STGOD rules thread

[Steve]

1: The damn never to be done ever resurrecting issue of the Navy.

My proposals are outlined above. To revisit the crucial point, though...

It seems some people think that the best compromise between the 1910 crowd and 1930 is to let the 1930 people have their armies and air force and the 1910 crowd their dreadnoughts... save that such completely ignores why some dreadnought advocates called for 1910. It's not that we want 20,000 ton ships carrying 12" guns and still burning coal, it's that we want our surface ships to be able to operate without dealing with players rushing to carriers with the benefit of hindsight. We wanted the dreadnought-type battleship as the undisputed King of the Seas. It's easier to have that in 1910 than 1930, even without a Washington Naval Treaty to retard battleship production.

If you want to reconcile the dreadnought fans with the "1930" crowd, let them have non-Treaty fleets of battleships that, likely, would be fielding 18" guns by now on the newest ships, perhaps even a few concepts for a 20" gun. Then let them have effective AA weapons so that they can hold their own on attacking aircraft so we don't have anyone thinking to jump ahead of the curve by going for fleet carriers now and vanquishing enemy fleets under a cloud of aircraft.

2: Reserves, how we gonna set them up. For the record I want some sort of front penalty to keep players from thinking they can simply activate their reserves and overrun someone quickly.

No penalty, but time. It takes time to mobilize. 2 weeks at least I'd think. And that means the other guy is mobilizing too.

I would recommend tying exact time into Infrastructure primarily, with reserve size and territory size playing factors as well. The larger your army and/or the larger your territory, the longer it takes to mobilize.

As for non-mobilization of reserves, limit it to like 10 divisions at a time, with it taking 6 months for the activated forces to be completely combat ready.

3:R&D,what set up are we gonna use.

I'd say everyone should be generally advancing on all fields from where they start, reflecting the private sector investigating things too, while one can expend industrial points to reflect government investment that "speeds up" this process.

4: Rebuilding damaged divisions.

I'd suggest two systems: combat withdrawal and active replacement. The former requires you to pull the unit out of combat and into a rear area thus weakening your combat power for a time, the advantage is that your unit retains full effectiveness and can be put back into action as such in the space of a month, less if needed (Say every week out of action brings effectiveness up, reflecting that the green troops are getting advice and education from the combat vets). The second lets you restore the division while engaged; the negative is a drop in effectiveness which, in turn, could lead to even more casualties (the US did this in WWII IIRC, simply dispatching individual soldiers to replace combat losses, and it caused problems due to the "green" troops having to learn everything about surviving in combat "on the job", so to speak).

At this point we'll have enough to start play.

Excellent.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I can agree to these proposals.

I'd say everyone should be generally advancing on all fields from where they start, reflecting the private sector investigating things too, while one can expend industrial points to reflect government investment that "speeds up" this process.

At this time most military R&D was publicly funded. The speed up would need to be substantial.

[Steve]

I can agree to these proposals.

I'd say everyone should be generally advancing on all fields from where they start, reflecting the private sector investigating things too, while one can expend industrial points to reflect government investment that "speeds up" this process.

At this time most military R&D was publicly funded. The speed up would need to be substantial.

I mostly meant things outside the military field, like larger aircraft (not necessarily all government-funded), medicine, improved radios and early television, etc. Arguably most R&D expenditure would be in the military or military-related fields: better guns, better tank or ship armor, etc.

[Hadrianvs]

For reserves I was thinking that they should open up a strategic choice for each player to make. Said strategic choice is whether to have a larger army that must be mobilized, or a smaller standing army.

Basically, the greater proportion of your armed force that is composed of reserves, then the greater the army that you can have at the same cost to your economic strength. Reserve personnel are usually draftees who serve in the armed forces for 2-4 years and then return to civilian life. Afterward they only take 2-4 weeks out of each year to refresh their training. There are two disadvantages to this system. Firstly that when war comes the reserves need to be called up and formed into military units, which takes considerable time; and secondly that since after their initial stint in the military they only train for a small fraction of the year, they are not as good as professional soldiers.

This leads to the alternative of having a standing army, which composed of full time military personnel. They can mobilize for war much more quickly, however because these units are composed of people who are not productive members of society most of the time, the country simply cannot afford to field as many. On the other hand, professional soldiers engage in training and maneuvers for most the year, rather than a small part of it, so they are more efficient combatants. On top of that, their mobilization time is very short, and they can be available almost as soon as they are needed.

Historically most countries used a mix of both. They would have a standing army of a certain size backed up by reserves of between equal and double size. The highly successful Imperial German Army had a 1-1 standing/reserve army ratio. In fact, each division was composed of two brigades of professional soldiers and two brigades of reserve soldiers. This meant that the whole force mobilized as if it were wholly composed of reserves, but was far more solid than if that were the case. Considering the circumstances they found themselves in, it worked out well for them. The French Army of the same period had an almost identical system, but standing and reserve divisions were separate, the British Army was entirely composed of professional soldiery, and the Russian Army was majority reserves. I know we are playing post-First World War, but it is my understanding that by the Second World War the army compositions of the various powers remained pretty much the same in terms of standing/reserve ratios, with a slight shift toward standing due to the presence of armoured units.

In game I propose that reserve divisions cost half as much as standing divisions, but take two or three times as long to mobilize. Furthermore, reserve units can only be standard rifle divisions. They'll have the same organic support as any other rifle division - by 1930 this includes machine-guns, light/medium artillery, AT guns, as well as some armoured cars and motorcycles for reconnaissance - but no more. Motorized, mechanized, armoured, or cavalry* divisions, as well as heavy artillery detachments, must be part of the standing army. This is because the specialized knowledge required of the personnel that make up these units can only be properly maintained by professional soldiers. Finally, reserve units won't be as good as professional ones until they've been engaged in at least a couple of battles. To keep it simple, this means that all else being equal a reserve unit will alway lose to a standing army unit.


*Think of a cavalry unit as being like a motorized unit that runs on fodder and water instead of spare parts and petrol. Cavalry can also handle terrain that's simply impassable to motor or mech units. To this day the special forces of even first world armies use horses and mules to carry their equipment across exceptionally rough terrain.

[Steve]

I like it.

[frigidmagi]

So we would buy reserves from our standing military points?

[Steve]

I would think SML should determine one's proportion of Actives to Reserves, when it comes to Army. Though if you want, add a new category and three points to our overall pool, one for Army Composition and the other remains Standing Military to determine how large our militaries can be overall.

Alternatively, copy what I did on SDN: SML determines Army composition between reserves and regulars and the three Focus scores determine the size of each service.

[frigidmagi]

*groans*

How about we just set up a separate point pool for the reserve? Because a nation with conscription is by it's nature going to have a huge reserve pool compared to it's active military. At the same time it's active military will be quite large.

[Steve]

So SML would give two point pools, reserve and active?

[Hadrianvs]

I was proposing to have one army point pool, and then each player gets to decide whether to spend it on reserves or standing military. So they can have more rifle units for the same price, but at a cost in mobilization time and effectiveness.

However, now that's it has been brought up, I think standing military limit needs to be reworked. I can think of no reason why anyone would want to take a quantity other than 3. The penalties for having 4 or 5 points are too harsh, and you can't be competitive with only 1 or 2 points. The national builds presented so far support this supposition, I don't recall seeing anyone pick anything but SML - 3. If everyone is going to choose the same value, we might as well just say every player gets 700 military points and be done with it, no? So definitely we should think of some sort of adjustment, so that there's room for player choice.

[Steve]

Before we get into the SML thing, are we going to hold a vote on my Navy proposals? The player chooses his capital-to-light combatant ratio and we allow 1930-era stuff, including a logical evolution from non-Treaty designs and maybe some slightly effective AA a bit early to dissuade people from tech-rushing for carriers? As it is non-Treaty battleships would be heavier, better-armored, and have lots more room for AA weaponry so they're likely more resilient as it is, but I'd rather nip the problem in the bud.

Secondly, I propose that we permit Naval Focus bonus to CT as well. But maybe a bit light, something like +1 for CT 3-5. +2 for CT 5 may be pushing it. And you have to have overseas colonies for it to count.

[frigidmagi]

There should also indeed be a limit to how much of these colossal beasts someone builds, and not just defined by industrial point: I propose that each nation have a limited number of capital slipways, either overall or rated to tonnage ranges so that people have to expand smaller slipways or build new ones as we get into greater tonnage areas. Slipway numbers should be fixed to Naval Focus - the higher your NF, the more capital ships you can be building at one time, industry willing.

Give me some numbers. What does Naval Focus 4 do? Give me something concrete otherwise there's nothing to vote on. Don't get me wrong this is a good start but I want a chart that tells me X means Y. Spell it out in black and white, you are after all speaking to someone educated in the American Public School System.

Finally, we need to determine the point cost of a ship. I'd presume that points would have to be spent until the ship's construction phase is over (perhaps the trial-fitting out phase could be 5-10% of normal to reflect the costs and labor to fit on armor, guns, and superstructure). Certainly with the lower point scale - 180 only for an Industry 5 - we'd adopt a different cost than "1 point per thousand tons".

Huh Steve, this is a little unclear to me. You realize it's actually 210 points for a level 5 industry and 120 pts is level 2 right?

Anyways this needs more crunchy before a vote. I'm not sure what exactly I get for naval focus 3.

However, now that's it has been brought up, I think standing military limit needs to be reworked. I can think of no reason why anyone would want to take a quantity other than 3. The penalties for having 4 or 5 points are too harsh, and you can't be competitive with only 1 or 2 points. The national builds presented so far support this supposition, I don't recall seeing anyone pick anything but SML - 3. If everyone is going to choose the same value, we might as well just say every player gets 700 military points and be done with it, no? So definitely we should think of some sort of adjustment, so that there's room for player choice.

I'm taking SML 4 which only gives a -1 to Eco. Which is easily solved by taking a 4 in Eco before the hit. I still have a average eco and larger military. Oh, hey look not everyone is taking SML 3. So I utterly and completely disagree. The penalties should stay because it's damn hard be so militarized and still be a major industrial power. And No We're Not Handing Everyone The Same Military Points. That takes the whole point out of the system, not to mention makes it utterly silly, some nations are going to be more militarized then other and the points should be there to reflect it.

[Steve]

There should also indeed be a limit to how much of these colossal beasts someone builds, and not just defined by industrial point: I propose that each nation have a limited number of capital slipways, either overall or rated to tonnage ranges so that people have to expand smaller slipways or build new ones as we get into greater tonnage areas. Slipway numbers should be fixed to Naval Focus - the higher your NF, the more capital ships you can be building at one time, industry willing.

Give me some numbers. What does Naval Focus 4 do? Give me something concrete otherwise there's nothing to vote on. Don't get me wrong this is a good start but I want a chart that tells me X means Y. Spell it out in black and white, you are after all speaking to someone educated in the American Public School System.

Okay. NF 3 minimum is needed to construct capital warships. You get 2 slipways and drydocks rated for ships of 40-65,000 tonnes (standard or light tonnage) and 3 slipways and drydocks for 15-40,000. (Note that such would be rated by length and width, not tonnage, in real life, but abstracting it this way is easier). The former are needed for modern dreadnoughts and battlecruisers, the latter would be what you use for the first fleet carriers and, if you want, large cruisers (as well as refitting older battleships when it comes to drydocks).

NF 4 raises that to 4 and 6 respectively. NF 5 has 6 and 9.

Then you add rules and cost for the expansion of slipways or building new ones. Upgrading a slipway to a larger capacity should take as long as building a new one but be half cost, three-quarters cost f you're jumping a grade (from 15-40 to the theoretical 65-90). (This reflects that while the slip needs only be expanded, not freshly dug, it and the accompanying fitting piers also need new heavy cranes constructed for lifting the heaviest parts of the ships, like the steel armor, the turrets, and the guns).

Huh Steve, this is a little unclear to me. You realize it's actually 210 points for a level 5 industry and 120 pts is level 2 right?

Hrm, I thought it was 180. My bad. Either way, 210 is still lower than the system eventually developed at SDNW3, so my point remains on not fixing a point per thousand tons.

And what I'm saying is that if a ship costs 50 points against your industrial point capacity to construct, then this would be for the construction phase when the ship's parts are actually built. Then after about two-thirds of the time from laying to commissioning, the ship is "completed" industrially, is launched, and goes into fitting out and trial phase, where the pieces are put together and the ship is tested in open water conditions. This process - the fitting and trial process - would be the final third of the ship's building time and the cost would be reduced by 95%, reflecting the ship has been built materially and only needs assembly. As a result, a 50 point ship in construction phase would only be 2.5 points in the fitting and trial phase. Then it commissions and joins the active fleet.

Unless I'm completely wrong how industrial points are going to work in this game?

Anyways this needs more crunchy before a vote. I'm not sure what exactly I get for naval focus 3.

Well, under your system you'd be allowed to spend 40% of your military points for Navy ships, 20% of them for capital vessels (the latter part, BTW, is one of the things I'm proposing we drop - let the player decide how many of his points go to capital vessels). My proposal would also give you 2 slipways, fitting piers, and drydocks rated for vessels of 40-65,000 tonnes (Standard or Light, your choice) and 3 slipways/drydocks/fitting piers for vessels of 15-40,000.

And since I know you're going to ask, Standard displacement tonnage was invented by the Washington Naval Conference in the 1920s. It is a measurement of the ship's weight with all magazines loaded to capacity and all stores added, but without fuel or reserve feedwater. Light displacement is only the ship's pieces put together; no stores, magazines, fuel, or feedwater added. Your choice of what to pick to reflect the cost of the ship.

I'm taking SML 4 which only gives a -1 to Eco. Which is easily solved by taking a 4 in Eco before the hit. I still have a average eco and larger military. Oh, hey look not everyone is taking SML 3. So I utterly and completely disagree. The penalties should stay because it's damn hard be so militarized and still be a major industrial power. And No We're Not Handing Everyone The Same Military Points. That takes the whole point out of the system, not to mention makes it utterly silly, some nations are going to be more militarized then other and the points should be there to reflect it.

Instead of imposing a hit on Economy, why not impose the hit on industrial points? Make a 4 in SML be -5% or -10% against one's industrial points for building, a 5 in SML even more extreme with -10%, -20%, even -25%? Especially since I was proposing that Economy modify industrial points in the same way as well? Economy below 3 would reduce tndustrial points, Economy above 3 would raise them?

[Steve]

At Hadri's request, I'm amending my proposal for the capital vessel slipways. Below NF of 3, your Industry and Econ must be a certain combined score: if NF of 2, they must be 6 altogether, if NF of 1, they must be 8 combined. Slipways would be the same as NF 3.

[The Cleric]

I'm still reading the thread, but as I have virtually no experience in this aspect I'm simply waiting till you all finish before I ask the questions I need to know in order to build my empire.

[frigidmagi]

Still not following. What does it mean if I have 2 slipways? You're leaving to much unsaid for me Steve.

[Steve]

Slipways - with a matching number of fitting piers and drydocks - are the places where a warship is built. IOW, your number of slipways limits the number of ships you can be building at any given time. Fitting piers are for after the finished hull of a ship is launched and are where ships' superstructures are built and guns attached. Drydocks are primarily for repairing and refitting completed vessels, from minor things like patching up damage to multi-year reboilering and refitting.

Now, it'd be a pain in the neck to count all the slipways and similar facilities in a country, from ones for ships that would only displace 1-2,000 tons to capital ships, so we'd only count the latter, the slips large enough to build 40,000 ton steel behemoths. IOW, on top of the industrial cost, someone cannot simply lay a bunch of fleet carriers or battleships as they have only so many facilities that can build such and those facilities have a set amount of capacity in the form of their slipways, fitting piers, and drydocks.

[frigidmagi]

So basically Slipways = How many Capital Ships you can build at a time?

[Steve]

Yes.

To give an example of the system, I'm advocating, let's say I have 6 capital slipways. In 1928 I lay down a ship in each of them, none of which will launch until 1930 and none of which will be ready to enter the fleet until 1931, even 1932.

As a result, I cannot lay any more ships until 1930 at the earliest. Also, until actual commissioning I would still be paying for the 1928 ships after launch, but at a lower price. Instead of, say, 20 industrial points, after launch I'd only pay 1 until full commissioning.

Any other questions?

[Steve]

Okay everyone. Some naval rule proposals. In votable fashion.


Proposal 1: Capital slips.

A nation's ability to produce large warships would not be decided just by industrial score, but by the yard facilities to build mammoth battleships.

Therefore, I give this proposal:


NF 1 = 0 Capital Slips, 4 if Industry and Economy are 8 combined.
NF 2 = 0 Capital Slips, 4 if Industry and Economy are 6 combined.
NF 3 = 4 Capital Slips
NF 4 = 8 Capital Slips
NF 5 = 12 Capital Slips.

What is a capital ship? A vessel of over 20,000 tons Standard or, if you still have one, a pre-dreadnought battleship or 1st generations of dreadnought battleship or battlecruiser.

Note that I considered specifying slips in capacity ranges, as stated above, but for simplicity's sake we can avoid that if desired.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 2: Time span for building ships.

The following is somewhat low compared to historical numbers, but hey, it's just a game right?


Over 20,000T Displacement: 2 years construction, 1 year trials-fitting.
10-20,000T Displacement: 16 months construction, 8 months trials-fitting.
4-10,000T Displacement: 12 months construction, 6 months trials-fitting.
<4,000T Displacement: 9 months construction, 3 months trials-fitting.

Note that during the trials the construction cost would go down to, say, 5%. This reflects that the actual materials of the ship are pretty much finished; they just have to be put together and the ship fine-tuned from data collected during trial runs.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 3: Ship Costs.

Warships are expensive. And they take a while to build. If you commit to build 5 60,000 ton ships then it's a long-term commitment (see above) that will be quite resource-intensive and expensive.

As such my proposal is that the cost be 1 industrial point per 2,000 tons displacement. This means building those 5 60,000 ton ships will cost 150 points - a hefty price even for an Industry 5 country.

However, starting out, ship costs should be 1 military point per 4,000, not 2,000, tons. This means a SML 3/NF 5 country, if it so chooses, can have a fleet of 1.68 million tonnes due to


----------------------------------------------------------------


Proposal 4: Tonnage rate to use.

Warships have 4 types of displacement ratings: Light, Standard, Normal, and Full. I would propose either Light or Standard be used to determine costs. As such I call for a vote of either Light or Standard.


----------------------------------------------------------------


Proposal 5: Naval Focus and Colonies.

Navies and colonies generally go hand in hand, historically. While there have been abberations - Belgian Congo anyone? - for the most part the nations with overseas colonies either A) already have a sizable Navy or B) build one.

As such I propose that we permit Colonial Territory to give a + to naval focus as such:


0: Nothing
1: Colonial Land Area of <200,000 sq. kms
2: Colonial Land Area of >200,000 sq. kms +1 population
3: Colonial Land Area of >600,000 sq. kms+ 1 to population, +1 economy, +1 Naval Focus
4: Colonial Land Area of >1,000,000 sq. kms+2 to population +1 economy, +1 Naval Focus
5: Colonial Land Area of >2,000,000 sq. kms+2 to population,+1 economy, +2 Naval Focus

I'm up to reducing these figures if it's felt it unbalances things too greatly. Also, to keep 5 CT from being too rewarding, I brought the Economy bonus down to +1.


----------------------------------------------------------------


Proposal 6: Economy and Industry

Having a strong economy should reflect in one's industrial base, just as a weak economy indicates a nation that cannot fully access its industrial base for projects. Furthermore, stronger economies mean the nation can sustain the costs of war.

As such, I propose we replace the existing Economy system with something like this:

1: 1 year of total mobilization, - 10% IBPs (Industrial Build Points) in Peacetime, + 25% points IBPs in Wartime
2: 2 years of mobilization, - 5% PT, + 50% WT
3: 3 years of mobilization, + 0% PT, + 75% WT
4: 4 years of mobilization, + 5% PT, + 100% WT. Population 3 needed.
5: 5 years of mobilization, +10% PT, + 125% points WT. Population 3 and Colonial Territory 1 Needed.

Open to shifting the exact figures.


----------------------------------------------------------------


Proposal 7: Auxiliaries.

In 1930 most navies would have at least some auxiliaries, minesweepers and minelayers mostly, and those with longer-range requirements (even if they have overseas bases) would have sizable fleets of oilers, ammunition supply vessels, destroyer/submarine/seaplane tenders, and even converted liners for troop transports or hospital ships.

It is my proposal that for every 3 tons of combat vessel you're allowed, you get 1 ton of auxiliary. A NF 5 nation would thus get about 543,000 tonnes of auxiliary allowed.

For comparison, oilers tended to be 10,000-18,000 tons in displacement, converted liners 8-12,000 tons, ammo ships 5,000 tons, minesweepers as small as 500 tons.

And I believe that is all on mind for this.

Wait!

Proposal 9: Naval Tech.

1930! 1930! 19-fuckin'-30!!!!

*coughs*

I propose we do away with the silly idea that navy tech is 1910 in level while aircraft and armies are 1930. Let's have 1930 ships.

[Steve]

Wait, crap!

Forgot the tech date proposal.

[frigidmagi]

Okay I am officially opening the vote. It will close Thursday 9pm or when everyone/enough of the players have voted to form a clear majority.

I will log in my vote.

Proposal 1: Aye
Proposal 2: Aye
Proposal 3: Aye
Proposal 4: Standard
Proposal 5: Aye
Proposal 6: Aye
Proposal 7: Aye
Proposal 8: There is no proposal 8
Proposal 9: Aye.

[The Cleric]

Abstain from all, as per my previous statement. Whatever the majority feels is best I will go with, although the more complicated you make it the more you reward micromanagement which is not really what I envisioned when I said I wanted to participate.

[KlavoHunter]

Proposals 1-7, Aye

Proposal 9 - Nay. I feel that ~1915 era ships are sufficient, seeing as these ships could very easily be armed with formidable amounts of antiaircraft weaponry, just like later-era ships.

I would rather get to see the last days of the predreadnoughts, and the glory age of the Dreadnoughts of WW1, before moving on later in the game towards later, bigger designs.

I would rather not -start- the game building the sort of superbattleships that remained nothing but blueprints IRL. I would rather like to build up to that over time.

[Steve]

The game is unlikely to last the years needed for that, and frankly some of the tech would be 1930s anyway due to advances in other fields.

I find no interest at all in having 12" naval guns on 20-30,000 ton ships, not if we're in 1930 with biplanes and the first monoplanes coming out and tanks starting to come into their own.

Anyway, I obviously vote Aye on all my proposals, and Standard displacement for ships. Light actually be a better approximation of the material costs of building the ships, but data on historic vessels' light displacements are rare: Standard is more easily found.

And dur, finger slip on the last Proposal there.