Time Period for SDN World 3

[Steve]

Okay, five options, though only three of them have been heavily discussed.

Please post to confirm you've voted.

(Note that this counts as my vote post.)

[RogueIce]

Late Interbellum Period (1930-35), as that's what I'm most familiar with given the options.

[Master_Baerne]

I'm for Early Interbellum, because I really, really don't want nukes involved in this game.

[Mr Bean]

I'm for Early Interbellum, because I really, really don't want nukes involved in this game.

Turn of the Century because I really, really really don't want nukes involved in this game.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

Late interbellum, because there won't be a Manhattan Project to spur the development of nukes, so there's no need to worry about those.

[Beowulf]

I had an idea that any character who even thinks of making a nuclear weapon has his head explode in a rather messy fashion, courtesy of Q.

[Master_Baerne]

I had an idea that any character who even thinks of making a nuclear weapon has his head explode in a rather messy fashion, courtesy of Q.

I like this plan, though it might be a bit hard to explain.

[Raj Ahten]

I voted for 1910, primarily for storytelling purposes. If we end up having a WWI type event it can spur technological growth in a similar fashion.

Honestly I expect a lot of instability at the start of the game simply because people will now be role playing all the nations instead of them being static.

[Ryan Thunder]

The Late Victorian sounds interesting, but it'd be kind of slow, so I voted for turn of the century.

[Bluewolf]

Late Interbellum Period for me. Though I don't mind other dates.

[DarthShady]

Late Interbellum Period (1930-35). Oh and I'll second the whole no nukes thing, at least not at the start.

[Thanas]

1910. If I play as Germany or Spain, I'd rather play at a time when the nations were not full-on crazy yet.

[Lonestar]

Early Interbellum. Maximum Battleships ahoy!

More seriously, I think later Interbellum is inviting "massive bombardment of cities" waaaaaay too early.

[Zor]

How about a somewhat anacronistic time period with a few things being more advanced than others (say general 1930s tech with nuclear physics being set back a decade with a few feilds accelerated in development). Hell, doing such as illiminating the WNT would change the face of warfare considerably.

Zor

[Ryan Thunder]

Well, alternatively, our scientists could all be hippies (:P) and conscentiously object to developing nuclear weapons for us.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I decided that I couldn't live without computers. 1930-35.

So Sayeth the Emperor of Byzantium.

[Steve]

1910. If I play as Germany or Spain, I'd rather play at a time when the nations were not full-on crazy yet.

Well, you'd have complete freedom to determine how your country is structured and is behaving. If you decided to play Spain you wouldn't have to have a fracturing society on the eve of civil war.

[Steve]

I also want to add that nuclear weapons can be held off indefinitely by player agreement and mod oversight. It takes a lot of effort to simply get a project going, massive funding and everything, and if you're not on the right track the only thing you'll get out of it will be nuclear reactors for energy. And even that will probably take us until the 1950s.

[Thanas]

1910. If I play as Germany or Spain, I'd rather play at a time when the nations were not full-on crazy yet.

Well, you'd have complete freedom to determine how your country is structured and is behaving. If you decided to play Spain you wouldn't have to have a fracturing society on the eve of civil war.

Yeah, sorry if I gave the impression I did not know that. But I still would prefer to stick close to the original players so I can have an easier time designing my nation.

[Bluewolf]

Changed my mind and I have switched my vote from Late to Early to reflect this.

[Beowulf]

I also want to add that nuclear weapons can be held off indefinitely by player agreement and mod oversight. It takes a lot of effort to simply get a project going, massive funding and everything, and if you're not on the right track the only thing you'll get out of it will be nuclear reactors for energy. And even that will probably take us until the 1950s.

As I said: thinking about nuclear weapons cause your head to explode.

[Czechmate]

I voted 1910, because that's as far back as we can go without my having to change anything.

[CmdrWilkens]

I voted for 1910, I think it gives us the maximum leeway in terms of both modern warfare as we are starting to understand it (division based battles with repeating rifles are the norm) along with some colonialism (the German conquests of the turn of the century), and a lot of room for tech to develop (Dreadnoughts just came in to play 4 years ago and the airplane not much before that).

It would allow us to create an awesome colonial or medieval past while still drawing on recent enough knowledge about tactics, technology, and sociology to play believably.

[K. A. Pital]

Early interbellum. Gives plenty of time to develop and can make the game a very long-lasting hobby without bumping into nukes straightaway. That's nice

[KlavoHunter]

1930, Late Interbellum. We get to use the earliest iterations of the things that would be used in WW1.

Though I also like the idea of a 1910 game.