SD.Net World Redux Comment Thread X

[Mr Bean]

The game hit X, I did not think it could, but there you go... X

Damn...

[DarthShady]

Damn Indeed...

Also: I'm working on a first post for Stanislav's funeral, a speech and stuff like that. Anyone that wants to pitch in after that, feel free.

I wonder if Stas will participate in his own funeral...

[K. A. Pital]

I wonder if Stas will participate in his own funeral...

Chants "STANISLAV LIVED, STANISLAV LIVES, STANISLAV SHALL LIVE"...
*smiles*
What now? Heh...

Damn...

You shouldn't have dropped out Bean. But hey, there's still Khitan. This game is a bigger blast than the last one, that's for sure.

[Shroom Man 777]

We must upload your brain into SICKLE. Come, to the Shroomanian BRAIN ROOMS!

[Lonestar]

We must upload your brain into SICKLE. Come, to the Shroomanian BRAIN ROOMS!

I was thinking that we could STAB HIS CORPSE IN THE DICK with HERV!

[Steve]

The discussion on the last page of Thread IX reminds me that this year is when I'm supposed to commission a nuclear-powered frigate as a testbed for using nuclear power in light fleet combatants. And I have a 57,500T CVA on final deployment before it's brought home and prepared for selling or mothballing.

[RogueIce]

The discussion on the last page of Thread IX reminds me

Speaking of reminding people of stuff, since Fin mentioned Ryan has access to the super secret awesome CATO usergroup, and Ryan mentioned earlier an attack on him would bring in CATO automatically...does this mean he's a full on member now? It was asked before but nobody ever said anything.

If he is, would one of you be so kind as to update The List please? Or at least clarify what exactly his position is.

And, to respond to a couple other things:

Ryan
The MESS Burke-clones would be the Cheung-class. Although I imagine some of the hulls would have Millenium II in place of the Millenium I and a seperate RAM launcher. Our Tico clones are probably relatively close to RL Ticos, though with certain things changed (ie: Phalanx CIWS being Millenium w/ RAM or Millenium II CIWS, etc). You'll have to ask CATO about their stuff.

Lonestar
You can use 'em as parts hulks. I have 20 Ticos and my current count of decommed Burkes is on my SRN page, although I think only 15 of them are available to go elsewhere.

I suppose if you want to try and power a small coastal community I have a couple decommed Tico CGNs you can use.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

We were thinking of making him a full member, and we have been planning to for a while.

Barring the usual bitching about us "expanding CATO adiabetically" which I suspect will happen whether or not we give pre-notification or not.

[Steve]

Miratia joining CATO is about as surprising as the sound of thunder after lightning IMHO.

[Steve]

On another note, as some of you know I've been talking to various other players over IMs about the direction of SDN World 3 if we ever decide to start it. A couple people have asked me about directly bringing this up here in the thread, so here it is.

I know a few of you are still thinking of this one. I'm not saying "Let's kill SDN World 2 and set up 3 right now", but rather reflecting what can be done next time to improve upon bumps we found this time around for when we inevitably start up World #3.

Note that I do think that once we get past 2020 we're going to start seeing our ideas for tech progress become far too speculative to easily judge things and that this would be a good time to contemplate proclaiming the game "won", but that's another subject.

Anyway, the running proposal that it seems people are liking or at least warming up to is choosing a different time period, since we've already done two "modern day" ones, and to find something where we won't have to worry about nukes from the getgo. The late interbellum period seems the most acceptable in this vein, 1935 as a starting point.

As a world, instead of creating one completely from scratch like the last two times we start with Earth as a basis, then play with it as we desire. Shroom wants to switch the British Isles for Usea of a certain size to have Shroomania? Sure. Alternatively, he wants to be a Pacific nation east of the Phillippines? Why not? Czech wants to still use the British Isles but wants them colder? We shift them to the north or something.

This time a point system for military size would be mandatory, but instead of a uniform limit for each country one's point limit would be determined by how much of your GDP you devote to military spending, though a relatively high "cap" is open for discussion.

Secondly, in keeping with Wilkens' proposal for how naval construction should be considered among the nations, this game would have a second point system, this one with a cap by power rating, that would determine how developed one is as a land, sea, and air power by how you invest points into each category. This would determine the quality of your forces, your ability to put into service more sophisticated ships, land vehicles, and aircraft, factors like reserve pool, and the sophistication of your starting forces. In specific three kinds of unit/capability - aircraft carriers, amphibious assault/Marine forces, and paratroopers - would be fixed to two categories (and I shouldn't need to say which). Thus one can, say, be like Germany and have a sophisticated army and air force but less-built up navy, or you can have Japan's air and naval skill but relatively-unarmed army. Naturally larger powers would find it easier to be at certain levels in all three categories, but even they might find it useful to invest in one but not another depending upon their situation. A continuing system where every game year a set amount of "points" can be invested to improve these three categories, reflecting yearly technological advancement, is possible but might be too number-crunchy.

And, of course, the points system for the OrBats would have to generally be overhauled to accommodate the era. Armies are larger, based more on the division than brigade, and reserves and the capability to mobilize them quickly play a pivotal role in war-preparation, air units have the capacity to be more varied in capability and role, and on the sea subs are still more submersible than true submarine while carriers are in their first years as a potential fleet unit while the battleship is still King of the Sea (and also stupendously expensive, much like a Nimitz-equivalent was for our current game).

Someone - Beo I believe - brought up the idea that having all of one's ships of a type as a single class should also be nixed, but rather you would have to have ships of a few classes at least depending upon size of your forces.

Also, for power levels, there have been recommendations to slice one or two ranks off, Duchy and possibly Imperium, to flatten the curve and make things slightly more equitable. I've even considered using different terms for them to reflect the period - we could go from, say, Imperium-Tsardom-Kingdom to Great Power-Regional Power-Minor Power.

I think that's it, but if someone else has an idea either never spoken of or spoken of but forgotten, feel free to speak of it here.

[Siege]

If we do another game I feel it would be best to make our PC avatars actual inhabitants of this world, rather than transplanted board denizens, so that diplomacy will be actually based on the realities of the gameworld instead of 'I once met this dude from the internet, now our nations are superbestfriends forever'.

[Mr Bean]

If it's not the awesome 1890 Battleships! turn of the century STGOD that we almost made but instead went Redux I'll still be sitting on the sidelines again.

[Lonestar]

And, of course, the points system for the OrBats would have to generally be overhauled to accommodate the era. Armies are larger, based more on the division than brigade, and reserves and the capability to mobilize them quickly play a pivotal role in war-preparation, air units have the capacity to be more varied in capability and role, and on the sea subs are still more submersible than true submarine while carriers are in their first years as a potential fleet unit while the battleship is still King of the Sea (and also stupendously expensive, much like a Nimitz-equivalent was for our current game).

Medium-size countries were rocking BBs in real life, so I don't think comparing them to Nimitz is particularly good.

[Lonestar]

If we do another game I feel it would be best to make our PC avatars actual inhabitants of this world, rather than transplanted board denizens, so that diplomacy will be actually based on the realities of the gameworld instead of 'I once met this dude from the internet, now our nations are superbestfriends forever'.

Please...me and Shep were the only ones who put serious thought into in-universe Blood feuds while everyone else was "SPACE TRAVEL! *fap fap fap*"

[Siege]

And while that lasted you were both excellent, yes. In fact, that's kind of my point. I daresay we need more blood feuds, and less grouping together on a private forest militia compound fortified massive continent.

[Beowulf]

If we do another game I feel it would be best to make our PC avatars actual inhabitants of this world, rather than transplanted board denizens, so that diplomacy will be actually based on the realities of the gameworld instead of 'I once met this dude from the internet, now our nations are superbestfriends forever'.

Your author-avatar is you... but doesn't remember anything from Earth-0/1/2. Keeps people from playing based on what they remember Shep doing, or the creation of the MESS superblock.

To expound upon the earlier idea of a non-uniform class fleet, maybe every type has to have half it's members be from at least 10 years prior to game start, with some exception made for relatively small numbers of a given type. For example, if I were to have 30 cruiser class vessels, 15 of them would have to have been built in 1925 or earlier. If half my cruiser fleet is made up of Brooklyns, then the other half has to be Omahas or a similarly old design.

[Steve]

And, of course, the points system for the OrBats would have to generally be overhauled to accommodate the era. Armies are larger, based more on the division than brigade, and reserves and the capability to mobilize them quickly play a pivotal role in war-preparation, air units have the capacity to be more varied in capability and role, and on the sea subs are still more submersible than true submarine while carriers are in their first years as a potential fleet unit while the battleship is still King of the Sea (and also stupendously expensive, much like a Nimitz-equivalent was for our current game).

Medium-size countries were rocking BBs in real life, so I don't think comparing them to Nimitz is particularly good.

Hrm? Yeah, point I suppose. Maybe more akin to carriers period for our world than CVNs. Hrm, who had BBs at the time? Off the top of my head, I can recall them being built by the US, UK, France, Germany (well, when they could have them), Italy, Austro-Hungary, Russia/Soviet Union, and eventually Japan. I don't remember if Spain built their BB or bought it form someone else, but I'm pretty sure that Chilè, Argentina, Brazil, and Turkey had BBs purchased from other countries. I think Sweden had coastal monitors that were like big gun cruisers.

[Lonestar]

Spain built their BBs, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil bought them from overseas. Turkey, of course, got her BC in a rather roundabout fashion. The Netherlands at one point were planning on 3 BCs for their East Indies Colony, and Australia had a BC in it's inventory.

[Steve]

Spain built their BBs, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil bought them from overseas. Turkey, of course, got her BC in a rather roundabout fashion. The Netherlands at one point were planning on 3 BCs for their East Indies Colony, and Australia had a BC in it's inventory.

I was just checking Hazegray. You're right about Spain and the Netherlands. The HMS Australia was built in Britain and merely paid for by the Australian government during WWI, which transferred it to service with the RN. Ironically it collided with sister ship HMS New Zealand, paid for similarly by the NZ government.

[Lonestar]

\

I was just checking Hazegray. You're right about Spain and the Netherlands. The HMS Australia was built in Britain and merely paid for by the Australian government during WWI, which transferred it to service with the RN. Ironically it collided with sister ship HMS New Zealand, paid for similarly by the NZ government.

Australia also served in the RAN and shifted to the Grand Fleet after the start of WW1. Post WW1 it shifted back to the RAN. It was nominally part of the RAN, not the RN.

[Steve]

\

I was just checking Hazegray. You're right about Spain and the Netherlands. The HMS Australia was built in Britain and merely paid for by the Australian government during WWI, which transferred it to service with the RN. Ironically it collided with sister ship HMS New Zealand, paid for similarly by the NZ government.

Australia also served in the RAN and shifted to the Grand Fleet after the start of WW1. Post WW1 it shifted back to the RAN. It was nominally part of the RAN, not the RN.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that while Australia bought it, they couldn't build it on their own.

For that reason, nations which don't have a sophisticated enough naval infrastructure for building BBs would have to consider such ships foreign-built and pick which nation did it (since in most cases these ships, even if ordered directly and not sold after coming into service for the original builder, were based on the builder's pre-existing designs if sometimes modified).

[CmdrWilkens]

Australia also served in the RAN and shifted to the Grand Fleet after the start of WW1. Post WW1 it shifted back to the RAN. It was nominally part of the RAN, not the RN.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that while Australia bought it, they couldn't build it on their own.

For that reason, nations which don't have a sophisticated enough naval infrastructure for building BBs would have to consider such ships foreign-built and pick which nation did it (since in most cases these ships, even if ordered directly and not sold after coming into service for the original builder, were based on the builder's pre-existing designs if sometimes modified).

Which is why I would press that we need some sort of naval construction limitation device akin (akin not exactly the same) to the one I proposed for this game. If you know that you can't build BBs particularly Dreadnought class BBs then you have to go shop from somebody who has the spare yard capacity.

[PeZook]

I know a few of you are still thinking of this one. I'm not saying "Let's kill SDN World 2 and set up 3 right now", but rather reflecting what can be done next time to improve upon bumps we found this time around for when we inevitably start up World #3.

Let's face it: you are. And perhaps it's time to discuss the merits of continuing the game.

Seeing that activity had obviously declined due to many concerns, I guess you guys may just go ahead with SDN world 3 anyway. I'm saying "you guys" because I won't participate in another STGOD for a good, long while.

Personally, I intend to, ah, wrap up the current plot (not so current anymore, though), and then move on so that we can declare victory. I have something in mind for an awesome epilogue, though I won't reveal it untill we've decided to finish the game.

Of course, as long as even a ocuple of players decide to keep playing, there's no reason to murder this STGOD. Then again, there's no reason to hold off on the other one, too.

[Bluewolf]

this one with a cap by power rating, that would determine how developed one is as a land, sea, and air power by how you invest points into each category. This would determine the quality of your forces, your ability to put into service more sophisticated ships, land vehicles, and aircraft, factors like reserve pool, and the sophistication of your starting forces. In specific three kinds of unit/capability - aircraft carriers, amphibious assault/Marine forces, and paratroopers - would be fixed to two categories (and I shouldn't need to say which). Thus one can, say, be like Germany and have a sophisticated army and air force but less-built up navy, or you can have Japan's air and naval skill but relatively-unarmed army. Naturally larger powers would find it easier to be at certain levels in all three categories, but even they might find it useful to invest in one but not another depending upon their situation. A continuing system where every game year a set amount of "points" can be invested to improve these three categories, reflecting yearly technological advancement, is possible but might be too number-crunchy.

One thing I want to ask. How will this effect RPing out your country. For example if I spend all my points and then I say: "Cialan decides to invest double in shipyward development and rail travel", will I be allowed to beyond that yearly point limit or will I be forced to conform to it? The same goes with many things. If I set up my country has an industrial state, will I have to conform to a points limt if I dedicate my factories to more bases.

Same goes with research. Will I be stuck with a points limit for research or will I be able to go beyond that?

[MKSheppard]

I propose our next STGOD be in 1900.

You get the following:

1.) PREDREADNOUGHTS

2.) DREADNOUGHTS (they'll be laid down within 1-2 years and be ready around 1904-1905).

3.) No trivial airplanes fucking things up -- we still have 15 years before they become actually militarily useful.

3A.) No wars being decided like how the RAF imagined things; fleets of bombers flattening cities with mustard gas and high explosives.

4.) ARMED MERCHANT CRUISERS. I intend to have RMS Titanic with a 5" gun aft and torpedo launchers fitted in place of one of the third class entrance doors in the hull.

5.) Technology is not the province anymore of the superstates -- It's cheap enough that you can easily afford power-balance tipping ships like turret farm dreadnoughts; even if you ARE a south american banana republic; and Aeroplanes are primitive enough that everyone starts on the same page -- it's not until the 1920-1930s that aeroplane technology becomes very capital intensive; and starts pushing the smaller nations out of the game -- e.g. while Rumania made some nice aircraft in WW2, they couldn't make the engines for them.

6.) The Super States might be able to field a huge army on the Continent they're on, but in this time, expeditionary (RAR MARINES!) warfare is primitive -- and locals with gunz (the Mahdi!) can actually rout european armies provided they have enough guns and bodies.

7.) In this time period, huge pan-continental alliances are not the rule. The Rule is two or three nation alliances; e.g. Britain/France/Russia, instead of Britain+Everyone on Europe but Germany as it later became.

8.) Bitchin' uniforms and medal orders! This was before europe became a dark and drab place. I want my Sheppo Infantry marching into battle in bright green uniforms piped with red!

9.) This is the age of Enlightenment (ha!). I intend to issue royal edicts from Sheppur XIV saying that Old Dominionites are not human beings, and thus it is equivalent to killing a cockroach if you kill one.