StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A few things we need to get layed out before we go into the details of what size things are and who gets the bomb first, or similar

1. What year do we want?
The two options on the Table are 2008-2012 or 1930's


2. What will this new world be like?
Some people have throw around a Pangaea type world, one super landmass with everyone squeezed in somewhere. Last time we went with islands for everyone, do we want that again or the Pangaea idea?

3. When are we starting?
Dates have been thrown around but what's the official everyone's happy with?


4. Is the old time-scale ok?
For the record it's One week equals one year so every day is a roughly 26 day period. Do we want it slower? Faster? Just a change(IE One day equals three weeks which means we would have a new year every 17.3 real days)
Timescale? What amount?

More to come

1-Roughly Modern

2-I vote for a middle of the way approach, a few continents but a few Island Nations as well

3-2008 is fine with me

4-Two Weeks per year works fine with me

Zor

I suggest sort of a Pangaea cracking in two scenario, with two large landmasses separated by an extensive archipelago of continental fragments all in a fairly compact part of the world.

1.) Modern

2.) Large landmasses with shared territory, and small islands betwixt them!

3.) Huh? 2000, perhaps. A NEW MILLENNIUM!

4.) I thought it was one month per year.

1) Modern

2) 2-3 continents + islands

3) 2008 is fine

4) One month per year. As the amount of projects and going-ons rises, it becomes very difficult to keep track of things with a shorter timescale (at least without jeopardizing work)

2) Island nations while everyone else inhabits a "Pangea" super-continent will have a Massive geo-political advantage. I'd suggest restricting it to mods/senators only (regardless of post count) and even then, with a drawback (less population and territory).

A supercontinet will result in wars a lot faster, it will be very easy for the meganations to swallow up nearby nations, especially due to this now being a requisite to spread further and geopolitical security. (Unlike islands where you can circumvent and bunny hop).

1) 1980's or 90's I would suggest. Either that, or 1880's (Or 1930;s). 50's is too lenient towards Cold war sharks like Shep, future stuff allows theoretical speculatory fun, while the past is more well known and less varied up to a point.

4) A little slower would be nice - Shroom's suggestion of 2 weeks per year is good.


Also, I'd still count as a tiny dot on the map according to this damn title, correct? (Last game made a mess of that) even if I let someone else annex my nation?

EDIT: Oh, if there will be a "mod" for the game, pretty please, can there be some taking into account of long term economic, education, demographic factors?
The last game where certain nations had massive military budgets for years on end and advanced ahead of nations with massive economic growth, education budgets and peace as well as trade (especially in the long term) was very...uneducational .
There should be more consequences for budgetary priorities, and benefits as well. (Urban concentration has infrastructure beenfits, but is more at a risk of occupation and nuking tha lots of tiny hick villages, for example)

DEATH wrote:2) Island nations while everyone else inhabits a "Pangea" super-continent will have a Massive geo-political advantage. I'd suggest restricting it to mods/senators only (regardless of post count) and even then, with a drawback (less population and territory).

I don't think so. They will have to maintain navies and merchant marines just to be able to trade with others ; They will have an advanage against invasions, but that only results in potential enemies deciding to just wipe them out with nukes in case of war.

DEATH wrote:A supercontinet will result in wars a lot faster, it will be very easy for the meganations to swallow up nearby nations, especially due to this now being a requisite to spread further and geopolitical security. (Unlike islands where you can circumvent and bunny hop).

Erm, how will it be "easy" for meganations to swallow up nearby nations?

It will require huge long-term commitment of men and materiel, and that's assuming everybody else doesn't finance and supply partisans ; If a Duchy has a GDP of 500 billion, they could mount a vigorous conventional defence and a positively vicious insurgency.

1) Modern.

2) Something more akin to Earth, I think. Two major land mass groups (like how Earth has the Americas and Eurasia with Africa) and maybe one Australia-sized island/continent, with various archipelagos.

3) 1 January 2000 or 1 January 2008 are fine by me.

4) Hrm, faster pace allow for us to do things faster, but isn't favorable to people who can't be as active. I'd prefer the two week = 1 game year, which means that each day is almost a month.

Mr Bean wrote:1. What year do we want?
The two options on the Table are 2008-2012 or 1930's

Roughly modern please. Although the '30's sounds enticing, I don't know enough about the armies of that period to do anything useful with them.

2. What will this new world be like?
Some people have throw around a Pangaea type world, one super landmass with everyone squeezed in somewhere. Last time we went with islands for everyone, do we want that again or the Pangaea idea?

I second (third? fourth?) the Duchess' idea of a cracked supercontinent with an archipelago inbetween.

3. When are we starting?
Dates have been thrown around but what's the official everyone's happy with?

The start of 2008 would work for me.

EDIT: For the record, so would 2012.

4. Is the old time-scale ok?
For the record it's One week equals one year so every day is a roughly 26 day period. Do we want it slower? Faster? Just a change(IE One day equals three weeks which means we would have a new year every 17.3 real days)

Two weeks per year, please.

PeZook wrote:

DEATH wrote:2) Island nations while everyone else inhabits a "Pangea" super-continent will have a Massive geo-political advantage. I'd suggest restricting it to mods/senators only (regardless of post count) and even then, with a drawback (less population and territory).

I don't think so. They will have to maintain navies and merchant marines just to be able to trade with others.

So? the others will have inferior navies due to the focus on conventional forces and defences at the expense of naval and aerial. (Others will also have less warning time, which requires a larger standing army, and SAM's are universal anyway ).

; They will have an advanage against invasions, but that only results in potential enemies deciding to just wipe them out with nukes in case of war.

Also in research, trade (they can picka nd choose their partners), defense spending, resources and aquatic resources.
In a conflict heavy zone, the ability not to worry about land borders, and to reduce a rough third of your military forces greatly while only enhancing your security is immense. Look at Lonestar/OMSK and the space race for example.

DEATH wrote:A supercontinet will result in wars a lot faster, it will be very easy for the meganations to swallow up nearby nations, especially due to this now being a requisite to spread further and geopolitical security. (Unlike islands where you can circumvent and bunny hop).

Erm, how will it be "easy" for meganations to swallow up nearby nations?

Small nearby nations, ye twat .
Remember Neverhoodia where Shep just said "Stas is out, i send in forces, i'm bigger, I win?" . Here with less limitations on logistics, it'd be easier to invade and annex (Think germany ).

It will require huge long-term commitment of men and materiel

Or blackmail "give me this, or i'll bomb you conventionally, depopulate you and send in my massive army to demolish your cities". Or population destruction (mercy is weak when there are no people ). Or just resource grabbing and setting up of puppet states.

, and that's assuming everybody else doesn't finance and supply partisans

Which will be so easy through occupied land borders and to landlocked nations .

; If a Duchy has a GDP of 500 billion, they could mount a vigorous conventional defence and a positively vicious insurgency

What are the GDP changes in the end, smaller overall?

Seriously, one month per year. If we have two weeks per year, in a couple of months we will be in THE FUTURE and we're gonna be really fucked then.

I mean, we'll start throwing nanoes and fusion and hydrogen fuel cells at people? Will it become sci-fi shtick? Futurism will be haaaard.

DEATH wrote: So? the others will have inferior navies due to the focus on conventional forces and defences at the expense of naval and aerial. (Others will also have less warning time, which requires a larger standing army, and SAM's are universal anyway ).

Okay, you didn't quite get it.

It doesn't matter if they will have superior navies to other people ; The point is that they will have to spend the same amount of cash, just on different stuff. And if they want to invade somebody, they will need to ship every soldier and every bullet overseas, which is a tremendously difficult task.

Also in research, trade (they can picka nd choose their partners), defense spending, resources and aquatic resources.

How does being an island nation automatically translate to better research?

As for aquatic resources...it basically means oil and food. It's far easier to dig for shit in the ground than on the ocean shelf, especially heavy and important shit like iron or uranium.

In a conflict heavy zone, the ability not to worry about land borders, and to reduce a rough third of your military forces greatly while only enhancing your security is immense. Look at Lonestar/OMSK and the space race for example.

Unless you have to compete with other island nations and need to spend tremendous amounts of money in order to secure resource shipments from overseas (we're not talking US-sized landmass-occupying countries ; We're talking Japan). The US is in an advantageous position only because it has all the resources it needs right there, in home soil.

Small nearby nations, ye twat .
Remember Neverhoodia where Shep just said "Stas is out, i send in forces, i'm bigger, I win?" . Here with less limitations on logistics, it'd be easier to invade and annex (Think germany ).

That's because in the last game the balance of power was shifted towards the higher end of the scale, while in this instance the smallest nation will have a GDP of Sweden.

Or blackmail "give me this, or i'll bomb you conventionally, depopulate you and send in my massive army to demolish your cities". Or population destruction (mercy is weak when there are no people ). Or just resource grabbing and setting up of puppet states.

Yes, I suppose that's why we have so many annexations happening in real life.

Listen, we have one, maybe two assholes in the game, and they will have to contend with other people if they want to just threaten genocide. And since the balance of power isn't as lopsided this time, it won't be as easy as saying "Fuck off, MESS, we've got more nukes".

Which will be so easy through occupied land borders and to landlocked nations .

Yes, because nobody's ever managed to smuggle advanced weapons into conflict zones occupied by superpowers.

Oh, wait. How do Iraqi insurgents get all the nice toys, then? How did all those Stingers end up in Afghanistan?

Let's put it simply. If we want some dynamic world where everyone can have some degree of action, the world has to be a mix of continents instead of everyone grabbing an island. Plus, navies and air forces are downright expensive, and in that sort of situation, power varies exponentially with relation to the country's economy. Things get incredibly lobsided when you have Shep doing nothing but building bombers just so that he can nuke the shit out of us, even if it was based on false evidence.

PeZook wrote:If a Duchy has a GDP of 500 billion, they could mount a vigorous conventional defence and a positively vicious insurgency.

That's where unconventional weapons come into play.

*builds huge megaproject to dam a river that feeds the marshes where Insurgents hide out in, like saddam did to the Marsh Arabs after Gulf War I.*

MKSheppard wrote:

PeZook wrote:If a Duchy has a GDP of 500 billion, they could mount a vigorous conventional defence and a positively vicious insurgency.

That's where unconventional weapons come into play.

*builds huge megaproject to dam a river that feeds the marshes where Insurgents hide out in, like saddam did to the Marsh Arabs after Gulf War I.*

Won't it be cheaper to just... poison the water?

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Won't it be cheaper to just... poison the water?

Tell that to Saddam.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Won't it be cheaper to just... poison the water?

But you see, that would be evil.

I mean, seriously!

1. 2008-2012

2. Continents and perhaps a few islands thrown in.

3. 2008 -2012

4. One month per year or Two weeks per year would work for me.

Well I like the suggestion of putting the game slightly back in time to about 1990 or so. That keeps what tech is availible a lot easier to manage. I'd prefer an earth like world as well. A few continents with big oceans. For starting date, lets just set one in a few weeks or so.

1. Modern day should do just fine. As fun as battleships are, I don't want to dick around with the other equipment of the 1930s.

2. Two or three large continents with islands filling out the gaps.

3. Personally, I say start in 2008.

4. One month per year.

PeZook wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Won't it be cheaper to just... poison the water?

But you see, that would be evil.

I mean, seriously!

Well, in all technicality, hurling dead animals into the water would have been the medieval way of poisoning the water, which happens to be in my rule book when dealing with rats...

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Won't it be cheaper to just... poison the water?

The marsh in question, home to the marsh Arabs whom Saddam basically inflicted a genocide against, covered over 750 square miles, that’s an awful lot of position you’d need and it would still leave the area flooded and imps obi; to traverse. Not only was the marsh drained off but a 30 mile long artificial channel was created to divert the Tigris river. You can see the massive scar on the land this all left on Google earth north west of Basra, and the tiny areas of green which have been restored by people breaching the dams since the fall of Saddam.

Course at the time this was all done in the early 1990s our ever so reliable world media apparatus led by CNN proved more then happy to spread the official line from Bagdad, which was that the marsh draining was necessary to provide more farmland to counteract UN sanctions.

Mr Bean wrote:1. What year do we want?
The two options on the Table are 2008-2012 or 1930's

Modern era. I wouldn't mind maybe a bit in the past, like late 90s or 2000-2002-ish, as that would make future development a bit less theoretical than now (since our timescale is faster than that of Real Earth).

Mr Bean wrote:2. What will this new world be like?
Some people have throw around a Pangaea type world, one super landmass with everyone squeezed in somewhere. Last time we went with islands for everyone, do we want that again or the Pangaea idea?

I'd say individual choice? Each has their advantages and disadvantages and there are enough who are going both ways to keep some variety.

Mr Bean wrote:3. When are we starting?
Dates have been thrown around but what's the official everyone's happy with?

I dunno offhand, but I'd say at least until we get everything else firmed up. Besides, I don't want to leave Stas too far behind since he'll be out until 18 August.

Mr Bean wrote:4. Is the old time-scale ok?
For the record it's One week equals one year so every day is a roughly 26 day period. Do we want it slower? Faster? Just a change(IE One day equals three weeks which means we would have a new year every 17.3 real days)
Timescale? What amount?

As pointed out, it was one month = one year in the old system, and I think that works fine. It gives a decent rough estimate of where we are in the year for those who don't want to get into the nitty gritty of number-crunching, and won't leave people utterly in the dust if they're too busy to actively participate for a a stretch.

RogueIce wrote: As pointed out, it was one month = one year in the old system, and I think that works fine. It gives a decent rough estimate of where we are in the year for those who don't want to get into the nitty gritty of number-crunching, and won't leave people utterly in the dust if they're too busy to actively participate for a a stretch.

God knows it was hard enough to follow as it is after a couple of days of absence ; I even went as far as to give myself a stroke in-game when I wouldn't have any internet access

With ISCA, FASTA and my own country to run it was already hectic with month=year, and the amount of projects and plotlines will only rise as time goes on.

1. I say start somewhere in 1980-1990.

2. Several continents, and a bunch of islands here and there. Like Earth.

3. 1st of January, whatever year.

4. I personally support the 1 month = 1 year timescale, but I wouldn't mind the 2 week to a year timescale.