Steam and Steel: Grand Rules Thread

[Thirdfain]

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Grand Rules Thread, in which all the combined wisdom of our many good contributors will be stored. This is also the marvelous spot in which you may post problems, concerns, suggestions, and questions as they relate to the game rules.

I don't intend on being the absolute monarch of Steam and Steel- you, the fine players, have the final word in the event of any major disagreement. Please make your concerns known.


Thank you to all the players for their excellent input!
A special thanks to Crossroads for his tireless research and his fantastic maps.

Game Mechanics

Points

Points represent your naiton's industrial capability. Each nation will start the game with 4,000 points worth of warships, soldiers, and fortresses.

3-Month System

Every three months, players can spend points on new construction. Due to the fluid nature of time in STGODs, three months in-game could take only a couple of days in realtime, or could take weeks.

Each three months, you get 10% of your current total in points to spend- at the start of the game, you get 400 points to spend per 3 months, for instance, though this number can be increased by re-investment, conquest, and economic prosperity.

Spending Points

Re-Investment
Required Resources:Coal, Steel, Food, Cotton.
-bonus- Rare Metals necessary for research

Each point spent in re-investment multiplies itself by 125%- if you spend 40 points on re-investment, you'll have 10 more points to spend next period.
If you have rare metals, then points spent on re-investment also net you a chance of gaining some technological advantage. However, this is random- you may not recieve any advantage at all.

NOTICE:

You may not re-invest more than 1/4th of your turn's points each turn.

Shipbuilding:
Required resources:
Armoured Warships: Coal, Iron, Sulfur
Unarmoured Warships: Coal, Sulfur

Buying a warship is a 2-step process. First, you buy the hull mass- the maximum for a warship is 15,000 tonnes. (This can change with the advent of better technology)

Each point nets you 100 tonnes of hull mass.

Second, you buy capability. There are five categories of capability:
Protection
Speed
Firepower
Maneuver
Torpedo Protection

Keep in mind that your spending is relative- putting 150 points into firepower and 0 into anything else doesn't mean your ship can't move- it just means that it's completely optimized for firepower, and is extremely slow, unmaneuverable, and lightly protected. This is most important when building the smallest vessels- a torpedo boat might cost 2 points- you'd only be able to boost 1 of the 5 stats. Spending it on firepower would mean it's still a fast, nasty torpedo boat- but with an extra torpedo tube as opposed to a larger engine.

You have as many points to spend on these 5 categories as you spent on hull mass.

NOTICE:

The largest warships take time to put to sea. Ships which cost 1-99 points will be available at the start of the next 3-month turn, ships which cost 100-199 points will be available two turns down the line, and ships which cost 200-300 points will be available three turns down the line. This means that with all production, you need to prepare ahead of time. You pay the point-cost in equal segments over this period- i.e, a 300- point battleship would cost you 100 points for each of 3 turns.

For example:
300 pts
"NGR Nossa Senhora de India"
Battleship
15,000 tonnes: 150
Armament: 4x12-inch guns
12x6-inch guns
4x 37mm quick-firers
4x gatlings
4 torpedo tubes
Prot: 30
Speed: 30
Fire: 60
Maneuver: 20
T. Prot: 10

For example:
2 pts
"TB-22"
Torpedo Boat
100 tonnes
3x torpedo tubes,
2x gatlings
Speed: 1

Q-ships

Jalinth:

Q-Ships - these must be built to the general warship lines if these are simply disguised warships (very heavily armed). In my view, these are to be submitted to Thirdfain directly since the purpose is to be secret.
Include a "dummy" ship in your listing that is replaced by the Q-ship. You are "overpaying" (capability wise) in points for the secrecy.

One could claim to spend 160 points on shipping capacity one turn, privatly IM me that you are in fact building a 160 point Q-ship.

Myself:

There must have been Q-ships which weighed as much as larger crusiers and the like! These vessels would not have anywhere near the combat ability- speed, armament, or armouring of an actual warship!

Raising Armies
Required resources: Cotton, Food, Sulfur
Cannon/Machine Guns: Iron, Coal

You recieve 200 men per point spent, or 50 men mounted on horse, further points can be used to increase capability up to 3 times their cost, or up to six times their cost if they have modern artillery.

For example:
300 points
"1. Divisao de Guarda Real"
-10,000 men-
Top quality troops, armed with Armamento Estado bolt-action rifles and trained to the highest standard. A mix of European and Cavalheiros (civilized) Indian troops, Royal Guards are equipped with horse-drawn Maxims and field guns.
(requires access to iron, coal, cotton, food, an sulfur.)

Building Fortresses

Required resources:
Coal, Sulfur.

The more points spent on a fortress, the larger and more durable it is.

Expanding Civilian and Military Shipping

Required resources: Coal OR Cotton

Shipping is the secret to international trade and the movement of troops.

Shipping capacity is represented by an abstract point value. Everyone starts out with 2000 points of shipping capacity. It takes 1000 points to establish a trade route for 1 resource-1 resource, with each member of the trade paying half the cost (of course, terms of the trade agreement can place more or less of the work on one or the other member of the trade; so long as in the end 1000 points of shipping are being used); and shipping capacity can be used to move troops at a rate of 40 infantry (or 10 horsemen) per 1 point of shipping. You can spend points on shipping; it goes directly into your shipping pool.

-All "super-tech" requires access to rare metals.-

Resources

Military/Industrial:
Coal: Vital for making steam warships and steel, and railroads.
Iron: Vital for building armoured warships, making steel
Sulfur: Vital for training troops and making weapons

Growth/Industrial:
Food: Excess food, either fish or crops- vital for furnishing growth
Cotton: Vital for manufacturing clothing and other civilian necessities
Rare Metals: Vital for research and industrialisation

Luxury:
Silks: Necessary for producing luxury clothing
Spices: Expensive, good export.
Opium: Highly addictive, very valuable crop to sell.

Industrial Resources

Nitram: Coal, Iron
Thirdfain: Coal, Iron
Pablo Sanchez: Coal, Sulfur
Cap. Chewbacca: Coal, Iron, Sulfur
WeemadAndo: Coal, Iron, Sulfur
Vanas: Iron, Sulfur
Dahak: Iron, Sulfur
Crossroads: Coal, Iron
Agent Fisher: Coal
Beowulf: Coal, Iron
Jalinth: Coal, Iron
Adrian: Coal, Sulfur
Straha: Iron, Sulfur
Rasene: Iron, Sulfur
RedImperator: Coal, Iron, Sulfur

Growth Resources

Nitram: Food, Cotton
Thirdfain: Food
Pablo Sanchez: Cotton, Rares
Cap. Chewbacca: Rares
WeemadAndo: Food
Vanas: Food, Rares
Dahak: Food, Cotton
Crossroads: Food
Agent Fisher: Food, Cotton, Rares
Beowulf: Food
Jalinth: Cotton, Rares
Adrian: Food, Cotton
Straha: Food, Cotton, Rares
Rasene: Cotton
RedImperator: Food

Luxury Resources

Nitram: N/A
Thirdfain: Silk, Spices
Pablo Sanchez: Spices
Cap. Chewbacca: Spices, Opium
WeemadAndo: Opium
Vanas: Silk
Dahak: Opium
Crossroads: Opium
Agent Fisher: Spices
Beowulf: Spices
Jalinth: N/A
Adrian: Silk
Straha: N/A
Rasene: Silk, Spices
RedImperator: Silk

Luxury Resources

The mechanics for luxury resources are as follows:

Luxury resources are good sources of raw cash. They are generally easy to transport and command high prices for low mass. Opium is the most profitable, spices the least, silk is in the middle. The usage of luxury resources is going to be largely abstract, however, there are a handful of "concrete" advantages you can gain.

1. Economic Strength: Selling and recieving luxury goods is good for the economy. It enriches the government and private firms, as well as the general populace. This being the case, at the end of every 3-month period in which your nation has traded off luxury goods to someone else, mention it in your end-of-segment report along with your construction plans, and you will have a random chance of recieving a bonus to your available construction points. The more trade you engage in, the better your chance and the bigger the bonus.

2. Political stability: Having access to luxury goods improves political stability- your populace feels more wealthy and better taken care of. Attempts by other players to destabilize your government by arming natives or doing other nasty things will be stymied and more difficult. Nations with no luxury resources and no trade will be most vulerable, nations with a great deal of both will be less vulnerable. This isn't a hard and fast numbers thing, just something to bear in mind.

Combat

This is an STGOD. Combat is, therefor, maintained by usual STGOD rules- players co-operate with each other, use PMs or AIM to decide what reasonable casualties are, and consult a mod immediately if any sort of complaint comes up.

Critial Hits
-under construction-

The Victorian naval world was full of surprises. The science of armour and gun was in it's infancy, and schemes for protection warships, as well as weapon designs, often had a myriad tiny flaws. A single mine hit could instantly sink the most expensive battleship, or fail to down a torpedo-boat destroyer. An armoured cruiser could survive under enemy fire for hours, only slowly sinking after being pounded almost to the waterline, or become useless after a single salvo.

To represent this, there will be critical hits in this game. Torpedos and mines will have very high chances of inflicting those hits, while the fire from large-calibre guns- fortress guns, and the main guns on cruisers and battleships especially versus lighter opponents- will have a very low but non-zero chance of inflicting critical hits. These will be rolled via random number generator, monitored by me and 1 player neutral to whatver conflict is taking place.

Critical hits can cause the vessel to drastically lose speed, lose the ability to maneuver, strike the flag deck or bridge, or even, especially in the case of mines or torpedoes, burst the hull and doom the ship to a swift death. Torpedo protection lowers the chances for torpedo and mine strikes, but does not take them to zero.

Initial thoughts:

A mine or torpedo strike has a 60% chance of being critical, decreased by 1% for every 2 points of torpedo protection a ship has to a minimum of 30%. Further torpedo protection over that point simply reduces the damage of a non-critical hit (abstracted.)

[Adrian Laguna]

NOTICE:

The largest warships take time to put to sea. Ships which cost 1-99 points will be available at the start of the next 3-month turn, ships which cost 100-199 points will be available two turns down the line, and ships which cost 200-300 points will be available three turns down the line. This means that with all production, you need to prepare ahead of time. You pay the point-cost in equal segments over this period- i.e, a 300- point battleship would cost you 100 points for each of 3 turns.

I propose a change. >200 takes 3 turns, >100 takes 2 turns, >0 takes 1 turn.

It makes Pablo's warning, "And don't anyone get the bright idea to commission 99 and 199 point ships, it's still possible for a moderator to make such decisions on a case-by-case basis" completely unnecessary.

It also makes all three 'brackets' exactly the same size.

On a similar vein, what about a time-period to raise armies? I suggest six months if the troops are getting modern artillery (more than 3pts per 200 rifles, or more than 3 points per 50 horses) and three for everything else.

You recieve 200 men per point spent, or 50 men mounted on horse, further points can be used to increase capability up to 3 times their cost, or up to six times their cost if they have modern artillery.

I propose that "modern artillery" makes troops move slower. I know that we're not gonna calculate exact marching speeds, and we shouldn't. But if if two armies are equal distances from an objective, the one lugging around the heavy guns can't get there at the same time as the other one.

Building Fortresses

Required resources:
Coal, Sulfur.

The more points spent on a fortress, the larger and more durable it is.

There are many different types of fortifications, I'd like to add the ability to specify what type of fort you have by adding a couple of attributes.

Instead of:
-Generic Fortress [50]

We would have:
-Generic Fortress [50]
Armament [25]
Fortifications [25]

Putting all points in armament, it's a battery of guns without any protections. If all points are in fortification, the fortress is an armoured castle with no offensive capacity until it is garrisoned with an infantry or cavalry unit. The idea here is to allow player to decide whether their fortress will enphasize being able to stand-up to a seige (fortification points) or blowing enemy vessels out of the water (armament).

I also conviniently made the two terms different from a ship's "fire" and "protection" to avoid confusion.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I propose a change. >200 takes 3 turns, >100 takes 2 turns, >0 takes 1 turn.

It makes Pablo's warning, "And don't anyone get the bright idea to commission 99 and 199 point ships, it's still possible for a moderator to make such decisions on a case-by-case basis" completely unnecessary.

Worthless quibbling and it actually does absolutely nothing of the sort, it just moves the goal post by exactly one point. Instead of going "ZOMG my 199 point cruiser completes in 2 turns!" he goes "ZOMG my 200 point cruiser completes in 2 turns!".

[Adrian Laguna]

I propose a change. >200 takes 3 turns, >100 takes 2 turns, >0 takes 1 turn.

It makes Pablo's warning, "And don't anyone get the bright idea to commission 99 and 199 point ships, it's still possible for a moderator to make such decisions on a case-by-case basis" completely unnecessary.

Worthless quibbling and it actually does absolutely nothing of the sort, it just moves the goal post by exactly one point. Instead of going "ZOMG my 199 point cruiser completes in 2 turns!" he goes "ZOMG my 200 point cruiser completes in 2 turns!".

People tend to like round numbers, at least when dealing with larger figures, look at any random OOB for an STGOD and you'll see this tendency. The chances of anybody building a 99-point or 199-point ships for any reason other than dodging the limit is very low. So we raise the limit by one and remove the issue. I also find it unlikely anybody will be going, "Damn, my 202 point ship will take three months. If only the limit were a little higher..."

[Pablo Sanchez]

People tend to like round numbers, at least when dealing with larger figures, look at any random OOB for an STGOD and you'll see this tendency. The chances of anybody building a 99-point or 199-point ships for any reason other than dodging the limit is very low. So we raise the limit by one and remove the issue.

I agree that it might be imperceptibly better from the standpoint of uniformity but your change doesn't in any way "remove the issue", I originally said it specifically to deter people from sneaking in under the limit. We're still going to give leeway to people who fall a little bit to either side.

[Adrian Laguna]

I agree that it might be imperceptibly better from the standpoint of uniformity but your change doesn't in any way "remove the issue", I originally said it specifically to deter people from sneaking in under the limit. We're still going to give leeway to people who fall a little bit to either side.

I would prefer a line drawn in stone, keeps things simple, prevents possible accusations of bias.

[Thirdfain]

I would prefer a line drawn in stone, keeps things simple, prevents possible accusations of bias.

However, I don't. Case-by-case basis is far and away the wisest move to take on this. Whatever line you set, people can game.

[Dahak]

I agree that it might be imperceptibly better from the standpoint of uniformity but your change doesn't in any way "remove the issue", I originally said it specifically to deter people from sneaking in under the limit. We're still going to give leeway to people who fall a little bit to either side.

I would prefer a line drawn in stone, keeps things simple, prevents possible accusations of bias.

If other STGODs did show us anything, it is that rules cannot be set in stone and NOT be discussed ans argued about as soon as they're needed... We'll be going to be discussing it anyway, so we could just go with a more flexible system from the get-go to save us all time.

[Adrian Laguna]

However, I don't. Case-by-case basis is far and away the wisest move to take on this. Whatever line you set, people can game.

Okay, no line, but I stand by my reorganization of the 'brakets'. At the very least it makes every one of them exactly the same size.

What about the other points I've raised?

[Thirdfain]

There are many different types of fortifications, I'd like to add the ability to specify what type of fort you have by adding a couple of attributes.

Instead of:
-Generic Fortress [50]

We would have:
-Generic Fortress [50]
Armament [25]
Fortifications [25]

Putting all points in armament, it's a battery of guns without any protections. If all points are in fortification, the fortress is an armoured castle with no offensive capacity until it is garrisoned with an infantry or cavalry unit. The idea here is to allow player to decide whether their fortress will enphasize being able to stand-up to a seige (fortification points) or blowing enemy vessels out of the water (armament).

I also conviniently made the two terms different from a ship's "fire" and "protection" to avoid confusion.

Erm, there's absolutely NO reason to have a fotress that's a battery of guns without protection; or one that's a big concrete castle without heavy cannon. The unarmoured guns will get pwnt by enemy counterfire; while the mighty walled castle will get ground down by seige guns with superior range to the field guns of the garrison.

[Adrian Laguna]

Erm, there's absolutely NO reason to have a fotress that's a battery of guns without protection; or one that's a big concrete castle without heavy cannon. The unarmoured guns will get pwnt by enemy counterfire; while the mighty walled castle will get ground down by seige guns with superior range to the field guns of the garrison.

Okay, so having too little of either figure is bad. Though I'm not seeing how the guns of the offensive army will magically have longer range than those of the defending army. Any reason not to have the the figures at all?

Also, two other points remain unadressed. Modern artillery and marching speed, as well as army construction times.

[Beowulf]

Erm, there's absolutely NO reason to have a fotress that's a battery of guns without protection; or one that's a big concrete castle without heavy cannon. The unarmoured guns will get pwnt by enemy counterfire; while the mighty walled castle will get ground down by seige guns with superior range to the field guns of the garrison.

Cheap border fort against relatively unsophisticated neighbors? See for ex: Rorke's Drift. Admittedly, I can't think of any other reason.

[Dahak]

Well, there are several examples where a pure naval force failed to subdue a fort and gets hurt pretty bad...

[Straha]

Also, two other points remain unadressed. Modern artillery and marching speed, as well as army construction times.

Artillery and Marching speed we'll handle when we get to them in the typical STGOD Fashion.

That being said I would like to suggest one addendum to the rules. If you're declaring a fort you have to declare whether it's oriented for naval or ground combat or if it's multi-purpose.

[Thirdfain]

Okay, so having too little of either figure is bad. Though I'm not seeing how the guns of the offensive army will magically have longer range than those of the defending army.

Because the attacking army will be able to bring up heavy seige peices if it can put the fortress under seige for long enough. There's a reason fortresses of the time had special very heavy fortress guns.

Any reason not to have the the figures at all?

Any reason TO have the features? Better just to abstract it.

[Crossroads Inc.]

All I know is when I made my fortresses I did it by how many guns I 'said' they have. Which is a totally made up system, but for instance, 10 anti ship turrets for a big fortress costs 200 points.

As for fortifications, we could have a system of "Light stone, standard Stone, and Heavy stone" Where each type costs more, but provides better defence.

[Adrian Laguna]

Any reason TO have the features? Better just to abstract it.

Yes, I already mentioned it. It allows players to specify whether their fortresses are oriented more toward counter-offensive or passive defensive power. You can have 50 points of lightly protected guns, hoping that you'll sink or force a retreat on the enemy before they breach your walls. Or you can go with 50 points of less but more heavily protected guns, with the idea that you'll be able to keep shooting at enemy ships for a long time while reinforcements arrive.

A more abstract possiblity is to just state point values and use fluff. In other words, a fortress with lots of gun batteries will probably have less protection that the same value fortress with less batteries.

[Dahak]

Any reason TO have the features? Better just to abstract it.

Yes, I already mentioned it. It allows players to specify whether their fortresses are oriented more toward counter-offensive or passive defensive power. You can have 50 points of lightly protected guns, hoping that you'll sink or force a retreat on the enemy before they breach your walls. Or you can go with 50 points of less but more heavily protected guns, with the idea that you'll be able to keep shooting at enemy ships for a long time while reinforcements arrive.

A more abstract possiblity is to just state point values and use fluff. In other words, a fortress with lots of gun batteries will probably have less protection that the same value fortress with less batteries.

Why do you insist on adding complexity where none is needed?

[Adrian Laguna]

Why do you insist on adding complexity where none is needed?

I like definite structure, the lack of it in STGODs is something that I have to live with. When Thirdfain opened the rules up for discussion, I jumped at the chance to make some changes I felt weren't pushing the envelope too much. I hope the other players and Thirdfain will like them, if they don't, then I shrug and move-on.

In the case of the fortresses, Thirdfain seems unmoved by my latest defense, so I consider the idea dead. On the plus side, the one or two hours I would have spent carefully calibrating the Armament/Fortification ratios in my forts are now free for me to do something more interesting.

[Dahak]

Why do you insist on adding complexity where none is needed?

I like definite structure, the lack of it in STGODs is something that I have to live with.

Even IF we have definite rules and structure, it will still have discussions and arguing about it. I might point out various, page-long "discussions" with like Alyrium or Laz in former STGODs...

[Adrian Laguna]

Even IF we have definite rules and structure, it will still have discussions and arguing about it. I might point out various, page-long "discussions" with like Alyrium or Laz in former STGODs...

Discussing the rules is what we've been doing, is it not?

[Dahak]

Even IF we have definite rules and structure, it will still have discussions and arguing about it. I might point out various, page-long "discussions" with like Alyrium or Laz in former STGODs...

Discussing the rules is what we've been doing, is it not?

Note the "" around the word discussions. There were rules, but then there were people, in a very munchkin-like fashion, who tried to work their way around those rules or get some other benefit.
"No, you can't have that Multi-Million ton battleship, rule 12a says so."
"But it's not really a battleship, but a specialised cruiser, that...yada yada yada." Pages upon pages of hitting someone with a brick until he finally gives in is not something I would like to live through in a STGOD again....

[Jalinth]

One question on stockpiles and one on transportation

If we don't trade our excess product, do we warehouse it, or is it gone? I'd prefer a blend if it doesn't cause too many problems. 50% is stored, 50% is "gone" (sold, spoiled, used by locals, etc...). The rational is that you can't store everything indefinitely and all that excess stuff floating around promotes sticky fingers.

For transportation, I'd assume that if a trade line is broken, you should get that shipping back. Any naval patrols would be limited to guarding a certain trade route - a ship can protect (somewhat) the Australia-Madgascar, or Austrlia India route, but not both. Each turn you can shift around your protection as you see fit.

[Adrian Laguna]

Note the "" around the word discussions. There were rules, but then there were people, in a very munchkin-like fashion, who tried to work their way around those rules or get some other benefit.
"No, you can't have that Multi-Million ton battleship, rule 12a says so."
"But it's not really a battleship, but a specialised cruiser, that...yada yada yada." Pages upon pages of hitting someone with a brick until he finally gives in is not something I would like to live through in a STGOD again...

That's usually dealt with by kicking the munchkin out of the game and calling moderator action if they don't comply/start being pricks. Anyway, I don't think it will be an issue in this STGOD. At least not from me, as can be seen from here and 2k6 I'm perfectly willing to concede if I can't defend my points.

For transportation, I'd assume that if a trade line is broken, you should get that shipping back. Any naval patrols would be limited to guarding a certain trade route - a ship can protect (somewhat) the Australia-Madgascar, or Austrlia India route, but not both. Each turn you can shift around your protection as you see fit.

I don't see why protection should be limited to turns. The protection takes as much time to change as the ship takes to go from one route to the other. So if it only takes one month to shift from guarding one trade-route to guarding another, then you can shift ships from one to the other up to three times per turn.

To add to the protection thing, some nations are so close to each other that patroling territorial waters should count as protecting the trade-route. Examples (by player): Straha-Agent Fisher and Jalinth-Beowulf.

[Jalinth]

For transportation, I'd assume that if a trade line is broken, you should get that shipping back. Any naval patrols would be limited to guarding a certain trade route - a ship can protect (somewhat) the Australia-Madgascar, or Austrlia India route, but not both. Each turn you can shift around your protection as you see fit.

I don't see why protection should be limited to turns. The protection takes as much time to change as the ship takes to go from one route to the other. So if it only takes one month to shift from guarding one trade-route to guarding another, then you can shift ships from one to the other up to three times per turn.

To add to the protection thing, some nations are so close to each other that patroling territorial waters should count as protecting the trade-route. Examples (by player): Straha-Agent Fisher and Jalinth-Beowulf.

My thoughts on this would be that longer trade routes are kept up on a turn by turn basis, and the protection should go with it (I'm assuming that ships are going back and forth hauling food, cotton, etc... - the way real shipping does). I do agree that certain very close routes (me and Beowulf being a good one) coastal patrols should help minimize pirate/enemy action just by themselves. But many routes are longer and will pass through third parties territory. While my country isn't likely impacted (Beowulf is about the only person who might need to zip through my territory for anywhere else), Dahak might decide to only protect certain countries shipping through his waters while everyone else is on their own. Or he might ask for some type of fee for providing anti-piracy protection in his waters (I would. I'm a small colony and not a superpower acting as a world policeman)