STGOD?

[Screwball]

Army AND Air Focus of Five?

I think this should indicate to what extent colonies need to be reworked. Taking colonies seems to more or less guarantee that you cannot compete with countries that do not.

Well, I can change it if you need me to. Not really China without a big army focus, though, and I want to be able to make lots of plane noises. :sad:

[frigidmagi]

Screwball to have an industry of 4 you need a combined score of 12 in population, economics, colonial turf and infrastructure. Your score is a 4+3+0+3= 10. You can have a industry of 3 but not 4.

[Screwball]

Ah, so it's just colonial territory that counts, then, not home territory? Sorry, that's not terribly clear. I'll change things.

[Steve]

I did propose that the player be allowed to pick either Home or Colonial Territory for their Industrial prerequisite score.

[Slacker]

I'm still not exactly clear why we need to differentiate colonial and home territory myself, couldn't that sort of thing just be lumped together?

[frigidmagi]

It encourages people to actually have colonies?

[Steve]

Yeah, I agree with making the two different. I just think that either territory score (but not both!) should be applied to industrial point totals.

[General Havoc]

No, I don't think Colony score should apply to it. It can generally be assumed that your colonies are not going to be better industrialized than your homeland after all.

[Steve]

Currently colonies are the only thing that apply territory wise, and it was meant to reflect access to more natural resources instead of holding industrialized territories. Also Thanas did it, I think, to encourage people to get colonies, as on SDNW3 at the time a lot of people were ignoring such, and thus it carried over here from when Frig picked up our country generation list as template for his proposal here.

[rhoenix]

This might be an elementary couple of questions, but what is meant to be the significant differences in land holdings between "territory" and "colonies?"

What are the limitations on "colonies" that "territories" do not have? How does one convert a "colony" into regular "territory?"

At this point, it almost seems to me like a distinction that doesn't add much to gameplay while adding unnecesarily to complexity.

[Slacker]

Which is my point, better articulated.

[frigidmagi]

Your home Territory is excalty that. Your Home Territory. In your case, Mexico. The people there generally think of themselves as part of your nation and as citizens. If I seriously have to explain this any farther I'm gonna start clubbing people.

A colony is a place that can't be said to be part of, for example Louisiana. Be it either a conquered nation or a settled area separate from the home lands. Basically the people there do not have a voice in the central government, their foreign policy and development is not dictated via local rule but by imperial decision. Or by local rulers appointed by imperial decision. In other words Sweepy, Mexico is your Home Territory. You could argue that Central America is part of that. Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas are definitely colonies.

Converting a colony to a territory is outside the scope of this game.

[Steve]

Colonies are meant to be overseas possessions I believe. Like my Pacifica holding Australia, Hawaii, and New Zealand.

I'd love to claim Alaska, Yukon, and the NWT as colonies mind you, but Zeke said something about smacking me with a club if I tried.

EDIT: Well fuck, I just got contradicted.

[frigidmagi]

Historically speaking colonies were mostly overseas possessions at this point and time. But that's not always true of a colony. There was a time Spain was running parts of Italy and all of Holland. They were certainly colonies but on the same land mass. To get closer to home, the western territories of the US were colonies in many cases until they became states, part of becoming a state was demonstrating you were ready for self rule.

[rhoenix]

Your home Territory is exactly that. Your Home Territory. In your case, Mexico. The people there generally think of themselves as part of your nation and as citizens. If I seriously have to explain this any farther I'm gonna start clubbing people.

A colony is a place that can't be said to be part of, for example Louisiana. Be it either a conquered nation or a settled area separate from the home lands. Basically the people there do not have a voice in the central government, their foreign policy and development is not dictated via local rule but by imperial decision. Or by local rulers appointed by imperial decision. In other words Sweepy, Mexico is your Home Territory. You could argue that Central America is part of that. Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas are definitely colonies.

That makes more sense now. Thanks.

Converting a colony to a territory is outside the scope of this game.

Ok, that definitely changes perceptions a bit. Thanks again.

[Hadrianvs]

I have created a draft version of the mighty Qing Empire:

Qing China

You can play Qing China if you want, but something like a Chinese Republic or whatever might work better in this world. A successful Taiping Rebellion would very likely have brought down the Qing Dynasty down entirely. Besides, do you really want your entire population to wear the same hairstyle?

Army AND Air Focus of Five?

I think this should indicate to what extent colonies need to be reworked. Taking colonies seems to more or less guarantee that you cannot compete with countries that do not.

He's did his points wrong. Here's a corrected version:

Screwball's China (ammended)

Population: 5

Territory: 3

Industry: 3

Economy: 3

Infrastructure: 3

Standing Military Limit: 3

Naval Focus: 2

Army Focus: 4

Air Focus: 5 (4+1)

[frigidmagi]

Army AND Air Focus of Five?

I think this should indicate to what extent colonies need to be reworked. Taking colonies seems to more or less guarantee that you cannot compete with countries that do not.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. It's his Standing Military Limit that will dicate the overall size of his military. At SML 3 he has 700 pts. That means bluntly he cannot spend more then 700 pts total on his military altogether.

What the focus does is provide an service specific ceiling. For example someone with SML 3 (700pts) and Army focus 5 can spend up to 350 pts on the army. Having focus 5 in two services does not give him extra points. When we add up the whole expenditure of pts from all 3 services they still have to add up to 700. Just like You and Your Military.

[Angelod]

I would like to play. I would like to claim, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

[Hadrianvs]

Looks like Lonestar now has someone to tangle with!

[General Havoc]

Just more basic background stuff for the Roman Empire. Do not feel it necessary to pay it much if any mind.

Organization of the Roman Army

Rome's land forces employ formations that, in many cases, have no cognate whatsoever in the standard military formations of the rest of Europe. This is in part due to the uniquely Roman obsession with associating modern formations and behaviors with appropriately antique anticedants, but also a reflection on the Roman mindset towards the waging of war. The Roman army is simply not structured in the same manner as other armies, a general trend being fewer 'levels' of unit size, and a much more granular distribution of fighting force within a given unit. While most modern military units are themselves divided into three or four sub-units (regiment to battalion, battalion to company, and so on), Roman military units are not infrequently divided into eight or even ten sub-units directly, with no intervening level of official unit organization. The result of this is that certain levels of unit organization common to many armies (such as the brigade or platoon) simply do not exist within the Roman army, and others exist only in highly modified forms, employed for purposes other than those of their cognates.

This confusion also extends to the Roman system of military ranks. The absolute distinction between enlisted and commissioned officer, so common to most modern armies, while still present in the Roman army, is highly modified. Commands that in other armies would be naturally given only to commissioned officers are in Rome's case allocated to soldiers of equally high rank, pay, and privilege, but who remain, nonetheless non-commissioned officers. This is partly due to the modern history of the Roman army, which was derived, almost uniquely among modern nations, not from feudal ancestry, where the "Captains" of a company would be expected to be nobility, but from ad-hoc formations of heavy infantry grouped under commanders who might well be nobles, but whose sole 'commissions' consisted of writs of mark from the Senate or King, and whose success or failure alone determined their right to future office within the military structure.

Military theorists have spilled rivers of ink debating the benefits and drawbacks of this uniquely Roman style of warfare. This is not the place to re-hash such debates, save to make a few observations. On a tactical level, Roman units tend to be smaller in size but larger in number than the enemy formations they are called upon to oppose. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this state of affairs, as gains in mobility and maneuver are often offset by losses in raw firepower and mass. Skillful enemy commanders have, in the past, exploited the weaknesses of this Roman style of tactical grouping to inflict heavy defeats-in-detail on exposed or scattered Roman troops, turning on each sub-unit in turn and destroying them. On the other hand, well-trained Roman commanders often employ the tactical flexibility of the Roman army to contrive to crush considerably larger formations of enemy troops, hamstrung by a more rigid organizational scheme.

At the strategic level, the situation is entirely reversed. Roman strategic units are enormous, all-arms units designed to be capable of waging any particular campaign or operation they are confronted with. Yet even here, the capacity of most Roman formations to break down into as many as a dozen different sub-formations with no loss of administrative or logistical organization has permitted the Roman Army to win some of their most brilliant victories throughout history. It has also, conversely, led directly to some of the worst defeats in the history of the Empire. Whether an albatross around the neck of the Roman Empire, or the sole factor behind the rise of the New Rome, the Roman army's composition is one that it would be wise for any commander to bear in mind who intends to share the battlefield, whether as ally or adversary, with the Legions of Rome.

Decade: Also called the Contubernium, the Decade is the smallest unit in the Roman army, comprised of ten soldiers organized along the lines of a "Squad" in other armies. Commanded by a Decanus (roughly equivalent to a corporal or sergeant), the Decade has been the subject of much literary hagiography within (and without) the Roman Empire, tied metaphorically with notions of "combat brotherhood" and "comradeship" (depending on the political bent of the author). Regardless of this tendancy, the Decade functions like most any other base-level formation in most modern armies, a surrogate war-band whose members are expected to live and fight together and come to know one another intimately through privation and combat.

Century: Centuries have no exact cognate within other militaries, the closest approximation being the "Company". Comprised originally of ten Decades for a total of 100 men, the reforms of Buonapartus Magnus Restuditor reduced it to 80 men in eight decades. Centuries are commanded (as might be expected) by a Centurion, generally assisted by an Optio (often more than one) and usually one Tribunus Angusticlavius, the approximate equivalents in modern armies being Captains, Lieutenants, and Warrant Officers. The comparison however is misleading. Centurions and Optiones are senior enlisted soliders, non-commissioned, who nonetheless are responsible for the command of the Century in question. Tribuni Angusticlavii are commissioned officers, generally freshly graduated, who are apprenticed to the assistance of the senior Centurions pending promotion to more senior Tribunates or other officer ranks within the Roman Army. Despite their commission, Angusticlavii do not command the Century, though they are customarily assigned to command groups of Decades on special operations as part of their training process, and on rare occasions, Angusticlavii have taken command of Centuries whose Centurions and Optiones have all been killed or wounded.

Centurions and Optiones themselves, despite their lack of commission, are highly experienced, career soldiers, often with dozens of campaigns under their belts, and are widely considered to form the backbone of the Roman army. Centurions not only command most Roman soldiers in battle on a tactical level, but are in many ways responsible for the training and grooming of the entire Roman officer corps. While it is uncommon for a Centurion to achieve a commission, highly decorated Centurions are often able to leverage their military decorations and experience into political careers within the Roman state or their home province.

Maniple: The 400-strong Maniple is the Roman equivalent to a battalion. Comprised of five Centuries, Maniples are simultaneously the largest tactical unit in the Roman army, and the smallest unit deployed independently, generally by elite or ceremonial formations. Maniples are commanded by a Military Tribune or Tribunus Militarius, also called Tribunes Laticlavii for the broad-striped uniforms they wear. Traditionally the Militarius selects the most senior or highly experienced Centurion from the Centuries in his Maniple to serve as Primus Pilus, or "First File" Centurion, a sort of official adviser to the commissioned commander of the Maniple. In a traditional Roman Infantry Maniple, one of the five Centuries will be a Centuria Armata, a "weapons century" containing artillery, anti-tank, and anti-aircraft weaponry more powerful than those organic to each infantry century.

Cohort: The primary operational unit of the Roman Army, Cohorts serve for Rome what Regiments and Brigades serve for most other Nations. Cohorts comprise eight Maniples, for a total of 3200 men on paper. Commanded by a Praefectus Praetorium (a term usually translated as 'colonel', but which is more accurately rendered as 'commander'), Cohorts serve many different purposes within the Roman army, depending on the type of cohort in question. Heavy Infantry cohorts (by far the majority), are lavishly equipped operational frontline combat units, capable of conducting independent operations for set-piece engagements, garrison roles, siege (or countersiege) maneuvers, or field operations of many different sorts. In addition to these, a wide variety of specialized cohorts exist, each with their own configurations of special units, troops, or weapons. Cohortes Marinae serve as elite storm troops or beachhead assault forces, while Cohortes Ferratae (armour) Architectiae (engineers) or Tormentae (artillery) are commonly employed in support of regular infantry cohorts. While the majority of Roman Cohorts are employed within larger formations, all cohorts carry their own integral logistical and transportation formations, and can detach for independent operations at the whim of their commanders.

Legion: Like its antique forebear, the Roman Legion has no cognate within any other military. Assembled from ten Cohorts, plus additional Maniples of support and specialty troops, a Legion stands, on paper, at roughly 35,000 fighting men, more than three times the size of the European Divisions with which it is often compared. A more accurate comparison would be with the Corps, save that unlike a Corps, a Legion is not a temporary formation cobbled together for a specified purpose, but rather the primary strategic-level unit of the Roman Army. While their size and composition vary in practice, Legions are designed to be permanent formations, embodying in a very real sense the old divisional ideal of a self-contained army, equipped with all of the specialty troops and formations necessary to carry out its own campaign. While Legions will often detach subsidiary units for secondary operations or to lend support to another Legion, they are considered permanent and storied formations, with lengthy unit histories, group personalities, and quirks. Individually numbered and titled, many Legions have regional flavors to them, such as the famous X "Turcii" Legion (commonly nicknamed the "Turcian Tenth" in English), or the VII Legion "Furia Aragoniae". Any Roman soldier, from the lowliest legionary up to the commanding Legatus Legionis or 'Legate', is expected to identify quite strongly with their individual legion, both during and after their active years. It is sufficient for a Roman Soldier to identify themselves by a numeral ("I was a Fourteenth") or Legionary Nickname ("I am a Rapax") for any other soldier, and indeed for most other Romans, to know whence he came, and by extension, what campaigns he most likely saw.

(Excerpted from "The Roman Army in the Modern Age", Charles Oman, London, Methuan & Co. Publishing, 1928)

[Charon]

This has intrigued me and I will be trying desperately to play catch up by reading everything. But for now I'm just throwing my hat into the game. Possibly.

Has anyone taken the Ottoman Empire area yet? (If not, I'm sure Russia and Hungary are gonna be great friends of mine, as well as apparently the Romans...)

[General Havoc]

Sorry Charon, I'm afraid I run much of what was the Ottoman Empire. You can see the map I posted up earlier in the thread for details.

[Steve]

This has intrigued me and I will be trying desperately to play catch up by reading everything. But for now I'm just throwing my hat into the game. Possibly.

Has anyone taken the Ottoman Empire area yet? (If not, I'm sure Russia and Hungary are gonna be great friends of mine, as well as apparently the Romans...)

Yeah, there's not a lot of prime real-estate left unless we don't get our proposed British player going.

Could always play a super-Ethiopia that also industrialized, maybe? One that rules the entire Horn as well as Kenya, maybe bits of Sudan, Uganda, Tanganyika, etc.?

[Charon]

Hmmm...

Ethiopian Empire or Zulu Empire...

*Watches as Hotfoot says I should go Zulu and CT says I should go Ethiopian.*

[Slacker]

I'd go Ethiopia, as the British will probably grab South Africa...especially given the way most of the rest of the British Empire's been carved up.