STGOD rules thread

[frigidmagi]

Given that we are starting in the latter part of the age of imperialism Zeke... I prefer a system that encourages large colonial empires at the start.

After all it better reflects the reality of our world at the same time. As for in game imperialism, I think I can promise that there will be wars. If nothing else players will be holding things other players want.

[Hadrianvs]

Lastly, because you guys are using what is effectively the alpha of the ruleset, you've given me valuable feedback regarding the Territory categories, such as the fact that Colonial Territory needs to be changed and better restricted, and that Home Territory needs to be similarly restricted. In the words of many a lategame Paradox game player, "there's way too much blobbing."

There is no such thing as too much blobbing in a game set during the same time period that corresponded to the height of the British and Russian Empires.

[Slacker]

Well, we could just cap air forces at like 3 points and encourage people to spend the rest on territory.

[Hotfoot]

As far as I'm concerned, numbers are meaningless with regards to the military. Are you going to tell me that one Biplane with a machine gun is worth the same as a Zeppelin with 600+lb bombs? They're both one aircraft. Similarly, is one man with a machine gun worth the same as one man with a rifle? I should think not.

Let's break down these arbitrary military numbers into something discrete. What class of ships can we reasonably build, what types of Brigades or Divisions can we muster? What sorts (if any) of aircraft are manageable?

The last thing I want is for the minutiae to rule the battlefield. The idea that because my guns have less powder or size or some little thing than they reasonably should have drives me batty. Like I said about the Connecticut Yankee thing, rules-mongering historical data will drive me up a wall and much more likely to try and work AK-47's and high velocity low caliber battleship rounds into play and that will really start messing things up.

[frigidmagi]

Similarly, is one man with a machine gun worth the same as one man with a rifle? I should think not.

You want us to break the points to a bloody squad level? I think not my friend. I mean bloody hell, that's just to much.

Let's break down these arbitrary military numbers into something discrete. What class of ships can we reasonably build, what types of Brigades or Divisions can we muster? What sorts (if any) of aircraft are manageable?

Remember when we talked about rules creep? Look I am not going to agree to a system where I have to pay different cost for each bloody Division, as the rules stand right now, I can have up to 100 10,000 men divisions and I am not going to spend time juggling out points for the equipment for each damn one. I'm willing to bet most of the others don't want to either. It's fairly easy to just assume that everyone is using standard gear for the time period.

[Steve]

Well, I know Zeke will grumble in irritation of the SDN counterpart being brought up, but I just proposed a system for defining sophistication of armed forces - at least Army and Air Force - by a combination of specific Focus score with Industry and Economy.

[Hotfoot]

You want us to break the points to a bloody squad level? I think not my friend. I mean bloody hell, that's just to much.

No, I'm not. In fact, I'm proposing the opposite. Set the basic component of units at reasonable levels, because right now there's way too much detail flowing around. Divisions, regiments, something! I'm not interested in counting how many spare barrels I'm bringing for my specific numbers of artillery cannons and such. It's too much. I want to know on a strategic level what I can bring to bear. 300,000 men is too useless a number, it doesn't tell me what they're armed with, what resources they have, that is, unless I get a specific inventory of their gear, which seems to be how it's heading right now. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to write up a per regiment inventory. I want to say I have X Infantry Divisions, Y Artillery Divisions, perhaps some mounted troops and/or irregulars, and go from there, end of story. That way I can focus on writing the battle.

Meanwhile, you can bet ships and aircraft are going to get different costs, but hey, if you want to keep divisions simple, it's easy, same cost, different results. General Infantry should have more men and such than Artillery, simple. We can work from there.

[frigidmagi]

Set the basic component of units at reasonable levels, because right now there's way too much detail flowing around.

Huh... No it doesn't. It tells us "You have X amount of men." The organization of them is up to you. Frankly given that different nations organize their troops different ways (for example divisions can be anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 men... Just in NATO nations), it makes sense just to tell us that.

Having to buy each unit individually sounds like a pain in the ass.

I'm not interested in counting how many spare barrels I'm bringing for my specific numbers of artillery cannons and such. It's too much.

Agreed, I mean fuck even in the real military we have other people to keep track of that.

I want to know on a strategic level what I can bring to bear. 300,000 men is too useless a number, it doesn't tell me what they're armed with, what resources they have, that is, unless I get a specific inventory of their gear, which seems to be how it's heading right now. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to write up a per regiment inventory. I want to say I have X Infantry Divisions, Y Artillery Divisions, perhaps some mounted troops and/or irregulars, and go from there, end of story. That way I can focus on writing the battle.

Where are you getting this from? Look the stats tell you how many men you have. You get to decide how to organize them and there certainly isn't a bloody need to do a per regiment inventory. Why do you think you need to?

Look it's like this. Let's say you have a million man army (frigid likes round numbers okay?). Decide how many in a standard regiment. Let's say 10,000. That gives you 100 divisions.

A: We'll say 35 artillery division. (Big guns are my friend. They can be your friend to)

B: 10 cavalry divisions (frigid likes horses and thinks leading them off to get shot is an asshole thing to do)

C: 55 Infantry Divisions.

There you have an army. Done. Yes you could organize more, but for the purposes of the game we know roughly what's there and we don't need more. There has been nothing posted suggesting we would need to know the bloody make and model of the rifles or the arty pieces being use and I have no damn clue why you think we're asking for that. Did I miss a part of this thread?

[Hotfoot]

Huh... No it doesn't. It tells us "You have X amount of men." The organization of them is up to you. Frankly given that different nations organize their troops different ways (for example divisions can be anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 men... Just in NATO nations), it makes sense just to tell us that.

Having to buy each unit individually sounds like a pain in the ass.

Well how would you suggest buying army units? Because it still needs to be done, just like purchasing other units, and like I said before, buying a battleship is not the same as buying a battlecruiser. We already have this level of complexity in the rules, it's just a question of how we define it for the army

Where are you getting this from? Look the stats tell you how many men you have. You get to decide how to organize them and there certainly isn't a bloody need to do a per regiment inventory. Why do you think you need to?

I'm getting it from the in-depth discussions about the navy boats about what does what and so forth. Moreover, I still haven't seen how economic purchasing is going to work out, if we'll get tanks or not at all, and so on.

Look it's like this. Let's say you have a million man army (frigid likes round numbers okay?). Decide how many in a standard regiment. Let's say 10,000. That gives you 100 divisions.

That's fine, in concept, but an artillery division with as many fighting men as a general infantry division for the same cost cuts me the wrong way, because that can mean an obscenely large number of guns to bear for very little cost, and yes, Artillery is the biggest and best overall weapon in the ground combat scale. Realistically, you're talking about men who have big-ass guns that can kill dozens in a single salvo (hell, a single shot in trench warfare), and have rifles and/or pistols themselves in case the front line should get breached. A single division of cavalry, say, that gets to swing around and get a chance to disrupt the infantry shouldn't have to worry about meeting a firing line of equal numbers with guns of their own, know what I mean?

Of course, in that case, and I think in most cases, machine guns would be standard equipment for artillery divisions, just to protect them from irregulars and the like, but that's a different discussion.

There you have an army. Done. Yes you could organize more, but for the purposes of the game we know roughly what's there and we don't need more. There has been nothing posted suggesting we would need to know the bloody make and model of the rifles or the arty pieces being use and I have no damn clue why you think we're asking for that. Did I miss a part of this thread?

Part of it's from the chat, part of it's been from the stuff in the threads (this and the other) talking about naval warfare that's put my hackles up. The idea that one would have to use Springsharp or something like it to make ship designs that were ahistorical (because as the US I don't plan on recreating the Maine, just like I imagine the French player doesn't want the damn Chauchat Machinegun for his forces) so that the Naval Buffs could argue over hull plating, deflection, and all that other nonsense.

[frigidmagi]

Okay seeing where you're getting this does help, but I think you're making a jump thinking land warfare is gonna be the same. As for your artillery example *cough* Sorry buddy it just shows your lack of experience in a real military. An army of nothing of Artillery divisions couldn't attack or advance very well and against an determined attack... Well, loaders and gunners aren't all armed with rifles and usually machine guns go with infantry divisions. Most of the time what happens is infantry units are detailed to guard artillery units.

To be honest I don't see why we have to buy every bloody unit, you have X men, form Y units. Done. But tell you what, do you have a system in mind? Because if you do I'll listen and give you a fair shot.

[Hotfoot]

I've yet to really put my thinking cap on because I'm still waiting to see the system completed, but basically my thought is this: You have GI, Art, Cav, and maybe Eng, you know, for sapping, trenchwork, etc., though that could be folded into GI. If we have tanks, they can be thrown in as separate, but basically I want to keep it simple. I have BBs, BCs, Subs, and maybe Destroyers or something similar to keep Aircraft and Subs at bay.

Now I personally don't have a problem for different costs for different units. Way I figure it, it's the best way to make it hurt to build too many Arty, which encourages turtling, especially if we have no tanks. I don't figure we want to throw in any mechanics for paying upkeep, so a higher initial cost is the way to go as far as I see.

I'm cool with mixing divisions for allowing Arty to be guarded by Infantry and so forth, that's fine and makes sense. But remember that Defense here is big, and Arty gives a lot of peace of mind because a single artillery division can cover a pretty wide area, and as long as you've got a few GI divisions guarding, if you're smart you can creep things up slowly but surely. Heck, it's a terrible yet wonderful way for me to retake everything up to the Rockies and then just bottleneck Steve at the mountain passes.

Just saying. Admittedly it is rather late, so I might be slightly discombobulated.

[Ezekiel]

Well, I know Zeke will grumble in irritation of the SDN counterpart being brought up, but I just proposed a system for defining sophistication of armed forces - at least Army and Air Force - by a combination of specific Focus score with Industry and Economy.

*grumblegrumble*

Okay, going from some ideas I had saturday night:

Each nation gets X points as determined by their Standing Military Limit. I'll try to keep it simple for Frigid (I know you don't want to have to fiddle with shit, but it's necessary for balance).

First, the Navy.

There isn't a fixed cost for each tonnage class of ship, because then it's too easy for people to abuse (14,999-ton "cruisers" to avoid paying for a proper 15,000-ton battleship, etc). Instead, there is a very simple formula designed to interface with the fact that most ships will simply be renamed or very slightly modified historical designs - just plug and play, really.

For every kiloton (thousand tons) of a ship's standard displacement, it is one point. If there is a decimal, round up to the next point. Dreadnoughts cost double the rounded-up cost until 1910, when they start becoming common - this is to keep things fair.

HMS Majestic, a 14,900-ton predread, is 14.9 kilotons displacement. It is therefore 15 points.

HMS Dreadnought, an 18,420-ton ABG dreadnought battleship, is 18.42 kilotons displacement. It is therefore 38 (19x2) points.

It doesn't matter to me if you call a 15,000-ton ship a battleship or a patrol boat - you're paying for the tonnage, not the type.

---

Now, the Army.

I was originally going to price everything by the regiment for customizability and then put together priced 'standard divisions', but Frigid doesn't like that, so I'm going to do everything by division except artilleryand early tanks. Assume divisions contain mortars and MGs and trucks and such at an era-appropriate proportion.

Units:

Foot Infantry Division - 10pts (10,000 men)
Guards Infantry Division - 30pts (10,000 men)
Mounted Infantry (Dragoon) Division - 15pts (5,000 men and 5,000 horse)
Cavalry Division - 20pts (5,000 men and 5,000 horse)
Tank Division (NOT AVAILABLE YET)- 40pts (200 tanks)

Attachments:

Artillery Regiment - 5pts (50 guns)
Siege Artillery Regiment - 10pts (10 guns)
Engineer Regiment - 5pts (2500 engineers)
Guards Regiment - 10pts (2500 guardsmen)
Tank Regiment (NOT AVAILABLE YET) - 10pts (50 tanks)

---

Air forces will be limited to level 1 until 1910 - planes just aren't that common yet.

[frigidmagi]

Air forces will be limited to level 1 until 1910 - planes just aren't that common yet.

I can think of 2 or 3 players that won't wash for. Plus we're not settled on the opening date apprantely.

[Ezekiel]

Air forces will be limited to level 1 until 1910 - planes just aren't that common yet.

I can think of 2 or 3 players that won't wash for. Plus we're not settled on the opening date apprantely.

That's...all you have to say? That a couple players might bitch about not having air forces yet? :|

[rhoenix]

That's...all you have to say? That a couple players might bitch about not having air forces yet? :|

Look, I know I dropped out and all, but this argument over Air Forces seems really silly. In my mind, unless someone has an overwhelmingly airtight argument for it, I really don't see why anyone's "Air Forces" would be anything more than glorified hang-gliders, and even that would be pushing disbelief a bit.

If this game is starting between 1905-1910, then unless you somehow dug up a model glider in the Arabian sands and had scientists working on it for years, I really don't see how any power would beat the Wright Brothers to their invention and turn it into a viable military design.

[frigidmagi]

You gotta let me think about the rest. I prefer to chew on things a bit Zeke. And frankly from my end, losing players is a big deal. We're already down two. Besides, it's the opinion of the players that matter. If they're okay with this system, then that's what we use.

Basically, let me think about it some more.

[Hadrianvs]

I have an idea for buying army units. It should be pretty simple and straightforward, adding depth and quantifiability without giving headaches to those who hate number crunching. I'm pretty sure I'm cribbing this one from someone in the boundless sea of the internet, though undoubtedly heavily modified, so apologies to whoever it is.

The way it works is that players buy units using pre-determined baselines as common points of comparison. Points are spent to buy units. The number of points spent per unit, up to a given maximum, determines the quality and heaviness of the unit's training and equipment. The type of unit determines the scale used to determine costs. It easily and simply simulates everything from disorganized rabble to the most elite and well armed formations.

I expect that with this system there is plenty of room for tinkering but a decent army can be built in a short amount of time if one desires. The main thing is that greater point value means more effective, which should be easily understood. The fluff below the bolded parts is mostly just that: fluff.

MAIN PROPOSAL: (can be tweaked as necessary)

Infantry Brigade: 0-6 points per 4000 bayonets.
-Armed primarily with repeater rifles, infantry is every army's backbone. Higher points indicate better training, discipline, and armament. Units of 2 points or more deploy with machine-gun support. Units of more than 4 points can be considered elite units. These have specialist training as light or heavy infantry, and depending on their role have access to arms such as sniper rifles, carbines, sub-machine-guns, shotguns, grenades, light machine-guns, trench mortars, and flame-throwers.
-Optional rule: Infantry brigades of more than 5 points must be raised by upgrading veteran units.

Artillery Brigade: 9-15 points per 2000 gun crew (50 tubes).
-The cannon that support the infantry and represent the largest share of an army's fire power. These are usually attached at the divisional or corps level. Cost reflects both the training of crews as well as the quality and weight of their cannon. Brigades in the 9-12 cost bracket are composed of field guns supported by light howitzers, while brigades in the 12-15 bracket have only a handful of field guns and a majority of medium and heavy howitzers. The heavier pieces require more crew per piece and have a slower rate of fire, but the larger shells give an overall increase of fire power.

Cavalry Brigade: 0-6 points per 1000 sabres.
-The fastest unit available. While extremely vulnerable against prepared defences, cavalry is unmatched in reconnaissance, screening, flanking, and the exploitation of breaks through enemy lines. Modern cavalry is largely all alike in equipment and tactics. The differences between lancers, curiasers, hussars, and dragoons are largely in the dress uniforms. Higher point values indicate better training, discipline, and armament. Units of 2 or more points deploy with machine-guns. Those of 3 or more points can fire accurate volleys from the saddle. Units of more than 4 points have access to light machine-guns, automatic cannons (pom-pom guns), and armoured cars. They make excellent light infantry when dismounted.
-Optional rule: Cavalry brigades of more than 5 points must be raised by upgrading veteran units.

Horse Artillery Regiment: 9-12 points per 500 mounted gun crew (12 tubes).
-Horse artillery (aka flying batteries) is the most mobile artillery unit, able to keep up with the cavalry it supports. It generally uses motorized tractors and transports in lieu of horses, and is equipped with field guns and light howitzers. The emphasis on mobility precludes the deployment of medium and heavy howitzers, but horse artillery crews are often the best of the best. A flying battery can be unlimbered, fired, limbered, and relocated far faster than any normal artillery battery.

Note: There is no requirement that each building block unit's manpower be equal to the baseline, so long as the point value is proportionate and does not go over the point per man maximum. To wit, four [3pt] 6000 man inf brigades are roughly equal to three [4pt] 3000 inf regiments, since both formations are of a 12 point value.


EDIT - Huh, looks like I spent so many hours working on this that I missed Ezekiel posting a simpler proposal and noting that Magi didn't want anything more complicated. Ah well, if nobody likes this system then at least I learned lots of interesting things on pre-WWI army compositions while doing research for it. Though given the ammount of effort it would be nice if this system was adopted. I personally really like it, to me it's a good combination of simplicity and customizability.

[frigidmagi]

Okay having chewed over both proposals, I honestly prefer Zekes. That said the rule selection goes by consensus not Fiat. If y'all the players want Hadri's then we'll use Hadris.

Couple question to Zeke and Hadri though. Zeke first since I distressed him with my earlier comments (sorry about that Zeke).

What in-game wise would make a Guard Division worth 3 Infantry Divisions?

Where do we draw the line between siege and regular arty? Is a railroad cannon seige?

How would you feel about splitting the Tank regiment attachment into a Light Tank Regiment and a Heavy Tank Regiment?

Hadri:

Why Brigades? Also aren't your Brigades on the small side? I'm just trying to grasp your reasoning here.

You're aware you have 40 men per gun in the Arty Brigades right?

How do you intend to do engineers, armored cars, and etc?


Everyone else:

Do you prefer one of these two?

[General Havoc]

Well I haven't a specific request as to the rules, so long as they allow for us to tailor our armies somewhat without requiring tremendous overcomplexity.

However I would like to ask about the rules regarding player-vs-player combat. Are we going to be submitting strategic plans to a moderator and having them resolved? Are we to resolve the matter between one another? I would like an opportunity to practice military strategy should it come to war.

As to the starting date, I thought when we started this that we'd be commencing in 1910. If the matter is up for discussion however, I actually find I'd prefer a later date to an earlier one, 1930 or so if possible. I am however perfectly happy to work with anything.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see the question.

To be perfectly honest, my preference is for some variation on Hadrianvs' system, as it allows for gradations of unit capability. But it might be too complicated, and so I'm not wedded to the notion. Whichever system is chosen will work for me.

[Hotfoot]

I would prefer Zeke's system as a base. It's simpler to modify and do cool and interesting things with.

As far as Hadri's suggestion concerning improved units, that's tough. I would rather most or all forces start out as baseline, with green and veteran troops handled through RP. Most players should be able to hash out between themselves what makes for a green division and a battle-hardened one without there being a specific mechanic for it. The only other way to make a given division better or worse is the quality of their weapons, like France giving their men Chauchats (yeah, I'm harping on it, but to be fair it was a REALLY bad gun). My general impression is that if we are going to have technological progression, we should make a mechanic for it and just have that be the baseline as some sort of force multiplier, with older units being upgraded over time when technology progresses.

The big issue still, however, is still concerning industry and so forth. Right now there doesn't seem to be a method to improving industry, which means that if you can mange, it's a better plan to max that out and then break out once you've built up enough forces that you can steamroll the people who can't match your output.

[Hadrianvs]

Why Brigades? Also aren't your Brigades on the small side?

It's a unit that is not so small that the system gets bogged down in minutia but not so large that it precludes individualized division make-up. It's also the smallest unit that is fully capable of independent action.

My brigades are the same size as British brigades, maybe even slightly larger. They are also about two thirds the strength of German brigades. I picked the number 4000 primarily because it was easy to work with, lends itself well to the value ratios I had in mind, makes the creation of various divisions sizes a straightforward matter, and can easily be modified to a regimental system if the player prefers.

You're aware you have 40 men per gun in the Arty Brigades right?

It appears to be standard practice to count the entirety of a gun's crew, including those who just move the piece and its ammo, as combat personnel. Probably because they are as critical to the gun's function, and as exposed to counter-battery fire, as the gunners. I based the ratio on the four gun batteries of French 75 mm field pieces, which had 170 personnel (plus 150 horses) assigned to each. Similarly, German 32 gun artillery regimens had some 1400 men. If anything, I'm short 2 or 3 men per gun, but I rounded down to 40 for the sake of simplicity.

How do you intend to do engineers, armored cars, and etc?

Armoured cars played a very limited role in the war, though if you read my description for cavalry brigades I made it so that expensive cavalry can be said to be supported by a few armoured cars.

Engineers detachments are explained in the "Auxiliary Units" section, the're organic and cost nothing. Unless said engineers are to also take the role of heavy infantry, in which case one buys heavy infantry and calls them engineers. Basically, if you need your engineers to build bridges and field works it's free. If you want to equip them with flamethrowers and dynamite and send them to kill somebody, they cost points. I am undecided on the subject of tunnel mines. Leaning toward having that be part of standard engineer abilities and thus free, but with limitations.

Everyone else:

Do you prefer one of these two?

Pick mine! Pick mine!

Here I'll show how simple it is by making a 100 point army:

Army Units:

Infantry Regiment, 2000 men, [1.5]

Artillery Regiment, 1500 men (37 guns), [4.5]

Cavalry Regiment, 750 men, [3]


Order of Battle

Division, 11000 men, [16.5]
-4 inf reg, 1 art reg, 2 cav reg

Corps, 22000 men, [33]
-2 inf div


Standing Army

3x Corps

=

6x Divisions

=

24x Infantry Regiments
6x Artillery Regiments
12x Cavalry Regiments


Total: 66,000 fighting men; 99 points



There, not terribly complicated at all


Oh, btw, one very important thing I neglected to mention when outlining the system: Divisions will be the main tactical unit. Once a player has decided upon the composition of a given division it can move, fight, and be reinforced as a single entity. There is no need whatsoever to concern oneself with the status of each division's components. The main thing is the division as a concerted whole. Players are, however, also welcome to move and keep track of individual brigades or regiments if they so desire. Thus both number crunchers and number haters can engage in operational strategy to the level of detail that they feel the most comfortable in.

[Slacker]

I kind of like Hadrian's system, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.

[Ezekiel]

Hadrian, I gotta say that your idea is a good one, just not for this game. Frigid said he wanted something simple, and yours is unfortunately not. You should definately develop it further though, make a system of your own for another game or sommat.

Ironically, I too was going to make a regiment/brigade-based system but then I just simplified it into primary division types plus attached/independent regiment types.

Okay having chewed over both proposals, I honestly prefer Zekes. That said the rule selection goes by consensus not Fiat. If y'all the players want Hadri's then we'll use Hadris.

Couple question to Zeke and Hadri though. Zeke first since I distressed him with my earlier comments (sorry about that Zeke).

What in-game wise would make a Guard Division worth 3 Infantry Divisions?

Troop quality. The various Guards units of Europe (save perhaps Russia's, who used the term 'guards' differently) were all the most prestigious and well-funded of that nation's military. They drilled more, they got better gear, they got more training time; all of this condenses down into superior troops who will have higher morale (can't let down the unit's grand name), a professional attitude to all affairs military, and a willingness to endure much worse conditions than the average conscript recruit.

Tl;dr guards represent guys like the pre-WWI British Army or the German Garde de Corps or Austrian Kaiserjagers. Elite guys who can be expected to carry through where lesser soldiery might fail.

Where do we draw the line between siege and regular arty? Is a railroad cannon seige?

Big Skoda guns or railroad cannons would be siege artillery. Guns you break Belgian forts with. ;)

How would you feel about splitting the Tank regiment attachment into a Light Tank Regiment and a Heavy Tank Regiment?

Perhaps, but the division betweent he two didn't really happen until after the Great War. The tank regiment as I listed it is meant to represent an attached formation of Mark Is or A7Vs or even FT17s.

They are not available at game start and will not be available until a Western Front situation arises and their development becomes a strategic necessity and not just a player wanting to have shiny toys. :)

[Ezekiel]

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

100

-6 Foot Infantry Divisions (60)

40

-6 Artillery Regiments (30)

10

-2 Engineer Regiments (10)

This makes two corps of the following:

-3 Foot Infantry Divisions (27,000 riflemen & 3000 scout cavalry)
-3 Divisional Artillery Regiments (150 guns, 4500 gunners)
-1 Corps Engineer Regiment (2500 engineers)

Total 71,500 men, 6000 warhorses (artillery and supply train horses not included), 300 guns

---

surgeon general's warning: the above is not intended as anything but jocular rivalry.

[Hadrianvs]

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

Yes, exactly one point better.