STGOD rules thread

[frigidmagi]

I'll do a chart tonight for you.

[rhoenix]

I'll do a chart tonight for you.

Cool, thank you.

Additionally, I asked my second question in the hopes that those build times would always be considered static, as that would greatly simplify gameplay. If there is a system proposal to alter build times because of various factors, I will likely vote against it unless it can be demonstrably proven to simplify gameplay.

[frigidmagi]

Well the build times will show the minimum required time with no exceptions. If you want to take longer, I won't stop you. If you need more faster, that's what reserves are for.

[rhoenix]

Well the build times will show the minimum required time with no exceptions. If you want to take longer, I won't stop you. If you need more faster, that's what reserves are for.

That works for me.

[Hotfoot]

Of course there's a way to attack other nations economically without a trade mechanic. Blockading ports, sinking ships, capturing territory, cutting off land routes, etcetera all works just fine without a trade stat. We have negotiation and a GM to manage that just like every other aspect of war. Even with a number of major powers being the enemy, that just still leaves the other half of the planet.

We don't need it. It's an unnecessary complication.

yes, give the gm more to do. More to the point, those are all large scale operations. Is every battle to be a blob fight? Is there to be no purpose at all for light infantry ir submarines whatsoever? Moreover, how do we measure any of this objectively? There are many things unresolved here, and this is a pretty damn simple mechanic to handle it.

[frigidmagi]

Okay deep breaths. Both of you have given good reasons for your stance now back to your corners. I would like to hear the opinions of the others.

[Cynical Cat]

It's not fucking hard to say "x numbers of submarines and y points of cavalry will be raiding". You system gives free econ points and the effects of raiding still have to resolved by the GM (your subs versus my convoys and destroyers et al.) so it doesn't make anything simpler.

[Steve]

Meanwhile, one of the primary uses of submarines (and thusly one of the biggest reasons to include them in the game) was not for pitched naval battles, for which they objectively are not worth much, but rather for disrupting trade lanes and forcing smaller naval conflicts between submarines and convoy escorts.

Mechanically, there's no reason to do this because there's no way to attack economy without some sort of trade mechanic.

If I may, Economy itself would imply a certain level of merchant marine for connectivity to the global economy. One can easily simply compare one's investment in submarine warfare versus the other guy's escorts and ASW to determine if any damage to the Economy should take place, or more appropriately, if the player suffering the campaign has to devote industry to building replacement ships to meet the losses to the subs.

That said, the pendulum is going to keep swinging toward the ASW side until technology permits the first true submarines - which don't need to surface for air circulation or to use their main engines - to come into play. Then the subs are again the big threat.

Additionally, without a specific trade mechanic, there's no reason to enter into trade agreements with other nations. Trade is meaningless and there's no reason to enter negotiations with anyone else outside of pure military support.

Does anyone want to delve into that level of detail?

As far as the arguments for a globalized economy, that's bull, pure and simple. Battle lines have been drawn, several nations are likely still isolationist in nature, or just coming out of such a phase, the idea that everyone's happily trading with everyone is just silly. More to the point, what happens when a massive war breaks out and the global economy falls to pieces? There's nothing to mechanically handle such an event. Such short-sightedness can really sneak up on the game and kick it square in the jimmy.

Yeah, our Europe looks more divided, though both sides arguably trade with the rest of the world, so we'd probably have a semi-globalized economy.

Though keep in mind that before WWI, future enemies did heavily trade with each other anyway. France bought refined chemicals for explosives from Germany; Germany was Britain's leading customer on the Continent; Russia bought machinery materials from both Germany and Austro-Hungary.

The reserves system is essentially a limit to how much you can expand your military forces. Note that with Air Force and Industry, since you can expand those values, you can get a modest expansion in your reserves value. The only sticking point is population, since we can't realistically increase population in the scope of this game.

Hrm, population growth would be about what, 1-2% per annum?

It should be noted, though, that there's a difference between potential manpower pool and reserve pool. The former is what you can take population wise from your country for military service; the latter consists of the inactive but trained forces that would be called up on mobilization.

The limit is supposed to represent how easily you can expand your forces, period. Once you go past that limit, you run into difficulties, however you want to describe them. Draft-dodgers, protests, work shutdowns, or just plain running out of materials to make their weapons with and so forth. For Air Force and Navy, well, for Air Force, planes of the time were commonly built by the same companies that made automobiles and other such things, and heavy industry is the only aspect that can put together the massive ships of the day.

Commonly in some countries, not in others. Some countries had enough of a domestic aircraft industry that their companies - Curtiss-Wright, Boeing, Société Pour L'Aviation et ses Dérivés aka SPAD, Sopwith, Fokker, Nieuport, etc. - were pure aircraft manufacturers and not former or current motor vehicle manufacturers (the one exception in that list is Nieuport, which started as an aircraft engine manufacturer). Automobile companies just had a good ability to license-manufacture aircraft when necessary for the war effort.

That said, Infrastructure still works for Air Force capacity because it relates to the amount of airfields the country's road and rail network can maintain.

For the Navy, however, Economy can matter just as much as Industry; it provides the necessary finances for building the ships and the merchant marine that an economy can fuel provide the raw trained manpower and national interest in the sea to enable a Navy to get manpower when necessary.

As far as the time it takes to build units, I didn't put that in yet, but given that only Industry 4 and 5 nations could even hope to build a 120 point battleship in one quarter base, and that's with ignoring all other production period, it seemed less than urgent to force multiple season production values. However, if you want to force people to spend at least one year making battleships, we can institute a hard limit of 30 points per season on any project. This makes bombers and zeppelins have turnarounds of 6 months, while most other things can be made in 3 months. The downside is that it means it will take years to increase infrastructure and industry, unless we make those work on a different scale.

I was mostly wondering how our IPs would be used. You seem to imply they'd be a currency; you spend 15 points in a turn (quarter?) for a new Guard division, and that's it; next turn you have a fresh new quota of points to spend as desired.

[Hotfoot]

The other issue is that without the trade mechanic, I'm really at a loss to handle colonies other than as forward military bases, or going back to a bonus system that makes colonies into free points (bad). A sideways mechanic was needed, and this option had the benefit of giving submarine warfare a much more prominent role, while allowing for increasing industry during wartime at varying levels depending on how well you could maintain your trade agreements.

As for subs being a big threat, they really weren't, at least not in pitched naval battles. Finding ships alone or in small groups, sure, but aside from that...

[Steve]

I'm going to step in and say it takes two build sessions (read 8 game months or 4 weeks real life) to build even a rifle division in game. There isn't gonna be a vote on this.

Simply put even infantry divisions don't appear out of thin air in 2 to 4 months. It requires time to get the officers, NCOs, equipment and lodgings for them, as well as taking several months to train the new troops (let me put it this way, Marine Boot Camp? 3 months. Marine School of Infantry? 2 Months. For non-infantry MOS you'll spend a similar time, combat engineer school was about 2.5 months). So to create a new Marine Division assuming the base, equipment, NCO's and Officers magically appeared from thin air, you would still need 5 to 6 months.

Because of this I am ruling the need for two build sessions before you can deploy a new infantry unit, now you don't need to pay for anything all up front. You can pay some of the cost in the 1st build session and the rest on the 2nd, or strech it out to 3 or 4 build sessions if you want.

Battleships will take longer. I'm thinking 4 build sessions (that is to say a year and 4 months in game, 8 weeks in real life).

I wasn't talking about the time to get a new unit, but rather if the cost remained for the duration of the unit's raising or if it's a one time cost. As in during Turn 1 you buy a rifle division's cost, then Turn 3 that unit is done, but there was no further cost in Turn 2.

[frigidmagi]

You can pay for it up front or split the cost. However when your build time comes (every 4 months game time, or 2 wks real time) you do have to detail what you're building.

[Steve]

The other issue is that without the trade mechanic, I'm really at a loss to handle colonies other than as forward military bases, or going back to a bonus system that makes colonies into free points (bad). A sideways mechanic was needed, and this option had the benefit of giving submarine warfare a much more prominent role, while allowing for increasing industry during wartime at varying levels depending on how well you could maintain your trade agreements.

As for subs being a big threat, they really weren't, at least not in pitched naval battles. Finding ships alone or in small groups, sure, but aside from that...

Well, I meant even to shipping. Convoying, Sonar aka ASDIC, the sheer lack of speed submerged for subs before they were able to use their main engines while submerged, subs made far more of a splash than real effect in WWII, save maybe in the Pacific, and that's because Japan sucked at ASW hardcore. WWI was really the one time when they had been a grave threat, and convoying helped to reduce that.

Colonies are logically places to provide further population and access to resources (agricultural bounty, particularly of the exotic kind, mineral resources, etc.). In the theory of the age they also provided a natural market for the finished industrial goods of the mother country.

[Hotfoot]

By the way, Frigid, I was thinking: Why 4 months? 3 months plays nicely with seasons, and is basically 6 "turns" of the two week sort. This is a minor thing as it works fine either way, I was just thinking about.

And Steve, I agree, but there's no in-game mechanic for it, and for this system, if there's no mechanic for it, it should be removed for the sake of simplicity, you know what I mean?

[Steve]

In game mechanic for what? Access to resources or market system? Because I consider them both logical parts of "Economy".

[Hotfoot]

Then why have a point value for colonies? Just roll it into economy and be done with it.

[frigidmagi]

By the way, Frigid, I was thinking: Why 4 months? 3 months plays nicely with seasons, and is basically 6 "turns" of the two week sort. This is a minor thing as it works fine either way, I was just thinking about.

Because I'm doing 1wk=2mth. It's difficult to do a 3 month segment with that timescale.

[Hotfoot]

Ah, I thought it was 2 weeks, but okay.

[frigidmagi]

A quick chart of the minimum build time for each unit.

Unit Real Time Game Time
Infantry 4 weeks 8 months
Guard Infantry 4 weeks 8 months
Mounted Infantry 4 weeks 8 months
Cavalry 4 weeks 8 months
Motorized Infantry 4 weeks 8 months
Light Armor 6 weeks 1 year
Heavy Armor 6 weeks 1 year

Fighter Group 4 weeks 8 months
Bomber Group 6 weeks 1 year
Zeppelin Group 6 weeks 1 year

escorts 4 weeks 8 months
cruisers 6 weeks 1 year
Battleship 8 weeks 16 months
subs 4 weeks 8 months

Upgrades add to the cost but not the time spent to build.

As you can see build times are a bit long. Now with tech advances you can shave some time off, some.

[Steve]

Honestly, the naval build times are about a half to a third the realistic figures. A battleship would normally take 3 years minimum at peacetime, some capital vessels took as long as 5 to get from laying to commissioning, though there was sometimes special circumstances (intentional slowness to help pay for the ship, for instance, or to keep the shipyard in work while the Navy tried to procure a new successor class).

[Hadrianvs]

Okay, I already said I have no love for the new system. In fact I hate the hell out of it. If it were up to me we would have finished refining the original one, which was finally coming together, and got on with the game. However, it looks like the wind blowing in Hotfoot's favour, given that I'm the only one to strongly speak up against it. So I'll just ask for a few things:

1) Quantification, the old buy system told you how many men each unit had. This is very important to be able to visualize military operations. If not I might as well go play chess.

2) How many times do I have to say that there is no such thing as mounted infantry after the late 19th century? Cavalry is dragoons and dragoons is cavalry. There should be only one mounted unit.

3) Armour should be an attachment given to other units. You do not field large masses of tanks indepedently except to exploit a breakthrough, in which case the relevant divisions simply send their tanks forward. Or, if they have good combined arms doctrine, the tanks are attached to one or two motorized units and the whole formation moves forward. In a pitched battle a tank formation without infantry support will get murdered by various flavours of anti-tank.

4) Where's the AAA? How am I supposed to defend my cities from bomber attacks?

5) Other niggles, I think I'd better just draw up my own list:


-Army

Independent units, can have one attachment:

Infantry Division [5pt] (10 000 fighting men)
Elite Infantry Division [15pt] (10 000 fighting men)
Cavalry Division [10pt] (5000 fighting men)
Motorized Infantry Division [15pt] (5000 fighting men)
Optional: Mechanized Division [20pt] (5000 fighting men)

Attachments:

Artillery [3pt] (200 howitzers)
Siege Artillery [3pt] (100 heavy howitzers or 25 rail guns)
AA/AT Artillery [3pt] (200 guns)
Engineer Regiment [3pt] (2000 combat engineers)
Elite Infantry Regiment [3pt] (2000 fighting men)
Light Tank Brigade [5pt] (200 tanks)
Heavy Tank Brigade [5pt] (100 tanks)


-Air Force

Units:

Fighter Group [20pt] (100 fighters) Air Attack: High, Ground Attack: Low, Range: Low
Bomber Group [40pt] (80 bombers) Air Attack: Medium, Ground Attack: Medium, Range: Medium
Airship Group [60pt] (40 airships) Air Attack: Low, Ground Attack: High, Range: High

Upgrades (one per group):

Long Range 5pt (+ Range)
Ground Attack 10pt (+Ground Attack)
Airlift 5pt (+Airdroppable Unit, -All Attack, Bomber/Zeppelin only)
Air Defense 10pt (+Air Attack)


-Navy

Escorts may have one upgrade, cruisers two, battleships three, and submarines none. 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

Warships

Escort [20pt] (Speed: High, Armor: Low, Attack: Low, +sub attack standard)
Cruiser [50pt] (Speed: Medium, Armor: Medium, Attack: Medium)
Battleship [125pt] (Speed: Low, Armor: High, Attack: High)
Submarines [10pt] (Speed: Low/Lowest {Surface/Submerged}, Armor: Low, Attack: Medium, Can only be attacked with +sub attack options and other submarines when submerged)

Escorts can lay and clear minefields. Submarines can lay minefields covertly. Neither type of ship will be effective at anything else while engaged in mining or demining.

Carrier versions of cruisers and battleships can be opted for instead, with carriers able to carry 48, and 96 fighters depending on size, respectively. Carriers have only weak AA defence and low armour. Wings are purchased separately.

Upgrades:

Scout 5pt (+speed, -armor or weapons)
Anti-Air 5pt (+AA function, -Attack vs. Surface or sub)
Anti-Sub 10pt (+Sonar, -Attack vs. surface or air, +attack vs. submerged vessels)
Anti-Capital 15pt (+weapons, -speed or armor)
Reinforced Bulkheads 10pt (+armor, -speed or weapons)
Previous Generation (-40% cost, -40% effectiveness)

Carrier Wings (Cannot use upgrade options from Air Force):

Multi-role Fighters [3pt] (12 Fighters) Air Attack: High, Ground Attack: Low, Range: Low
Fighter-Bombers [4pt] (12 Bombers) Air Attack: Medium-High, Ground Attack: Medium-Low, Range: Low

[Hotfoot]

Hadri, you did notice that I said the only reason I didn't include numbers was because I pretty much took the ground combat section wholesale from the PREVIOUS VERSION of the system, right?

I mean, even most of the point values are the same. All I did was add Mechanized Infantry and a few options for the upgrades.

[Hadrianvs]

Hadri, you did notice that I said the only reason I didn't include numbers was because I pretty much took the ground combat section wholesale from the PREVIOUS VERSION of the system, right?

No I did not notice you saying that the numbers were implied. In any case, I fiddled around with them a bit more. I think it's pretty historically accurate as of two minutes ago. Also, you didn't add mechanized infantry, so I did it for you but flagged it as "Optional" because Magi had shot down the idea earlier.

EDIT - Also, sorry for my vitriol regarding your system. I've not been having a good couple of days. I'm still not a fan, but I don't really hate it, especially after working on it a bit to try and improve the military side.

[Hotfoot]

-Army (All units can have one upgrade apiece)
Infantry 5pt
Guard Infantry 15pt
Mounted Infantry 8pt
Cavalry 10pt
Motorized Infantry 15pt
Tank (light) 20pt
Tank (heavy) 40pt

Yes, I did add it, I just used a slightly different word. They didn't exactly have APCs back in the day as much as halftracks and big trucks. I do appreciate the tweaking of the numbers, though the air units should be in multiples of 12, classically.

Also, 5 points for 200 light tanks or 100 heavy tanks is well under cost. Either of those would tear apart equal points of infantry.

[Hadrianvs]

Yes, I did add it, I just used a slightly different word. They didn't exactly have APCs back in the day as much as halftracks and big trucks.

There is a distinction between motorized (in trucks) and mechanized (in armoured half-tracks).

I do appreciate the tweaking of the numbers, though the air units should be in multiples of 12, classically.

Multiples of 10 are easier to balance, and are what Magi originally proposed. I did leave the naval aviation at multiples of 12 as a bit of a compromise. I can, however, tweak the air forces if the players really want it.

Also, 5 points for 200 light tanks or 100 heavy tanks is well under cost. Either of those would tear apart equal points of infantry.

It works out to 50 men per light tank, or 100 men per heavy tank. Outnumbered like that I think the engagement would be about even, which is reflected in the cost. You also need to consider artillery, anti-tank, and the larger operational context. An infantry division with attached tanks (10pts, 10k inf, 200 or 100 tanks) isn't going to fare well against an infantry division with attached anti-tank (8pts, 10k inf, 200 AT guns). Remember that long range firepower still favours the defender in an even fight. This is why proper operational doctrine will stress attaining local superiority before committing to an assault. It is only when the breach in the enemy line is made that the mobility of motorized and mechanized forces can be put to good use.

[Hotfoot]

There is a distinction between motorized (in trucks) and mechanized (in armoured half-tracks).

Calling half-tracks "armored" is a generous distinction, but I guess we'll leave that to Frigid.

Multiples of 10 are easier to balance, and are what Magi originally proposed. I did leave the naval aviation at multiples of 12 as a bit of a compromise. I can, however, tweak the air forces if the players really want it.

It's not significantly easier to balance the numbers if they are 10 or 12, what matters is the point values. As of right now, I can build 400 heavy tanks for the cost of 100 fighters. 800 heavy tanks for 80 bombers. You can also build 2,400 heavy tanks for the price of one base battleship.

For reference, that's a line of tanks 16.8 kilometers long, from end to end. It's double that for light tanks.

In the system I had, being based on the existing system, it was 200 light tanks for 20 points, and 200 heavy tanks for 40 points. It's easier to have similar numbers but increased points, by and large, which is what I did with the air force system.

For the same price, you could have 48 Fighters for every 200 light tanks or 96 fighters or 48 bombers for every 200 heavy tanks. Arguably, the planes could be even cheaper, but to have a 10:1 ratio of Heavy Tanks to twin-engine bombers seems way off, to say nothing of the 2,400:1 ratio of heavy tanks to battleships.

It works out to 50 men per light tank, or 100 men per heavy tank. Outnumbered like that I think the engagement would be about even, which is reflected in the cost. You also need to consider artillery, anti-tank, and the larger operational context. An infantry division with attached tanks (10pts, 10k inf, 200 or 100 tanks) isn't going to fare well against an infantry division with attached anti-tank (8pts, 10k inf, 200 AT guns). Remember that long range firepower still favours the defender in an even fight. This is why proper operational doctrine will stress attaining local superiority before committing to an assault. It is only when the breach in the enemy line is made that the mobility of motorized and mechanized forces can be put to good use.

First off, the points are supposed to represent both the relative cost of creating units as well as a general idea of how effective they are. You cannot tell me that 200 tanks is as easy or effective as even 10,000 basic GI's. Without AT equipment, those GIs are entirely powerless against the tanks, period. The word "bloodbath" comes to mind.

More to the point, by removing the separate tank divisions, you make it impossible to have tanks separate from infantry logistically speaking, and we know that was not the case. Why remove an option that had nothing wrong with it?

I do like the addition of AA/AT upgrades though. I think we'll have to define them as mobile upgrades specifically though, they shouldn't match the dedicated AAA emplacements, though I imagine those could be set up by engineers with time.

Say, AT is equal to roughly a 40-50mm AT gun, with the AA option being several .50 caliber machine guns?