Voting discussion

[Cynical Cat]

Naval Focus and Colonies is ridiculous beneficial. I'm all for rewarding people for choosing colonies (I chose none for flavor reasons and don't mind suffering a bit for that.) but to give equal value in point bonuses is stupidly broken. It would literally cost me nothing to slap on Colonies 5 to my nation by just shuffling points.

[Hotfoot]

For the record, this points system has officially become too complicated for my tastes, and far too open to abuse. Seriously, colonies giving huge bonuses? Not enough that they're a prerequisite for getting certain things, but now they are pretty much a damn requirement. I mentioned earlier about how we should avoid a god-build, let each nation's choices allow for tastes and play styles. If I can enter play with a significantly more badass nation by turning the south into colonies instead of having them be as a part of my primary nation, we might just have a problem.

In fact the "something for nothing" points are something of an issue overall. There doesn't need to be any additional reward for having a high industry, the fact that you have a high industry itself is enough.

Needless to say, I vote very strongly nay on proposals 5 and 6.

Proposals 1-4, and 7 I withhold judgement on following morning caffeine. Proposal 9 I vote aye to, because that is what I suggested back when we made the switch to technology.

[Academia Nut]

You know, I have just realized why the colonies as currently presented are bullshit: there are no prereqs. For industry, it is really powerful and you want to get it as high as possible, but there are prerequisites for it that make getting the higher levels more difficult. There is nothing for colonies. In fact, rather than giving bonuses to naval focus, the higher levels of colonial territory should require higher levels of naval focus and probably infrastructure too. You want lots of colonies? Well, you're going to need to invest in the systems to maintain contact and protection for them. As currently being voted on, this system is like higher levels of industry providing bonuses to economy and infrastructure rather than having them as prereqs, its completely ass backwards.

EDIT: You know what, as a design aspect, we should make it so that all stats that give bonuses at higher levels must have a prerequisite of some sort, and it must be relatively significant. You should not be able to get something for nothing.

[Steve]

Hrm, maybe put back the Economy boost and make NF a prerequisite? Minimum of 3 NF for 5 in CT? I mostly wanted to show the relationship between having colonies and having at least a moderately-respectable navy.

...shit, discussing during a vote. *runs to avoid getting Mod-clubbed*

Honestly, though, does it matter so long as people have fun? These rules discussions are bogging things down and keeping us from actually starting the game.

[Hotfoot]

Well if that's the case you're making, let's just shitcan the rules and get started. No rules TGOD and let the mods smack down anything stupid.

What the hell is the point of having rules if they break the game? The idea of a good rules set is so that multiple people can have fun, not just people who play it the way they want to play. Should I bring up all the old STGODs where everyone was playing the way they wanted to play until someone made it so that everyone had to play the same way or get wrecked, usually wrecking someone in the process of doing it?

I'm going to be blunt here people, either we make rules that benefit as many people as possible and use proper design to do so, or we shouldn't bother, because I'm getting pretty pissed off at this half-assed design method we're using where we're half ready to start the game but not a damn thing has been decided until everyone's rabid to get started and we slap a coat of paint on a broken system and call it done.

[frigidmagi]

Well if that's the case you're making, let's just shitcan the rules and get started. No rules TGOD and let the mods smack down anything stupid.

Get a new mod then. I won't play that way nor do I want to deal with that bullshit.

I'm going to be blunt here people, either we make rules that benefit as many people as possible and use proper design to do so, or we shouldn't bother, because I'm getting pretty pissed off at this half-assed design method we're using where we're half ready to start the game but not a damn thing has been decided until everyone's rabid to get started and we slap a coat of paint on a broken system and call it done.

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously you've lost me by coming out of left field. People have been discussing and hashing out the rules for the game since day 1. This is not a "half assed design method" expect in your head. We identified issues we needed to solve and will not start until they are solved. I have said this repeatably. Not to mention this odd declaration of a broken system.

[Steve]

I think he's talking about my remark regarding constant, perpetual debating about the rules.

Honestly once we get Navy set up what do we have left? Maybe aircraft purchasing and/or defining Infrastructure better in terms of what it does (come up with a formula for mobilization time based on territory, Infrastructure, and Reserve size?).

[Comrade Tortoise]

I mentioned earlier about how we should avoid a god-build, let each nation's choices allow for tastes and play styles.

Rules in addition to allowing balance must also reflect the realities of a universe. Sorry, but there are going to be combinations of traits that are better than others. That is the way a universe works. As for what counts as a colony and what does not, that will depend on nation history, It cannot be done arbitrarily. The reason colonies provide a boost to so much is because your point expenditures per se are what your home territory contains. Colonies give bonuses to this. Historically colonies were in fact necessary to compete and our game rules need to reflect that.

[frigidmagi]

I think he's talking about my remark regarding constant, perpetual debating about the rules.

Doesn't that have more to do with y'all being a bunch of rules mechanics who always want to keep tinkering with the rules? I mean I see it having to do more with the players then the rules themselves. They aren't perfect I'll grant that, which is why y'all keep monkeying with them. But they're never going to be perfect, they just have to be good enough.

[Hotfoot]

Get a new mod then. I won't play that way nor do I want to deal with that bullshit.

I've entered bulldog mode. The more whining I hear about "well who cares about the rules" the more I'll expect to hear about a game without rules, because a free-form game without hard rules is infinitely better than a game with poor rules.

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously you've lost me by coming out of left field. People have been discussing and hashing out the rules for the game since day 1. This is not a "half assed design method" expect in your head. We identified issues we needed to solve and will not start until they are solved. I have said this repeatably. Not to mention this odd declaration of a broken system.

Since day one I've been hearing "oh we don't want to spend forever on rules, let's just get a simple system out and get started." Now we're making a rules system through democracy that's taking forever and adding more and more complexity as we go. Heck, when the game was first suggested it was little more than an outline for a basic system with no real meat to the bones. We've been handling the system piecemeal since then. Every time I open my mouth about something I catch some shit or other about how I want to make this super rules heavy or some crap like that and so I've been keeping my trap shut and watching and I have to say that so far it's been massively more complicated than what I was shooting for way back when we got started.

By the way, here's how this should be done, if we are to get rules and get them out fast:

1. We have a points system, make sure every category is worthwhile. I've resisted having military forces bought with the same points as industrial benefits for years because they are rarely, if ever, equivalent. To that end, I think that either the "focus" point pools should be abolished or the standing military pool should be. Last I checked we didn't have economic or industrial separations to focus on, and thus economy becomes a long term winner unless we nerf the everliving hell out of it. The system we have now looks workable, but I've yet to see anyone show a proof of concept calculation for a nation with Industry 2 or 3 building ground, air, and naval units, as well as resupplying existing groups.

2. Enough with tonnage numbers and gun sizes. Seriously, I honestly don't care. We can make this simple, and we should, because I know for a fact I don't want to have to deal with slips and other minutiae bogging down the game. We know what ground forces we can buy, we know what air forces we can buy. There shouldn't be this much trouble dealing with navies. I get that they're big ships and that it takes a fantastic amount of time to make them, and that people love them and there aren't the same numbers at sea as there on on the ground, but break it down for those of us who aren't naval buffs. Describe the ships by what they can DO. Function is all that matters as far as the basic game goes.

3. Battles and losses. I know I talked with Frigid about this, and I don't recall if he put it up, but if we're going for realistic loss values in battle, we'll be seeing a lot of the same units over and over again in a long fight, which is fine, but the new unit/resupplied unit rules for industry and all that need to reflect such things. Now I know that in the air war the losses are going to be much bigger overall, but the naval wars need similar fixes. The goal here should not be for reality, but for ease of play.

4. Economic, Industrial, and Military Growth. In games like Defcon, you get finite resources and the point of the game is how well you manage what little you have. This is not one of those games, but what you choose as your starting values will have a significant difference in how your game develops. Industry, as I have pointed out, is either going to be game-changing or useless from the various proposals I've seen so far. Like a student taking classes in college, your professors don't seem to understand that you only have so much time in a week to do shit. Industrial and economic expenditures need to take that into account. However, this isn't Hearts of Iron, we don't need a lot of detail. We don't need to go into what sorts of consumer goods we're depriving our people to enhance the war effort. Also trade, if it's going to be a factor, should be mentioned in this section. The big issue here is that it will always be easier for a nation with a big industry to get a bigger industry while still producing units and maintaining overall strength versus a nation that went military heavy. This has been one of the biggest sticking points and so far the only solution has been to make it harder and harder to get a higher industry, but once you're there, hey baby hey baby hey.

5. Prerequisites, Nations, and Colonies. It's a good way to prevent people from just absolutely min-maxing the system. However, it's still very possible. That said, the prereqs should be sensible and make it possible to still be heavy in one direction, whereas right now the goal seems to be "middle of the road as much as you can for pre-reqs, even if it makes no sense, and then screw over anything you don't immediately need". The worst part is the spending of points on home territories and colonies. We already have people claiming territory all over the world and god forbid you should ask someone to give something up at this stage of the game. I say that the total area of your land should not be something you put points into, period. Instead, the points should represent the relative value of the land. Allow me to elucidate. Take Africa. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the place is damn near barren of players, because the land there is functionally useless. If I were to take all that remains of Africa as a colony, I doubt it would do me much good at all. Should my colony score rocket up for owning some useless Congo nations with no development and hardly any natural resources worth a damn? Meanwhile, something like, say, Hong Kong, can be worth it's weight in gold just for the trade value it brings.

That's the start. The end result is likely something that has about the same or less categories to spend points in, little confusion about the basic uses of military units, and would ideally have a relatively balanced construction system. You could play as Great Britain, with a tiny homeland and numerous colonies across the world, or as Russia/US with large homelands and very few colonies worldwide, and while each would have advantages here and there, none would be so sorely outclassed as to be left behind and useless.

[Hotfoot]

I mentioned earlier about how we should avoid a god-build, let each nation's choices allow for tastes and play styles.

Rules in addition to allowing balance must also reflect the realities of a universe. Sorry, but there are going to be combinations of traits that are better than others. That is the way a universe works. As for what counts as a colony and what does not, that will depend on nation history, It cannot be done arbitrarily. The reason colonies provide a boost to so much is because your point expenditures per se are what your home territory contains. Colonies give bonuses to this. Historically colonies were in fact necessary to compete and our game rules need to reflect that.

We're playing a damn game, Ben. Reality has to take a back seat to people having fun, otherwise what the hell is the point? We're already playing roughshod with reality and history so don't presume to give me a lecture on how we should realistically be doing things.

[Hotfoot]

I think he's talking about my remark regarding constant, perpetual debating about the rules.

Doesn't that have more to do with y'all being a bunch of rules mechanics who always want to keep tinkering with the rules? I mean I see it having to do more with the players then the rules themselves. They aren't perfect I'll grant that, which is why y'all keep monkeying with them. But they're never going to be perfect, they just have to be good enough.

And no rules system will ever be perfect. For all the things you may think about me, I'm not interested in perfection. Even my personal projects were never about being perfect, you can't get perfect in a game system, you can just get as close as you like to your objective as you can.

And that's what this is about for me. Give me an objective and I will achieve it. Give me a goalpost and I will get there. It may not be perfect but I can at least make it fun. I've done enough time with good and bad rules to know what sort of stuff works and what sort of stuff doesn't, for all kinds of games, and I've played with enough people to get feels for what they may or may not enjoy.

Trust me when I say that it's much easier to critique a whole system than to do a line by line construction.

[Charon]

I have to agree with Hotfoot and Cat, the benefits for having colonies are nearly outrageous as they are, add on a Naval Focus on top of that? Now it's just game shattering. And Ben, no talking about reality when we have Rome around, a nice secular Germany, and a Mexican Pope.

There are 0 benefits for having Home territory, I don't want to see 90 benefits for having colonies then. I get that colonies are important, but having a lot of home land can help a lot with things.


As for proposal 3, there is a very specific reason I am voting Nay. Quite simply, I don't know shit about building warships beyond
1. Get a big ship
2. Slap some big guns, some medium guns, and some small guns on it. 3. ???
4. Profit.

I can make my entire army and air force in upwards of 30 minutes. Why am I going to have to spend a day just to figure out how to build a warship, and then another hour or two just to build one design that will work right. Ships are RIDICULOUSLY micromanaged by the proposal at hand and I for one have no interest in spending more time figuring out how thick the armor in the forward quarter of my "Fuck You Class Battleship" is than I will be trying to figure out how to be properly diplomatic to the various powers that may want to eat me.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I mentioned earlier about how we should avoid a god-build, let each nation's choices allow for tastes and play styles.

Rules in addition to allowing balance must also reflect the realities of a universe. Sorry, but there are going to be combinations of traits that are better than others. That is the way a universe works. As for what counts as a colony and what does not, that will depend on nation history, It cannot be done arbitrarily. The reason colonies provide a boost to so much is because your point expenditures per se are what your home territory contains. Colonies give bonuses to this. Historically colonies were in fact necessary to compete and our game rules need to reflect that.

We're playing a damn game, Ben. Reality has to take a back seat to people having fun, otherwise what the hell is the point? We're already playing roughshod with reality and history so don't presume to give me a lecture on how we should realistically be doing things.

Raping history is one thing, that requires moving a person, or creating a cultural group. Downgrading the usefulness of colonies requires that we rape Economics.

You want to balance it? Give equivalent bonuses to the land area involved with your nation proper. For example, large continental powers historically had a strong army and could mobilize within their nation faster than colonial powers, etc.

2. Enough with tonnage numbers and gun sizes. Seriously, I honestly don't care. We can make this simple, and we should, because I know for a fact I don't want to have to deal with slips and other minutiae bogging down the game. We know what ground forces we can buy, we know what air forces we can buy. There shouldn't be this much trouble dealing with navies. I get that they're big ships and that it takes a fantastic amount of time to make them, and that people love them and there aren't the same numbers at sea as there on on the ground, but break it down for those of us who aren't naval buffs. Describe the ships by what they can DO. Function is all that matters as far as the basic game goes.

I dont mind talking about things like slips and dry docs for specific ship classes. What I REALLY dont want to have to do in order to compete is to use a program or an exhaustive knowledge of naval history which I dont have to balance out ship tonnage with the number and distribution of guns.

Either ship classes need to be Equivalent, or we need a stat system for ships with different ship classes having a number of points to spend, and caps on the number of points spent in a stat based on ship class. That is it.

[Steve]

I have to agree with Hotfoot and Cat, the benefits for having colonies are nearly outrageous as they are, add on a Naval Focus on top of that? Now it's just game shattering. And Ben, no talking about reality when we have Rome around, a nice secular Germany, and a Mexican Pope.

There are 0 benefits for having Home territory, I don't want to see 90 benefits for having colonies then. I get that colonies are important, but having a lot of home land can help a lot with things.

Shit, I forgot, did we have Home Territory as a prerequisite for Industry voted in? I believe large HT is also necessary for large Pop without colonies.

Hrm, maybe a benefit to a large HT score could be +1 to Army Focus? Assuming 5 HT or something? Reflecting that owning a nation of a specific size would mean some boost to your army?

I'm also admittedly not against changing NF from being a boost from colonies to being a prerequisite, but remember that even little Belgium, which never had a major fleet, owned the freaking Congo. The Dutch also were not nearly close to being a large naval power in the 19th and 20th Centuries - WWI killed their intended battleships. And yet they owned the world's largest archipelago (mostly; not counting British-held Brunei, Sarawak, and Sabah on Borneo) plus Suriname and Aruba.

Maybe we should let Colonies boost NF and Pop, but not Economy? Home Territory boosts Army, Colonies boost Navy. Has a bit of symmetry, yes?

As for proposal 3, there is a very specific reason I am voting Nay. Quite simply, I don't know shit about building warships beyond
1. Get a big ship
2. Slap some big guns, some medium guns, and some small guns on it. 3. ???
4. Profit.

I can make my entire army and air force in upwards of 30 minutes. Why am I going to have to spend a day just to figure out how to build a warship, and then another hour or two just to build one design that will work right. Ships are RIDICULOUSLY micromanaged by the proposal at hand and I for one have no interest in spending more time figuring out how thick the armor in the forward quarter of my "Fuck You Class Battleship" is than I will be trying to figure out how to be properly diplomatic to the various powers that may want to eat me.

How are they micromanaged? I was just specifying the cost of ships in industrial points in that proposal. You can just look on hazegray.org or Wikipedia for examples of historic ships and thus their tonnages. You can ask me or another SpringSharp user to make you a design to counter custom ones. Hell, you can just say "this ship is 50,000 tons standard displacement. It can sail across the Indian Ocean without refueling, it's fucking fast, and I want it to have big enough guns to ruin somebody's shit" in the description and frigid can fill in the rest if he likes (or, heh, have me or someone more naval-inclined do it). Or "I want to counter that new battleship so-and-so is building". Your choice.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Maybe we should let Colonies boost NF and Pop, but not Economy?

Economy makes more sense than naval focus if we are forced to choose.

[Steve]

Raping history is one thing, that requires moving a person, or creating a cultural group. Downgrading the usefulness of colonies requires that we rape Economics.

True.

Hrm, above I mentioned Colonies boosting NF and Pop but not Econ, but maybe we should just let it boost two out of three and the player decides which it boosts.

For instance, my colonies are basically Pacific islands, Australia, and New Zealand, plus Frig is letting me count the frigid arctic north I believe; they weren't exactly bustling with native humanity like the East Indies or India. However, controlling the former examples requires a respectable merchant marine and Navy, and while not bustling with people they did provide sizable resources. Thus an Economic boost isn't nuts.

Therefore in my points I could claim boosts to NF and Economy but not Population. Another player, with a different set of colonies, could instead have boosts to Econ and Pop, or to NF and Pop.

This allows some customization to each individual country.

You want to balance it? Give equivalent bonuses to the land area involved with your nation proper. For example, large continental powers historically had a strong army and could mobilize within their nation faster than colonial powers, etc.

Maybe this?

Home Territory 4 = +1 to Army Focus
Home Territory 5 = +1 or +2 to Army Focus and +1 to Population or Infrastructure?

I dont mind talking about things like slips and dry docs for specific ship classes. What I REALLY dont want to have to do in order to compete is to use a program or an exhaustive knowledge of naval history which I dont have to balance out ship tonnage with the number and distribution of guns.

Either ship classes need to be Equivalent, or we need a stat system for ships with different ship classes having a number of points to spend, and caps on the number of points spent in a stat based on ship class. That is it.

IOW, a cap on what someone can build? As in you can't build anything bigger than, say, 65,000 tons?

Hrm. I wonder how difficult it'd be to draw up a system where you say what your desired tonnage for a class is and then it gives you certain points to determine range, speed, protection, and quality and quantity of armament.

Alternatively someone (maybe me...) could draw up a few "basic" designs in SpringSharp at various tonnage ranges to represent naval development in the 1920s without a Washington Naval Treaty to stop battleship growth. Then they get posted and players can pick and choose which ones they want for their fleets? I could make a few variants for different armaments, speeds, and ranges to reflect the different needs one might have for naval power. We can supplement these with historic ships up to the planned 1920 battleships like the first US South Dakota-class, the Japanese Kaga and Kii, or Britain's G3 and N3 proposals.

[Charon]

Shit, I forgot, did we have Home Territory as a prerequisite for Industry voted in? I believe large HT is also necessary for large Pop without colonies.

Hrm, maybe a benefit to a large HT score could be +1 to Army Focus? Assuming 5 HT or something? Reflecting that owning a nation of a specific size would mean some boost to your army?

At the moment, Home Territory does nothing besides say how big your home territory is. Which is slightly less likely to rebel than a colony is. Not exactly a huge benefit. I'd say a cap on Population in relation to HT size, there aren't a lot of people in Portugal itself, they had a lot of people in their colonies, but the population itself was small, the boost in their population came from the colonies. I like the idea of a larger HT giving an Army Focus, after all you need a lot of people to keep a large territory.

I'm also admittedly not against changing NF from being a boost from colonies to being a prerequisite, but remember that even little Belgium, which never had a major fleet, owned the freaking Congo. The Dutch also were not nearly close to being a large naval power in the 19th and 20th Centuries - WWI killed their intended battleships. And yet they owned the world's largest archipelago (mostly; not counting British-held Brunei, Sarawak, and Sabah on Borneo) plus Suriname and Aruba.

Maybe we should let Colonies boost NF and Pop, but not Economy? Home Territory boosts Army, Colonies boost Navy. Has a bit of symmetry, yes?

You're putting the cart before the horse. Countries didn't have large fleets because they had lots of overseas colonies, they had overseas colonies because they had large fleets. Colonies shouldn't do anything more than population and economy, which will go a long way towards having that big fleet.

How are they micromanaged? I was just specifying the cost of ships in industrial points in that proposal. You can just look on hazegray.org or Wikipedia for examples of historic ships and thus their tonnages. You can ask me or another SpringSharp user to make you a design to counter custom ones. Hell, you can just say "this ship is 50,000 tons standard displacement. It can sail across the Indian Ocean without refueling, it's fucking fast, and I want it to have big enough guns to ruin somebody's shit" in the description and frigid can fill in the rest if he likes (or, heh, have me or someone more naval-inclined do it). Or "I want to counter that new battleship so-and-so is building". Your choice.

They are micromanaged because they go into 1,000 times more depth than we are going with either our Army or our Air Force. Why can't we just go "Cruisers cost this much, battleships this much, these are the things such ships are generally good at. If you want to make it more badass, throw some more points into a specific ship." Your solution isn't solving my dilemna, it's just saying "Give somebody a tonnage and let them deal with it". I don't want to do that, and at the same time I don't want to spend three hours making up a single ship design. That's fine with me if you enjoy that kind of thing and if you want to create all the details on your ships and post them that's cool, but it isn't mine or several people here idea of a great time. Especially when we simplified armies and Air forces so much.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Home Territory 4 = +1 to Army Focus
Home Territory 5 = +1 to Army Focus and +1 to Population or Infrastructure?

I could get behind something like that.

I would reverse it though

Home Territory 4 = +1 to Population or Infrastructure
Home Territory 5 = +1 to Army Focus and +1 to Population or Infrastructure

IOW, a cap on what someone can build? As in you can't build anything bigger than, say, 65,000 tons?

Hrm. I wonder how difficult it'd be to draw up a system where you say what your desired tonnage for a class is and then it gives you certain points to determine range, speed, protection, and quality and quantity of armament.

No. Forget about micromanaging tonnage. Ship class. Destroyer, Frigate, Battlecruiser. Stick to those, and give a set number of points to each ship class and let people select what they want to focus those points on in terms of stat generation, with limits so that you dont end up with a destroyer with 5 anti-ship power on a 1-5 scale.

[General Havoc]

Look, guys, all of us are going to have different interests in what we're willing to throw our time into. I am pretty gung-ho about my alternate history, about military strategy, and diplomatic maneuver, but as I said before, I cannot and won't be bothered with weapons design of any sort. I want to say "I have a battleship" and have one, same with a tank, a rifle, a mortar, and a machine gun. I do not need to calculate how much propellant I must have per shell. If the rest of you want to devise such things, that is excellent. All I really need to know is what the various effects, in layman's terms, of the ships and tanks and guns you design are. I have faith that the mod will squash any I-win buttons that people come up with.

[Steve]

So people want something like this?

Light Cruiser:
Speed Rating: 4
Guns: 2
Torpedoes: 4
Protection: 2
Range: 4

Is that's what is wanted?

[Comrade Tortoise]

So people want something like this?

Light Cruiser:
Speed Rating: 4
Guns: 2
Torpedoes: 4
Protection: 2
Range: 4

Is that's what is wanted?

That would be ideal, though I would add anti-air

[Charon]

I wouldn't mind something like that, maybe throw in some sort of system to increase one or two of the ratings for a cost to show that this is a slightly more badass ship (And also to make our Bismarcks.)

[Steve]

Point, thought I was missing one.


So, a 1927-laid dreadnought-type battleship would probably be:

Speed Rating: 2 (likely to be 23-24 knots in speed at least - let's say 1 Speed is a <20 knot vessel).
Guns: 5 (Likely armed with 18"/45, even 18"/50, potentially 16"/50 with superheavy shells. A 5 likely represents 18" guns or over 10 16" guns.)
Torpedoes: 0 (the first types of dreadnoughts had light torpedo armament, but by the 20s they stopped having them)
Protection: 5 (Basically, to kill such a ship you need to beat on it for a while)
Anti-Air: 3-5.
Range: Anywhere from 2 to 5 - depends on who builds it. Pacifica would want a 4 or 5 range, reflecting something like a 10,000nm range at 15-18 knots; Russia or Rome could probably settle for 3, closer to 6-7,000nm range. Naturally if its range is higher it'd be more expensive since the ship has to be bigger to accommodate bunker space.

Alternatively, a Fast Battleship of the same tonnage would be a 4 in Speed (30-33 knots) but would have to sacrifice guns or protection.

[Charon]

Kind of Steve, but instead of some leeway they would just have hard stats. Then you could move them around some or spend a couple extra SM points on upgrading it. For example, Battleships have:

Speed Rating: 2
Guns: 5
Torpedoes: 0
Protection: 5
Anti-Air: 3
Range: 3

((Just an example, I have no idea what a Battleship would have))
But you want to have a greater range for your ship, you could just move one of those points from Guns to Range, or you could spend some SM points to increase your range for that class of ship.