STGOD rules thread

[General Havoc]

A suggestion:

For the army, I strongly suggest that we either eliminate the "one attachment per unit" thing or increase the cap drastically. Military units are not ships and airplanes, for which the technical limitations of the machine itself are in question. If I wish to pack an infantry legion will lavish allotments of extra artillery, I don't see why I should not be allowed to do so, presuming of course that I have the artillery to deploy. Given that all it consists of is logistically tacking the unit onto its larger parent, surely more flexibility is better.

[Hotfoot]

Past a certain point though, you might as well just buy a proper detachment of artillery. The brigade additions were supposed to be a way to give a division more flexibility inherent in the unit. Start going too far and you make the individual divisions unwieldy, not to mention making record keeping more of a hassle.

Edit: To that end, I REALLY don't understand why Hadri wants to get rid of the specific specialized divisions, like artillery and tanks, and make them part of the attachment system.

[General Havoc]

Attachments do more than just add flexibility to the division. They can be a way of concentrating firepower in a specific point. Whether or not they make the unit unwieldy (which is a risk one takes in using them this way), I'd like to have the freedom to manipulate my units of firepower the way I choose, rather than being forced to deploy an entire infantry division every time I want to emplace some coast defense guns, or load elephantine masses of infantry onto my front lines just to get some railway artillery in place.

If I wind up going overboard and making units that are too gun-heavy, then those units will collapse and I will lose the war.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a limit, but a limit of 1 is too low. I'd either increase it, or permit us to deploy these "attachments" independent of the attached units

[Steve]

Allowing independent specialized "brigades" that can attach to divisions or be used separately would be a good compromise I think.

[Hotfoot]

Do we REALLY want to go down the road of independent brigades? Down that way lies madness.

[Hotfoot]

By the way, if people are REALLY against the trade mechanic I worked out, that's fine, we can increase economy in a similar fashion to Industry and Infrastructure and I'll whip up a basic economy mechanic not based on trade, but it will mean that Colonies will be removed entirely from the system because they serve no mechanical purpose.

I'm running on a very strict method for determining what rules stay and go, and if there's no purpose for them for the base mechanics, they're gone.

[General Havoc]

Do we REALLY want to go down the road of independent brigades? Down that way lies madness.

I already intend to take my so-called "Divisions", atomize them all, and recombine the men and weapons into units of my own devising. Most of these will be in Legions of 35,000 men, but some will be in independent regimental or perhaps even in battalion strength. I am doing this whether or not it is commodious to the rules for me to do so, because I am batshit crazy . It therefore is no object to me to do the same with my support units.

So in essence, I'm already planning on using independent brigades, whether the units come in that size or not. Frankly, I imagine you all will too. It is not reasonable to require a player who wishes to lightly garrison a small offshore island to either use nothing at all, or a ten-thousand-man infantry division with organic artillery and AT support. Similarly, if I want to line my mountain fortifications with heavy artillery, I do not wish to be required to employ two million infantry to "support" those immobile guns. If I put insufficient infantry in support, then the enemy will punch through them and blow all my guns up. In that case, I deserve it.

[Hotfoot]

No, I damn well refuse to have that level of detail in my strategic planning. If that's what's to be expected or demanded, I'm out.

[Hotfoot]

To clarify, I will simply have theaters and deployments within those theaters. I will not go into express detail beyond that unless it is otherwise required for a specific battle. Will I blend divisions together into more organic combined arms? Sure. But I will not go into tiny-ass details of 200 men per atoll because such things are vastly unimportant at the scales we're dealing with.

Short version, I'm not interested in playing with any detail even remotely approaching Hearts of Iron. If we hit that level, I'll just load up that game and forget about this one.

[Steve]

Woh, calm down, I think GenHav was just remarking on what he would personally do with his forces. Not that you'd have to.

[Hotfoot]

Moreover we're jumping the gun that the ONLY way to get tanks or artillery is through brigade options. So far the only person suggesting that is Hadri, and while I'm going to poach the AT/AA options, I think it's safe to assume that we can buy tanks and artillery separate from infantry divisions.

[Steve]

But in what way? You've already said you want to not bother with brigade-level independent units.

[Hotfoot]

Yes, what's wrong with Tank and artillery divisions again? I mean, that's what we HAD, why get rid of that?

[Steve]

Because it's 1930, we're years away from tank divisions, and I think the Russians were historically the only ones to even get close to an "artillery division" since artillery is generally a support arm.

[Hadrianvs]

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.

Price for each Iowa class battleship: $125 million.
Price for single M4 Sherman tank: $33,500

The United States could have built over 3700 heavy (by 1930 standards) tanks for each of their battlewagons. Those things are expensive.

However, I'll admit that I fucked up the aircraft to tank ratios. A twin-engine bomber should cost two or three heavy tanks, not ten of them.

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.

It seems kind of bland, and unrealistic for that matter, to say that an infantry division is just 10 000 guys with rifles. The First World War taught armies the value of combined arms, so divisions will have machine guns, some AT, some artillery, and various support services. The specific numbers and percentages of each are, however, too much granularity to be relevant.

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 actually did nothing of the sort. I noted verbally that if you want your tanks to move forward, by themselves, they can do so at the behest of the corps or division commander. It would, however, simplify things to change the attachment limit. Maybe raise it to two or three, or perhaps dump it entirely.

When a breach is made the tanks are simply moved forward and operate independently from then. The main point is that I really don't want divisional tank formations, it makes my brain hurt. Never was such a thing employed, because it's a stupid idea. Even the most tank heavy of formations had infantry support at the divisional level. Whether this infantry support was motorized or not determined whether they would be left behind or follow along during the exploitation phase of combat.

You do not, incidentally, have to concern yourself with all this. You can simply say that you're attacking with 10 corps that we know from your OOB each have x,y,z in inf, taks, arty. Your commanders will be assumed to be using proper operational doctrine. But I have to oppose completely indepedent tank formations because there simply was never such a thing, not at the scale we are working on.

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?

Mobile AA is going to be autocannon in the 20-50mm range. Which is why it was often dual purposed as AT guns. Static AAA will be around 75mm, as that's been standard since the First World War, and even that turned out to be fairly mobile, and was often also used in an AT role. The German 88 being the most famous example of this. Originally a static AAA gun, it proved mobile enough for front-line use, and also an extremely powerful AT weapon. The first prototypes of the 8.8 cm FlaK were, incidentally, produced in 1928.

[Steve]

I was going to presume that an armored division is basically a couple brigades or so with tanks with a brigade of infantry, preferably motorized, riding along with it.

[rhoenix]

Because it's 1930, we're years away from tank divisions, and I think the Russians were historically the only ones to even get close to an "artillery division" since artillery is generally a support arm.

To the point where we have rules for zepellin bombers and countries/empires that don't and never existed in reality but are in this game, I really don't see the point of trying to be overly "realistic" at this point.

I see this as unnecessary complication, to be honest. I don't see how the added complexity would make the game easier to play, let alone more enjoyable.

Let's keep it simple, ok?

[Steve]

Wasn't the whole point of the time period being that we would have militaries at least realistic to the period? Nor do Zeppelin bombers - which did exist - existing mean we should have freaking artillery divisions sitting around, because such a thing is utterly retarded, and frankly if you force me to buy them like that I'm merely going to cut them up into brigades and assign them as Corps-level support as they're meant to be (particularly because smaller field guns are realistically going to be part of infantry units or mounted infantry anyway).

Actually, wait. Where do we have arty divisions? Hotfoot's list only has arty as attachment for divisions, I presume brigade-level in strength. Really, what hurts our system for me to just pay 3 points for that arty "attachment" and call it an artillery brigade, to be attached at Corps-level as I desire?

[Hadrianvs]

Something I've neglected to mention. The one change I really like in Hotfoot's system is the trade thing. I think it's a decent idea and I endorse it. It's fun to be able to wage economic warfare. On the other hand, Cynical Cat's point that we could engage in economic warfare anyhow and have a moderator ruling on its effect also has merit. I think it really should be Magi's call as to which one best suits the amount of time he is willing to devote to moderating the game. However, if it's up to us, I vote for Hotfoot's system.

I have made ammendments to the buy list based on Hotfoot's and other's comments.

Summary:
-Independent units can have two (three?) attachments.
-Quartered the price of air groups, rounded number of aircraft to a multiple of 12.
-Air group upgrade price halved.
-Naval air wings adjusted to fit with new airgroup values.
-Separate AT and AAA. They the same cost and number of guns, and AAA can be deployed unattached.

I have also, upon further consideration, decided that there needs to be slight fixes to the naval costs.

-Escorts and Submarines are too expensive. I think they should cost half as much as they do currently. Major naval powers could and did deploy hundreds and hundreds of the things.
-Cruisers and battleships are be too cheap. A cruiser should be six times an escort, and a battleship three times a cruiser.


Ammended buy list:

-Army

Independent units, can have two attachments:

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)
Anti-Aircraft Artillery [3pt] (200 guns) (can be deployed independently)
Field/Anti-Tank Guns [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 [5pt] (96 fighters) Air Attack: High, Ground Attack: Low, Range: Low
Bomber Group [10pt] (72 bombers) Air Attack: Medium, Ground Attack: Medium, Range: Medium
Airship Group [15pt] (36 airships) Air Attack: Low, Ground Attack: High, Range: High

Upgrades (one per group):

Long Range 2pt (+ Range)
Ground Attack 5pt (+Ground Attack)
Airlift 2pt (+Airdroppable Unit, -All Attack, Bomber/Zeppelin only)
Air Defense 5pt (+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 [10pt] (Speed: High, Armor: Low, Attack: Low, +sub attack standard)
Cruiser [60pt] (Speed: Medium, Armor: Medium, Attack: Medium)
Battleship [180pt] (Speed: Low, Armor: High, Attack: High)
Submarines [5pt] (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 [1pt] (16 Fighters) Air Attack: High, Ground Attack: Low, Range: Low
Fighter-Bombers [2pt] (16 Bombers) Air Attack: Medium-High, Ground Attack: Medium-Low, Range: Low



Honestly I don't see how it's any more or less complex than what Hotfoot originally put up. It's simply more realisitc. I even pegged the battleship/tank ratio almost exactly right. Currently every battleship costs 3600 heavy tanks. Almost the same as the price ratio I quoted for the real life Iowa BB and Sherman tank.

[Steve]

Why do the motorized and mechanized divisions have half the fighting strength? Is it an attempt to emulate the "logistical tail" of said units?

[Hadrianvs]

Why do the motorized and mechanized divisions have half the fighting strength? Is it an attempt to emulate the "logistical tail" of said units?

No, it's a cost ratio thing. Using the infantry division as a baseline, I think cavalry should be 4x, motorized 6x, and mechanized 8x. In order to keep the point values low the strength of those units was halved. Though you could also think of it as a logistical tail issue. We are, after all, only counting fighting men. I don't think anyone here is intersted in keeping track of every man down to the last cook.

[General Havoc]

Sorry, I posted this before and managed to delete it.

No, I damn well refuse to have that level of detail in my strategic planning. If that's what's to be expected or demanded, I'm out.

Do whatever you like with your army. I am however doing what I want with mine. If we sit here and insist that nobody is allowed to do anything that anyone else doesn't want to then we're never actually going to play the game. I don't particularly want to devise new classes of warships and tanks using tank and warship generators, but I accept that other people are going to do these things, and are welcome to.

I am re-organizing all of my forces into legions, battalions, regiments, cohorts, companies, tercios, bands of merry men, and whatever else it suits me to re-organize all of my forces into. If you don't want to, that's fine, but don't tell me I have to accept a ruleset that prohibits me from detaching sub-units as I see fit or doing as I like with my own army. I will use the same rules as everyone else to buy my units, as is only fair. If I then choose to group them together in units of precisely 4,371 guns and eight mules, and call those units "Flargelthorbs", I will do that. Whether you approve of it or not.

Moreover we're jumping the gun that the ONLY way to get tanks or artillery is through brigade options. So far the only person suggesting that is Hadri, and while I'm going to poach the AT/AA options, I think it's safe to assume that we can buy tanks and artillery separate from infantry divisions.

Well if that's so, then I will do just that. But the ruleset that was suggested made no provisions for independent "units" of artillery or tanks (or whatever). I am not demanding or even suggesting that such rules be put into place. I simply am letting people know that I intend to re-organize my army the way I see fit, whatever the starting "point" costs are for each battery of guns or division of men.

I'm not trying to gain an advantage here. I am not massing my men into Legions because it is vital to success. A Legion is 35,000 men, roughly the same as a Corps. I am doing this because I want to do it, and therefore I will do it. As Hadrianvs said, a division-sized unit of nothing but tanks is a stupid idea. I however maintain that if I want to do something stupid with my tanks, then I will do it. Period. I will, of course, translate all of my orders and units into the equivalency of "default" formations when fighting other people, so that there is no confusion. I certainly do not expect to gain special bonuses or effectiveness in doing all this. I am doing it for the same reason that I wrote all that history concerning the Rise of Rome.

I do not wish to require anyone to play as I do. I do however reserve the right to do as I like with my own military, even if it means that I decide to mass huge quantities of artillery into something approximating a division of guns. Whether I buy those guns in batteries or battalions or regiments or divisions is of no concern to me, whatever you guys think makes the most sense will do fine. I simply want it made clear that however I buy the guns, be they Hotfoot's system, Hadrian's, or someone else's, I'm going to organize them any way I like.

[Hadrianvs]

The primary reason why the attachment limit exists is to help players make balanced armies, as I don't expect everyone here is going to have a thorough understanding of combined arms doctrine. There's also, admittedly, a bit of personal preference. I like a system that lets you fit things together like LEGOs. I find it intuitive.

I don't think there is, however, any reason why players should not be allowed to shuffle things around as they wish once they've made their buys as per the system. If someone decided to buy an infantry division with an artillery attachment and tank support, and then chopped it up into seven equal pieces to garrison seven different islands, that's perfectly fine. As Hotfoots so likes to say, this isn't Hearts of Iron, you don't have to commit an entire division to have any defence at all in a given territory.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Just so it is made aware. I endorse the general principle of Hotfoots proposed ruleset, particularly the trade mechanic. I will let those better than me haggle over point costs...

[Screwball]

Moreover we're jumping the gun that the ONLY way to get tanks or artillery is through brigade options. So far the only person suggesting that is Hadri, and while I'm going to poach the AT/AA options, I think it's safe to assume that we can buy tanks and artillery separate from infantry divisions.

I think his proposed system is a good idea, since that's the way it was done in real life. For example, as best I can determine, the order of battle of the 7th Armoured Divison at El Alamein was two armoured brigades (one light, one heavy), an infantry brigade, the equivalent of another infantry brigade as 'divisional troops' plus two regiments of artillery, an anti-tank regiment, an AA regiment and three engineer squadrons. If we cut out the extras, two brigades of infantry can form a division on their own, so we've got an infantry division plus a light and heavy tank attachment to get 7th Armoured in Hadri's system, and it's not entirely inaccurate.

I should note that the number of armoured brigades changed over time; there were three in 1941, for example. But they were always added and removed from the division at brigade level, because that's the highest organisational level that the British constructed armour formations at.