LibriumArcana.Games

Since about the time the last STGOD ceased, and with SDNW3 tottering over on SDN, Hadri and I have been contemplating ideas for fixing and refining the ruleset that spawned both games and adding lessons learned. Given half the problem before was that an unready ruleset was posted and everything bogged down in rule votes, we figured we needed a game ruleset fairly well conceived and subjected to some tests to release.

Well, we've gotten it mostly done save maybe a couple tweaks and refinements, and having already shown it to GenHav and I believe one or two others (I think Frig has seen it too), I figured it was time to post it and see what people thought.

The ruleset presumes a 1910 start date but with some minor adjustments it can easily be used for games as late as 1930.

So, without further ado, here it is. It's a bit big, but it includes explanation fluff with it and covers things the last STGOD didn't quite cover, including espionage rules.




Ruleset Categories

Great Power - 30 points, +3 to Colonies
Regional Power - 24 points

Great Powers versus Regional Powers:

This is a concept currently for the rule system, the intent of which is to give different playstyles their own type of country. From experience some players tend to focus on the military side of geopolitics, up to and including waging war to gain territory against an enemy perceived as weaker and unsupported. Others prefer to elaborate upon their created nations' internal systems, dramatis personae of government and private business, and the application of statecraft in the maintenance of existing power and influence. Put together, the former will be looking for a fight and will typically find some justification for it, even if they have to invent it, but the resulting conflict inevitably messes up the latter's story plans and even their enjoyment of the game. Conversely, if a game were constructed solely to help the latter, it would involve such rigorous controls on player actions that it would not only eliminate player freedom, it would also complicate the work of the mods.

The idea then is to balance the two out. The current idea is to let the defensive, role-playing players hold the stronger powers while the aggressive players accept states that, while weaker, are not so weak as to be helpless against the stronger states. An aggressive player's regional power can, in fact, triumph over a great power in the sense of forcing acceptance of territorial alteration, especially if it engages in a quick war against an enemy on one particular theater where it uses early initiative and fortune to seize key cities or territory, forcing the Great Power to commit to a long war if it wants to undo these gains. The Russo-Japanese War is a somewhat crude historical example, and pre-WWI Japan is the perfect example of a Regional Power (especially since beating the Russians helped elevate them to acknowledgement of being worthy of Great Power consideration). Conversely, however, if a Regional Power is out to conquer major swaths of territory from a neighboring Great Power, or to even conquer it wholesale, then its chance for success goes way down to the extent of it being national suicide (arguably even two RPs going against a GP would favor the GP on the defensive, at least in the short-term, and even if the two RPs together have more industrial capacity the damage they suffer will cut into that... and leave them vulnerable to other powers).

Now, you might ask if GP players would be required to be absolute creampuffs. Well, somewhat. Great Powers have to declare regions of interest, and outside of those areas or their own borders, they have no strong interest elsewhere. This reflects the areas where their interests and influence brought them to GP status in the years leading up to game start, these are the areas that their elites and their population believe important to the retention of national power and prestige. A Great Power's political ability to act in any aggressive form outside those spheres is therefore virtually nil. If attempted the Government's party members will become concerned, the opposition will attack, and other elites will make public their displeasure. And these will be imposed upon a player with a GP by the mod staff, if rendered necessary by the GP player's behavior.

Inside a Great Power's SoI (Sphere of Interest), the GP has more options. They can behave more aggressively and bellicose in the defense of existing interests, be it protecting a colony or regional client/ally from perceived threat or dealing with local states hostile to its interests. Doing so to expand territories and interests is not as welcome, though it will be considered on a case by case basis. The status quo is typically beneficial to a Great Power, after all, and trying to get more power and land or what have you through aggressive behavior is putting that status quo in jeopardy. Much like the man who killed the goose laying golden eggs, you could end up letting your greed wreck the very thing making you rich. As for borders, if one's border regions are an SoI, the same rules apply, but if not, then the attention paid to borders is there but reduced. Naturally you'll garrison them and most likely have trade links to your neighbor, but aside from keeping an eye out on the neighbors to make sure they're not up to funny business you leave them alone to the extent they leave you and your interests alone.

Furthermore, while Great Powers also get that automatic +3 to Colonies as part of the 9 free points, there is a further restriction in that of the three sphere of interest they may declare, two must have colonies within them. Significant colonial losses inside a sphere of interest will be considered a national catastrophe with loss of prestige and public confidence. Therefore it is in a GP's best interest to have as much colonial territory as possible in the aforementioned spheres. Hopefully this will reduce patchwork approaches with people trying to grab farflung, ultimately undefensible colonial empires all around the map (granted, some spread is logical; look how widespread the German and French Empires were).

Anyway, I've laid out the built-in price of being a Great Power. Regional Powers, at the price of being weaker, have almost no restriction (beyond doing something crazy and insane like attacking a long-established allied neighbor). They are powers that can be on the move, seeking a place in the sun, with a population that desires to see their nation gain more power and prestige. They have no SoI distinctions; they can try to increase influence anywhere (whether they can physically sustain this is another matter).

It should be obvious, from the above statements, that Great Powers will endure greater scrutiny from mods, though I'm intending for the mods to act with appropriate restraint and treat their power as it should be treated; as something to be kept restrained and only used when absolutely necessary. As much as I'd prefer not having mods take such a role, it's necessary to guarantee players do not renege on "the deal" of being GPs.

A final note: Great Powers are not for people looking purely for a chance to play war, experience in games is also preferred simply because a GP is a major part of a game world's power balance and a neophyte to geopolitics and/or playing them is going to risk disrupting that from ill-considered maneuvers. Preferably, GPs will be experienced, mature players who want to play a game of geopolitical maneuver and diplomacy and indulge in role-playing and worldbuilding.

As for RPs, our main standard is that you don't act foolish. Play with skill and you can become a GP yourself, play a normal, baseline game and you'll probably come out well enough, play foolishly and you'll probably bite off more than you can chew and suffer accordingly. Remember: just because you can attack someone to try and gain land doesn't mean you should. Even for an aggressive, expansionist power, diplomacy is going to be a key element of issues.

A final note: you don't necessarily have to play an RP as an aggressive state. Holland and Belgium weren't exactly aggressive states, after all.


Time Scale:
2 RL weeks = 1 in-game Quarter


Country Generation Categories:

Population
0 - 1 million
1 - 10 million
2 - 25 million
3 - 50 million
4 - 75 million
5 - 100 million+

National Resources
0 - National Self-Sufficiency is 5%
1 - National Self-Sufficiency is 20%
2 - National Self-Sufficiency is 40%
3 - National Self-Sufficiency is 60%
4 - National Self-Sufficiency is 70%
5 - National Self-Sufficiency is 80%

Colonial Territory
0 - 0 Colony Points
1 - 50 Colony Points, +1 million population, 100/200 Colonial Army Points, 80 cash/quarter (Requires Navy/Army 2)
2 - 100 Colony Points, +5 million population, 200/400 Colonial Army Points, 90 cash/quarter
3 - 150 Colony Points, +10 million population, 300/600 Colonial Army Points, 100 cash/quarter (Requires Navy/Army 3)
4 - 200 Colony Points, +15 million population, 400/800 Colonial Army Points, 110 cash/quarter
5 - 250 Colony Points, +20 million population, 500/1000 Colonial Army Points, 120 cash/quarter (Requires Navy/Army 4)

Note: The prerequisites are determined by if your colonies are directly linked to you by land or if they are overseas; for land-linked colonies (Russia's empire in Central Asia and Siberia), Army is required; for more classic overseas empires like the rest of Europe's, Navy is required. All Army Points derived from Colonies must be spent on colonial garrisons which, save time of war, are deployed to colonies. The second figure represents the maximum of colonial army units you are permitted to use.

Industry
0 - 10 Industrial Build Points/quarter (IBPs)
1 - 100 IBPs/quarter
2 - 200 IBPs/quarter (requires National Resources 1)
3 - 300 IBPs/quarter
4 - 400 IBPs/quarter (requires National Resources 2)
5 - 500 IBPs/quarter (requires National Resources 3)

Economy
0 - Cannot mobilize, 100 cash points/quarter.
1 - 6 months of war mobilization, 300 cash points/quarter
2 - 1 years of war mobilization, 450 cash points/quarter
3 - 2 years of war mobilization, 600 cash points/quarter
4 - 3 years of war mobilization, 750 cash points/quarter.
5 - 4 years of war mobilization, 900 cash points/quarter.

Infrastructure
0 - 12 months to mobilize all reserves
1 - 8 weeks to mobilize Ready Reserve, 8 months to mobilize Second Line
2 - 6 weeks to mobilize Ready Reserve, 6 months to mobilize Second Line
3 - 4 weeks to mobilize Ready Reserve, 4 months to mobilize Second Line
4 - 3 weeks to mobilize Ready Reserve, 3 months to mobilize Second Line
5 - 2 weeks to mobilize Ready Reserve, 2 months to mobilize Second Line

Navy Power
0 - 0 Navy Points
1 - 400 Navy Points
2 - 800 Navy Points
3 - 1200 Navy Points, 4 Dreadnoughts/Battlecruisers permitted
4 - 1600 Navy Points, 8 Dreadnoughts/Battlecruisers permitted
5 - 2000 Navy Points, 12 Dreadnoughts/Battlecruisers permitted

Army Size
0 - 500 Army Points
1 - 1500 Army Points
2 - 2000 Army Points
3 - 2500 Army Points
4 - 3000 Army Points
5 - 3500 Army Points


Improvement Costs:

Infrastructure improvement is the desired level times 200. For example, upgrading from Infra 3 to Infra 4 costs 4x200 points. At least 25% of the overall cost must be taken up by IBPs, and no more than 50% can be taken up by IBPs, the rest is covered by cash. The range of point allocation to get to Infrastructure 4 is 200 IBPs/600 Cash to 400 IBPs/400 Cash. Minimum time for completion is two years.

Economy improvement is the same formula as infrastructure, (L#x200) = Cost. However, IBPs do not contribute at all to Economy improvement. Completion time is a minimum of two years.

Industry improvement is not by level but by quarterly IBP cap, restricted by National Resources to half-level equivalents (if your NR is 2 you cannot have more than 450 IBPs/quarter, if NR1 then you are restricted to 350IBPs/quarter, if NR0 150IBPs/quarter). Time span is one year and requires both cash and industry in the same formula as Infrastructure. Once an allotment is made from cash budget and IBP queue you must stick to this allotment for the whole year. You will get new IBPs equaling one fourth your quarterly allotment (one sixteenth of the entire yearly expenditure). For example, if you spend 100 IBPs and Cash per quarter for four quarters, you get 25 new IBPs.


Research:

Research will be abstracted to a fair degree. There are five categories to research, representing the "national direction" being favored.

Army provides new artillery, small arms, and equipment for your ground troops.

Navy provides new technologies for your ships, as well as new guns for both ships and shore-based fortifications.

Machinery and Equipment covers new breakthroughs like superior aircraft frames, more efficient farming equipment, radiosets, and eventually specialized vehicles like tanks.

Industry covers all forms of things relating to your industrial and technological sophistication, including advances in manufacturing, productive techniques, and chemistry. New drugs that help save the lives of soldiers and reduce permanent casualties, new manufacturing processes that improve industrial output, and more efficient resource refining that decrease waste in the use of raw materials by the national industries are covered here.

Economy covers the use of technology to improve the efficiency and activity of one's economy, as well as new concepts for the banking system or taxation systems, resulting in an improvement in cash income and trade capability.

The gist of it is the player decides what he wants to develop. The only limit to active research is money. Each research category costs 25 cash per quarter when being actively supported..

As research continues, quarterly rolls will be undertaken by the mods, and each successive quarter will increase the chance for a breakthrough in the desired project, which can include things from tanks to synchronizer gears for aircraft to newer radio technology.


Trade:

Nations trade with one another on a common day to day basis in this time period. The world economy was globalized to an extent not equaled until after WWII. In-game trade is primarily done in the background; one's National Resources rating indicating generally how much one must import to make your industries function. Note that such resources are kept abstract to avoid an overly-complex mechanism with many values to track; one nation might need to import iron for its industries while it has plenty of copper, the second has a deficiency of copper but more than enough iron, but for sake of simplified mechanisms this is kept abstract in the Self-Sufficiency Percentage defined by National Resource scores.

In game governments can also engage in mutual trade agreements. A nation with surplus cash can give that cash to a nation with surplus industrial capacity to build things for said nation, such as weapons to raise an infantry division or warships. It can also purchase existing naval ships or divisions at prices the players will be left open to determine - in the case of purchasing divisions it is presumed you are buying the equipment of a standing division, you must outfit it yourself and apply the manpower with an appropriate training period for the kind of unit you've bought to come into service (The advantage is that it costs no IBPs for either side, as it uses a pre-built division) - the seller gets to return the manpower of his sold unit into his nation. Sold naval vessels, OTOH, are presumed to take a quarter to transfer and a second quarter for the purchaser to raise and assign crew.

Government-arranged trade deals are considered broken up if one side is subjected to an effective blockade.


Blockades:

Naval blockades were a key issue of the period, especially as their legality shifted about.

In a conventional blockade, a nation assigns ships off a port (or ports) of a nation and refuses to permit any ship to transit through the blockade. However, in this era of mines, submarines, and coastal forts with long-ranged guns, such blockades become dangerous for the blockader. Many navies are thus able to consider blockade by other means, whether it is declaring a full blockade and maintaining open ocean patrols with ships to intercept shipping heading toward their enemy's ports or other such means of "long distance blockades", using submersible vessels to enforce blockade at a distance and sink enemy shipping (the German strategy in WWI, with or without unrestricted sub warfare), or laying minefields in narrow bodies of water to prevent shipping (the British, in WWI, laid minefields across the North Sea and the English Channel to limit shipping to Germany). They can even restrict exports to neutrals if they have reason to believe the neutrals are aiding the enemy by providing them surplus from their own imports (again, see Britain's behavior in WWI, restricting exports to Denmark, Holland, and other neutrals to prevent goods from getting to Germany).

In game any of these blockade approaches can be attempted. All have some form of risk - conventional blockading opens your fleet to easier attack, if it's even feasible to blockade all a country's ports with your forces, while other blockades might anger neutrals and even lead to incidents giving them casus belli against you. Regarding limits in exports to neutral countries suspected of aiding an enemy in circumventing the blockade, the neutral nation so restricted may experience some slight loss in IBPs and/or cash (To reflect being unable to export as much), the blockading nation may also be docked cash to reflect restricting their own exports to the neutrals. Either possibility will be determined by the mods.

The benefit to a functioning blockade is that it cuts off a nation from external trade and contact with colonies, effecting both their ability to move troops and their ability to export and import materials and goods. If a blockade is in place and is judged as functioning (effective in other words) then the nation being blockaded has its National Self-Sufficiency score, derived from National Resources, applied to its economy and industrial output. To use an example, if a nation with an NR score of 4 (Self-Sufficiency is 70%), an Economy score of 3 (600 cash/quarter), and a 4 in Industry (400 IBP capacity/quarter) is subjected to an effective blockade, its quarterly income drops to 420 cash and its IBP capacity is reduced to 280 IBPs/quarter - that is, 70% of their normal incomes. This shows what the country can sustain in its homeland by itself.

The mods may modify this further downward if you have a nation that spans home territories across short bodies of water (an Indonesian nation, or a Caribbean one, for instance) and the other side can effectively blockade your internal waters as well (the equivalent of isolating, say, Cuba from Hispaniola).


Espionage:

The years leading up to World War I were just as good for spy stories as were the Cold War years (as Austria's Colonel Redl or Mata Hari can testify to). Spies can be anywhere; they seek technical information, word of diplomatic maneuvers and achievements, and war plans. They also cost money. Spies have to live, after all, and in many cases the people they get their information from choose to betray their country, knowingly or not, because they get some cash slipped to them now and then. In the same token, counter-intelligence requires one to maintain active agents rooting out other countries' spies in your homeland and their agents and informants, which can mean slipping cash as well.

There are two basic costs for active espionage: one for internal operations and one for external. External operations also have a base cost at start. That is, if you enact an operation to get ahold of the diplomatic dispatches of Country A's Foreign Ministry, it will cost you so much money to begin the operation and then a quarterly upkeep cost afterward. You must enact an external operation in this fashion to begin intelligence gathering. Internal operations, OTOH, require only maintenance costs and are presumed to be always ongoing.

Success in operations will be determined by quarterly 3d6 roll. To have a borderline effective internal counter-intelligence operation, you must spend 20 cash every quarter, which means you cause a -2 modifier to any other nation's quarterly operation success rolls. For every extra 10 cash you spend per quarter, you increase the negative modifier - spend $30/quarter and it's -3, $40/quarter and its -4, etc. If you spend below 20 cash per quarter, then your internal security forces are unable to provide effective counter-intel and cause no negative modifier.

On the other end, external operations cost 30 cash in the quarter you set them up and a minimum of 5 cash per quarter maintenance. Every cash point you spend above these figures is counted and accummulates; once you get to 10 cash spent in surplus, you get a +1 modifier to your quarterly operation roll, +2 for 20 cash accumulated, and so on. If you roll a "natural 1" - that is, a 3 in the 3d6 roll - then your op is completely compromised and will fail, meaning you must restart it with the 30 cash startup price and begin re-accumulating the cash surplus.

Naturally only the player and the mod staff, sans any mods with conflict of interest, will know of an actual espionage effort, unless a bad op roll leads to detection. Espionage can be done for myriad things such as getting ahold of mobilization plans and timetables, war plans, government dispatches and messages, detailed Orders of Battle and force expansion/upgrade plans, technical schematics, or detecting secret treaties and agreements,


Navy Costs:

Fitting/trial time requirement halved when mobilized for war.

Dreadnought
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 40 points
In-Game: 320 Industrial Points, 8 quarters minimum for construction, 4 quarters for fitting/trials
Repair Cost: 8 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 4 cash/quarter
Manpower: 1,500 men/unit

Battlecruiser
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 35 points
In-Game: 280 Industrial Points, 8 quarters minimum for construction, 4 quarters for fitting/trials
Repair Cost: 7 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 3.5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 1,500 men/unit

Pre-Dreadnought Battleship
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 30 points
In-Game: 240 Industrial Points, 8 quarters minimum for construction, 4 quarters for fitting/trials
Repair Cost: 6 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 3 cash/quarter
Manpower: 1,000 men/unit

Armored Cruiser
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 25 points
In-Game: 150 Industrial Points, 6 quarters minimum for construction, 3 quarters for fitting/trials
Repair Cost: 5 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 2.5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 750 men/unit

Light Cruiser
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 10 points
In-Game: 40 Industrial Points, 4 quarters minimum for construction, 2 quarters for fitting/trials
Repair Cost: 2 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 1 cash/quarter
Manpower: 500 men/unit

Submarine
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 9 points
In-Game: 18 Industrial Points, 2 quarters minimum for construction, 2 quarters for fitting/trials
Repair Cost: 1 Industrial Point
Upkeep Cost: 1 cash/quarter
Manpower: 50 men/unit

Destroyer
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 6 points
In-Game: 12 Industrial Points, 2 quarters minimum for construction, 2 quarters for fitting/trials
Repair Cost: 1 Industrial Point
Upkeep Cost: .5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 100 men/unit

Torpedo Boat
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 2 points for Coastal, 3 for Ocean-capable
In-Game: 4/6 Industrial Points, 2 quarters minimum for construction, 1 quarter for fitting/trials
Repair Cost: N/A
Upkeep Cost: .2 cash/quarter
Manpower: 50 men/unit


Army Costs

Cost are displayed as x/y/z to show the different costs for an active unit, a ready reserve division, and a second-line division. In starting forces, a country cannot spend more than 40% of its points on active units or 40% on ready reserve units. (The most active army possible would be a 40-40-20 split of points by percentage.)

Guard units must be in active formations. Artillery Regiments can be active or ready reserve.

Infantry Division
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 15/10/5
In-Game: 30/20/10 Industrial Points, 2 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 5 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 1.5/1/.5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 16,000 men/unit

Cavalry Division
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 15/10/5
In-Game: 30/20/10 Industrial Points, 2 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 5 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 1.5/1/.5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 8,000 men/unit

Guards Infantry Division
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 25
In-Game: 45 Industrial Points, 3 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 5 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 2.5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 16,000 men/unit

Guards Cavalry Division
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 25
In-Game: 45 Industrial Points, 3 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 5 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 2.5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 8,000 men/unit

Colonial Infantry Division
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 15/10/5
In-Game: 30/20/10 Industrial Points, 2 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 5 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 1.5/1/.5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 16,000 men/unit

Colonial Cavalry Division
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 15/10/5
In-Game: 30/20/10 Industrial Points, 2 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 5 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 1.5/1/.5 cash/quarter
Manpower: 8,000 men/unit

Artillery Regiment
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 15/10
In-Game: 30/20 Industrial Points, 3 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 3 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 1.5/1 cash/quarter
Manpower: 3,000 men/unit

Colonial Artillery Regiment
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 15/10
In-Game: 30/20 Industrial Points, 3 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 3 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 1.5/1 cash/quarter
Manpower: 3,000 men/unit

Engineer Regiment
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 6/4
In-Game: 12/8 Industrial Points, 3 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 2 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: .5/.25 cash/quarter
Manpower: 3,000 men/unit

Aeroplane Regiment
Point Value/Starting Unit Cost: 10 points
In-Game: 20 Industrial Points, 2 quarters minimum for raising
Repair Cost: 2 Industrial Points
Upkeep Cost: 1 cash/quarter
Manpower: 1,000 men/unit


Army Units:

Infantry Divisions are units of 16,000 uniformed soldiers organized into brigades and regiments, on down through battalions to companies and platoons. Machine guns are distributed at a level determined by army sophistication (the more sophisticated the Army, the more common the machine guns and thus the smaller the unit they are attached to). Ordinary infantrymen are armed with rifles, primarily bolt action. Each infantry division has 12,000 line infantry, six batteries of field artillery, a company of combat engineers, two companies of skirmishers, and a squadron of light cavalry.

Cavalry Divisions are units of 8,000 uniformed soldiers who maneuver on horseback. While modern armaments have rendered the old cavalry charge a suicidal tactic in most circumstances; horses still move faster than men and give mounted troops the chance to find superior ground from which to engage. Cavalry are primarily armed with carbines, pistols, and sabers; also lances for the front ranks in some armies. They fight primarily on foot, but may enter melee against other mounted troops or disorganized infantry. Each cavalry divisions has 6000 sabers, four “flyingâ€

Heh, I forgot to note that Ezekiel also provided some suggestions here and there.... though I kinda forgot who suggested what precisely in most cases. It all kinda melds together.

I forgot about that long speech at the beginning of the ruleset. It's kind of rambling and I wanted to pare it down. The basic point is this: Great Powers will have generally conservative foreign policies. Regional Powers will have the option to be more aggressive. The idea is to give more variety to the balance of power without making it such that those who play smaller nations don't feel like they're getting the short end of the stick.

Well, the original version was considered too aggressive so I tried to be more neutral in explaining it.

Oh well, I need sleep anyway.

I'm not sold on this division thing. Sure there should be a place for peaceful players but let's be blunt the center stage of STGODs have always been about conflict and war. Besides, why shouldn't a GP want to expand their sphere of influence? The Russians, Germans, British and Americans all did so repeatably.

Also WWI era? Blah.

Now I like the fortification system. The mobilization system is more realistic then the one used in the game and Upkeep and Repair along with Espionage are good additions.

frigidmagi wrote:I'm not sold on this division thing. Sure there should be a place for peaceful players but let's be blunt the center stage of STGODs have always been about conflict and war. Besides, why shouldn't a GP want to expand their sphere of influence? The Russians, Germans, British and Americans all did so repeatably.

Also WWI era? Blah.

Now I like the fortification system. The mobilization system is more realistic then the one used in the game and Upkeep and Repair along with Espionage are good additions.

I'm open to refinement of the GP vs. RP playstyle choices; I don't mean to say GPs should be hippies. Just that they would tend to be reactive because while it's cool and all to expand your spheres of influence, it's not wise to do so if it jeopardizes what you already have. Plus I want to give people a reason to play RPs beyond having a challenge; namely, they want to be the ones looking to gain their place in the sun.

The time period isn't fixed, though Hadri will hate me for repeating that. I tried to make sure that the game could be shifted to an Interbellum start year with minimal fuss (primarily just changing unit names and some costs and values).

Glad to know you like the other additions and changes. IMHO altering mobilization alone would make a new game different in character to the last. It removes the prospect of quick victory by smacking someone around and snatching as much land as possible in the months before they mobilize, and in the process cutting down what they actually get into the field. Now you have to deal with the prospect that you might have four, five days before the enemy's reserves come up to plug in holes on their defense. Sure, you're getting reserves too... but they might be getting them faster and they have the advantage of being on the defense.

My biggest problem is that the current system assumes all Regional powers are going to be war hungry and all Grand powers are going to be interested in maintaining the status quo. What if I want to play as something like Canada, who is a regional power but doesn't really have any interest in going to war, or as Rome who was a grand power and went on aggressive wars all the freaking time.

As for spheres of influence, I understand them, but they worry me. What if, during the course of the game, a new important spot for that nation is opened up? Do they just have to grin and bear it? Or what if what they thought would be an important area to have their sphere of influence in proves to be of little value?

Things I like, fortresses, economy, repair and maintenance costs, espionage, mobilization. All in all well done. I personally am not a big fan of the WWI era, but that might have more to do with the connotations of the time rather than the technology available.

Frankly, there is but one question I would pose to this, or any system: Can I reasonably construct a truly out of sorts, odd society and empire out of it? And given that I could make the Skyward Empire with this, good stuff.

Charon wrote:My biggest problem is that the current system assumes all Regional powers are going to be war hungry and all Grand powers are going to be interested in maintaining the status quo. What if I want to play as something like Canada, who is a regional power but doesn't really have any interest in going to war, or as Rome who was a grand power and went on aggressive wars all the freaking time.

I noted that an RP doesn't necessarily have to be an aggressive state, but you are correct that the rules may need some refinement to permit more diverse playstyles. As it is, though, I want to avoid letting people play Great Powers and then going off and using their power edge to behave badly.

As for spheres of influence, I understand them, but they worry me. What if, during the course of the game, a new important spot for that nation is opened up? Do they just have to grin and bear it? Or what if what they thought would be an important area to have their sphere of influence in proves to be of little value?

Case-by-case basis for expanding one's sphere of influence, I'd say. It would depend on events that happen in the game. Obviously if a GP gets sucked into a war somewhere outside their established SoIs and ends up the decisive factor they should have some interest in the area post-war.

Now abandonment of an SoI is a different story. The entire logic of it is that the spheres of interest would not possibly become of "little value". The fact you have to have colonies in a couple of them reinforces that they are, indeed, important to you, and access to their markets and resources has played a vital part in you becoming a Great Power in the first place. I'm not sure why an SoI would suddenly become "of little value".

Things I like, fortresses, economy, repair and maintenance costs, espionage, mobilization. All in all well done. I personally am not a big fan of the WWI era, but that might have more to do with the connotations of the time rather than the technology available.

I'm glad people like some of the new elements.

As for the time period, *shrug*, I think it could be interesting to do a "Dreadnought race era" game (I even named the folder I keep the game materials in "Dreadnought!"). I am aware, though, that WWI carries rather bitter connotations for most people and isn't a "fun" war to recreate in a game.

SirNitram wrote:Frankly, there is but one question I would pose to this, or any system: Can I reasonably construct a truly out of sorts, odd society and empire out of it? And given that I could make the Skyward Empire with this, good stuff.

Well, um, we kinda didn't take into account esoteric stuff like "Nitram's Super Cool Rocket Britannia" when we made the rules....

Steve wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Frankly, there is but one question I would pose to this, or any system: Can I reasonably construct a truly out of sorts, odd society and empire out of it? And given that I could make the Skyward Empire with this, good stuff.

Well, um, we kinda didn't take into account esoteric stuff like "Nitram's Super Cool Rocket Britannia" when we made the rules....

No, but they can be sort of sewn into it. Use Navy for the rocket force. They're not maneuverable. Anyone who knows calculus would be able to shatter them with Naval gun.

Steve wrote:I noted that an RP doesn't necessarily have to be an aggressive state, but you are correct that the rules may need some refinement to permit more diverse playstyles. As it is, though, I want to avoid letting people play Great Powers and then going off and using their power edge to behave badly.

Well that's what other players are for. If someone decides to go off and be land hungry for no apparent reason, the rest of the players are going to shun them and possibly assist the nation that is being attacked.

Case-by-case basis for expanding one's sphere of influence, I'd say. It would depend on events that happen in the game. Obviously if a GP gets sucked into a war somewhere outside their established SoIs and ends up the decisive factor they should have some interest in the area post-war.

Now abandonment of an SoI is a different story. The entire logic of it is that the spheres of interest would not possibly become of "little value". The fact you have to have colonies in a couple of them reinforces that they are, indeed, important to you, and access to their markets and resources has played a vital part in you becoming a Great Power in the first place. I'm not sure why an SoI would suddenly become "of little value".

I wasn't so much referring to the ones you have colonies in, but more about picking a Sphere of Influence in, say, the Southern Atlantic that you don't have any colonies in. At the time we'll say it looks like there will be a big and long political and military fight over resources there or trade routes etc. But the issue gets resolved quickly.

I'm glad people like some of the new elements.

As for the time period, *shrug*, I think it could be interesting to do a "Dreadnought race era" game (I even named the folder I keep the game materials in "Dreadnought!"). I am aware, though, that WWI carries rather bitter connotations for most people and isn't a "fun" war to recreate in a game.

I understand that naval battles of the time period seem to be entertaining, being the time before planes really started taking over. But my understanding of the land battles of that time is a great big stall across hundreds of miles due to machine gun emplacements and trenches and a whole lot of bodies. Now that might have simply been because many commanders were still thinking of warfare in the Napoleonic style. Because I know there were some commanders that kept the war running quickly. But the technology of the time seems very easy to turn into a fight of two sides staring at each other until one side charges and hopes they have enough bodies to carry them over.

Charon wrote: Well that's what other players are for. If someone decides to go off and be land hungry for no apparent reason, the rest of the players are going to shun them and possibly assist the nation that is being attacked.

My experience in these games over the years indicates that relying entirely on that approach isn't going to work as well as you might think.

I wasn't so much referring to the ones you have colonies in, but more about picking a Sphere of Influence in, say, the Southern Atlantic that you don't have any colonies in. At the time we'll say it looks like there will be a big and long political and military fight over resources there or trade routes etc. But the issue gets resolved quickly.

And resolved in a way that the player gets no benefits out of it? Hrm. A mechanic for shifting SoIs could be used - I was discussing stuff with GenHav on SoI gaining and switching being applied to RPs for the aforementioned concern with them being only for the expansionists (allow players complete freedom as RPs to expand soft or hard power as they see fit, while a GP's ability to shift would be more constrained).

I understand that naval battles of the time period seem to be entertaining, being the time before planes really started taking over. But my understanding of the land battles of that time is a great big stall across hundreds of miles due to machine gun emplacements and trenches and a whole lot of bodies. Now that might have simply been because many commanders were still thinking of warfare in the Napoleonic style. Because I know there were some commanders that kept the war running quickly. But the technology of the time seems very easy to turn into a fight of two sides staring at each other until one side charges and hopes they have enough bodies to carry them over.

The narrative of WWI is dominated by the Western Front after the two sides settled in. The Eastern Front tended to be more orientated toward manuever because there was more room for it.

You needn't necessarily have the bloody stalemate of the Somme and Verdun, but a lot depends on what tactics and operational plans you use and the terrain you're fighting in.

That said, we can shift the time period if enough people insist.

Steve wrote:My experience in these games over the years indicates that relying entirely on that approach isn't going to work as well as you might think.

*shrugs* I would be willing to bet you have more experience in this than I do, but the times I've played, players seem to do a pretty good job of teaming up so they don't become the next meal for someone that's gobbling up nations.

And resolved in a way that the player gets no benefits out of it? Hrm. A mechanic for shifting SoIs could be used - I was discussing stuff with GenHav on SoI gaining and switching being applied to RPs for the aforementioned concern with them being only for the expansionists (allow players complete freedom as RPs to expand soft or hard power as they see fit, while a GP's ability to shift would be more constrained).

Shifting SoI I think would work great. I'm not sure it will even come up, because while the SoI of a nation does change, it does so pretty slowly, but it's better to be prepared for it to happen than to assume it won't.

The narrative of WWI is dominated by the Western Front after the two sides settled in. The Eastern Front tended to be more orientated toward manuever because there was more room for it.

You needn't necessarily have the bloody stalemate of the Somme and Verdun, but a lot depends on what tactics and operational plans you use and the terrain you're fighting in.

That said, we can shift the time period if enough people insist.

I do love tanks. Current era does not seem to have tanks.

And I love killing people's tanks.

SirNitram wrote:Frankly, there is but one question I would pose to this, or any system: Can I reasonably construct a truly out of sorts, odd society and empire out of it? And given that I could make the Skyward Empire with this, good stuff.

I'm all for creativeness in nation building. For example I'm toying with playing the the Imperial Union of Socialist Councils, which is to say Commie Russia under the Romanovs. What I'm leery about is magitek.

Charon wrote:I understand that naval battles of the time period seem to be entertaining, being the time before planes really started taking over. But my understanding of the land battles of that time is a great big stall across hundreds of miles due to machine gun emplacements and trenches and a whole lot of bodies. Now that might have simply been because many commanders were still thinking of warfare in the Napoleonic style. Because I know there were some commanders that kept the war running quickly. But the technology of the time seems very easy to turn into a fight of two sides staring at each other until one side charges and hopes they have enough bodies to carry them over.

Stalemates form where there is equal disposition of forces. This is true regardless of the available technology or prevailing tactical thought. Go back to the Napoleonic War and you see that an Anglo-Portugese Army supported by Spanish irregulars spent the better part of a decade fighting the French in Iberia. Go back even further and you run into such lightning conflics as the Seven Years War, the Nine Years War, the Thirty Years War, and the Eighty Years War.

It can even happen if both sides have armoured forces and mature tactical doctrine. If the French had no collapsed in 1940 - say their northern forces escape encirclement - the fighting would have likely turned into a re-run of Fall 1914. As it was in the Eastern Front, where there was manoeuvring room to spare, battles between the Russians and Germans could drag out for months. Around Leningrad and in Karelia the front stabilized for two to three years despite both sides having plenty of tanks.

Only nuclear weapons can prevent a stalemate, by complitely destroying one or both side's ability to fight. And even then, if there aren't enough nukes to knock either country out of the war (it takes more than you might think) it's more likely that the ensuing fighting will also turn into a stalemate.

In short, armies hate fair fights for a reason.

Hadri, most of us simply don't want to play in the WWI era. Sorry.

I personally have no problem with the 1910 era, I now in fact kinda get a kick out of the idea of a dreadnought race now that we have a much more realistic Great Power/Regional Power system.

Just to warn: I am not going for magitek. I am going with an alt-British Empire, which discovered reliable ballistic rockets much, much earlier, and has an air(And low-orbit) presense. Of course, low-orbit assets are easily destroyed by obliterating the launch-sites, leaving them all to starve unless they surrender.

Honestly, Nit, what with the setting as a whole, I don't think Rocket Britain fits. Maybe if we were going for an all-out steampunk setting.

SirNitram wrote:Just to warn: I am not going for magitek. I am going with an alt-British Empire, which discovered reliable ballistic rockets much, much earlier, and has an air(And low-orbit) presense.

Reliable ballistic rockets is not simply a matter of "discovering" concept. It requires related advances in chemistry, physics, metallurgy, machine tooling, computation devices, time pieces, and industrial infrastructure.

Of course, low-orbit assets are easily destroyed by obliterating the launch-sites, leaving them all to starve unless they surrender.

This is a lot easier said than done, and until such a time as all launch sites have been destroyed you would have the high ground. This alters the strategic situation considerably, especially because other nations will want to develop the same technologies to contest the skies.

Oh, question.

What are Colony points?

Oi. You want to do a staple of sci-fi... 'Technology X becomes common very early'.. And people try and hammer down the simple means of explaining it, as if I don't understand. I do, Kthnx.

Steve: Okay. I'll not take part, then.

It's actually why I mentioned the plan to SDNW4 for you, Nit. I figured that game/setting will accommodate your usual love of exotic societies and locales.

Charon wrote: What are Colony points?

I've not posted the list yet, since I wanted to test the waters with the basic ruleset. But basically much of the world, sans Europe and most of North America (where I figured we'd have most of our PCs anyway), has been assigned a "colony point cost" by region, determined by an estimation of relative worth (Alaska, for instance, is much bigger than Hawaii, but is only 8 points to Hawaii's 15 because while it's much larger and has gold and valuable fisheries, Hawaii has sugar, tropical fruits, and a strategically valuable harbor for naval use with a strategic location between North America and Asia).

Now if we have a repeat of the Mughals, Klavostan, Ethiopia, etc., they would get to designate their national territory outside this system.

You know guys... If we want to try something odd, I do have a setting that would let Nitram play his rocket empire and open up some interesting things.