STGOD?

[Hadrianvs]

So you get the toys you want and I don't get mine?

I wonder why I don't find that appealing.

Tanks should be developed through the course of the game when a need for them arises, as I said in the very post you quoted. My preference for them never being developed is unrealistic and I have zero expectation of it happening. If it did happen I'd join you in complaining to the mods about it.

I point out that there's always bound to be a difference of opinion regarding starting dates precisely because of varying available technology. If we were having a discussion as to whether to set the game in 1600 or 1700 then I'd be pushing for the former so we can use pike and shot formations while others will be pushing for the latter because they prefer bayoneted guns. Your rhetorical question can be used against any proponent of a given start date against any proponent of a different start date, it's inherent to the discussion. Your concern is my concern is everyone else's concern, just with different foci as the case may be.

Either set it at 1905/1910 and remove the air power statistic, or set it later and allow for air power. If a bunch of players want dreadnoughts and are afraid of having them become obsolete because of airpower, the don't allow airpower in the first place. But be aware that if you take away that option you're going to leave those that want planes dissatisfied with the fact that they can't play the force that they want. Of course, the point must be raised that this is a game with rules that prevent everyone from having the exact forces that they want.

May I ask who exactly has expressed fear that their expensive battleships will be sunk by dinky planes? Because I cannot recall anyone doing so. Combat evolves and weapons change in nature and power, occasionally dramatically so. I would expect everyone to know and accept that this is so, and consider it an unwarranted leap in logic to interpret the support for a particular time period as support for a static technology base.

[Hotfoot]

Tanks should be developed through the course of the game when a need for them arises, as I said in the very post you quoted. My preference for them never being developed is unrealistic and I have zero expectation of it happening. If it did happen I'd join you in complaining to the mods about it.

The truth is that in all of the games of this type that I've seen, the idea that the dynamic of the game will change is itself unrealistic. The scope of these games is often far too short to have such amazing development occur.

Look, the bottom line is that whatever technology we start with, that's the bulk of what matters, period. We're not going to spontaneously develop tanks partway through, so either we have them or we don't. If we do, combat is more fluid, front lines will change more readily, if we don't, dig in and make your trenches, because that's what will matter most of all.

May I ask who exactly has expressed fear that their expensive battleships will be sunk by dinky planes? Because I cannot recall anyone doing so. Combat evolves and weapons change in nature and power, occasionally dramatically so. I would expect everyone to know and accept that this is so, and consider it an unwarranted leap in logic to interpret the support for a particular time period as support for a static technology base.

If this were a computer game, like say the Total War series, I might agree that tech would progress, but it's not, and throwing tech progression into the mix is adding rules we don't want or really need. The scope of this game, realistically, is perhaps 3 years overall, unless we mess with the time compression somehow. There's no way we're working major technological advancements into that, it's just unreasonable.

[Cynical Cat]

So you get the toys you want and I don't get mine?

I wonder why I don't find that appealing.

Tanks should be developed through the course of the game when a need for them arises, as I said in the very post you quoted. My preference for them never being developed is unrealistic and I have zero expectation of it happening. If it did happen I'd join you in complaining to the mods about it.

No shit its personal preference. Your reasons come down to "I don't want to start with tanks but I do want to start with big gun dreadnoughts." I'm not a sea power so your attitude is precisely "I want to start with my goodies but you can't have yours." Your rebuttal does nothing but acknowledge that point. I have not interest in having spent 3 points on an impotent airforce nor in playing endless rounds of trench warfare without mechanized armour because of different decisions being made in radically different universe (i.e. ours) when the technically capacity exists and the ideas been floating around since at least as far back as Da Vinci.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I am with Cat here. I am designing my military as well as I can as a more or less well balanced land and sea military, with aircraft in its infancy. I am not a naval power and most of my power projection will be done with landed infantry that the navy makes sure reach their destination. At least initially. Without at least primitive tanks at game start, I cannot project power in the way that I would like.

It is one thing to build a military branch up when the technology exists in game. I plan on enhancing my navy and airforces like this. However to have to develop entirely new weapons systems is unreasonable. Honestly, and I say this despite our in game relations that are planned, it looks like you are trying to ensure that someone would have a harder time striking into the heart of russia while you are building your army. You want people bogged down in trench warfare during the period where you are using your industrial capacity to build up an army that can defend your massive borders.

While this is a strategically useful position, it is also not fair to the other players.

[Slacker]

Look, there's no reason we can't write some sort of conflict into the backstory that spurs the development of early armor or whatever. The American Civil War caused European strategists to plan heavily around the idea of trench warfare, and, as an aside, how to break it. There's no reason we can't have a conflict in the recent past that gives that same impetus in game. Hell, Hadrian and I are planning a number of wars in the saga that is Vasan/Russian relations, we could just set the last war-that won me Smolensk and him Odessa-in the recent past and let people use that as the template to fight the next war.

[Hadrianvs]

The scope of this game, realistically, is perhaps 3 years overall, unless we mess with the time compression somehow.

Really? That's but one fifth what I was expecting.

Your reasons come down to "I don't want to start with tanks but I do want to start with big gun dreadnoughts." I'm not a sea power so your attitude is precisely "I want to start with my goodies but you can't have yours." Your rebuttal does nothing but acknowledge that point.

If only it were true, then we could compromise on a 1920 date and you can have your tanks while I have my dreadnoughts. Aircraft, while very useful, don't by themselves become a real threat to battleships until a decade later. As it turns out Russia is not a sea power either, so the main focus of any warfare I engage in will be on land.

I have not interest in having spent 3 points on an impotent airforce nor in playing endless rounds of trench warfare without mechanized armour because of different decisions being made in radically different universe (i.e. ours) when the technically capacity exists and the ideas been floating around since at least as far back as Da Vinci.

You have a point about air forces, but mechanized armour is not something that appears because somebody thought it was a good idea, as the fact that nobody ever built so much as a prototype shows. Tanks are exceedingly expensive, very slow moving, and need to be deployed in large numbers to be effective. They simply will not appear without considerable precedent that firmly establishes their necesity, and even then advanced trench breaching infantry tactics will be developed first.

[Hadrianvs]

Honestly, and I say this despite our in game relations that are planned, it looks like you are trying to ensure that someone would have a harder time striking into the heart of russia while you are building your army. You want people bogged down in trench warfare during the period where you are using your industrial capacity to build up an army that can defend your massive borders.

I'll lay it down simply and clearly: I want to refight the First World War, it's my favourite war ever. Unfortunately there's a dire shortage of videogames where I can do so, which means I can't go and take it there.

[Hotfoot]

Really? That's but one fifth what I was expecting.

So many ways to go with that one, really.

These games, while grand in scope and theory, generally do not last terribly long in terms of game time. Moreover, if you include even the inkling of a massive gamechanger like armor being developed partway through, it changes the entire dynamic, because everyone will rush to get it because we all know how good it is at its job.

It's like the invention of the Ironclads, which lead to the Battleships everyone's all souped up about. Normal ships couldn't possibly compete with them, and soon it spread like wildfire. Only here we won't have people trying to put metal armor on wood hulls, we'd skip straight to the fully functional models.

Then the land war comes down to who can get tanks into position first, and everyone's just waiting for it. Even justifying it by working to provide automobiles for the working man and such. Moreover, in order to do it we'd need some sort of rule about R&D, which we don't have, and would be a really time-consuming rule to put together. Given that we don't even have proper rules for Economy and Industry, it's another example of wanting more complexity from the system.

[Slacker]

Eh, we've had games last over a decade on the Frontier. Even longer, in a couple of cases. It depends on the player base and the mods, really.

[Hotfoot]

You're going to have to clarify that because I have no idea what you mean by Frontier. I'm going by what I've see out of STGODs I've seen for years and years at SDN. Bottom line, when it comes to rules and mods, there needs to be something simple and straightforward. If you want something ridiculously complex, you'll need something ridiculously complex to handle it. That's the way structured games work.

[Ezekiel]

I'll lay it down simply and clearly: I want to refight the First World War, it's my favourite war ever. Unfortunately there's a dire shortage of videogames where I can do so, which means I can't go and take it there.

WWI is my favorite war as well - something about the gentlemanly Victorian Age disappearing into the insanity of grinding siege warfare appeals to me.

The Russo-Japanese War is gonna be so awesome.

[Slacker]

You're going to have to clarify that because I have no idea what you mean by Frontier. I'm going by what I've see out of STGODs I've seen for years and years at SDN. Bottom line, when it comes to rules and mods, there needs to be something simple and straightforward. If you want something ridiculously complex, you'll need something ridiculously complex to handle it. That's the way structured games work.

www.the-frontier.com
The site is, sadly, a shadow of what it once was, when five or six games with 20+ players in each.

We've been around for quite awhile. I've personally moderated games that've lasted 10+ game years.

[Hotfoot]

www.the-frontier.com
The site is, sadly, a shadow of what it once was, when five or six games with 20+ players in each.

We've been around for quite awhile. I've personally moderated games that've lasted 10+ game years.

Fair enough, but at this point it comes down to a game of personal experiences, and here we've had a mix. From what I've seen of at least one of the games you've listed is that 1 year of gametime = 2 weeks of realtime, which is hardly the scale being shot for here. In that sort of setup, you need a FAR more advanced ruleset to deal with advancement, details, etc. In fact, the one I looked at, the one more like the game being set up here, there are rules rivaling some of the more complex 4X games I've played in the past. If Frigid is jumping on me about asking to define maybe a half dozen military divisions properly, I can only imagine the reaction when you tell him you'd like to see five different levels of basic infantry on top of the several dozen other types of units available.

[KlavoHunter]

I'm game for either a 1910 or 1925 start.

[Steve]

I was considering either 1 game year for 2 RL months, or six weeks (thus two IG months a RL week), for SDNW3, as we found in SDNW2 that an in-game year at one RL month was too fast and didn't give people time to react.

[Slacker]

www.the-frontier.com
The site is, sadly, a shadow of what it once was, when five or six games with 20+ players in each.

We've been around for quite awhile. I've personally moderated games that've lasted 10+ game years.

Fair enough, but at this point it comes down to a game of personal experiences, and here we've had a mix. From what I've seen of at least one of the games you've listed is that 1 year of gametime = 2 weeks of realtime, which is hardly the scale being shot for here. In that sort of setup, you need a FAR more advanced ruleset to deal with advancement, details, etc. In fact, the one I looked at, the one more like the game being set up here, there are rules rivaling some of the more complex 4X games I've played in the past. If Frigid is jumping on me about asking to define maybe a half dozen military divisions properly, I can only imagine the reaction when you tell him you'd like to see five different levels of basic infantry on top of the several dozen other types of units available.

I'm assuming you're referring to the TBW rules here, and in actuality, they're much easier than you think. For one thing, we don't define our equipment in TBW, so it's a situation where I have, say, a tank division, or a battleship, not a Cromwell v. a Panther or a Montana v. a Bismark.

Moreover, the infantry divisions are basically just designated as Infantry (A), or Infantry (E), meaning they have artillery support or engineer support. Again, no equipment specification or manpower numbers are tracked, so Frigid would probably find it more towards his intended style of rules than you'd think. The entire TBW ruleset is about ten pages long, and six of those are the 1950-1975 technologies and the tech tree.

[Derek Thunder]

I've decided I don't really have the attention span or interest for a sustained game, consider my territory up for grabs for existing players or anyone that would like to join.

[Hadrianvs]

I've decided I don't really have the attention span or interest for a sustained game, consider my territory up for grabs for existing players or anyone that would like to join.

Aww, there goes Persia. :(

And I was all getting warmed up to the idea of having a southern neighbour and everything.

[Hotfoot]

I've decided I don't really have the attention span or interest for a sustained game, consider my territory up for grabs for existing players or anyone that would like to join.

Aww, there goes Persia. :(

And I was all getting warmed up to the idea of having a southern neighbour and everything.

You and me both.

Though in my case, the warmth was all the torches I was lighting. You know, to see at night. From space.

[Academia Nut]

Persia would have been a useful counter to my ideas of having an India never conquered by the Europeans. We could have got right into the thick of things and started fighting over Afghanistan! Oh well. Unless someone else wants to take the territory to fight the descendents of the Khans...

[rhoenix]

Persia would have been a useful counter to my ideas of having an India never conquered by the Europeans. We could have got right into the thick of things and started fighting over Afghanistan! Oh well. Unless someone else wants to take the territory to fight the descendents of the Khans...

You know, someone taking Persia would have a good excuse to invest in air power. Just saying.

[Hadrianvs]

And I was all getting warmed up to the idea of having a southern neighbour and everything.

You and me both.

Though in my case, the warmth was all the torches I was lighting. You know, to see at night. From space.

Zombie Sherman rises to finish what he started?

[frigidmagi]

That's it.

No more debates. No more screaming. I want one post from everybody telling what start date he or she wants and why. One post only with no sniping at other posters, don't make me break out my mod powers. CT, go tell Cleric to post. Steve go tell Sunhawk. When I am satified all the players have posted then I'll figure where we are, as it stands this is spinning around the road to nowhere.

For those of you who don't know, yes I have mod powers on this board and I will use them. So follow instructions. There will be a swift resolution to this.

[Cynical Cat]

Roughly 1930 equivalent tech.

Adrian et. al. get their big gun battleships and carriers, if they exist, are for scouting.

Tanks exist, but aren't numerous and lots of them suck. Limitations on numbers range, reliability, effectiveness etcetera makes them useful but not dominant.

Enough airpower to have it hurt to be on the side that doesn't have air superiority against a powerful airfleet, but not a decisive arm in and of itself. Antiaircraft guns and vehicles make the ground pounders something other than just targets and planes don't grow on trees.

Infantry has the tools the take out planes and tank and the powers of raw numbers. Defensive positions are still powerful, but without the trenchwarfare grind. Planes, tanks, and artillery help but they're the guys who do the hard work and the hard fighting that make victory possible.

[Hotfoot]

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.