STGOD rules thread

General Havoc · Post by **General Havoc** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:38 pm

I've wondered about the bicycle troops of the pre-war years. How er... effective were they? Were they treated as sort of lightly-mobile infantry? Or did they actually try to fight from bikes?

Ezekiel · Post by **Ezekiel** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:52 pm

They were lightly-mobile infantry, but they also made decent scout troops and couriers.

And they definately dismounted before fighting with rifles. I can't imagine firing a rifle while holding on to the handlebars of a light bicycle, much less aiming.

Pistols, though... :3

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:57 pm

You wouldn't be able to hit anything while riding a bike. Your body moves to much for a stable aiming point. That said, let's get back to the rules.

Ezekiel · Post by **Ezekiel** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:03 pm

Addendum to my rules (the regiment-scale ones, these guys would automatically be part of the division-scale stuff):

Bicycle Scout Battalion (.25pts)
Motorcycle Scout Battalion (.5pts)

:D

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:04 am

You know, it perhaps occurs to me that we could use the Doctrine Focus stat as a way to perhaps resolve the fights about the tech level. We could perhaps say that tech starts at 1900 and each point spent in a doctrine advances the relative tech level by 5 years. That way the average of 3 sticks us at Great War level tech, but if you're really investing in one branch of your military you can get better goodies. This would also balance the forces against each other since if you specialize in one you probably don't have enough points left over to pump up the others, but you can counter. So those that invest heavily in their navies will be able to field AA guns to counter those that invest heavily in aircraft, who can have planes that are better than just recon to counter the guys who have tanks, who have to go by land everywhere because their navy is outgunned (obviously an oversimplification, but you get the point). Does that sound good to everyone? Or at least food for thought to try and get us out of this deadlock?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:16 am

You mean the military focus stats AcNut? As I understood it, they mainly applied to numbers and equipment...

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:29 am

As they are written now, yeah, that's what the stats mostly do, but that's why I posted in the rules thread, since it would be something of a change to the rules. Besides, as it stands, industry seems like the most important stat because you just need time to build up. So take a large army to prevent getting rushed and then turtle until you can make up for deficiencies by building new shipyards and aerodromes or whatever. That's probably a bigger rules issue than a lot of other things.

Hadrianvs · Post by **Hadrianvs** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:14 am

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

By the First World War there was no distinction between mounted infantry and cavalry, which I made note of in the description of the cavalry in my rule-set. Over the previous centuries mounted infantry had become more like cavalry because it was more prestigious, while cavalry became more like mounted infantry because it was practical. The end result was that cavalry and mounted infantry merged, and they stayed merged because it turned out that this mounted fire/shock hybrid was just as good at either role specialized units.

There is no justification for differentiating cavalry from mounted infantry, and indeed doing so misrepresents the actual role and training of cavalry in the period.

Also, cavalry are more than just scouts. Until tanks become fast enough, they are the only units capable of exploiting breaks in the enemy lines. Motorcycles cannot handle rough terrain anywhere near as well as horses can.

Ezekiel · Post by **Ezekiel** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:19 pm

Hadrianvs wrote:
Ezekiel wrote:This joe's opinion on true cavalry (not mounted infantrymen - I differentiate the two in my ruleset for good reason) is that they make fine scouts until they're replaced by motorcycle troops (which Japan will be doing) or get into an engagement with anything bearing an internal combustion engine and a machinegun. Or even entrenched infantry.
By the First World War there was no distinction between mounted infantry and cavalry, which I made note of in the description of the cavalry in my rule-set. Over the previous centuries mounted infantry had become more like cavalry because it was more prestigious, while cavalry became more like mounted infantry because it was practical. The end result was that cavalry and mounted infantry merged, and they stayed merged because it turned out that this mounted fire/shock hybrid was just as good at either role specialized units.

There is no justification for differentiating cavalry from mounted infantry, and indeed doing so misrepresents the actual role and training of cavalry in the period.

Also, cavalry are more than just scouts. Until tanks become fast enough, they are the only units capable of exploiting breaks in the enemy lines. Motorcycles cannot handle rough terrain anywhere near as well as horses can.

I'm going to make Mounted Infantry an attached/independent regiment type, as it represents bicycle or motorcycle troops better than it represents horsed men. Cavalry will thus be the only fully-mounted division available.

Though supporting cavalry -with- mounted infantry might be effective...

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:32 am

Though supporting cavalry -with- mounted infantry might be effective...

Something tells me that will be rare as it would cost 25 pts there abouts. Still it would be cool to see.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:32 pm

So our tech will permit some consideration, with development, of having an army we can use to charge across flat land while Sabaton "Panzer Battalion" blares in our ears?

Well, "Panzer Battalion" is more fun as a song than "The Price of a Mile".....

Ezekiel · Post by **Ezekiel** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:06 pm

Steve wrote:So our tech will permit some consideration, with development, of having an army we can use to charge across flat land while Sabaton "Panzer Battalion" blares in our ears?

Well, "Panzer Battalion" is more fun as a song than "The Price of a Mile".....

40 to 1 or Primo Victoria are more relevant, but Ghost Division deserves important mention for being awesome.

Ezekiel · Post by **Ezekiel** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:50 pm

Speaking of tanks, I'd just like to state that in order to comply with the rules, the most advanced tank you have at game start in 1930 and until at least 1935 in our game should be equivalent to or less advanced than the German Panzer II or any other tank built up to 1935/36.

Gentlemen (and lady), this is your ceiling. Study it. Please do not exceed it until you're allowed to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_II

That is all. :)

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:53 pm

I approve of this and agree with Zeke.

Just as a note, I am chewing on a idea to allow for "random" events to occur. Things like earthquakes, lucky breaks, student unrest, etc. Would y'all be interested in such an idea?

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:57 pm

Yes. We have dice code on the board. Making up random event tables should be easy enough to do.

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:16 pm

So for tank designs, it has been said that at this point for the triad of Speed, Protection, and Armament only one is really allowed. Thus using the Panzer II as an example of maximum allowable tank, what if we want to go with other designs that emphasize different things. Like, what if we wanted to attach a much larger cannon at the cost of speed and protection? Or if we wanted to make a moving fortress that can chew up infantry with mass machine gun fire but is no good against fortified positions or other tanks? What sort of metric will we use for comparison? The best I can see is capping an AFV's power to mass ratio at 15hp/tonne like with the Panzer II, but even that doesn't seem quite satisfactory. Would the military buffs like to wade in one how we can adjucate this sort of thing? Although I suppose if there are already plans for ship building, those could be modified for tanks as well.

As for random events, I would be cool with that. Say every turn there would be some chance of having a random event occur and table(s) for what the possible events could be, that would be cool.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:49 pm

Alright here's my basic idea for a random events system.

Every week, I roll a D6 for each country. 1-5 nothing happens. On a roll of 6 a random event occurs. I'll then roll on a table. At which point I will inform the player in question of the random event, they'll have to include it in their post. If they don't, I'll post it and it'll be worse. Now I'm open to suggestions as to what the random events should be, but there should be bad ones and good ones.

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:53 pm

Let's see here, for some ideas for random events. Any numbers are for demonstration of idea. First of all, have each category have a degree determined by some other roll, say:

1-10: Mild, minor penalty/bonus, more fluff than anything else
11-16: Moderate, significant enough penalty/bonus to feel it for the turn
17-19: Severe, major penalty/bonus that will be felt into the next turn or two
20: Extreme, massive penalty/bonus, likely to be significant for the rest of the game

Then if the player doesn't post, down grade bonuses by one step (a mild bonus turning into a mild penalty) and increase penalties one step, giving:

20+: You'll really wish you had posted instead of frigid

Obviously, if these probabilities are not to taste, just shift them around. I can see how some might not like a 0.83% chance each turn to have the game change significantly for each player, although it might add extra spice for the thrill of things

For some of the categories:

Negative-
Unfavourable weather
Geological activity
Crop failure
Civil unrest
Industrial accident
Loss of important public/government/military figure
Economic downturn
Plague
Enemy fortune (GM picks another player and has them have a positive random event of the severity rolled for this event)

Positive-
Favourable weather
Geological resource discovery
Bumper crop
Economic boom
Scientific breakthrough
Morale boosting event
Project completed ahead of schedule
Rise of new popular/competent public/government/military figure
Enemy misfortune (GM picks another player and has them suffer a negative random event of the severity rolled for this event)

These would all be context sensitive of course, such that favourable weather might be heavy fog at a time when you need to conceal troop movements but the same heavy fog could be unfavourable when you need to see what you're doing. Exactly what happens would also depend on when and where it is happening, since for example heavy rains in India during the monsoon season would normal and at best an inconvenience, where heavy rains in a desert would trigger flash floods and probably be a major disaster for anyone who happened to have an army camped there at the time.

Feel free to now tear apart.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:25 pm

Actually I think that's pretty workable.

Slacker · Post by **Slacker** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:01 am

Works for me.

*looks at Polish tank designs for time period*
Surprisingly good, actually, especially given that I own Bofors.

Hadrianvs · Post by **Hadrianvs** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:08 am

My horde of BT-5, T-26, and T-28 tanks shall be a match for anything you can field

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:07 am

I'm having visions of tanks that have their origins as self propelled artillery rather than as the line breakers of WW1. I'm seeing tanks that are designed to move really big guns from place to place and provide some protection for the crew. I see them being big and slow and only really proof against rifle rounds, but you really don't want to be in front of them.

Also, does anyone know where to find some phoenetic translations of Farsi script? Because I can find English to Farsi translators, but they all give it in a different alphabet. I could just give the English equivalents, but that doesn't have the same snap to it. I'm really just looking for a few nouns with maybe some adjectives.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:09 am

You know I've tried to find translators and come up utterly try. I'm not sure why the guys who make these translators think that if I'm looking English to Farsi translations (suggesting I can't speak Farsi) that I would be able to read it.

Hadrianvs · Post by **Hadrianvs** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:09 am

Using an X to Y translator usually suggests to me that the person using it is fluent in Y, not in X. Most people aren't interested in translating words the meaning of which they already know.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:24 am

If I want to translate an English word to Farsi, that doesn't suggests I know Farsi. That suggests I know bloody English.

LibriumArcana.Games

STGOD rules thread

#76

#77

#78

#79

#80

#81

#82

#83

#84

#85

#86

#87

#88

#89

#90

#91

#92

#93

#94

#95

#96

#97

#98

#99

#100