STGOD?

[Ezekiel]

I'm not really interested in playing a 1930s game. I was looking forward to something between 1900 and 1910, which does not necessarily mean trench warfare, and fun stuff like the development of ABG warships, of early aircraft, of the earliest small-unit tactics. I was especially looking forward to the adaptation of peoples' outdated tactics to whatever situations may arise.

I am -not- looking forward to seeing people compete over whose tank is better, whose dreadnought battleship has a better tonnage-to-firepower ratio, whose fighter plane is more maneuverable, whose bomber is longer-ranged, etcetera etcetera etcetera ad fucking nauseum.

I would only participate in a 1930s game if assurance existed that it would not devolve into petty competition and overly-easy gimme victories in which the enemy is utterly destroyed in a handful of days or weeks without significant loss because of whatever ridiculous wonderweapon was deployed that week.

Until such assurance is delivered, I vote 1910.

[Steve]

Sunhawk's busy, asked me to relay a vote of 1910.

As for me? Frankly either 1910 or 1930 works for me, I trust Frig will not let people try to exploit hindsight and get gamey with their forces no matter the era.

[Cynical Cat]

I am -not- looking forward to seeing people compete over whose tank is better, whose dreadnought battleship has a better tonnage-to-firepower ratio, whose fighter plane is more maneuverable, whose bomber is longer-ranged, etcetera etcetera etcetera ad fucking nauseum.

I would only participate in a 1930s game if assurance existed that it would not devolve into petty competition and overly-easy gimme victories in which the enemy is utterly destroyed in a handful of days or weeks without significant loss because of whatever ridiculous wonderweapon was deployed that week.

I'm not interested in that either. Frankly, I don't want to spend the time involved in created a detailed tank or airplane, let alone the time and research required to get me up to speed on the naval area of the game and then do a design. And 1910 doesn't avoid that situation either. There's a metric fuckton of naval hindsight that is even worse in 1910, for example.

EDIT: And by detailed I mean detailed, not "copied and tweaked the numbers of T-34". I hate people who cheat by having their nation magically create perfect tanks/ships/guns/fighters/whatever for games set in time period x. It's flat out cheating and despicable.

[Academia Nut]

I am fine with any time, but I do see the merits of each time. I would say pre-WW1 draws me in a little bit more simply because there is no Great War to have brought the issues of Imperialism and Colonialism to a head yet. It has a different cultural flavour (even if this is an AH) that appeals more in this scenario. Still, I don't mind the presence of 1930s tech, it would just be harder to explain without the catalyst of the Great War.

[Slacker]

As I explained in the other thread and to Steve, I don't think it is. There have been a number of large, even 19th century land wars in our timeline already that could spur land and air technology ahead of naval state of the art. Vasan/Russian wars alone could account for most of that.

[frigidmagi]

Debate later Cat. Right now I want everyone's opinion.

[General Havoc]

Guys, I truly cannot decide which start date I prefer. I think I'm leaning towards 1930, as it presents a more variable set of tools from which to construct the proper army. I am perfectly happy to consider an a-historical sort of tech level where ships are at 19XX, tanks at 19YY, and airplanes at 19ZZ levels of technology. If we decide to go with a WWI-era 1910 style war, I'm perfectly happy to do that as well, though it does reduce the distinctiveness of my Roman armies to do so. In 1910, everyone's army was solely based around Heavy Infantry after all.

Seriously, I'll take whatever you guys want to do.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I would like 1930 for the following reasons:

*The technology exists for tanks, mechanized troop transport, and basic protections against each, such as AT mines, AT guns, and so on. Wars can have movement on a turn by turn basis that can be reasonably tracked.

*The technology exists for aircraft that can be used for more than simply recon, and anti-aircraft technology is at a point where attempts to simply abuse airpower to demolish targets well behind enemy lines will result in massive losses for the attackers for minimal gain.

*Submarines are still deadly, especially against trade lines, allowing for a method to disrupt the economy of your enemies and force them to use their ships in convoys, rather than massing them all up in one spot. Meanwhile the technology exists to make attacking a convoy with nothing but subs a dangerous move for the subs.

*With a bit of ahistorical design, we can designate a class of escort designed to demolish aircraft, preventing again the worry that all naval battle will be decided by carrier alone. In fact, I think it can lead to a pretty interesting style of naval combat.

Basically, I want to see combined arms in action. We're getting pretty ahistorical as it is, so adding a few new concepts like an Anti-Aircraft Destroyer shouldn't be too far out of line. The technology exists, it's just a matter of putting it together.

Another point is that I'd rather not see revolutions of technology in the game. Going from, say, a P-47 to a P-51 is one thing, going from a Me-109 to a Me-262 is a bit too far, if that makes any sense.

This plan is endorsed.

Cleric has no particular preference so long as he can have tanks.

[The Cleric]

Clarification: I'd like a clear tech progression system in place; be it points or mod fiat. I certainly don't want a micromanage game, but without tech development the game becomes "who did the best job picking territories and distributing points," or "who is best at forming alliances and backstabbing at the most opportune moments," neither of which are my preferred game styles.

[frigidmagi]

One last warning. No debating right now, I simply want everyone's opinion.

Cleric, thanks for the clarification that is gonna be important.

Havoc, Hadri I meant what I said. I said only posts on the starting date and reasons with no more arguing with each other and I fucking meant it.

[KlavoHunter]

To reiterate, I previously said I would be game for a 1910 game or a 1925 one.

In 1910, we're past the dreadnought race - We are in a year where everyone finally has dreadnoughts, allowing us to get into major naval battles with them right away, as opposed to spending a few years ingame "Racing" for them, yet the year is still early enough that Predreadnought battleships still have a rapidly-shrinking place in the battle line. And let's not forget that the first effective submarines are on their way.

Air Power is just being born. The knowledge of how to build zeppelin-style craft will be widespread, and fixed-wing aircraft are brand new. Airpower is not much good offensively yet, but it can already perform recon, and it won't take long before people start equipping them with machineguns and bombs.

On land, military technology is practically that of the start of World War 1. Bolt action rifles, machineguns, artillery, and armored cars; the tank is still some years off.



In a 1925 game, all those technologies have been refined. Aircraft are starting to become truly effective, as older biplane-style craft give way to sleek monoplanes. Aircraft engines have improved, allowing them to carry more useful warloads for increasing distances.

The Dreadnought is still queen of the seas, and she's only become more and more deadly. Submarines are now recognized by all for their usefulness, as are counters to them. Aircraft carriers are still some years off, and even when they are invented, Battleships will just sprout even more anti-aircraft weapons.

On land, the tank is the new reality of warfare, but technology still remains fairly primitive - Firepower, Armor, Speed; pick one.





I also have an idea for balancing technology advancement - have it be the Moderator's job to announce who invents what, when. Like Steve going "Okay, it's April 1915, Germany invents machine-gun synchronization gear for their aircraft."

[SirNitram]

Naturally, I favor 1930; it allows me more scientific wiggle-room to make my nation truly odd and touched of Steampunk.

[frigidmagi]

Okay has anyone not voted?

[Steve]

Like others I think 1910 and 1930 have their advantages, but I think the real issue isn't actual year so much as tech. Some people want tanks beyond the WWI crawlers and the first monoplanes coming out, others want the dreadnought race and pre-WWI warfare. Allowing some mix of tech will solve some of these issues - like suggestions for improved anti-air armament to prevent aircraft from being decisive for a while - but I think some of these issues aren't so easily solved. Better tanks make trench warfare less likely, conversely if you don't have extra mobility and tanks it makes WWI-style trench fights more likely.

[Slacker]

As I said about a page ago.

[frigidmagi]

Alright then, going by the vote here then, the majority wants a start date of 1930. To me that means we are starting with baseline 1930/1929 tech.

Now if the 1910 voters (who are between a 1/3 and a 1/4th of the group) really feel they cannot play in 1930, I offer a compromise of 1920.

I would also like to note that the game year doesn't matter when it comes to the nuke ban. It doesn't fucking matter if we start in the year 1990. No Nuclear bombs, missiles or other such weapons. As to how those scientist and various others wouldn't be able to figure how to make nuclear bombs? Act of Me.

[Slacker]

I again point out there's no reason we can't retard naval technology to a 1910 level so as to have a proper dreadnought race. So spotter aircraft are going to be more advanced. Who cares? The Russian/Vasan wars would spur on technology like aircraft and tanks. They wouldn't likely spur on naval technology, as the Vasan fleet probably had serious superiority in the Baltic and the Russians would be wise to breakout. The only likely ship to ship combat would've come when the Vasans seized Riga and the Russians grabbed Odessa right at the end of the war.

[frigidmagi]

I would point out that Russia and Vasa aren't the entire world. There's Rome's seizure of Cuba. The United State's Latin American territories. And the vast Pacifician Empire. So I would have to ask, has anyone really fought a large naval war in their history?

[Steve]

I'm not sure, Klavo and I have anticipated a war between Pacifica and Klavostan over New Guinea and a Klavostani settlement in Australia, but I'm not sure how naval it'd be.

I could have a later war with Mexico, maybe that gained me Sonora, that had predreadnoughts colliding off Baja?

[Cynical Cat]

There's other reasons to have 1930 airpower and tanks and 1910 dreadnoughts. Greater Hungary is a technologically and industrially advanced land power with a comparatively weak navy. That's going to skew development in favor of land and air power not only within that country, but in its neighbors as well.

[Academia Nut]

If I had any direct neighbours I would gladly have a history of endemic ground warfare in the various mountain passes to the north of the subcontinent, but with Persia out, it looks like there is no one to fight over Afghanistan with.

[General Havoc]

I would also like to note that the game year doesn't matter when it comes to the nuke ban. It doesn't fucking matter if we start in the year 1990. No Nuclear bombs, missiles or other such weapons. As to how those scientist and various others wouldn't be able to figure how to make nuclear bombs? Act of Me.

Quick question then. While I seriously doubt this is going to come up in the context of the game, while nuclear weapons are out, does that also extend to nuclear non-weapons? Are nuclear reactors feasible, for instance?

No, this is not an attempt to circumvent the rules by building nuclear dirty bombs, this is a question regarding the future of things like nuclear submarines, nuclear carriers, and civilian nuclear power plants. While those things are decades away in any event, I was just wondering if they're on the table at all.

[Ezekiel]

Japan almost certainly has. Probably a give-take war against Russia in the 190Xs (Hadri willing) or whoever owned the Phillipines before Japan.

I think an interesting war would be one against Cascadia Pacifica, jostling for control of the Pacific Islands. Not sure I'd be willing to go any deeper into China than Manchuria though.

[The Cleric]

I would also like to note that the game year doesn't matter when it comes to the nuke ban. It doesn't fucking matter if we start in the year 1990. No Nuclear bombs, missiles or other such weapons. As to how those scientist and various others wouldn't be able to figure how to make nuclear bombs? Act of Me.

Quick question then. While I seriously doubt this is going to come up in the context of the game, while nuclear weapons are out, does that also extend to nuclear non-weapons? Are nuclear reactors feasible, for instance?

No, this is not an attempt to circumvent the rules by building nuclear dirty bombs, this is a question regarding the future of things like nuclear submarines, nuclear carriers, and civilian nuclear power plants. While those things are decades away in any event, I was just wondering if they're on the table at all.

I had asked this, and the response I got was that power plants and things like DU munitions are fine if developed in the proper time frame and context. Just no possible way ever to develop offensive atomic weapons ever ever.

[Slacker]

Well, there we go, there seems to be a general consensus that it's okay if we have airpower and armies more advanced than navies. Really, the tech is probably going to be the same so long as nobody has the bright idea of building an all-big gun dreadnought. Honestly, it just means our multi-national dreadnought race is going to go pants-on-head-retarded quick and feature 60k ton behemoths sooner, is all.