.5, far more than the Maddison national-wide average of $545. More realistically, assuming a 5-day work week (might have been 6) the wage was $3796 in nominal terms. According for purchasing parity as measured from a basket of goods, most predominately that of grain, these cities dwellers' purchasing power was just as high, if not higher, than their European counterparts.³ This applies Japan, the rest of China, and parts of southeast Asia.

¹Institutions and Comparative Economic Development by M. Aoki, T. Kuran, G. Roland
²Wages, Prices, and Living Standards in China, 1738-1925: in Comparison with Europe, Japan and India by R.C. Allen, J-P Bassino, D. Ma, C. Moll-Murata, J.L. van Zanden.
³Global Disparities Since 1800: Trends and Regional Patterns by M. Shahid Alam

Well, you didn't need to know all that. It's just something I've been meaning to research about, but never found the time to. The conclusion, in short, is that having a few city as separate regions (especially since Chinese cities are much larger than their European counterparts) is perfectly feasible and historically plausible.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:46:34 AMAlso should you not use whole ICs?

I don't think it's a big deal, but I'll correct that I guess.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:59:05 AM
Another thing. I noticed with the start up stuff that Darman is spending BP on coast defense guns and Rocky mentioning it, yet in the Army Set-up Discussion thread, it was indicated that it would fall under the declared stuff like the army and fortresses. I have not seen anything from the mods to indicate that after April 14 they changed their minds again and decided to have the coast defense guns coming from the startup BPs.

It is as Snip says.

Coast defense is declared? Cool. *rubs hands together*

How about inland forts?

Quote from: Guinness on June 15, 2014, 02:24:18 PM
Coast defense is declared? Cool. *rubs hands together*

How about inland forts?

Declared. The reason we do that is everyone had different OTL doctrines, so it felt unfair to try and shove everyone into the same box right out of the gate.

QuoteWell the USA, Britain, and Japan met together and discussed how the Pacific pie was to be split. That was part of the distribution we agreed on.

Considering that on the map the Solomons are British, it seems to me that this decision was made after things were set on the map so I can't quite agree with your decisions there to just grab and split up things that you guys do not own. Marianas, Carolines and Marshalls should either be neutral as marked on the map or German as OTL. Now if Britan wants to give the Solomons away to Japan, I have no problem with that, but considering that on the map British ownership of the islands is already fixed for the start, that should be something to be done post 1/1/1900, not before 1/1/1900.

Also Spratly Islands are not Pacific so should not have been included in such an agreement.

QuoteWhy do you feel that way? I feel Kyushu would rather be the opposite of where research should happen. The Boshin rebels came from Kyushu and fleed back to there when they were defeated. They had to be purged eventually, but Kyushu was their base of operations.

True, but Kyushu has something that Shikoku does not have: Nagasaki. During the Edo period, all foreign trade went through there so any foreign technology stuff and knowledge getting into Japan goes through there so it makes more sense that anything research related would be done there.

QuoteIn addition, it is located opposite of the Kure Naval District, which was one of the most advanced shipbuilding facility in Japan OTL.

Which is why it makes more sense for research to be coming from Honshu instead of Shikoku. To me, it is just weird. You have more than half of Japan's ICs in Shikoku. That is like me putting half of China's ICs in Xinjiang or Mongolia.

QuoteI don't see a problem with the Hong Kong / Shanghai way.... although I wouldn't use Hong Kong. Hong Kong is nothing more than an extremely poor fishing village, like Shenzhen in this period.

That is true, although that what you say would not be correct if I were to put half of China's ICs in the Hong Kong region. ::)

QuoteI don't think it's a big deal, but I'll correct that I guess.

Well, I don't really have a problem with it, but since we tried to get whole ICs with the previous versions of Navalism, I thought that that might apply here as well. Still, because we only build whole ICs, I think that a broken IC should be considered an incomplete IC and not produce anything.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 04:31:59 PM
Considering that on the map the Solomons are British, it seems to me that this decision was made after things were set on the map so I can't quite agree with your decisions there to just grab and split up things that you guys do not own. Marianas, Carolines and Marshalls should either be neutral as marked on the map or German as OTL. Now if Britan wants to give the Solomons away to Japan, I have no problem with that, but considering that on the map British ownership of the islands is already fixed for the start, that should be something to be done post 1/1/1900, not before 1/1/1900.

I don't see the problem with islands switching hand... they all literally have 0 Pop, IC, and BP, making them irrelevant to sim reports. Also, diplomatic maneuvers start in 1885, so the minor colonies can still be shuffled around.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 04:31:59 PMTrue, but Kyushu has something that Shikoku does not have: Nagasaki. During the Edo period, all foreign trade went through there so any foreign technology stuff and knowledge getting into Japan goes through there so it makes more sense that anything research related would be done there.

... By that logic, under Deng, Shanghai - Jiangsu/Anhui should be been the Special Economic Zones, not Xiamen and Shenzhen.
Areas around Nagasaki would already be developed, hence more costly. In addition, industrializing in an area rife with foreign influence is a bad idea in general.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 04:31:59 PMWhich is why it makes more sense for research to be coming from Honshu instead of Shikoku. To me, it is just weird. You have more than half of Japan's ICs in Shikoku. That is like me putting half of China's ICs in Xinjiang or Mongolia.

I disagree. Placing research and rapid industrialization in/near a high value areas is DANGEROUS to the stability of a nation. In addition, I said Shikoku is a easily defensible position, the same is NOT true for Honshu or Kyushu. Xinjiang/Mongolia are not easily defensible positions due to it's hostility to your own supply lines.

QuoteI don't see the problem with islands switching hand... they all literally have 0 Pop, IC, and BP, making them irrelevant to sim reports.

It is not about the Population or the ICs or the BPs or the revenue you get from them. It's about putting stuff on there and expand the sphere of influence.

Also, eventhough you won't get as much revenue as in other regions, ICs on those island groups give you quick additional research cash. Sure there are risks in doing that, but that is why you would be putting a port there and fortifications and coastal defenses.

QuoteAlso, diplomatic maneuvers start in 1885, so the minor colonies can still be shuffled around.

To me the map is set as it is for a 1900 start and should be respected as it is. In my opinion, if minor colonies need to be swapped, it should be done after 1/1/1900. It should also involve colonies owned by those who want to swap things around. Like I said, Marianas, Carolines and Marshalls should either be neutral as marked on the map or German as OTL so ownership of those islands cannot and should not be determined by USA, Britain, and Japan. If they are neutral then after the start you should take your landing ships and go there to conquer them. If they were German then you should discuss with them about taking over the islands or take them by force from the Germans.



I don't really agree with you on Shikoku (except for the 'defensible' part). The Xinjiang/Mongolia example was not about defensibility. I'll put it different. When I think of China, I would expect that my industrial cities would be places like Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangzhou and Xianggang and not places like Urumqi, Bayingol, Ulaanbaatar or Uliastai. If I were to put more than half my ICs in Xinjiang/Mongolia, I am kind of saying that Urumqi and Bayingol/Ulaanbaatar and Uliastai are my main industrial cities and not Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangzhou and Xianggang.

So what about Japan? Are your industrial areas going to be Nagasaki, Kobe, Osaka and Yokohama or will it be Takamatsu, Matsuyama and Kochi? Looking at the spreadsheet, right now it is going to be Takamatsu, Matsuyama and Kochi.

Gents, this is getting a bit nit-picky.

So... for coast defense... as long as i can show evidence of guns being there already I don't have to pay for them?

Quote from: Darman on June 15, 2014, 11:35:39 PM
So... for coast defense... as long as i can show evidence of guns being there already I don't have to pay for them?

As long as you don't go totally overboard, you don't have to pay for them.

(more) questions:

All Army units start at 1870 level, but our fort chart starts at 1880? Does that mean we'll be buying all new once we achieve the 1880 tech? Not being able to upgrade at all is going to hurt....

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:58:20 PMAlso, even though you won't get as much revenue as in other regions, ICs on those island groups give you quick additional research cash. Sure there are risks in doing that, but that is why you would be putting a port there and fortifications and coastal defenses.

I never thought of that technicality... perhaps something should be done about that?

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:58:20 PMTo me the map is set as it is for a 1900 start and should be respected as it is. In my opinion, if minor colonies need to be swapped, it should be done after 1/1/1900. It should also involve colonies owned by those who want to swap things around. Like I said, Marianas, Carolines and Marshalls should either be neutral as marked on the map or German as OTL so ownership of those islands cannot and should not be determined by USA, Britain, and Japan. If they are neutral then after the start you should take your landing ships and go there to conquer them. If they were German then you should discuss with them about taking over the islands or take them by force from the Germans.

There's nothing built (as far as I remember) on those islands. I guess you could consider it a tacit agreement between the USA, UK, and Japan that neither side will interfere with colonization attempts on those islands. As for the German issue, I don't recall any islands of that nature.

If you are talking about the Soloman Islands, it was the southern Soloman Islands (firmly in British hands) that was traded.

Quote from: Walter on June 15, 2014, 06:58:20 PMSo what about Japan? Are your industrial areas going to be Nagasaki, Kobe, Osaka and Yokohama or will it be Takamatsu, Matsuyama and Kochi? Looking at the spreadsheet, right now it is going to be Takamatsu, Matsuyama and Kochi.

They will likely be Takamatsu, Matsuyama, Kochi, and Kure (Kure because of it's naval port). However, as I project the following sim reports will focus on industrial developments in Honshu, so it would likely not change that greatly from historical.

This is similar to China OTL, the initial investment in the Guangdong/Xiamen region is now returning to the Shanghai-Beijing region with a few cities in Xinjiang/Inner Mongolia in tow.

Quote from: Guinness on June 16, 2014, 08:56:52 AM
(more) questions:

All Army units start at 1870 level, but our fort chart starts at 1880? Does that mean we'll be buying all new once we achieve the 1880 tech? Not being able to upgrade at all is going to hurt....

The army can be any tech level before 1900, although to be reasonable, it is expected not all it's units will be 1895. There's no problems with having 1895 forts.

That said, I'll have to modify my sim report to allow for 1895...

Quote from: Logi on June 16, 2014, 09:21:54 AM

Quote from: Guinness on June 16, 2014, 08:56:52 AM
(more) questions:

All Army units start at 1870 level, but our fort chart starts at 1880? Does that mean we'll be buying all new once we achieve the 1880 tech? Not being able to upgrade at all is going to hurt....

The army can be any tech level before 1900, although to be reasonable, it is expected not all it's units will be 1895. There's no problems with having 1895 forts.

That said, I'll have to modify my sim report to allow for 1895...

Keep the questions coming.

Please swing by IRC sometime guys, Logi and I get lonely.

BOO!

So whats the story?

Michael

PS I appear to still have some admin access.  Someone should odds are fix that.

Quote from: miketr on June 17, 2014, 02:53:52 PM
BOO!

So whats the story?

Michael

PS I appear to still have some admin access.  Someone should odds are fix that.

?

Send me details via PM please.

Quote from: miketr on June 17, 2014, 02:53:52 PM
BOO!

So whats the story?

Michael

PS I appear to still have some admin access.  Someone should odds are fix that.

The story is we need a Kaiser to fill all the major powers so we can play the game as opposed to just keep turning over versions.

Jeez, and I saw Borys here earlier.  It's like a family reunion or something.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 17, 2014, 04:13:13 PM
Jeez, and I saw Borys here earlier.  It's like a family reunion or something.

There may or may not have been some advertisement about the current opening...

Consider me... sorta interested.  My only reservation is I have said yes twice before and then nothing happened / I  lost interest.  So if someone else shows up in the next day or so and says "I WANT Germany!!!!"  Its theirs.

A couple of questions.  I see setup stuff here.

Starting Information 
http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6447.0.html

And that covers base economy, pop, map and how much to spend on navy.  What do you spend on the army?  Forts?  Etc?

What is meant by "Players can start influencing their nation at the meta level in 1885."

Michael

Quote from: miketr on June 17, 2014, 06:56:06 PMAnd that covers base economy, pop, map and how much to spend on navy.  What do you spend on the army? Forts?  Etc?

That is declared and peer-reviewed, i.e. just declare you have it and everyone checks to see if they have a problem with it. If no one has a problem, then you have the green-light.

Army Set-up Discussions (http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6426.0.html) is the thread to go to. You can see how it works vis-via the disagreement over the British Army.
We do something similar for Forts, Coastal Defenses, etc.

Quote from: miketr on June 17, 2014, 06:56:06 PMWhat is meant by "Players can start influencing their nation at the meta level in 1885."

The sim reports start rolling in in 1900 H1, but before then we start diplomatic maneuvers in 1885. This helps us define our foreign policy and the requirements for the armed forces.

There are no sim reports during this period, i.e. no expansion of the armed forces (land/air/navy) or economy (IC/BP). We just work out some agreements and treaties.

For example: In the 1885-1900 period, Japan, US, and UK have reached an agreement about how to divide the islands of the Pacific. The understanding is no member of the three will infringe on the agreed zone of influence of another member. --- This is a diplomatic move that defines the threat environment of Japan but does not produce more economy/armed forces.


Any more questions/clarifications?

Quote from: Logi on June 17, 2014, 07:07:02 PM
Any more questions/clarifications?

Not at the moment.

Michael

Welcome back mike!

Something I just noticed...

I get the impression that the combat ratings in the Fortifications, Siege Artillery, and Coast Defense thread are the old navalism ratings. Looking at it now, by significantly bumping up the combat ratings of the infantry/specialist units for this version of Navalism, fortified lines and citadels are completely useless to have unless you have 18 citadel fortresses, although that one is so expensive and takes so long to build that it is better to use the money and BPs to build infantry units.

Right now, an 1895 20km fortified line with 25,000 men seems like it'll get its ass kicked by even a lowly 1870 infantry unit with 25,000 men. Yet you have to pay $8 and 0.5 BP for that line and only $2 and 0.25BP fr the infantry unit. Looking at that, it makes a lot more sense to have 2 mobile and more powerful 1870 infantry divisions and save $4 than 1 fixed 20km fortified line. And it looks like those 2 1870 infantry divisions combined could easily overrun a 40km 1915 fortified line.

An 1895 18 citadel fortress is $48 and 4.5BP and takes 18 HYs to build. For the same money I can buy 6 1895 infantry units in 1 HY (2 at most), save $12 and have a combat rating that is 5 times the combat rating of the 18 citadel fortress. And those 6 infantry units can be moved elsewhere when needed while the fort can't.

We are still adjusting the exact values, but you can be assured that they will remain in proportion to army units as they were in N3.

Okay. I thought that since they were posted in the rules, those values were final.

Quote from: Walter on June 18, 2014, 08:20:42 AM
Okay. I thought that since they were posted in the rules, those values were final.

Costs and such are. I think we had talked about how Forts effect combat, but never adjusted the values in the posted version.

Remind me where the map went?  I need to download the updated version.

Is the one here current?

http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6447.0.html

BTW: Russia still needs Kars.  8)

Quote from: Guinness on June 18, 2014, 08:43:25 AM
Is the one here current?

http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6447.0.html

BTW: Russia still needs Kars.  8)

That is the current map.

Quote from: Guinness on June 18, 2014, 08:43:25 AM
Is the one here current?

http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6447.0.html

BTW: Russia still needs Kars.  8)

Can not haz.

If we are making map requests Germany needs to include the rest of Schleswig-Holstein.  So next two areas up on Jutland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Schleswig-Holstein

Michael

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 18, 2014, 08:47:43 AM

Quote from: Guinness on June 18, 2014, 08:43:25 AM
Is the one here current?

http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6447.0.html

BTW: Russia still needs Kars.  8)

Can not haz.

The Chinese Tibettan Empire needs Nepal and Bhutan, but won't get them so I don't see why Russia should get Kars... :)

I guess we need to decide if this happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kars, or for that matter if the Russo-Turkish war of 1877 happened at all. It seems not? I think it's sensible that the war still happened, even if we don't have Bulgaria now, no?

I'd repost the suggestion I had sent via PM, but for some reason I can't find my "out box"...

Oh, there it is.

Quote-It's 1875, and Austria-Hungary doesn't like how the Ottomans are getting their act together under a more sane Murad V.  They attack into Bosnia/Croatia and the Serbs join in because they covet some of Herzegovina.

-Ottoman resistence is surprisingly competent.  AH under-estimates this, and so suffers significant casualties.  Feeling stung as a result of this and the earlier, historical defeat by Prussia, AH doubles down and throws more troops at the Ottomans.

-The Romanians start smelling a chance to break free of the Ottomans, and launch an uprising a bit earlier than the historical 1877 thing.  Maybe 1876.

-On the other hand, the Bulgarians, somewhat placated by Murad V's reforms, are far less antsy.  Sporadic uprisings occur, and the Ottomans are able to suppress them with far less atrocity than historical.  Consequently, the Ottomans don't lose western favor as much as they did before.

-By 1877, the war is still a bloody stalemate.  However, it's time for Austria and Hungary to negotiate the ratio of common expenditures incurred by each.  The ongoing war and its expenses - trigger a crisis, akin to that of WW1 AH, and the empire suddenly fractures. 

-In the ensuing chaos, Austrian forces vacate the field; the Ottomans retake their lost territories, then start moving north.  The Ottomans also march back into Serbia, which they'd been ejected from in the 1860s.

-Russians start talking about intervention, but the other major powers force a peace conference.  It's entirely possible some of this stems from German concerns over stability on their border, and maybe the Ottomans lean on the British about Suez access.  Regardless, a peace is forced before the Russian armies get into the area.

-Major terms of the peace are:

-->AH is formally recognized as multiple successor states

-->Ottoman war gains against AH result in formalized territorial gains

-->Serbia does not gain recognition as a fully independent kingdom.

-->Russia's price for peace is the independence of Romania and territorial concessions around Armenia, which the Ottomans accede to.  While kind of victorious, the Ottomans can't afford to fight the Russians and accept these terms.

Subsequently:

-The Russo-Turkish War of 1877 is butterflied away.  Therefore, territorial losses associated with that war - Greater Bulgaria - are butterflied away.

-And Bulgarian restlessness is much subdued as well.

-The Ottomans retain nominal control over Serbia, and gradually translate that into actual control.  This is probably still a problem area for the Ottomans.

-Romania, having come into being with much less Russian help than historical, is more of a determined neutral here, perhaps hunkering down to deter either Russia or OE from using it as a waypoint to the other guy.

Poop. Time to march on Kars I guess.

*Points at Afghanistan*

Look!  Pretty rugs!

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 18, 2014, 09:28:18 AM
*Points at Afghanistan*

Look!  Pretty rugs!

MINE! (not really)

Russia should go to Persia then. Guess they really should have done that in the 1980s instead of going into Afghanistan.

According to the rules, fortified lines require one half year per 10 km to construct. Question regarding that since in the past I never really worked with fortified lines construction during the game (only pre-start)...

If I were to have three 40km fortified lines to defend a location, I assume that my nation would be working on all three sections at once so the 10km/HY would be valid for each section of line (thus it would take 4 HYs to finish those defenses). Am I right?

What is the situation for Africa?  Much of it is grey I see.  We going to have our own race for Africa?

Michael

I believe that's the plan.

That is indeed the plan... here is the updated map.



@Rocky
I'm fine with your timeline. However, can you elaborate on what happens to Austria-Hungary? It seems according to your story Austria-Hungary splinters into multiple states. I need to know for the map.

FWIW, I think splintering A-H completely is a bad idea.

It was my interpretation of the original POD discussion. 

I'm not hung up on an actual partition of A-H.  Perhaps it just suffered significant political turmoil for a while, then they sorted themselves out again as a single, functional nation.

If A-H splinters you end up with Großdeutschland at the very least.  All of the Austrian Crown territories will join Germany.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 18, 2014, 12:39:06 PM
I'm not hung up on an actual partition of A-H.  Perhaps it just suffered significant political turmoil for a while, then they sorted themselves out again as a single, functional nation.

This is fine. I agree with MikeTR. If Austria and Hungary break up, then we'll end up with a bigger Germany and a little Hungary. I suppose that could be fun, but in general I think we'd rather have A-H for now at least.

A question on economics...  There is a category on peoples reports called Research which appears to be a value if the region has more IC than Pop.

A question are the players economic values to have any connection with the reality of 1900 or just something made up?  I don't care what the answer is; IE this not to be taken as a bitching and moaning demanding more IC or whatever.  Just looking for what the expectation is.  German economy and Russian are going to end up about even as things currently sit; which again is fine.  Historically the German economy was about 150% of Russia, 215% of Japan and 56% of the USA.  Just looking for what the expectation is.

Michael

Quote from: miketr on June 18, 2014, 01:20:19 PM
A question on economics...  There is a category on peoples reports called Research which appears to be a value if the region has more IC than Pop.

A question are the players economic values to have any connection with the reality of 1900 or just something made up?  I don't care what the answer is; IE this not to be taken as a bitching and moaning demanding more IC or whatever.  Just looking for what the expectation is.  German economy and Russian are going to end up about even as things currently sit; which again is fine.  Historically the German economy was about 150% of Russia, 215% of Japan and 56% of the USA.  Just looking for what the expectation is.

Michael

We (ok, Logi) derived the IC values posted from historical GDPperCap. So break up the distribution how you think it makes sense. Note we have been looking over and tweaking things, so a revision or two is possible once you give us your breakdown.

Quote from: miketr on June 18, 2014, 01:20:19 PMGerman economy and Russian are going to end up about even as things currently sit; which again is fine.  Historically the German economy was about 150% of Russia, 215% of Japan and 56% of the USA.  Just looking for what the expectation is.

Maddison's figures for 1900 and 1913 don't match up with your German-Russian numbers. As he states, it's roughly equal:


German GDP (1913): $237,332 mil
Russian GDP (1913): $232,351 mil
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP))

As Snip says, the IC was derived from the 1900 GDPpc of the nations in question.

Quote from: miketr on June 18, 2014, 01:20:19 PMA question on economics...  There is a category on peoples reports called Research which appears to be a value if the region has more IC than Pop.

That's the maximum amount of  money that can be used for research. Recall in N3, this maximum value was determined by the amount of BP a nation had - in N6 it's determined by the regions with more IC than Pop.

The maximum research capability is sum of the excess IC (more IC than Pop) of all the regions.

Quote from: Logi on June 18, 2014, 01:48:26 PM

Quote from: miketr on June 18, 2014, 01:20:19 PMA question on economics...  There is a category on peoples reports called Research which appears to be a value if the region has more IC than Pop.

That's the maximum amount of  money that can be used for research. Recall in N3, this maximum value was determined by the amount of BP a nation had - in N6 it's determined by the regions with more IC than Pop.

The maximum research capability is sum of the excess IC (more IC than Pop) of all the regions.

:o

So we are going to make up a region and stick extra IC in it, reducing our economy to be able to do research?  Is this what you were going for?

Michael

Research centers are built-up, industrialized areas. Hence a region that has more IC than pop (which is "industrialized) produces research.

I'll give some examples:
10 Pop, 2 IC produces $0 research limit and $4.1 revenue
10 Pop, 12 IC produces $2 research limit and $22.1 revenue

The choice is whether to build up already industrialized areas in favor of higher research limit or spread the industrialization to other regions.  The amount given only works to the research limit, it doesn't not affect the economy.

Having a 'research center' does effect the economy.  It costs a full dollar on

Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
Berlin	2.00	3.00	2.00	5.20	1
East Prussia	5.50	2.00	1.00	4.55	0
Silesia-Posen	7.00	3.00	2.50	6.70	0
South Germany	11.00	4.00	3.00	9.10	0
Rhine-Westphalia	10.00	4.00	3.00	9.00	0
Saxony-Brandenburg	8.00	3.00	2.00	6.80	0
Hanover-S-H	6.00	2.00	1.00	4.60	0
Hesse-Thuringia	7.00	3.00	2.00	6.70	0
				0.00	0
Deutsch-Neuguinea	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.05	0
Total	57	24	16.5	52.70	1

vs.

Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
Germany	56.5	24	16.5	53.65	0
				0.00	0
				0.00	0
				0.00	0
				0.00	0
				0.00	0
				0.00	0
				0.00	0
				0.00	0
Deutsch-Neuguinea	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.05	0
Total	57	24	16.5	53.70	0

It costs a full $1 per economic of income.  Less than 2% I know but I am not getting what your objective is here with this rule.  You already have a limit on the amount that can be done per turn with the doubling rule $1 then $2 then $4, etc. 

By the way wiki is correct I was looking at the wrong columns in my economic data sheet for GNP values.

Michael

Part of what we are trying to achieve with this mechanic is making it less of an obvious choice when it comes to how to build IC. By tying research money into the Pop:IC relationship, it does not create a clear optimum path unlike in N3 where it was plainly stupid to build IC in developed areas as it would be worth so much less to your economy in comparison to an undeveloped region. So now nations have a choice when growing, more money overall or being able to spend more on research. It might be a bit odd to work around at start, but do remember that IC costs siginfigently less this time around so it is easier to grow. With your current budget, you can add 2 IC per turn without much effort.

Well yes $10 per IC is much cheaper to be sure. 

I just don't get why you have two unrelated mechanics to limit research is all.

Michael

A nation that is wealthy is not necessary a leader in research. Rather it depends on the level of industrialization. That is what this rule is encapsulating.

A nation A of 100 mil and 20 IC has an annual revenue of $50.
A nation B of 10 mil and 20 IC has an annual revenue of $31.

A is wealthier in annual revenue than B, but we can tell A is also far less industrialized - hence far less likely to be a leader in research. If we simply use the double rule, that does not preclude nation A out-researching B, which realistically is not likely. Hence the existence of the research cap rule.

The research cap rule is just a modification of the BP-based research cap rule of N3, just more realistic. If you want to know why... I can talk to you about the figures, capital costs, etc. but I don't think that would be very interesting. Remember the reason for the BP-based research cap was the same as this: an industrialized nation is more likely to research more than a non-industrialized nation.

Edit: The double rule is meant to encapsulate the increasing cost to remain at the frontier of multiple technologies, regardless of industrialization level. The rules deal with different things.

I can also add another reason behind having the two rules. Logi and my previous post already covered the Pop:IC portion of the cap, and Logi touched on some of the real-world logic behind the escalating costs. However, that feature also does something else for the game; it makes it that no one nation can truly research everything on its own  as happened in N3. As you can probably recall, the big nations like France and Rohan got to a point where they would be able to just research everything outright and not have to interact with the rest of the world. By having the escalating costs in conjunction with the advanced tech rules^[1], it makes it extremely unlikely that any nations will be able to go out and research everything and therefor keep technological markets and differences open.

[1] From the Research rules: Every technology has a year indicating the base year for the research to be started. Starting after or before this year will modify the cost of the technology, making futuristic technologies (as compared to the current sim year) harder to research and earlier technologies easier to research. This modification of the cost is fixed at the moment research on the technology is began and does not change no matter how many years past in between starting and finishing

I don't buy the rationalizations you guys are putting forward.  At the same time I am not interested in arguing the point either.  So thank you for your explanations. 

Michael

So we buy all of our naval infrastructure?  Out of the BB spending spree?

Michael

Yup.  The BP, anyway.  We ignore the cash bit.

Quote from: miketr on June 17, 2014, 06:56:06 PM
Consider me... sorta interested.  My only reservation is I have said yes twice before and then nothing happened / I  lost interest.  So if someone else shows up in the next day or so and says "I WANT Germany!!!!"  Its theirs.

Michael

It is somewhat ironic that I'll be graduating from training this Friday, and so after 3 months I am about 1 week from being able to commit or not commit.  While I had started tinkering, she's all yours.

So..I think that's all the majors...which means Rocky's prediction looks to be off :)

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on June 18, 2014, 07:17:16 PM

Quote from: miketr on June 17, 2014, 06:56:06 PM
Consider me... sorta interested.  My only reservation is I have said yes twice before and then nothing happened / I  lost interest.  So if someone else shows up in the next day or so and says "I WANT Germany!!!!"  Its theirs.

Michael

It is somewhat ironic that I'll be graduating from training this Friday, and so after 3 months I am about 1 week from being able to commit or not commit.  While I had started tinkering, she's all yours.

So..I think that's all the majors...which means Rocky's prediction looks to be off :)

Its your guy's call if you want to swap things around. We can always sort of what someone like Italy or Spain or the ABC's has.

No no no,
I find the timing truly amusing, but Miketr's got it and he's stuck with it :)

Even now, until I get back to real life, I can't say what my level of interest, free time and ability to commit really will be. There's been some nights I've had time to kill/ didn't want to study, so I've tinkered with first AH (Nav5), Ottomans, Russians, then Germans as a way to kill the time.

My POD was to be King Frederich surviving the cancer and surgery, leading to Friedrich Von Hollman being placed in charge of the Navy instead of Tirpitz (who would stay in charge of torpedo craft dev) and you'd see a lot of long range German cruisers/ raiders as the oceanic component :) 

However, if Miketr would like limiting dimensions for vessels on the Lugwig Canal, Rhone-Rhine Canal, and upper & lower Rhine...I happen to have those :) 

A question on German startup numbers.

The BP and IC totals are correct?

16.5 IC and 24 BP?  I assumed before that they were reversed.

Michael

Quote from: miketr on June 18, 2014, 03:11:13 PM
Well yes $10 per IC is much cheaper to be sure. 

I just don't get why you have two unrelated mechanics to limit research is all.

Michael

Actually, there's a third mechanic in play.  National revenues are much decreased from N3, but the cost of stuff remains unchanged.  There's just less cash to throw at anything other than the most essential projects.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 19, 2014, 07:03:04 AM

Quote from: miketr on June 18, 2014, 03:11:13 PM
Actually, there's a third mechanic in play.  National revenues are much decreased from N3, but the cost of stuff remains unchanged.  There's just less cash to throw at anything other than the most essential projects.

This. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed this. I was planning to do some math to prove it today.

And to further the thought, I think it's ok if everyone gets a little more $ (and even BP).

In my mind, one of the problems in N3 was that no one could build as much as they wanted. In general, that was 'realistic' given our world's starting setup, but I think it was still unsatisfying for many. Being able to bulid more, even if the total is more than the OTL world could have manufactured, would make for more satisfying gameplay. I also think we'd have to work really hard to get to the point where we could outbuild the total OTL world. I say this because I think our BP construct over-estimates the cost of developing heavy industry.

At any rate, I'd propose we keep Pop as is, but do a blanket increase in BP an IC for every country. By how much? I don't know, I'd have to crunch some numbers, which I may not have time for today.

N3 started with the same problem, but it was even worse, and required the Great BP Expansion a few years down the road. I think we want to avoid that. If we shoot high, we can always just make BP and IC more expensive later to compensate.

Just as some random data.  Germany in 1900 Laid down the following.

Battleships
Schwaben & Mecklenburg
Armored Cruisers
Prinz Adalbert
Small Cruisers
Medusa
Torpedo Boats
A total of 14

At first glance this looks easy to do on 24 BP (Assuming that number is correct as I still think it should be 24 IC)

BUT

Germany still had under-construction from before the following
Battleships
Kaiser Wilhelm II (1896), Kaiser Wilhelm der Große (1898), Kaiser Karl der Große (1898), Kaiser Barbarossa (1898), Wettin (1899), Wittelsbach (1899) and Zähringen (1899)
Armored Cruisers
Prinz Heinrich (1898) and Fürst Bismarck (1896)
Small Cruisers
Amazone (1899), Ariadne (1899), Thetis (1899), Nymphe (1898), Niobe (1898) & Gazelle (1897)
Torpedo Boats
A total of 10

If objective is to be realistic I think more BP are in order.  If you don't care then you don't care.

Michael

Just to be crystal clear as to my meta role right now: I'm just a player, in addition to the responsibility of keeping the website up. Logi and Snip are the GMs.

My comments above are stating my opinion, and I of course hope that Logi and Snip feel the need to act on it, but they aren't required to.

I would like some more BP so that any future war with the Ottomans can be more interesting...

edited for clarity

Its looking like most every nation needs more cash to be sure. I can say that I don't need more than my 31BP until I have the cash to take advantage of it. As of right now, I can only use about 1/3 of that number (I will note I could use more if I cut down on research funding and was not building airships, so utalising about 1/2 is possible if I focus on just burning BP). What I think we should aim for is that each nation is able to utalise the vast majority of its startup BP, without cutting into things like research budgets or upkeep. The only way we can do that, is if we see the economic breakdown from all the nations. IIRC, we are still missing a few.

As to how we arrived at the BP figures, Logi can explain better then me, but it did involve looking at RL figures so there is some basis in OTL economies for that section at least.

Quote from: snip on June 19, 2014, 08:29:18 AM
The only way we can do that, is if we see the economic breakdown from all the nations. IIRC, we are still missing a few.

Meaning the region by region part of the 1900 sim report, or something else?

This:

Quote

Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
New England	4.68	12	11	$15.83	$7.32
Mid Atlantic	16.55	10	7	$21.66	$0.00
Great Lakes	15.99	5	10	$11.60	$0.00
South	19.12	3	2	$7.91	$0.00
Midwest	16.64	0	0	$1.66	$0.00
West	3.24	1	1	$2.32	$0.00

EDIT: And total revenue. $60.98

Country	Year	Half	War	Ratio
Russia	1900	1	NO	50
Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
European Russia	89.9	8	7	24.99	0
St. Petersburg	2	3	3	5.2	1
Moscow	1	2	1	3.1	1
Congress Poland	25	3	1	8.5	0
Finland	2	0.5	0	1.2	0
Caucusus	10.5	1	0	3.05	0
Siberia	12.5	1	0	3.25	0
Turkestan	7	1	0	2.7	0
Total	149.9	19.5	12	51.99	2

Quote from: snip on June 19, 2014, 08:29:18 AMAs to how we arrived at the BP figures, Logi can explain better then me, but it did involve looking at RL figures so there is some basis in OTL economies for that section at least.

The BP amounts was derived from the Annual Pig Iron & Steel Production of each country in 1870-1900. These figures were then flattened towards the middle ground, which I think was Italy. Some minor modification to the numbers were made afterwards, but that was it.

I'm considering measures to increase IC and BP.

By the way.... if you want to chime in... join the IRC channel #Navalism at NightStar. You can use this link. (https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.nightstar.net/#Navalism)

Please note the revenue of Germany.

Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
Berlin	2.00	3.00	4.50	5.20	1
East Prussia	5.50	1.00	1.50	2.55	0
Silesia-Posen	7.00	1.50	2.00	3.70	0
South Germany	11.00	3.00	4.50	7.10	0
Rhine-Westphalia	10.00	3.00	4.50	7.00	0
Saxony-Brandenburg	8.00	2.00	3.00	4.80	0
Hanover-S-H	6.00	1.50	2.00	3.60	0
Hesse-Thuringia	7.00	1.50	2.00	3.70	0
				0.00	0
Deutsch-Neuguinea	0.50	0.00		0.05	0
Total	57	16.5	24	37.70	1

Regarding the BPs and ICs, I think one has to look at what one can spend per BP. For some it is easier to spend $ and BPs than others. Note that the below only looks at the military budget and BPs and ignores stuff like upkeep that would normally be subtracted from the military budget.

China $3.79/BP
Germany $0.79/BP
Japan $2.24/BP
Ottoman $1.32/BP
Russia $2.17/BP
UK $1.41/BP (edited using Darman's numbers)
USA $0.98/BP

China can easily spend its BPs on ships and have leftover cash for other things (including upkeep of the units). Germany and the USA have an almost impossible task because they need additional cash in order to spend all their BPs and thus would have no cash leftover for any upkeep of the units.

Now compare that with the $:BP Ratio of the various things...

Infantry $8/BP
Spec/Cav $24/BP
Citadel $8-16/BP
Line $12-24/BP
Siege art $16/BP
Ships $1/BP
CD guns $1/BP

So with much of the army stuff, the US and Germany need to borrow even more money or have even more leftover BPs. I wonder if it is an idea for those two to be able to 'sell' some BPs and be allowed to use some of the civilian budget for military purposes in exchange.

Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
English Midlands	3.3	8		10.93	4.7
England (minus Midlands)	26.9	6	18	8.69	0
Ireland	4.5	1	1	1.45	0
Scotland	4.5	1	3	1.45	0
Wales	2	2	2	4.2	0
India	284.5	17	4	45.45	0
Ceylon	3.9	0	0	0.39	0
Burma	10.2	1	0	2.02	0
Australia	3.7	6	0	10.07	2.3
New Zealand	0.8	0.5	0	0.58	0
Canada	5.7	2	0	2.57	0
Cape Colony	2.9	1	0	1.29	0
Leeward Islands	0.13	0	0	0.013	0
Windward Islands	0.62	0	0	0.062	0
Bermuda	0.08	0	0	0.008	0
Jamaica	0.73	0	0	0.073	0
Indian Ocean Terr.	0.45	0	0	0.045	0
South Atlantic Terr.	0.01	0	0	0.001	0
Gold Coast	3.97	0	0	0.397	0
North Borneo	0.32	0	0	0.032	0
Malaya	1.45	0	0	0.145	0
Pacific Territory	0.17	0	0	0.017	0
Total	357.53	37.5	28	78.953	7

Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
English Midlands	3.3	8	9	10.93	4.7
England (-Midlands)	26.9	6	10	8.69	0
Ireland	4.5	1	1	1.45	0
Scotland	4.5	1	3	1.45	0
Wales	2	2	1	4.2	0
India	284.5	16	4	44.45	0
Ceylon	3.9	1	0	1.39	0
Burma	10.2	1	0	2.02	0
Australia	3.7	6	0	10.07	2.3
New Zealand	0.8	0.5	0	0.58	0
Canada	5.7	2	0	2.57	0
Cape Colony	2.9	1	0	1.29	0
Leeward Islands	0.13	0	0	0.013	0
Windward Islands	0.62	0	0	0.062	0
Bermuda	0.08	0	0	0.008	0
Jamaica	0.73	0	0	0.073	0
Indian Ocean Terr.	0.45	0	0	0.045	0
South Atlantic Terr.	0.01	0	0	0.001	0
Gold Coast	3.97	0	0	0.397	0
North Borneo	0.32	0	0	0.032	0
Malaya	1.45	0	0	0.145	0
Pacific Territory	0.17	0	0	0.017	0
Total	357.53	45.5	28	89.883	7

Quote from: Walter on June 19, 2014, 03:07:44 PM
China $3.79/BP
Germany $0.79/BP
Japan $2.24/BP
Ottoman $1.32/BP
Russia $2.17/BP
UK $1.41/BP (edited using Darman's numbers)
USA $0.98/BP

I think in addition to bringing some of the nations up, China is going to have to come down a few rungs.

With that one the UK is at $1.61/BP.

Darman, if I add those numbers I get a population of 360.83. Your 357.53 misses the 3.3 from English Midlands.

QuoteI think in addition to bringing some of the nations up, China is going to have to come down a few rungs.

I disagree. You just gave me too little BPs for my revenue...

Quote from: Walter on June 19, 2014, 04:26:34 PM

QuoteI think in addition to bringing some of the nations up, China is going to have to come down a few rungs.

I disagree. You just gave me too little BPs for my revenue...

China will be reworked to match the other nations it should be about equivalent to in this time period. That means revisions in income and possibly BP.

IIRC, it was already known from the moment you guys came up with the numbers that China's budget could max out at $93 but you left it as is. Looking at the numbers, I can bring it down to $2.30/BP if I arrange the ICs differently but I will have a research budget of $25.10 then...

Actually with that budget I had some other ideas to add that would mean that some of the budget would be unavailable. I scrapped those ideas just before posting the final stuff, but I might as well throw them out on the board...

Here are the modified figures we have agreed on. The goal of the modifications was to bring everyone into the $1.5/BP - $2/BP region with the ability to research two technologies at once ($3 research cap). I've also eliminated the 0.5 ICs hanging around.

Country	Pop	IC	BP
USA	76.5	43	31
ENG	360.83	46	28
GER	57	24	24
FRA	58.78	13	15
RUS	149.9	21	12
TUR	55	13	9
CHI	403.5	7	12
JAP	66.1	11	6

USA: 31 IC -> 43 IC
GER: 16.5 IC -> 24 IC
CHI: 26 IC -> 7 IC


Regarding China and it's $93 budget, you may recall that originally we intended to have that work against the concept of civilian goods and corresponding revolt risk. After the civilian goods clause was removed, we sort of forgot about China's large budget until now. I'll say, as the person who crafted the Chinese numbers, it was never meant to be this high without some sort of large drawback.

New Numbers.

Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
Berlin	2.00	5.00	4.50	6.70	3
East Prussia	5.50	2.00	1.50	4.55	0
Silesia-Posen	7.00	2.00	2.00	4.70	0
South Germany	11.00	4.00	4.50	9.10	0
Rhine-Westphalia	10.00	4.00	4.50	9.00	0
Saxony-Brandenburg	8.00	3.00	3.00	6.80	0
Hanover-S-H	6.00	2.00	2.00	4.60	0
Hesse-Thuringia	7.00	2.00	2.00	4.70	0
				0.00	0
Deutsch-Neuguinea	0.50	0.00		0.05	0
Total	57	24	24	50.20	3

Quote from: Logi on June 19, 2014, 06:42:58 PM
with the ability to research two technologies at once ($3 research cap)

A quick note about this part. If you want, you can go higher or lower then this cap. It is the figure we decided to balance around however, so results may vary if you choose to go above or below it (I'm personally going for 3 techs, so $7)

Quote from: Logi on June 19, 2014, 06:42:58 PM
I'll say, as the person who crafted the Chinese numbers, it was never meant to be this high without some sort of large drawback.

Just so its publicly noted, I am of the same position as Logi.

With the new numbers:

Country	Year	Half	War	Ratio
Russia	1900	1	NO	50
Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research
European Russia	89.9	10	7	28.99	0
St. Petersburg	2	3	3	5.2	1
Moscow	1	2	1	3.1	1
Congress Poland	25	3	1	8.5	0
Finland	2	0.5	0	1.2	0
Caucusus	10.5	1	0	3.05	0
Siberia	12.5	1	0	3.25	0
Turkestan	7	0.5	0	1.7	0
Total	149.9	21	12	54.99	2

Quote from: Walter on June 19, 2014, 04:26:34 PM
With that one the UK is at $1.61/BP.

Darman, if I add those numbers I get a population of 360.83. Your 357.53 misses the 3.3 from English Midlands.

You are correct sir, when I added the Midlands I forgot to alter the "sum" function at the bottom of the column. 

FYI - I let Delta Force know where we're at.  He might end up popping by.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 20, 2014, 07:05:22 PM
FYI - I let Delta Force know where we're at.  He might end up popping by.

Ok, will see what happens there.

I am not done with filling the spreadsheet out but right now I have a $1.5 to spend on new anything.

Sooooooooooooooooooo if any one has extra cash and wants to order a ship drop me a PM.  There is going to be 20 plus BP that I won't be able to use for odds are a decade.

Michael

QuoteIf you want, you can go higher or lower then this cap.

Unlike what you say, if I wanted to go higher than that cap, I can't... 2 tech is my max. The only way for me to be able to get to 3 techs is to assign all 7 ICs to a region witout any people...

Not that I would go for it. As you have seen in the original set-up, I went for a research budget of less than $2 despite the fact that I had a lot more ICs than now. To me it is more a case of you stating something that sounds like every one of us can do, but in reality, that is not the case at all.

QuoteSooooooooooooooooooo if any one has extra cash and wants to order a ship drop me a PM.  There is going to be 20 plus BP that I won't be able to use for odds are a decade.

Well, with what I have in mind, I may end up with some 'leftover' BPs as well each HY (due to the Evil Mods removing over 70% of my ICs), but I think about putting those BPs into various projects and pay for them next HY in order to complete it.

Considering the number of BPs Germany has compared to its revenue, it is not really an option for Germany to do.

Quote from: Walter on June 22, 2014, 08:32:11 AM
it is not really an option for Germany to do.

We might still need to make some adjustments to individual nations. And we still are working on that process.

You could remove a few BPs and replace them with ICs. Or maybe a kind of 'bank' where you could sell a limited number of BPs for cash.

Here is the math in simple terms.  Germany has $50 of income.

Half of that can be used for military budget so thats $25.  With 24 BP that means that if Germany were to make full use of its BP it can only have an upkeep of $1.  My military upkeep is looking like $20.  Maybe that is too high but even then its going to do nothing about the base income w/ 24 BP.  Best case I could use maybe half the BP by cutting back on active army and navy but whats the point of building stuff that I just have to put into reserve at once anyways.

If you just give Germany more IC then my budget will increase BUT.  Only half of that goes to military.  With the cost of IC so reduced a situation will quickly occur of where the economy grows rapidly fast. 

Well that is the situation from my point of view.

Michael

Adjusted starting figures for China...

Region ---------- Pop ---- IC --- BP --- Revenue -- Research --
Wei ------------ 129.4 ---- 2 ---- 2 ----- 16.94 ------ 0.00 --
--- Beijing ------ 3.7 ---- 1 ---- 0 ------ 2.37 ------ 0.00 --
--- Tianjin ------ 2.8 ---- 0 ---- 2 ------ 0.28 ------ 0.00 --
Wu ------------- 108.2 ---- 1 ---- 2 ----- 12.82 ------ 0.00 --
--- Guangzhou ---- 0.9 ---- 0 ---- 1 ------ 0.09 ------ 0.00 --
--- Hong Kong ---- 2.1 ---- 1 ---- 0 ------ 2.21 ------ 0.00 --
--- Shanghai ----- 4.8 ---- 1 ---- 2 ------ 2.48 ------ 0.00 --
Shu ------------- 87.8 ---- 1 ---- 3 ----- 10.78 ------ 0.00 --
Manchuria -------- 9.4 ---- 0 ---- 0 ------ 0.94 ------ 0.00 --
Mongolia --------- 1.8 ---- 0 ---- 0 ------ 0.18 ------ 0.00 --
Uyghur ----------- 3.3 ---- 0 ---- 0 ------ 0.33 ------ 0.00 --
Tibet ----------- 49.3 ---- 0 ---- 0 ------ 4.93 ------ 0.00 --
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total ---------- 403.5 ---- 7 --- 12 ----- 54.35 ------ 0.00 --

When I mess around with the fortified lines, I get the next...

If I take a 40km long 1880 line, I need to pay $12 and 0.25 BP.
If I take a 40km long 1895 line, I need to pay $4 and 1 BP.
If I take a 40km long 1905 line, I need to pay $4 and 1.5 BP.
If I take a 40km long 1915 line, I need to pay $4 and 2 BP.

I get the impression that something is off in the formula.

I think this is a question for Guinness, as the fortification rules were lifted mostly as is from N3.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the spreadsheet. :-[

... at least I assume I would have to ask you since I took it from your example report...

Looking at it more closely, it looks like a piece of the formula refers to the wrong location. Using the Yalu line of the Japanese report, the $ cost line for building it says:

Quote= (LOOKUP(C25, $Q$25:$Q$29, $R$25:$R$29) - IF(E11 = "y", 0, LOOKUP(LOOKUP(C25, $Q$25:$Q$29, $P$25:$P$29) - IF(C25 <> "", 1, 0), $P$25:$P$29, $R$25:$R$29))) * (B25/10) * IF(OR(D25 <> "n", E25 <> "n"), 1, 0)

It says 'E11' but I would assume that that has to be 'E25' because the Yalu line is on line 25 and not 11.

Doh!

Is the spreadsheet required or merely recommended?

As in N3, merely recommended.

Excellent.

Quote from: Logi on March 21, 2014, 02:20:54 PM

Minor Powers Unfilled:
Italy
Netherlands

Countries not mentioned are probably extremely tiny (navy-wise).

So the major powers are taken,
which leads to some curiosity as to the minors and what they may "look like" for start up stats.

Italy actually managed a rather decent sized fleet.

The Dutch just never funded their military, but I've done the Netherlands already, and I wouldn't want to take them here without starting with Belgium & Luxembourg for size & industrial plant.

Spain, post colonies, still had a decent industrial base pre-civil war and is in a good place for the 'race to africa' - better than Italy, so I'd be curious about that.

Lastly, I keep wondering how Persia would play, but I'm guessing the starting economics aren't there. Just a lovely location. 

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on June 22, 2014, 07:58:50 PM

Quote from: Logi on March 21, 2014, 02:20:54 PM

Minor Powers Unfilled:
Italy
Netherlands

Countries not mentioned are probably extremely tiny (navy-wise).

So the major powers are taken,
which leads to some curiosity as to the minors and what they may "look like" for start up stats.

Italy actually managed a rather decent sized fleet.

The Dutch just never funded their military, but I've done the Netherlands already, and I wouldn't want to take them here without starting with Belgium & Luxembourg for size & industrial plant.

Spain, post colonies, still had a decent industrial base pre-civil war and is in a good place for the 'race to africa' - better than Italy, so I'd be curious about that.

Lastly, I keep wondering how Persia would play, but I'm guessing the starting economics aren't there. Just a lovely location.

I don't think we should really bundle the Dutch and Belgian together. Between Spain and Italy, Italy will probably start off better because we are rolling with that Spain got there butts kicked by the US and Japan and therefore has nothing large left afloat.

Just trying to get a feel for what's out there.
No worries.


Italy : For some reason just doesn't appeal. Despite my appreciating the lines of their ships.

Netherlands : I did the Dutch in Wesworld, so they lack some appeal to me. There they were oversized industrially and the challenges of securing such a large area with long supply lines were difficult enough. Belgium was one of the most industrialized nations until WWI Germany literally disassembled and shipped off big parts of it's industrial plant, so recombining (i.e. undoing the french intervention ~1838) the two nations gives one with ~1/3 the pop of a major.

Spain : While the navy would have been wiped out, starting from scratch always has some appeal. With a bigger domestic population, and average industrial base, it should be well positioned to push for Africa and "new colonies". Plus if the big boys are busy somewher, they could always make a push for Portugal and it's colonies. 

Anyhow, just wondering what the options will be when I finally get things in order here.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on June 22, 2014, 09:27:57 PM
Spain : While the navy would have been wiped out, starting from scratch always has some appeal. With a bigger domestic population, and average industrial base, it should be well positioned to push for Africa and "new colonies". Plus if the big boys are busy somewher, they could always make a push for Portugal and it's colonies. 

Treaty of Windsor. 

Quote from: Darman on June 22, 2014, 09:43:09 PM

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on June 22, 2014, 09:27:57 PM
Spain : While the navy would have been wiped out, starting from scratch always has some appeal. With a bigger domestic population, and average industrial base, it should be well positioned to push for Africa and "new colonies". Plus if the big boys are busy somewher, they could always make a push for Portugal and it's colonies. 

Treaty of Windsor.

Hmmm, what happened the last time British troops set foot in Spain? Ah, yes, the USA tried to take its hat back.

Heh,
I haven't really researched Spain yet, part of the allure. I know after 1898, much of the need for the fleet vanished, but they were still capable of construction of the Espana class, and had the Hispano-Suiza plants- both of which puts them ahead of many minor powers.  Gives them the ability to rebuild, while racing for new colonies.  No oil though. As for the Treaty of Windsor, didn't know if it, and now that I do I'm surprised a treaty has lasted that long, esp after the British actions of 1890 :) Perhaps if the Brits were busy elsewhere.... fun to muse

Sweden-Norway's going to have some industrial capacity.  You've got some opportunity to prevent the split of 1905, and could get involved in Africa.

Portugal itself might be fun, depending on what you're wanting to focus on.  Maybe not a huge ship builder, but certainly a far-flung empire.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 23, 2014, 05:37:06 AM
Sweden-Norway's going to have some industrial capacity.  You've got some opportunity to prevent the split of 1905, and could get involved in Africa.

Sweden is another interesting option.

Wait: did/does the Spanish American war happen? We seemed to have hand-waved the Philippines to Japan, and I think Cuba's status is ambiguous too.

I think Spain *could be* a very fun second-rate power for someone if their overseas holdings are substantial enough, and if we can stimulate foreign ship sales adequately.

Sweden-Norway has the potential to piss Russia and it's Finland holding off. Just saying.

It's the low-cost, assemble-yourself furniture, isn't it? 

They've got the best looking reindeer and cheaper booze.

Quote from: Guinness on June 23, 2014, 08:15:56 AM
Wait: did/does the Spanish American war happen? We seemed to have hand-waved the Philippines to Japan, and I think Cuba's status is ambiguous too.

It happens like this (or at least I remember talking about this with Logi). The Caribbean stuff happens roughly as historical, the US kicks the Spanish out of Cuba and Puerto Rico. USA! USA! The Pacific gets a little different. Rather then sit back and watch until after Dewey arrives, the Japanese go full hog on the Philippines. By the time Dewey gets there, the Japanese military is waving at him from the forts. Rather then fight the IJN, Dewey high tails it to Guam and claims grand victory. So the end of the war sees (as historical) Puerto Rico and Guam annexed^[1] and Cuba...well I want to do Cuba differently than OTL. But most of that will come after 1900. So at the moment, Cuba is occupied^[2] but with a larger force then historical.

[1] This adds a grand total of $0.10 to my income and a spot for a South Pacific naval base (paid for). Yay?
[2] Historically the occupation lasted until 1902 with another stint from 1906 to 1909. This is not currently adding income.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 23, 2014, 08:30:17 AM
It's the low-cost, assemble-yourself furniture, isn't it? 

I may or may not have disturbed coworkers laughing at this.

Mildly contrived, but then again, what's not in the Nverse? ;-) I'll go with that.

One benefit of Sweden-Norway is the mythological names and odes to Vikings, another is the Swedish industrial base produced guns/tanks/planes/ships.
One negative is being right next to the UK/France/Germany/Russia. It's crowded with nations on your SLOC and the combined pop of Sweden & Norway was low.

In 1900 -
Italy : 32m
Spain : 20.75m

Norway : 2.24
Sweden : 5.1
Total : 7.34

Netherlands Europe : 5.6
Belgium : 6.1
Lux : 0.25
Total : 11.95

Portugal Europe : 5.75

Persia : 7m

Granted, the 45m in the Dutch colonies is another $4.5IC, and the Portuguese have some colonies as well, but 5-7% of their pop in the military will give relatively small numbers of troops and ships unless natives can be relied on...and they can't.

I dunno. Still just musing. And breakfast time.

Judging from the map, Spain's retained the Canarias and Fernando Po.  That gives them two bases for colonization into Africa. 

Should be decent industry and tech, decent budgets. 

The resounding defeat against the Americans and Japanese should certainly allow for some late changes to the Spanish government and issues like military funding and corruption.

I would say that Italy is the best bet in terms of Industry.  The Netherlands has the best opening in terms of already having colonies of note.

Portugal or Spain would be interesting BUT I expect them to be very weak in terms of economy.

Michael

QuoteThey've got the best looking reindeer and cheaper booze.

I would assume that the mods are now thinking of introducing the reindeer cavalry to the specialist units list. ;D

Quote from: Walter on June 23, 2014, 10:27:50 AM

QuoteThey've got the best looking reindeer and cheaper booze.

I would assume that the mods are now thinking of introducing the reindeer cavalry to the specialist units list. ;D

Only if they introduce Sleigh Infantry too..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sleigh_Drive

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/%C3%9Cbergang_%C3%BCber_das_Kurische_Haff_1679.jpg/1280px-%C3%9Cbergang_%C3%BCber_das_Kurische_Haff_1679.jpg)

From some of the stories I've heard from Finns about their compulsory service, I would not f*** with Finland, particularly in winter.

Here is some data, the GDP/GDPpc are from Madison for 1900. The Pig-Iron + Steel are in tonnes for the year 1897.

	GDP	GDPpc	Pig-Iron + Steel
Belgium:	25,069	3,731	1,024,666 + 616,604
Netherlands:	17,604	3,424
Indonesia:	31,748	7,04
-----------
Portugal:	7,037	1,302
Spain:	33,164	1,786	297,100 + 101,800
-----------
Italy:	60,114	1,785	12,500 + 57,250
-----------
Sweden:	11,303	2,209	533,800 + 268,300
Norway:	4,185	1,877

I didn't include the ABCs since they have practically 0 Pig-Iron + Steel production, making them reliant sorely on foreign-purchases.

How does that translate into IC and BP?

The big problem with the ABCs the last time we started a sim, was that it was very difficult to simulate a virtually zero-industrial power with a small population but lots of money to throw at buying ships overseas.  That is, honestly, a problem we have right now, where the biggest industrial powers have lots of excess capacity but a very small market. 

I do not believe we should allow any sort of BP-for-cash arrangement, only through selling vessels or equipment to other PC or NPC nations can we turn our BPs into cash.  So if we could get some idea of the budget available to the ABCs for their purchases then we could start producing designs or making offers to sell them older vessels.  We can always pretend that in the 1890s they got into a war that virtually exhausted them all, decimating their militaries, leaving them exhausted in 1900 but with lots of cash to burn rebuilding their shattered armies and navies. 

At best I'd give each of the ABCs 1 infantry division of troops and no ships worth counting.  Their upkeep would be ridiculously low, leaving them plenty of money to spend buying equipment and ships. 

I am also in favor of some type of mechanic to allow for export sales. 

Michael

Quote from: miketr on June 23, 2014, 12:46:39 PM
I am also in favor of some type of mechanic to allow for export sales. 

Michael

Logi and I are talking about this. When our idea is more fleshed out then "This would work!", one of us will post it.

Quote from: Logi on June 23, 2014, 11:36:15 AM
Here is some data, the GDP/GDPpc are from Madison for 1900. The Pig-Iron + Steel are in tonnes for the year 1897.

Thanks Logi.
Interesting info.
The two which can field the largest armed forces, Spain and Italy, are at the same GDP/pc , but Spain has a bigger industrial base, with a better defensive line and SLOC. Belgium has the best industrial base, but little population - and probably could invest in colonies more. Sweden+ Norway have about the same population and less industry and sit between most of the real powers. NL would have purchasing power between Spain and Italy, plenty of room to expand in DEI, but no industrial base, and a horrid SLOC.

Ok, so here is our idea on simulating export sales to nations currently without players. Thanks to Mike for the suggestion that sparked this proposal.

In a given turn's report, you will have the ability to add a sum of BP to a generic "Export" pool. Each BP added to this pool generates $1.25 of additional income^[1]. That BP then is added to the total pool for that turn which will be distributed to the NPC nations. Whose BP goes where is random^[2], unless you specify places you do not want it to go (ie, not shipping war material to a belligerent in a South American conflict). Players will then be notified of where the BP went and the mods will maintain a ledger of these transactions. That way if/when one of these minor nations gets picked up, they can converse with the player(s) of the nation(s) which exported BP in order to work out exactly what form that BP takes. It also gives us an idea of what each NPC nation is capable of, in case someone wants to pick fights.

[1] We picked this number as it is how much per-BP a nation would pay to construct a ship in a foreign yard. We are open to talking about modifying how much cash each BP generates, but do not want the number to be to high so as to make the player-to-player export market super expensive.
[2] It is expected that things would normalize after a while, with longstanding trade partners continuing relationships, but this would be several turns down the line so it would effectively be random for a time.

The goals of this mechanic are to provide an additional income source while also giving a floor for the export market to operate on. We feel it allows us to enrich this aspect of the game with minimal leg work all around

Any questions or comments?

Would the additional income be general, civilian or military income? Considering that BPs are military, I think that thye received cash should be military. This would help Germany with its high number of BPs and low amount of cash to better fund its projects and pay the upkeep of the forces.

Quote from: Walter on June 23, 2014, 01:46:10 PM
Would the additional income be general, civilian or military income? Considering that BPs are military, I think that thye received cash should be military. This would help Germany with its high number of BPs and low amount of cash to better fund its projects and pay the upkeep of the forces.

Seeing as BP is (mostly, we may require it for big things like very very long railroads and canal locks) military, the money should be military. Also since we are assuming that this BP is being exported as some sort of actual good, be it a warship, crate of rifles, etc, (to be defined when that definition is needed) it would be military money.

You forgot razor blades. A lot of men in South America want to look good and will have to shave themselves often.

... Oh wait! That'll make the received cash civilian. ;D

Here are the figures for various smaller nations.

	Pop	IC	BP
Italy	33.67	9	3
-----------
Spain	18.57	6	5
Portugal	5.4	1	0
-----------
Sweden	5.12	3	7
Norway	2.23	1	0
-----------
Netherlands	5.14	3	3
Indonesia	45.1	5	0
Belgium	6.72	4	9
Luxembourg	0.25	0	0
-----------
Persia	9.86	2	0
-----------
Argentina	4.69	2	0
Brasil	17.98	2	0
Mexico	13.61	3	1

Netherlands + Indonesia is roughly equal to Italy.
Sweden and Belgium have roughly $0.5/BP and are major BP exports.
South America is decently wealthy (each nation in SA is roughly equivalent to a Sweden/Netherlands in $), but lack BP.

I like the concept of export BP. It's a little bit of bookeeping overhead for the mods to track it though.

Thanks Logi, appreciate the extra work.

The Dutch and Italians do come out about the same revenue - $21, the Spanish 2/3rds, the Swedes & Belgians 1/3rd - albeit the last two would be selling BP.

I apologize in advance, but was there a decision made not to have production as great as the Original time line?

Looking at the stats, and the conversation above regarding selling BP to NPCs, I started to wonder. So I started to poke about- again, I apologize if this was addressed and intentional and I missed it, I've been busy and couldn't follow every post.

Just musing though- the Minas Geraes was ~19,000 tons.  She was built in 3 years, or 6 half turns. Meanwhile the San Paolo was also building,
Also, the Cruiser Bahia at ~3tL was building.  So historically Brazil managed to pay Britain for ~41tons light of ships in 3 years, or 6 turns- when she only generates <$30 in that time frame- and can't spend that all on warships.
Granted, Brazil was in a coffee/rubber boom at the time, so I don't know if that's by design, or if the bottom end of the IC #s need picking up.

Let's look at Italy- Revenue $21.37
H2/09 - H1/15 she built 6 dreadnaughts, at ~123k tons light, which she can afford as in those 12 halves, she's only going to make ~$256, it's just 48% of the budget right there. But she also built other ships and paid for infantry, aircraft, etc.  Doesn't quite make it in the military budget. Of course, here, with 3BP, she could only build 36,000 tons of vessels in those 12 halves - a significant shortfall from reality, and very hindering for a mid-rank power.

Even Japan - at ~$28.61 & 6BP- has issues.
but in 1905-11 (6 years, $171 military, 72BP) Japan built the Kuramas (~26), the 2 Satsumas (~36), 2 Tsukubas (~24), finished the 2 Kashimas (~18), launched the Kwachis (~16) and laid down 2 Kirishima BCs (~9?) plus her cruisers, destroyers, subs etc.. over 120BP worth of material just in capital ships.

The problem is the period chosen:

In 1900, the industrial expansion of Italy and Japan had not quite picked up steam yet. Leading up to 1909, for example, Italy mostly had to purchase foreign-built ships. A similar thing occurs with Japan. Another oddity - China's industrial power (BP-wise) is world-class in 1900. By the start of the next decade it had dropped 66%. Or we can take Russia, it's 1910 industrial capacity is a little less than 5 times that of it's capacity in 1897.

I have in mind three measures:
1) Reduce cost of new BP
2) Increase BP of nations in question
3) Have some modifiers for rising nations.
Now, I'm open to other suggestions on how to model this behavior, at the moment it is not.

FYI, Japan was about 2/3 the industrial capacity of Spain in 1897. By 1910, Japan's industrial capacity was about 5 times that of Spain.
Another note, I've made draft sim reports for Japan extending from 1900 to 1906 with 80%-95% of budget investment in the economy. The result is (if we presume no depression or other such things occur) $115.11 and 10 BP in 1906/H1.
Alternatively a focus on BP yields $49.41 and 13 BP in 1906/H1.


As for Brasil, it already has a 60% boost over it's historical GDP. I think we ought to attribute to the the coffee/rubber boom and call it a day.

I've got some names to assign to ships, but reckon I'm generally ready to rock and roll.

Quote from: Logi on June 23, 2014, 09:13:45 PM
I have in mind three measures:
1) Reduce cost of new BP
2) Increase BP of nations in question
3) Have some modifiers for rising nations.
Now, I'm open to other suggestions on how to model this behavior, at the moment it is not.

My choice of periods was based on the book I've been using as a mouse pad being Prestons BBs of WWI. Hence no cruisers/DD/Subs... and few vessels before 1890.

Italians : You see British guns on the Italian pre-dreads, but from Dandolo to Regina Elena they are built in Italy...slowly. They also built in the 1890s- looks like 19 protected & armored cruisers, several for export. I expect that means a larger BP base than simmed.

Japan : Nice that you've modeled that period, good information point.  Overall, for Japan to go from 2/3rds the Spanish 5, - call it 3, to 5x ...or 25, would take 20*$50= $1000.

At Japan's $28.61 that would take 100% of the budget for ~35 halves, or 17 years, 30% longer than the 1897-1910 period. In that period they bought from Britain until 1905 - draining their $, when the Tsukubas, Kuramas, & Satsumas were laid down - taking BP & $, with the Kawachis in 1908. Obviously, OTL they did not devote nearly all resources to building BP. :) 

As to the options presented,
I'd go with #2 so they can be closer to OTL in production, particularly for Japan. I'm just looking at what the options for mid-rank and minors are, but Japan is supposed to be a major, and certainly demonstrated a competitive fleet.

I'm trying to envision how #3 would work. The first BP would represent the best mines/transport/power source/milling site combinations. However, there were economies of scale with being larger, then you would get into diminishing returns with the lesser ores requiring more transport and power to utilize, more impurities making the products less useful for military applications, etc.  Not sure a reasonable means of implementing that.

Scaling the cost of BP might work for #3 but I'd much prefer to keep the costs of IC and BP as static and easily predictable as possible. 

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on June 24, 2014, 10:36:08 AM
Stuffs

Part of the issue is we really tried to tie the numbers to OTL economies as a whole rather then shipbuilding ala WW. Seeing as we track more than just ships, we felt it was the best course of action.

As I said, wasn't sure if it was a deliberate choice or not, but once I found you couldn't recreate the historical buildouts, I figured I'd draw attention to it. In many ways, WW has the opposite problem of too much production .

So here is the deal, on July 5th at 23:59 PST we will be locking the startup process and beginning normal play. At that time, the following needs to be accomplished from each player.

1) Some sort of summary of items for startup needs to have been posted with enough time for a checkover. Directly providing your spreadsheet works for this. Give us at least 48h to do this, so we should have one for each nation posted by then.
2) All ships need to be at least given an allotted tonnage and approximate characteristics. We, however, would highly prefer if all were simmed.
3) Information on starting military units and infrastructure needs to be posted to your national encyclopedia. If it is not in the ency by this point, it does not exist pre-start and must be constructed starting with the first report.
4) All changes from our PoD to December 31st 1899 need to be cataloged here (http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6505.0.html). It is ok if some minor things are still being worked on, but anything effecting international relations should be finished up.

If getting any of this done by the time we lock it is an issue for you, please PM Logi and I so we can work the issue out.

After some discussion, I've decided to boost Japan and Italy's figures to bring it more in line with their historical capabilities.

Japan: 11 IC -> 14 IC, 6 BP -> 12 BP
- Originally Japan had a $/BP ratio of 2.38, with the new BP it drops to 1.19. With the boost in IC it rises back to 1.44.
- 12 BP gives Japan the (very) marginal ability to construction the ships it did historically in the period Kirk mentions.
- The boost corrects Japan from being the lowest BP major to mid-range, equivalent to China and Russia.

Italy: 9 IC -> 10 IC, 3 BP -> 8 BP
- Originally Italy is to have a roughly $/BP ratio of 3.56. With the new BP, it drops to 1.33. With the boost in IC it rises to 1.46.
- 8 BP gives Italy the marginal ability to construction it's historical ships (using Kirk's figures).
- 8 BP puts Italy in the major status, being 1 BP behind the Ottomans and having roughly equivalent income.

If there are other minors with issues, please mention them.

Glad the data was useful,
as for the other minors, I can't say, haven't dug into them.  I did look into the Spanish fleet, oddly even after 1898 it was running 107,000 tons, but it had a great number of older vessels which were disposed of in 1900-1902 while others continued in service until the 1930s.  Overall Spanish forces seem to have been badly prepared, suggesting they spent their life in "Navalism" reserve.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 24, 2014, 10:03:56 AM
I've got some names to assign to ships, but reckon I'm generally ready to rock and roll.

Im going to requote this for pun use.

Quote from: snip on July 02, 2014, 08:48:22 AM

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 24, 2014, 10:03:56 AM
I've got some names to assign to ships, but reckon I'm generally ready to rock and roll.

Im going to requote this for pun use.

A buddy and I once made a list of ship-related puns. Perhaps I'll post it schooner or later.

Hiya All,

So, I've been poking about with the Spanish and Italians some, seeing where my interest is.
I at least have the interest/time and energy to commit to build & keep positions.  Neither of them is really standing out for storylines at this time. Spanish a little more, but they have less to work with. Perhaps since I had idled my thoughts with Dutch/AH/Ottoman/Russ/Germany, perhaps because I'm really not up on Spanish/Italian history/culture.

I've made up 1900 navy lists from on-line sources. Tonnage is probably "normal" in most cases.
Spanish : 107,008 tons in service, none building, 80 vessels in service, 34 for 23,416 tons of which were to be disposed of in 1900-1902.
Italians : 227,551 tons in service, 74,678 building.  212 vessels in service, of which 130 were torpedo boats.
Interestingly, simply dividing the tonnage under construction / #halves from laid down to completion = ~7600tons/half, so 8BP does look appropriate for Italia. Granted, they lack the Navalism revenue to achieve that, but that's because 50% of the budget goes to civilian use.

For armies, forts and coastal artillery, I had little success for 1900, more success earlier.
I figure ~250,000 troops for the Spanish and ~325,000 for the Italians. About 1.5 & 1% - both nations have good natural barriers...and are kinda poor.

There's some decent info on where the Italian Naval bases were, in some cases the #docks/slips are available, for example LaSpezia in 1897 covered 629 acres and had 5 dry docks, 2 slips.   Size & number can be surmised from when & where vessels were built.  Overall, the Italians farmed out a great amount of construction to civilian slips, while the seem to have used naval bases as repair & maintenance facilities.

I also have a book called {i]Coaling, Docking, and Repairing Facilities of the Ports of the World[/i] which gives info for about 1885-86 as to bases, drydocks and coaling facilities.

For both, I lumped the historic provinces and then prorated today's population numbers by the 1900 population to get provincial pops for the budget.
IC and BP were allocated by which areas seemed more important.


So,
This brings me to a couple questions.

1) Is everyone ok if I do go ahead and play?
That said...the 5th might be a little hard. I've done some prep on both nations though.

2) Is there a preference for which nation I play?
By that I mean if there's a clamoring for the Dutch or other nation to get filled, it's not out of the question.
As far as I know there's no pressing need right now.

3) Folks don't seem to be clinging exactly to the historic fleets. So I would intend on vessels similar to, but not duplicates of, the Original timeline, with more departures post 1895.
The Italians liked fast overarmed ships, which SS3 isn't coping well with, presumably the engine technology, so their OTL Normal weight is winding up NTL Light, or I trim something somewhere.

Also, on the larger vessels, they went really slow- up to a decade sometimes, with the result the armor deck wasn't closed and the vessel launched for 4-5 years. So I'm using launch date as the reference point for which engine tech goes in before the armor deck is closed up. This is a departure from what most are doing, but makes a great deal of sense...is it Ok?


4) I'm suggesting a starting BP for Spain of 180 and for Italy of 300. Alternately +60 each. 
To explain :  I don't know how the starting BP allowance is factored. For China  it's 10x BP, for Turkey 33x, for France 36x
Spain has 5BP, Italy 8.  I know roughly what the historic navies were.

The Historical Spanish fleet - normal tonnage-, after the 1898 losses was 21x   BP, if that's 80% then 107/0.8= ~134 would be starting, yielding 27 BP for Ports and docks and slips.

The Historical Italian fleet - normal tonnage-, was ~28x   BP, and if that's only 80%, then 285 would be starting, yielding 58 BP for ports and docks and slips.
Counting- as best possible given poor data, the historic Italian facilities, I came up with something around 63BP, which could be modified down.

Since multiples of 60 are generally used I'd advocate giving the Spanish 120BP, counting the 34 to-be-scrapped as off the books, and the Italians 300BP....or 180 and 360 respectively.

I've worked out Italian Naval ports & facilities to hit 60BP.  That would leave 240BP for the Navy, vs the 227 existing + 75 (and part of 1 Drydock) partially built pre-game.
Shouldn't require much work to get the 227 + tonnage expended on construction (prorates at ~ 35.5)to = 300BP.

5) So, tell me what I'm doing wrong as well as any other questions/comments/incendiary projectiles ?

1) Absolutely. We are likely going to blow right past the 5th (why did I think the long weekend would be a good time :o), so will most likely be pushing things back bit.

2) I would say out of the nations listed, Italy would be my choice for next filled as Italy is really the only Dreadnaught building power without a player. Then we have all the major OTL naval powers plus Ottomania and China covered.

3) There is no requirement to cling to OTL practices. Honestly, I think I came the closet with the USN but that most likely comes from the USN's historic buildup in the 1890-1899 era. Keeping national flavor is nice tho.

4) The starting BP...well I don't recall exactly how we arrived at it. Logi can share more on that. I think the 300BP figure for Italy is a very good starting point for a in-total number, maybe even prefect.

5) Nothing jumps out at me yet. I will note that while we are trying to keep things close to OTL, we have been putting more focus into making sure that everyone is in the approximately right position with regards to eachother rather then as close to OTL figures. Given the historical butterflies we have introduced, some revision is needed and any small errors can be flapped away. So while the OTL data is helpful, it most likely will not get exactly replicated. Be sure we are doing our best to have each nation be playable and fun.

Quotewhy did I think the long weekend would be a good time :o

Yes. How could you forget that all the American players will be properly and patriotically wasted around that date. :D

Quote from: Walter on July 02, 2014, 04:03:13 PM

Quotewhy did I think the long weekend would be a good time :o

Yes. How could you forget that all the American players will be properly and patriotically wasted around that date. :D

Well I will be spending most of the 5th in a pool building. So no real drinking for me on the 4th

Continuing from here (http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6522.msg85196.html#msg85196).

We have decided to revise the Mine tech slightly to allow for a more historical progression. It will be changed to the following. First sentence describes the type of Mine available at that tech level, the second describes the sweeping method available. It is assumed that once a mine is sweeped, it will ether be disarmed or disposed of in a non-destructive way tho accidents do happen.

Quote1880: Hand detonated mines. Running into mines with ships.
1897: Primitive Horn Mines
1900: Reliable Horn mines. Primitive paravanes and dragged booms behind small vessels.
1908: Early antenna mines. Advanced paravanes, active charges.
1918: Reliable antenna mines.
1922: Unreliable magnetic mines & countermessures.

We are also considering giving each nation access to one 1900 level tech of the players choosing. The tech would be available for use starting with the first turn. The available options would be the following techs.

Quote
Naval Guns: 1900

Miscellaneous Propulsion: Underway Recoaling

Light Cruiser Architecture: Ammunition hoists, deck torpedo armament, superfiring mounts

Mine Warfare: Reliable Horn mines. Primitive paravanes and dragged booms behind small vessels.

Armor: Krupp Cemented

Submarines: 1900

Army Reserves: Can maintain one reserve unit per one active strength unit

Railway Guns: Railway guns of up to 150mm, armored trains

Signals/Intelligence: Ability to use and break simple codes, bored crews at wireless stations listening to radio traffic

Thoughts?

/me says yes yes

But you knew that already.

Yes

Quote from: Guinness on July 07, 2014, 11:37:33 AM
/me says yes yes

But you knew that already.

Considering your pushiness, I would give you the one 1900 tech and then knock you down a level with all other techs. ;D

I have no strong objection to free tech.

Quote from: Walter on July 07, 2014, 02:59:07 PM

Quote from: Guinness on July 07, 2014, 11:37:33 AM
/me says yes yes

But you knew that already.

Considering your pushiness, I would give you the one 1900 tech and then knock you down a level with all other techs. ;D

I just want to fill the Sea of Japan with mines...

I think we can declare this a feature. Please PM both Logi and I the tech you are picking.

No !

I protest, I reject this tyrranny, I don't want Free Tech, I...
what, oh the translation is wrong, and free tech means...

OOOOOhhhhh
right, um just ignore me then....

QuoteI just want to fill the Sea of Japan with mines...

Oh... okay... You want sooooooooo many mines there that your troops can walk over them and invade Japan or you could send a ship into that area and make it the first Heavier-Than-Air Craft which will be airborne for the entire trip from Vladivostok to Japan. ;D

He wants to justify early development of the Caspian Sea Monster.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 08, 2014, 10:09:08 AM
He wants to justify early development of the Caspian Sea Monster.

A steampunk caspian sea monster would be so cool.

Damned right.

this?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/%D0%AD%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%9A%D0%9C.jpg)

yep

Well I would think that you would need to have the proper heavier than air craft tech for that so...

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!!
uhm...
I meant
No ekranoplanes for you!! :D

So far I have word from the following nations.

'Murica
UK
Russia
Japan
Italy

Those of you not on this list, please PM Logi and I your chosen 1900 tech ASAP. I'm sure some deals are already being made, so don't miss out.

I'd kind of wanted to consult with Germany, but will PM you guys tomorrow if I don't see him by then.