STGOD rules thread

[Ezekiel]

I can do Hadrianus one better on creating a 100pt army. Observe!

Yes, exactly one point better.

Everything is so much easier when all the numbers end in 5 or 0. ;)

As I said already, your ideas are good, they're just not good this time. Not within the criteria ("simple") and all.

[Hadrianvs]

Magi did say that he would consider my system if player preference leaned in favour of it.

[General Havoc]

Frankly, I could work with either system, but Hadrian's would give me more leeway to build the sort of distinctly-Roman army that I had in mind. Then again, that might not necessarily be a good thing.

[Cynical Cat]

I notice no pricing on tanks or for airforces and since airforces cost points they should actually be worth something.

I'm playing industrialized Great Power that's almost exclusively a land power and never existed in real history. The decisions of nations that don't exist or are radically altered in this timeline not to fund tank development until well into WW1 should be binding on us as Italian national policy should be on Havoc's reborn Roman Empire, that is not at all.

[Ezekiel]

Frankly, I could work with either system, but Hadrian's would give me more leeway to build the sort of distinctly-Roman army that I had in mind. Then again, that might not necessarily be a good thing.

I have an auxiliary system, but it didn't meet Frigid's criteria, so I didn't post it. I'll post it now though.

Component Regiments:
Conscript Infantry Regiment - 1pt (2500 men)
Regular Infantry Regiment - 2pts (2500 men)
Guards Infantry Regiment - 8pts (2500 men)
Mounted Infantry Regiment - 2pts (1250 men, 1250 horse)
Cavalry Regiment - 4pts (1250 men, 1250 horse)
Tank Regiment (not available) - 16pts (40 tanks)

Attachments:
Mounted Infantry Battallion - 1pt (625 men, 625 horse)
Cavalry Battallion - 2pts (625 men, 625 horse)
Engineer Battallion - 2pts (625 men)
Guards Infantry Battallion - 2pts (625 men)
Tank Battallion (not available)- 4pts (10 tanks, 125 crew)
Artillery Battallion - 4pts (15 guns, 225 gunners)
Siege Artillery Battery - 12pts (5 guns, 225 gunners)

Late Republican Roman Legion (as best as I can simulate it):
*2 Regular Infantry Regiments - 4pts (2500 men)
*1 Cavalry Battallion - 2pts (625 men, 625 horse)
*1 Engineer Battallion - 2pts (625 men)
*1 Artillery Battallion - 4pts (15 guns, 225 gunners)

Total 6475 men, 625 horse, 15 guns

That's enough for the double-strength primus cohort, plus the nine regular cohorts of 500, plus reserves, plus engineers, plus a cavalry cohort, plus organic guns...

[Cynical Cat]

I should point out, again, that I'm not in favor of having hordes of T-34 equivalents. I want a modest number of reasonably tanks to help shake up things and push combat away from a static trench warfare system to a more dynamic and exciting form of warfare. All the cool shit should not be happening just at sea.

[Hadrianvs]

I happen to think trench warfare is exciting, dynamic, and anything but static. Honestly I don't see why people get so obsessed by measuring progress in miles. You can measure progress in blood too, yours or the enemy's.

[Ezekiel]

I too find trench warfare to be interesting. Especially the process of adapting from open-field warfare to the tactics required to gain ground in a siege-warfare situation.

As far as tanks go, I'm 110% against them until the Great War happens and things are so incredibly bloody and stagnant that their invention is a necessity.

Until that point, though, I will enjoy the good days when infantry actually meant something and weren't just rear-area security for panzer divisions racing through enemy terrain at fifty miles a day. I'd especially love it if the only style of tanks developed are the lumbering infantry-support machines of WWI instead of the ridiculous speedy battle tanks of WW2 and beyond.

[Cynical Cat]

Infantry was far from irrelevant in the tank era. They're essential. The biggest fear a tanker had was a concealed antitank gun blowing his ass away (that's ground pounders 1, tankers 0) before he knew it was there. And that's without talking about city fighting, which is a nightmare for tanks.

And you lose 10 points for using the phrase 110%.

[Ezekiel]

Infantry was far from irrelevant in the tank era. They're essential. The biggest fear a tanker had was a concealed antitank gun blowing his ass away (that's ground pounders 1, tankers 0) before he knew it was there. And that's without talking about city fighting, which is a nightmare for tanks.

Good point, but I'd still rather see big lumbering fortress-tanks in 1940 than formations of panzers zipping about. WW2 is just so overdone.

And you lose 10 points for using the phrase 110%.

That's just how much I dislike WW2-style warfare. Ten percent more than is physically possible.

[Hadrianvs]

That's just how much I dislike WW2-style warfare. Ten percent more than is physically possible.

Chemistry lesson time: 110% is possible when you are indicating a solvent's saturation. Anything greater than 100% means it's super-saturated.

[Cynical Cat]

That's just how much I dislike WW2-style warfare. Ten percent more than is physically possible.

Bah. It's got all the good stuff. Airpower, but still vulnerable to ground fire. Infantry has antitank guns, mortars, and even rocket launchers. All the fun toys. Early war tanks were a dogs breakfast and technology and doctrine evolved through the war as methods to kill them were perfected. All arms represented, all arms important.

I'm shooting for 30s type tech with tanks. Design still in its infancy, white elephants mixed in with total crap and a some okay designs. Overall numbers are moderate at best.

[Hadrianvs]

All arms represented, all arms important.

Not quite, the cavalry becomes useless after tanks become as fast as they are.

[Cynical Cat]

All arms represented, all arms important.

Not quite, the cavalry becomes useless after tanks become as fast as they are.

That's true, but you get mechanized infantry so its hardly a loss. Besides WW1 is pretty damn hard on cavalry.

[frigidmagi]

Speaking as a vet of a modern war. Infantry is not just a rear guard. Kindly remain in reality when describing your dislikes.

Would y'all be interested in a compromise? Because frankly Hadri, I don't find trench warfare all that exciting either and neither did the men who fought it. I would prefer to see planes be effective but nowhere near war winners, I don't want the huge bomber fleets of 1944, maybe later in the game but not at the start. Some tanks maybe and if they going to be used they should be effective but demanding everything be WWI is unfair.

On the flip side, Hotfoot, Cat. Trench warfare only happened due to very specific circumstances. A mass war in North America (as an example) between the Union and the Confederates would be very unlikely to go trench. The reason as you both either already know or should know, is unlike the Western Front, there is plenty of room to go for a flank. Hell for that matter warfare in the eastern front never got bogged down into the trenches, it was a very mobile war.

Still I would like to hear from the other players, especially those who haven't voiced a desire start date. No offense guys but there's more people playing the game then Zeke, Hadri, Hotfoot and Cat.

[Cynical Cat]

On the flip side, Hotfoot, Cat. Trench warfare only happened due to very specific circumstances. A mass war in North America (as an example) between the Union and the Confederates would be very unlikely to go trench. The reason as you both either already know or should know, is unlike the Western Front, there is plenty of room to go for a flank. Hell for that matter warfare in the eastern front never got bogged down into the trenches, it was a very mobile war.

That's true but irrelevant to my case. I'm playing a nation half surrounded by mountains, not Mongolia and without trench breakers I'm going to be looking at some big ass trench lines.

[Ezekiel]

Speaking as a vet of a modern war. Infantry is not just a rear guard. Kindly remain in reality when describing your dislikes.

I was referring to the worst case, with everybody using nothing but blitzkrieg doctrine all the time and expecting their wunderpanzers to secure victory all by themselves.

And very clever, Hadri. *golf clap*

I will lodge my vote in the STGOD thread and be done with the time issue.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Well, I am fairly ambivalent about start date. Any time between 1910 and 1930 works for me, and I do like having nice well rounded military prospects.

[Steve]

1920-1930 is a good compromise date range for those who don't want panzer armies and bomber fleets but actually want increasing tank and air usage.

[Slacker]

I'm very flexible on the start date.

And honestly, I'm really not sure why we can't just be flexible in regards to technology. We could say Naval Engineering is at a 1910 level, Air power at 1920, and army technology at 1915 and there's no reason why it couldn't work.

Obviously this means the alt-Dreadnought is going to have to have some AA batteries, but the dreadnought race would still be represented and would have aircraft carriers as a complementary ship right from the start.

[Hadrianvs]

WW1 is pretty damn hard on cavalry.

Not quite the case.

On the defence the mobility of cavalry units made them perfect fire brigades, as they could be rapidly rushed to reinforce the line wherever it weakened. In this role dismounted cavalrymen proved themselves as good as regular infantry in shooting and fighting. They did this successfully from the First Ypres all the way down to the Spring Offensive of 1918.

On the offence your statement is true only because damn near every commander on all sides did not know how to his mounted arm properly. Cavalry accounted well for itself when it was given the chance to enter combat.

[Cynical Cat]

WW1 is pretty damn hard on cavalry.

Not quite the case.

On the defence the mobility of cavalry units made them perfect fire brigades, as they could be rapidly rushed to reinforce the line wherever it weakened. In this role dismounted cavalrymen proved themselves as good as regular infantry in shooting and fighting. They did this successfully from the First Ypres all the way down to the Spring Offensive of 1918.

On the offence your statement is true only because damn near every commander on all sides did not know how to his mounted arm properly. Cavalry accounted well for itself when it was given the chance to enter combat.

You know you didn't disprove my point right? I said it was hard on them, not that they were useless.

[Hadrianvs]

Your statement lent itself to multiple interpretations. Evidently, I chose a wrong one. My apologies.

[Cynical Cat]

Your statement lent itself to multiple interpretations. Evidently, I chose a wrong one. My apologies.

Apologies accepted Captain Needa. No wait, that doesn't quite have the ring I was going for.

It's nothing. You have no way of knowing that I went on a WW1 kick a few years back and read a bunch of books on the subject. Given that the average joe's opinion on cavalry during the 20th Century is "Poles charging tanks hahaha", if he actually has one, your answer was quite reasonable and it would actually inform the ignorant.

[Ezekiel]

Your statement lent itself to multiple interpretations. Evidently, I chose a wrong one. My apologies.

Apologies accepted Captain Needa. No wait, that doesn't quite have the ring I was going for.

It's nothing. You have no way of knowing that I went on a WW1 kick a few years back and read a bunch of books on the subject. Given that the average joe's opinion on cavalry during the 20th Century is "Poles charging tanks hahaha", if he actually has one, your answer was quite reasonable and it would actually inform the ignorant.

This joe's opinion on true cavalry (not mounted infantrymen - I differentiate the two in my ruleset for good reason) is that they make fine scouts until they're replaced by motorcycle troops (which Japan will be doing) or get into an engagement with anything bearing an internal combustion engine and a machinegun. Or even entrenched infantry.

Of course, something tells me that Japan isn't exactly bristling with horses, so I'll probably have bicycle troops and then motorcycle ones in place of any proper 'cavalry'.

hehehe, japs in sidecars.