Voting discussion

[Steve]

The older ships are not entirely useless y'know. The British 15"/42 Mark 1 was so good they installed it on HMS Vanguard, the last British BB ever built (WWII, completed in 1946). And they were initially installed on the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge/Royal Sovereign classes built in the 1910s.

[Steve]

1. No other aspect of the game's military suffers from this arbitrary limitation

Actually, who's to say Armies still don't use 1900-1915 era bolt action rifles and such? A reliable gun is a reliable gun, no matter when designed; just look at the history of the Colt 1911 or the Browning M2.

Also, there's a big difference between 40,000 ton floating castles of steel and a 20 or 30 ton tank, or a few ton aircraft made primarily of wood and canvas. Mostly because those last two things tend to break down and need replacement very quickly; most aircraft will only survive a year or so of active operation in this era before they crash in some way or otherwise require replacement. More than that, designs rapidly evolve, and they're cheap enough to produce that you can overhaul your army and air forces every few years with new units. Navies are Not Cheap and do not have the same replacement rate; at the same time, even older ships would still have use since you can only build so many of the new, bigger ships at a time without, y'know, driving yourself bankrupt (or running out of yard space). What's better, 12-15 1920+ dreadnoughts and/or fast battleships/battlecruisers or 8 of such, even 10, with another 12-16 or so built from 1910-1920 that are still useful (especially those built from 1916 on, more likely to be armed with 16" guns) and allow your fleet to cover more sea?

2. Any player with an ounce of sense will refuse to build these 1912 era ships ever again, meaning we'll only ever see them in the first handful of navel battles, where they will be sacrificed early to simply get rid of them.

A player who willingly throws away 200,000 tons of battleship is an idiot and deserves to get his navy thrashed.

3. It's an additional mechanic which has the sole purpose of maintaining realism, as opposed to, say, balancing the game, adding an interesting dynamic that makes the game more fun, etc.

An interesting dynamic like being able to maintain stronger overseas naval posts? Allowing one to either concentrate one massive fleet or to have numerous respectable forces spread across an overseas empire? Compared to having maybe 3 battle squadrons at most?

Now, if something were to add realism and didn't require an extra mechanic or stepping over other rules in order to do, or added something to the game that most people would enjoy, that would be one thing.

It doesn't add anything to the rules. Older ships just require to get a bit closer in order to penetrate belt. Note that even a non-penetrating shell hit will still hurt a ship. The armor will buckle, the force of the impact with rattle things. A direct hit on the superstructure or on secondary and anti-air guns will cause damage and casualties. Enough hits will mission-kill a ship.

However I think most people are not terribly interested in having half their navy gimped from the word go when they're spending just as many points there as everywhere else, if not more.

Since everybody would have some 1910-era ships there is no disparity. And frankly a 1916-1920 ship would mount 16" guns - in 1912 the 15"-armed Queen Elizabeth was laid. It's not like I'm asking people to field predreads or Dreadnaught.

All the mechanic encourages is spending as few points as possible on one's navy at game start (especially if one is not a major colonial power), and then just building up like crazy at game start, supported by an abnormally large air force and army. This is because whatever you spend on your navy at game start by your proposal is only really worth maybe 60-75% what you would spend as the game moves on. Heck, players would even be more encouraged to pump their industry as high as they can so they can more easily jump in.

And if anyone did that and I was mod, their new ships would suck ass. If anything not having much a navy and trying to start one is when one should be building lighter tonnage ships, since getting up to the proposed WNT-killed 40,000+tonners takes years, decades, of shipbuilding and design experience and the manufacturing base for it. Just like today; we could not build Montana or even another Iowa with our knowledge today simply because our ship design and building has changed so much and moved away from the battleship; it would have to start again at first principles.

And for the lulz, Stuart Slade's article on "Designing a Ship". Beware Admiralty officers bearing potato-baking forks!

[Hotfoot]

Actually, who's to say Armies still don't use 1900-1915 era bolt action rifles and such? A reliable gun is a reliable gun, no matter when designed; just look at the history of the Colt 1911 or the Browning M2.

At this point I'll invite you to stuff it. Again, this isn't Hearts of Iron with multiple nations running around with military units still running around at Great War levels, and we shouldn't force this concept down others throats. I'll also point out that as of right now, nobody has put forward an R&D rule or even how one might be sensibly handled. I'm rather on the fence about it because to include different levels of technology includes with it the implicit concept that technology will continue to advance, and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that in the first place.

Also, there's a big difference between 40,000 ton floating castles of steel and a 20 or 30 ton tank, or a few ton aircraft made primarily of wood and canvas. <snip obnoxious nonsense>

I really do not care to hear this anymore. I honestly do not give a crap about the realities of this situation. I have laid out my points and you REFUSE to acknowledge them.

A player who willingly throws away 200,000 tons of battleship is an idiot and deserves to get his navy thrashed.

You're a moron. In any given naval battle there will be losses. What do you offer up as your first losses, the top of the line stuff that will be good through the entire game, or some useless scrapheap that you've been stuck with because some jackass said you had to have it?

An interesting dynamic like being able to maintain stronger overseas naval posts? Allowing one to either concentrate one massive fleet or to have numerous respectable forces spread across an overseas empire? Compared to having maybe 3 battle squadrons at most?

Oh horseshit. This is you being a contrary asshole at its finest. You can do that without needing this second class battleship nonsense, it's called focusing on escorts and cruisers. You don't need a class of ship called "gimp battleship" to do this. Never mind that you were going on endlessly about how a handful of destroyers could be a threat to a battleship, but hey, why look at the whole picture at once when we can argue endlessly about little things here and there.

It doesn't add anything to the rules. Older ships just require to get a bit closer in order to penetrate belt. Note that even a non-penetrating shell hit will still hurt a ship. The armor will buckle, the force of the impact with rattle things. A direct hit on the superstructure or on secondary and anti-air guns will cause damage and casualties. Enough hits will mission-kill a ship.

It does! You're saying that we must randomly select a bunch of ships from the declared navies of players and make them shitty versions that are slower, less armored, and less armed than their modern versions. No point discounts, no option to not have to do it, just wham bam thank you ma'am.

Since everybody would have some 1910-era ships there is no disparity. And frankly a 1916-1920 ship would mount 16" guns - in 1912 the 15"-armed Queen Elizabeth was laid. It's not like I'm asking people to field predreads or Dreadnaught.

You seem to be under the impression that because it effects everyone equally (it doesn't), that it makes it okay (it doesn't). Keep this up and you'll kill the game so fast you'll think you were just singing "Deuschland uber alles" in Paris.

And if anyone did that and I was mod, their new ships would suck ass.

Glad you're not a mod then. Your ruling would suck ass

If anything not having much a navy and trying to start one is when one should be building lighter tonnage ships, since getting up to the proposed WNT-killed 40,000+tonners takes years, decades, of shipbuilding and design experience and the manufacturing base for it. Just like today; we could not build Montana or even another Iowa with our knowledge today simply because our ship design and building has changed so much and moved away from the battleship; it would have to start again at first principles.

And this is the part where nobody cares because in order to include such a dynamic you're going to have to come up with yet another set of overly complicated rules designed towards making it so your way to play the game is in fact the only way to play the game, despite most people not caring about your personal fascination with naval ships and technology.

And for the lulz, Stuart Slade's article on "Designing a Ship". Beware Admiralty officers bearing potato-baking forks!

Dude, you are the anti-lulz, please don't say that again.

[General Havoc]

I do not see how it is bullshit to offer people the option of including older ships in their fleet. Presuming that the point scales could be worked out to ensure that doing so was not in and of itself a tremendous advantage or disadvantage, it seems to me like it would simply offer more depth to people who have different visions of what they want to do with their navy.

I personally can think of half a dozen things I would want older battleships to do, things that packs of destroyers cannot effectively do. Supporting a landing, commerce raiding, acting as a fleet-in-being, guarding strategic naval positions while the main battlefleet is elsewhere. Why is it such horseshit for some people to go after such things?

[Steve]

At this point I'll invite you to stuff it. Again, this isn't Hearts of Iron with multiple nations running around with military units still running around at Great War levels, and we shouldn't force this concept down others throats. I'll also point out that as of right now, nobody has put forward an R&D rule or even how one might be sensibly handled. I'm rather on the fence about it because to include different levels of technology includes with it the implicit concept that technology will continue to advance, and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that in the first place.

It's entirely logical to allow general advancement of tech and government support in IP expenditure to reflect government-directed spending to improve such discoveries.

I really do not care to hear this anymore. I honestly do not give a crap about the realities of this situation. I have laid out my points and you REFUSE to acknowledge them.

Your point that it doesn't "improve the game" by having people adhere to some physical reality by at least recognizing they had older ships? And actually - I'll be honest, I should've thought of this but didn't - you don't even need to field old ships, just acknowledge they generally existed to provide your nation with the expertise and industrial plants needed to construct warships up to the new shiny battlewagons you're employing at game start.

Combined with Hadri's suggestion in the chat about simply making getting the older ships an option by having them as slightly cheaper than usual BBs in terms of the starting points for military forces, I withdraw the proposal for an imposed fleet of older vessels.

You're a moron. In any given naval battle there will be losses. What do you offer up as your first losses, the top of the line stuff that will be good through the entire game, or some useless scrapheap that you've been stuck with because some jackass said you had to have it?

If the two types are operating together there's no telling who the enemy will shoot at, and as I tried to point out even those "useless scrapheaps" can damage the other side's newer ships, even mission-kill them, if they get hits first. And as these are the days before radar-directed gunnery they have about as fair a chance of doing this as the other side does.

Finally, if I come to a battle with 16 battleships, 6-8 of them older, against your 10-12 new battleships, I'll probably at least 32 more heavy naval guns than you.

Oh horseshit. This is you being a contrary asshole at its finest. You can do that without needing this second class battleship nonsense, it's called focusing on escorts and cruisers. You don't need a class of ship called "gimp battleship" to do this. Never mind that you were going on endlessly about how a handful of destroyers could be a threat to a battleship, but hey, why look at the whole picture at once when we can argue endlessly about little things here and there.

Given battleships tend to have superior traveling range, more protection, and more firepower? A mixed fleet is better.

And Hav in the chat made me realize I did overstate the DD threat a bit. In more open sea spaces their torpedoes are less of a threat.

Point is, "second class battleships" are still useful in a fleet even if they're not up to the specs of a modern ship.

It does! You're saying that we must randomly select a bunch of ships from the declared navies of players and make them shitty versions that are slower, less armored, and less armed than their modern versions. No point discounts, no option to not have to do it, just wham bam thank you ma'am.

I never said no point discounts, and Hadri's solution does in fact make it optional and give discounts. And I endorse it.

You seem to be under the impression that because it effects everyone equally (it doesn't), that it makes it okay (it doesn't). Keep this up and you'll kill the game so fast you'll think you were just singing "Deuschland uber alles" in Paris.

I've withdrawn my idea for imposed fleet portions of older vessels, it should be optional (and point discounts on such make it appealing as a choice). As for killing the game, if anything kills it it'll be the delay in actually getting going.

Glad you're not a mod then. Your ruling would suck ass

Yeah, how dare I want to prevent people from techrushing and ignoring physical realities.

And this is the part where nobody cares because in order to include such a dynamic you're going to have to come up with yet another set of overly complicated rules designed towards making it so your way to play the game is in fact the only way to play the game, despite most people not caring about your personal fascination with naval ships and technology.

Responding on the point of my proposal to require older ships is pointless since I've retracted that. As for the rest, I do agree that we need to abstract naval ships. I seriously don't want to get into the question of the pros and cons of inclided belts and the realistic thicknesses of battleship belt armor either, and I'm a navy geek.

Simply have acquiring older vessel's for one's fleet be an option at a lower point cost compared to new vessels. New vessels being, arguably, ships less than 10 years in commission.

Dude, you are the anti-lulz, please don't say that again.

Whatever. It's a good, informative essay, and Stuart Slade is good at inserting humor into his essays and arguments as well so it's thoroughly enjoyable.

[Hadrianvs]

Okay I came up with a better idea regarding old capital ships. I discussed it in a chat, and Steve and General Havoc like it. Hotfoot seemed amenable to at first, but then he was all "fuck this", so I don't know about him.

Anyway, Hotfoot made a big deal about not forcing players into doing something if they don't want it. He's got a point there, so I thought, why not make it so that people can choose? I mean, historically navies had a term for their older battlewagons: "second line battleship". So, simply make it so that you can buy second line ships as part of your inicial OOBs to represent building done way in the past. This could be done with either a unique item in the buy list, or as a modifier that you apply to the item "battleship", or perhaps even any warship, which lowers its cost and effectiveness.

Provisionally I would say that the "old ship" modifier, or just the 2nd Line Battleship if only that is adopted, makes the warship cost half as much. This represents the fact that the industrial investment made to build these ships was made many years into the past. To prevent old ship swarms, it is not permitted to have more old ships of a certain type than new ships. This also reflects the fact that when the investment was made industrial resources were finite. Players can have a navy consisting entirely of brand spanking new designs, but they will have less ships per number of points expended.

The one thing I'm not sure about is how effective this 2nd line ships should be. Realistically it would be 2/3rds the effectiveness of a 1st liner, but from a gameplay perspective it would give players no reason to not have as many old ships as they can (there is a reason why real life navies kept the things around). So I guess that would run counter the "player choice" thing. I was thinking that having them be only half as effective as per their cost would be too weak for them to be worth it, but quantity also has a quality all of its own.

To summarize:

1) Add new ship class "2nd line battleship". Cost half (debatable) as much as a 1st line battleship, is [undetermined fraction] as effective. Cannot have more 2nd line than 1st line ships.

OR

2) Add a modifier "old ship" that makes any ship cost half (debatable) as much but be [undetermined fraction] as effective. Cannot have more old ships of a given class than normal ships.

[Hotfoot]

I love how when I make a suggestion days ago, it's useless, but when Hadri makes it, it's fine.

A+ sir, stay classy.

[Steve]

So I'm not allowed to change my mind? To be persuaded I was wrong? Because that's what happened. Though your insinuation that I put more stock in Hadri's arguments than your's is generally accurate, I'll admit, as we are friends. I plead guilty to that.

[Hotfoot]

So I'm not allowed to change my mind? To be persuaded I was wrong? Because that's what happened. Though your insinuation that I put more stock in Hadri's arguments than your's is generally accurate, I'll admit, as we are friends. I plead guilty to that.

Yeah, you pretty much burned that bridge already.

The "implication" was that you're calling it Hadri's idea when I told you the same thing days ago. Yes, Hadri did come up with it independently, but I do enjoy being treated as though I had at no point ever come up with it and offered it as a solution in an attempt to meet you halfway, as though I were some sort of unreasonable prick who was immune to compromise.

As I said, stay classy.

[Steve]

Honestly I'd forgotten you suggested that solution, given you were also busy insisting that ships from 1910-1920 were "useless scrapheaps" and I - and eventually others - were trying to convince you otherwise.

[Academia Nut]

Ahem. Gentlemen (and possibly ladies, but I'm fairly sure we're all guys here). Not to sound too confrontational, but if you look at the first post of the original thread, it was posted on October 24. This endless squabbling over the rules has sucked up six weeks when the original intent was to make the rules as simple as possible such that we could all get going as quickly as possible. Like creepers of kudzu this discussion has ensnared us while we weren't looking and threatens to kill the game before it has even really begun! I have taken out library books and had to return them because they were due in the time since I was invited in here, and I was invited later on! We've already lost, what, three players? We need to put an end to this.

I say we get out some simple and fair rules now and then we can start filling in details either with fluff or mod abjucation later, when they come up. We're probably going to spend the first couple of in-game months positioning ourselves to stab each other in the back anyway. So long as we have a rough idea that 'Player A has a great navy, Player B will fuck you up on the ground, etc.' so that people can't cheat later via using Shroedinger's OOB to whip out exactly what they need, we can actually get playing instead of sitting with our thumbs up our asses watching people bicker about the rules, with tempers flaring and the probability of a drama explosion killing the game growing by the day.

Now, I'm against going off half-cocked without the rules formed, but seriously, six weeks? Come on people, can't we agree to a basic framework so we can finish our OOBs and then start scheming?

[Steve]

I've said that before, and got told that such was the "problem" with these games and people need to put the rules in cast-iron form first.

I am already playing a game like this, and modding it, on the SDN forums (in fact the initial ruleset came from that game's early proposed rules) and I ended up basically having to declare "game starts on this date, any rules not settled by then will be fixed as we play" to prevent unending rules debating.

Frig, I know you want a democratic discussion to settle the rules, but perhaps it is time to simply declare a start date - say next Saturday or next Sunday - and that any issues not settled by then will be settled by you?

[Hotfoot]

Honestly I'd forgotten you suggested that solution, given you were also busy insisting that ships from 1910-1920 were "useless scrapheaps" and I - and eventually others - were trying to convince you otherwise.

Ah yes, so easy to forget after I brought it up numerous times in our discussions and in the chat, and how unreasonable that a ship that is absolutely worse in every way be deemed still "useful" be called bull, and then justified in its existence by, and I love this, being so cheap that you can justify fielding over thirty times as many of them as the newer models.

I sicken of this discussion and the tactics being used. Are you sure you were never a politician?

And as far as the rules, what needed to happen is that a rules set should have been created well before announcing a game. It's this very same attitude that kills most STGODs, either quickly or slowly, as the "unfinished rules" often become the levers that tear the game apart. Now, I have a rough draft of a rules set here that I am in the middle of editing, and aside from some minor editing here and there, a few numbers being shored up, it's about ready for prime time. The only two issues I have not decided yet are:

1. Should there be R&D? I know it's often a popular choice to have R&D, but it's usually complicated and often leads to other issues. If we say yes, then I'll throw it in, but otherwise.
2. Should there be an espionage mechanic? Given the time period, espionage is going to be very important, as I've pointed out before, but the tricky part is putting in something that's simple but still can work. Obviously, even with an espionage mechanic, coded messages should still take months to decode under normal circumstances.

Keep in mind I am not asking for suggestions of how to do either. I have that idea already.

[frigidmagi]

Are you sure you want that Steve? Because if I rule, we're pretty much going with Hotfoot's plan. On the flip side AcNut is right. So tell you what. Hotfoot, post your suggestion. If the players say yes, we're running with that. Since Silence is claiming he needs til Thursday, I'm looking at starting the game the Monday after (look I work on the weekends).

Any questions?

[Cynical Cat]

R&D should, I think, mostly be just background material. New technology takes years to develop and then field. If we last longer than a world war, yes the tech base will move up but having us spend points and affect units is just going to create a situation where we start doing the math to find the optimum spread and get the most bang for our buck. Realistically, every major power is going to have a substantial R&D department, but wonder weapons is quantity (as opposed to a small number of cool toys which won't change the outcome, yes I'm looking at you Nazi Germany) takes a lot of time.

[Steve]

Honestly I'd forgotten you suggested that solution, given you were also busy insisting that ships from 1910-1920 were "useless scrapheaps" and I - and eventually others - were trying to convince you otherwise.

Ah yes, so easy to forget after I brought it up numerous times in our discussions and in the chat, and how unreasonable that a ship that is absolutely worse in every way be deemed still "useful" be called bull, and then justified in its existence by, and I love this, being so cheap that you can justify fielding over thirty times as many of them as the newer models.

I sicken of this discussion and the tactics being used. Are you sure you were never a politician?

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about when it comes to the Navy, and it's rich that you're complaining about how I've forgotten your recommendations and my "tactics" when you reacted to others agreeing with me on the usefulness of older ships by pulling a ragequit in last night's chat after comparing the concept of having older ships required to reflect physical reality to forcing players to still use 19th Century muzzle-loading guns!

And really? "Being so cheap that you can justify fielding over thirty times as many"? When the most generous cost being floated was 50%, thus two old ships for the price of a new one, and 75% seeming to be preferred, thus three old for 2 new? Really?

As for your rules, they look good save for the lack of allowing older ships at 50-75% cost.

[Steve]

Are you sure you want that Steve? Because if I rule, we're pretty much going with Hotfoot's plan. On the flip side AcNut is right. So tell you what. Hotfoot, post your suggestion. If the players say yes, we're running with that. Since Silence is claiming he needs til Thursday, I'm looking at starting the game the Monday after (look I work on the weekends).

Any questions?

I have few problems with his ruleset really, I just want to have fun in the game and not have to debate armor schemes and penetration capabilities and immunity zones like is happening on SDN, but frankly I'm getting tired of his attitude. I have retracted the idea of requiring older ships in the fleet, I admitted my error in not giving him credit for the option of older ships, and he's still acting like I ran over his dog.

[frigidmagi]

Okay no more personal comments guys. I'll throw any post that makes them into Down Below.

Hotfoot we're going with your navy system. Post it again for me so I can copy and paste it on the front page. If you still want post the rest of your idea. We'll discuss it and if I don't hear any massive screaming by 10pm tomorrow (assuming you post it in the next hour) We'll run with that system and that will be the end of it.

[Hotfoot]

I posted a link to my draft already, but I'll clean the naval section shortly and post it.

Edit: And here it is. Note that since I didn't get a reply from my last PM, Frigid, I have not done much on the sections we talked about.

-Navy (Escorts may have one upgrade, Cruisers may have two, Battleships may have three, Submarines cannot have any upgrades, a positive upgrade makes the effective increase one step better, and a negative attribute makes it one step worse. No single attribute can be lowered more than twice through upgrades. Battleships can opt to have no penalties for their upgrades, but pay double cost)

Escort: 20pt (Speed: High, Armor: Low, Attack: Low)
Cruiser: 50pt (Speed: Medium, Armor: Medium, Attack: Medium)
Battleship: 120pt (Speed: Low, Armor: High, Attack: High)
Submarines: 30pt (Speed: Medium, Armor: Low, Attack: Medium, Can only be attacked with +sub attack options and other submarines)

Carrier versions of each hull (save submarines) can be opted for instead, with carriers able to carry 24, 48, and 96 fighters depending on size. Carriers have very low attack and very low armor. Wings are purchased separately.

Upgrades:
Scout Vessel 5pt (+speed, -armor or weapons)
Anti-Air 5pt (+AA function)
Anti-Sub 10pt (+Sonar, -Attack vs. surface and air, +attack vs. submerged vessels)
Anti-Capital 15pt (+weapons, -speed or armor)
Reinforced Bulkheads 10pt (+armor, -speed or weapons)

Carrier Wings (Cannot use upgrade options from Air Force):
Interceptor (12 Fighters) (5pt)
Torpedo Bombers (12 Fighters) (10pt)
Escort/Recon (12 Fighters) (7pt)

[Steve]

How will the costs work? Is it a one time thing? As in pay 120 or 240 for a battleship in a quarter/turn and that's it?

[General Havoc]

My one suggestion is that I don't believe Escort (meaning Destroyer)-size hulls should be carrier-convertible. I'd restrict it to Cruiser and Battleship hulls only.

[frigidmagi]

Having looked it up the smallest Escort Carrier I can find was the size of a light cruiser. So we'll go from cruiser to cap ship.

[Hadrianvs]

EDIT - Moved suggestions to other thread, seemed more appropriate

A copy of the naval part shall remain here, however:

Navy:

Submarines have slow speed. In fact, they have the slowest speed. They would be ridiculously dangerous if they could actually chase down a cruiser or battleship. They can't, instead they lay in ambush. They can also covertly lay mines (using a mine rack bolted to the hull, so don't expect to multi-task).

Need an "old ship" modifier, as I suggested earlier.

Naval fighter-bombers should come in "dive" and "torpedo" variants. For best results, use both types on the same target.

What's an "escort/recon" aeroplane? I don't remember any navy fielding anything like that as part of their CAG. They had multi-role fighters, dive fighter-bombers, and torpedo fighter-bombers. That's it.