Roll Call

[Walter]

China can take control over Korea and Vietnam with all the islands (and maybe Phillipinas)

Give me Siam, Bhutan, Nepal and Sikkim as well and I am happy. :D

... perhaps just assume that Spain did not loose control over the Philippines instead or just independent.

... and since France will loose Vietnam, I think we should turn Jeff into Napoleon and give him some bits of Germany as well so he can turn the Evil Boche into proper French citizens. ;D

The problem with lumping powers together at this juncture is it would throw the balance between nations out the window.

It is true that it could indeed unbalance everything, but it could also make the playing field a bit more level depending on what is added to which nation and make it actually a bit more balanced and enjoyable for the players. It is something that could be done but no guarantees that it will work. Maybe even work it into what we currently have without the need for another jerky restart.

[Jefgte]

and since France will loose Vietnam, I think we should turn Jef into Napoleon and give him some bits of Germany as well so he can turn the Evil Boche into proper French citizens. ;D

;D  ;D  ;D

Seriously,
I think that is not possible to play without player for USA Britains, Germany , Japan... All big naval country.

IMO, PM to the players who play these countries to know if they would play again.

Jef  ;)

[snip]

Hey, Murica is still technically here.

Im very hesitant to ask for people to come back, as there is really not a compelling reason to.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well looking at the various points raised :

1) Giving up or moving on. :

1a)I intend to finish the Italian expansion, wrapping up 1906, and then put out a map of the final Italian claim. Given the decline, I may keep that remarkably short. After that I will evaluate if anyone else is playing, and if there is not a viable player base, give up.
1b) Moving on - If there is a another variation I could move on too, I likely do that.

2)Turn Timelines.  For my part I've been working my tail off since June. Which should end this next week. For my part, if life is normal, a turn every 3 weeks allows a little writting/ side chat.  Further, I am likely to be sent to a fire assignement a year, and those take 2 weeks, or more. Plus vacations tend to be about that long. There should be a policy for production on turns not turned in for 2 turns or something.

3) Game Vigor : I think what killed this iteration was many of us paused during the rule update, thinking it was incomplete, and then paused again for the War that was a battle, and then struggled to relaunch.The overly long times between turns caused by this causes folks to wander a way,

4)Tech rolls / technology : Coming from WesWorld, where there had been contentious debates over if a certain tech was reasonable and available, and what constituted 'in service', the Tech tree is something I view as welcome and giving some basis for expectations.
If I was going to change it, I think what I would do is make the tech tree something where on that date the GMs would start rolling to see if that tech was generally available or not.  Countries could expend resources to see if they could develop techs a little early.  That would still give the large/rich powers an edge, but mean little ones would not fall hopelessly behind.  The mid sized would still be able to be advanced, if only in 1-2 techs. For example, the Dutch had better radars and AA mounts than the Brits.

Meanwhile on BP, I'd make it so that having a unit of BP meant you had to spend $1 either military or civilian on it, or it starts to decay. That would prevent the Dutch and Italian trick of idiling plant and pretending that workforce and infrastructure would be there later. Now once you've paid for it, you can make a civilain vessel, a military vessel, unnamed export at $1.25/1000 tons, or build something for an NPC/fellow player at a negotiated price. This would mean a fellow PC would only have to offer $1.26/1000 for you to turn a profit on the export market.

5) Turn sheet complexity.
I'lll make spreadsheets at work for a variety of purposes, though I don't do lookup tables. For me, the spreadsheets work just fine. They probably take me more than an hour, as I tinker with options short term/long term.

Like Olekit, I have draft turns, but mainly for seeing what would be a sustainable building program. Deciding what to build is another problem.

I attach mine, but I rarely look at other people's. Though I have at times. They tend to be more up to date than the encyclopedia.

6) Lumping powers : I'm not really in favor, but I'm willing to go with the majority here. Part of the problem is the allocation of players we have. With Jefgte, Olekit and myself, Africa and the Med is a terribly busy place. But the rest of the world.. not so much.
Further, while the three of us are starting to develop overseas assets we will need to protect, I don't see potential conflicts with the US or China in the stars.  Further, there is a tremendous disparity in build capacity between these nations.
I think for a viable game, the PC nations should be closer in productivity, spaced better, and have overseas possessions which are critical to keep as well as create potential conflicts.

[snip]

So I've reviewed the below with Walter (thank you much for this) and want to see what you all think. Please respond to each question with what option you like and a short description of why you want that option.

What sort of game do we want?
--Naval-focused with "other military" on the fringes (Wesworld Like)
--Naval-focused with "other military" tracked softly
--Nation-sim ("Traditional" N-Verse)
--Other

Snip's Argument: Naval-Focused with "other military" tracked softly. Ships have always been the primary driver here and I think its time to get "back to basics" to make a sim that will last. However, we still do need to pay some attention to non-naval stuff.

What setting do we want?
--Historical (Requires more players OR multiple nations per player)
--Quasi-Historical (Real Earth map, fictional political)
--Tech-Historical (Fictional Map)

Snip's Argument: Quasi or Tech. We don't have the player population to do a historical setting and have it work. Single players controlling several nations can lead to huge conflicts of interest. I think Tech could be shaped in such a way to minimise non-naval stuff in an environmental way, but understand it's a more complex setup.

How do we want the nations to stack up against each other?
--Roughly equivalent (Less than 5% difference from a baseline)
--Closely (Between 5% and 15% difference from a baseline)
--Loosely (Greater than 16% difference from a baseline)

Snip's Argument: Closely. It's little fun to work from super far back, but being too close is boring as well.

What sort of economic system do we want?
--Single Currency (Simple, but inflexible)
--Double Currency (More complex, but more flexible)
--3+ Currency

Snip's Argument: Double if a range of state sizes are wanted, Single if rough parity. We don't need the additional complexity if the nations are all close anyway.

What do we want to track with Tech? (Hard tech being things like engines and rangefinders, soft tech being like the current BB/AC Architecture)
--Both Hard tech and Soft tech in the same way
--Hard tech and Soft tech differently
--Hard tech only

Snip's Argument: Hard tech and Soft tech differently. There are better ways to control Soft tech rather than lumping it into the same structure as Hard tech.

How do we want to handle Hard Tech progression?
--Fixed trees (What we use now)
--Random advancement (Research is done in general with advancements doled out at random)
--IC Agreement (A IC treaty that is treated OOC as the ruleset regarding tech progression)

Snip's Argument: Fixed Trees with Fixed progression. Relying on GM input on reports leads to bottlenecks

How do we want to handle Soft Tech progression?
--Fixed trees (What we use now)
--Random advancement (Research is done in general with advancements doled out at random)
--IC Agreement (A IC treaty that is treated OOC as the ruleset regarding tech progression)

Snip's Argument: IC Agreement. Has lots of potential to be flexible regarding what players want to build without tying it up in such a way that creates GM overhead beyond an updated document. Example found here.

[Jefgte]

... Ships have always been the primary driver here and I think its time to get "back to basics" to make a sim that will last...

I agree totaly.
We could have just Fleets & make battles.
Give a challenge vs another country.

That is different from Wesworld. Build fleet with SS & make battles.

Ex: Each player build a 1902 techno Fleet with 4 BBs, 4 ACs, 4CL & 12 DDs & make a battle.
We need (historical) rules & simulation for the battle.

Just an idea...

Jef

[olekit24]

... Ships have always been the primary driver here and I think its time to get "back to basics" to make a sim that will last...

Ex: Each player build a 1902 techno Fleet with 4 BBs, 4 ACs, 4CL & 12 DDs & make a battle.
We need (historical) rules & simulation for the battle.

Just an idea...

Jef

It's quite simple and is not interestingtotally. It's better to play any computer game such as World of Warships or Rule the Waves.

I'm for some kind of strategy where navy plays the main role, but on the real map and with strategy, politics, diplomacy.

I like the idea of Naval-focused sim with "other military" tracked softly. Like Navalism 10 years ago, for example...

[Walter]

Just the few things I mentioned to snip in the various pms I sent him... and maybe a few things extra here and there.

What sort of game do we want?
--Naval-focused with "other military" on the fringes (Wesworld Like)
--Naval-focused with "other military" tracked softly
--Nation-sim ("Traditional" N-Verse)
--Other

I actually like N-verse as it is different from Wesworld. While it should be naval-focused, I think there should also be the option to be a bit crazy and go for some land-locked Swiss Empire that does not have any seaports and only a few river ports and thus be land-focused with some river forces instead of sea-focused. Otherwise it would just end up being a Wesworld clone inside a different package.

Rules regarding the non-naval stuff could probably be made simpler than they are now, but I feel that they should still be kept in to give the sim that extra dimension.

What setting do we want?
--Historical (Requires more players OR multiple nations per player)
--Quasi-Historical (Real Earth map, fictional political)
--Tech-Historical (Fictional Map)

I agree with snip regarding the Quasi or Tech option considering the player availability. But I also like those options as it gives a player more flexibility when it comes to the past of their nation rather than be stuck with historical events. And it is always possible to fit in some 'historical' nation in those two settings. Since snip mentioned the more complex setup for the Tech option, perhaps it is best to go for Quasi.

How do we want the nations to stack up against each other?
--Roughly equivalent (Less than 5% difference from a baseline)
--Closely (Between 5% and 15% difference from a baseline)
--Loosely (Greater than 16% difference from a baseline)

One thing I suggested to snip was that all nations would have an equal baseline and given an x amount of points which they could spend on either population, ICs of BPs. That way a player can mold his economy and production output the way he wants it so when you look at those three categories, the differences between the various nations could be anything between 'Roughly equivalent' and 'Loosely'. So how the nations stack up against each other would be determined on how those points are spent by the players.

What sort of economic system do we want?
--Single Currency (Simple, but inflexible)
--Double Currency (More complex, but more flexible)
--3+ Currency

Our current form works for me. It is not that much more complex than using either BPs (like Wesworld only uses tons) or N$ but a lot more simpler and flexible than the 2.5 currency we originally started out with with our current sim (where we had BPs, military N$ and civilian N$; since military N$ could be shifted to civilian at any time but civilian N$ could be shifted to military only in times of war, I consider that 2.5 Currency as it is not a 3+ Currency but not really a Double Currency either).

What do we want to track with Tech? (Hard tech being things like engines and rangefinders, soft tech being like the current BB/AC Architecture)
--Both Hard tech and Soft tech in the same way
--Hard tech and Soft tech differently
--Hard tech only

How do we want to handle Hard Tech progression?
--Fixed trees (What we use now)
--Random advancement (Research is done in general with advancements doled out at random)
--IC Agreement (A IC treaty that is treated OOC as the ruleset regarding tech progression)

How do we want to handle Soft Tech progression?
--Fixed trees (What we use now)
--Random advancement (Research is done in general with advancements doled out at random)
--IC Agreement (A IC treaty that is treated OOC as the ruleset regarding tech progression)

With techs I told snip that it might be an idea to remove the tech rolls altogether and make success dependent on how much of the research budget was spent on it. Two ways that we could use it.

1) We use our current maximum research time of 6 HY and the baseline cost of N$1 which means it would take N$6 in research money to unlock the tech ($12 for double time techs) with a minimum of 4 HYs required (8 HYs for double time techs). For 4 HYs you would need to pay N$1.50/HY to unlock it, for 5 HYs you would need to pay N$1.20/HY and for 6 HYs N$1/HY. Double time techs would be N$1.5/HY for 8HYs, N$1.333(etc)/HY for 9 HYs, N$1.20/HY for 10 HYs, N$1.0909(etc)/HY for 11 HYs and N$1/HY for 12 HYs.
2) we choose the middle as baseline so if you were to spend N$1 per half year it would take 5 HYs to unlock the tech (10 for double time techs). You could pay 50% more per HY to get the tech in 4 HYs (8HYs for double time techs) or pay 30% less per HY to get it in 6 HYs (12 HYs for double time techs). I originally mentioned 20% to snip but that would mean that there is barely any difference between what you pay for the tech in 5 HYs and the tech in 6 HYs. You would with a normal time tech pay N$1/HY for a total of N$5 to get it in 5 HYs. Pay 50% more per HY (N$1.5) and you get it in 4 HYs for a total of N$6. Pay 30% less per HY (N$0.70) and you get it in 6 HYs for a total of N$4.2.


The above is just a suggestion and two ways that we could use it. This would take away the requirements for tech rolls so there is no need for a player to waste time creating a pm asking the mods for tech rolls and there is no need for the player to wait for a mod to eventually send you the results of a tech roll.

[Jefgte]

...It's better to play any computer game such as World of Warships or Rule the Waves.

You'r right.

I like the idea of Naval-focused sim with "other military" tracked softly. Like Navalism 10 years ago, for example...

It was the best Navalism with much activ players.

regrets  :'(  :'(  :'(

[snip]

Walter is being very patient with me in a virtual fulasade of PMs hashing out some details. Will post more details later but I think we are on a good track.

[Walter]

Me after being bombarded by snip's pms....

:)

[snip]

So to update you guys on what Walter is helping/working on with me. We are going through the rules pairing down some of the more complex elements. We both feel strongly that these changes will help simplify the game but leave it in a state where it still feels like a classic Navalism.

Unfortunately, these changes are not going to be compatible without a monstrous revamp of what we currently have. Additionally, the game universe as it stands right now has too many vacancies to make it playable in a balanced manor. The amount of effort it would take to ensure that combining existing powers into a workable number of states would be massive and likely to fail in some capacity. I hate to impose the burden of starting over again upon you guys, and will completely understand if it is something you do not wish to do. But I feel it is in the best interest of a healthy game that can sustain itself going forward to do this. What I would like to do going forward is to request a little more time for Walter and myself to get a rough draft of the rule changes ready and any comments you may have on that draft when it is ready. All this being said, I'm just going to drop this here...



The scenario we have envisioned is above, and I am more than happy to talk about the unified background I have in mind after I get a chance to write it down. The background is only intended to be a template in which you are free to play with things. The goal of this map is to provide a concentration of player nations to allow for large amounts of colonial expansion. This, along with some economic-based rule drivers, aim to create a universe in which conflict in the homeland is limited, but colonial wars can happen with frequency. Our thought is to start the game at an approximant 1910 tech level to allow us to go through many stages of Dreadnaught evolution. We have a couple thoughts on how to handle national balance but are not ready to talk specifics yet. Know that all of these nations will be treated as approximate equals in game terms.

Red: Western Roman Empire. Because of its somewhat hemmed in and centralized nature, We feel it is best that I take this nation.
Yellow: Vikings and friends. Because of his helpfulness in embarking on this endeavor, I gave Walter his choice of the nations on the map. He chose these guys.
Green: Unified Germanic Something. This nation is up for grabs.
Purple: Byzantium. This nation is up for grabs.
Light Green. Iberian Caliphate. This nation is up for grabs.

This map and the national descriptions are by no means final, but it's in a close enough state where I feel it's time to see if the interest is there. If there are any questions, please ask them here or PM me. If you have a national preference, please also post here so any disputes can be resolved. Thank you for your patience.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm probably not going to be able to digest and reply until weds or thursday night. As said, the end of the week things get better.
Some brief thoughts from what I've skimmed :

World ; I've been against total fantasy worlds in the past because we'd have to tinker with stuff like where are the ports. However, I've softened my stance and could live with it. Variations on the "real world" of either slightly diff geography like Africa a little SW so red sea a straight, a gap between N&S america, etc. Is ok.

Nations : If a fantasy world, fantasy. If real world - quasi Historical.  I've had the notion for a bit that folks could take a historical Empire, and that would be their "claimed area" but they'd play the core of that old empire, with built in aspirations on conquering the former lands. Plus start with some colonies with vital "stuff" - oil, rubber, tin, etc.

Big multicolored europe map : Tired, digest later. Concerned Europe small theater. Norse are in deep doo-doo- long borders, split land base, small population, half nation icelocked in winter. Germans strong, one sea to defend, bait Romans into fighting in Hungary, long tenous supply lines. Iberia has moderate habitatable land, good borders, concentrated fleet. Good ally for Germans against France or Ottomans. Ottomans have several foes, concentrated navy. Should ally with Rome, but history says the Ottomans own former Roman lands, long bitter history.

Baseline : I think the kicker is enough production to make a small 1940ish navy of 1 BATDIV a Carrier or two, a couple cruiser squadrons, adequate dds, a couple fleet elements, etc. over time should be a PC minimum. I'm ok with loosely, but the range shouldn't be more than 2-3x from big to little.

Tech Tree : Preference is universal, with random advances.  Reason - I saw to many avoiding Predreads because they "knew" turbines and dreadnaughts were coming. That needs to be a bit more random.

Armies : I prefer having a defined military. Current system with buy however many troops you want and prorate to division is fine. So 1000 troops costs 1/25 division.

Economy : Tried the only BP route in Wesworld, prefer the dual currency.  Prefered the Civilian/Military split being fixed. Wouldn't mind some of Kwold's old suggestions on fixing growth rate to tax rate.

Navy types : To me, a strong feature of a sim is designing the ships to fulfill a role. That role being influenced by your navy's needs, and what your friends and foes field. In Wesworld, my capital ships had an enourmous range, to enable a run from the Netherlands, through the Denmark straights, down around South africa and over to Indonesia. While not *required* it meant my most important units were not dependent on oilers or friendly ports, and could stay out of sight of land. It was a bit expensive in tonnage.

[snip]

Going to address a few points here.

Concerned Europe small theater. (Other map concerns)

We are making some rules changes to heavily disincentivize going to war for someone else's homeland territory. Its going to make little economic sense to do so, effectively ruling it out as a means of serious expansion.

Also, it should be noted here that we are also exploring eliminating Population as a tracked resource because it just serves to create a lot of balance headaches with such an ahistorical setting.

Baseline : I think the kicker is enough production to make a small 1940ish navy of 1 BATDIV a Carrier or two, a couple cruiser squadrons, adequate dds, a couple fleet elements, etc. over time should be a PC minimum. I'm ok with loosely, but the range shouldn't be more than 2-3x from big to little.

Can you throw out a rough tonnage range for what you are thinking here?

Tech Tree : Preference is universal, with random advances.  Reason - I saw to many avoiding Predreads because they "knew" turbines and dreadnaughts were coming. That needs to be a bit more random.

I agree the fixed progression stuff is not ideal, but it's the "least bad" solution in terms of relying on GM workload to handle progression. Doing the random advance thing plays right into the same problem we have with tech rolls. It's impossible to fairly provide that information in advance, necessitating everyone being caught up before moving on to the next turn. That's proven to be impractical, and I would rather do away with it.

Part of the specific issue you site can also be handled by starting shortly past the point where that major revolution occurs, which is the current plan.

Armies : I prefer having a defined military. Current system with buy however many troops you want and prorate to division is fine. So 1000 troops costs 1/25 division.

The current thing we are playing with here allows for as much military definition as a player wants without punishing those who want to leave non-naval stuff more abstract. It's an admittedly radical departure from the current system, but I feel its the best call to make from a design standpoint.

Economy : Tried the only BP route in Wesworld, prefer the dual currency.  Prefered the Civilian/Military split being fixed.

Definitely sticking with a two currency system. The Civilian/Military split and how it interacts with a war footing make balancing it far more complicated than it needs to be, so it's been omitted from the draft rules for now. I'm open to arguments for bringing it back, but I'm not a fan.

Wouldn't mind some of Kwold's old suggestions on fixing growth rate to tax rate.

Can you provide a link to exactly what you are thinking?

[olekit24]

byzantie or iberia - that's the question for me.

I like this scenario. But as Kaiser Kirk said, it will be difficult to create some details for each nation.... The easiest way is to leave the historical real cities, techs, nations, traditions and habits. And just to unite the territory with all of this into one state...