StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Could we add more aircraft than that? A country like mine is already operating about over 100 aircraft, and never mind that our GDP is not even half that of S.Korea.

We're staying with modern, man. I don't want to dick around with biplanes and shit.

Yeah, the number of aircraft is probably a bit low. Changed from 600 to 1000 for the imperiums.

And the consensus seems to be modern is preferred to 1930s

As a side note, we need a system of punishments for anyone who tries to play a dick. Anyone who tries to play school yard bully gets whacked for it. We can't have some dick who cheats consistantly and then whines about it when someone calls him on it.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:As a side note, we need a system of punishments for anyone who tries to play a dick. Anyone who tries to play school yard bully gets whacked for it. We can't have some dick who cheats consistantly and then whines about it when someone calls him on it.

That would have to be in game I think. The international community could just decide to invade someone who rocks the boat, preferably before they get nukes . The problem was that last time Sheppnukistan only really went of the deep end after acquiring a huge nuclear arsenal.

Edit: another way to try and leverage assholes without invasion would be to make all nations not neccesarrily fully independent on food and natural resources automatically. Therefore trade embargoes can have a serious effect.

Edit Mk2: To resolve the time fframe we should have nother vote on the issue, this time with it being an official vote with the people voting stating how they voted in the vote thread. (Damn, thats a lot of times I just wrote vote in one form or another there.)

Raj Ahten wrote:That would have to be in game I think. The international community could just decide to invade someone who rocks the boat, preferably before they get nukes . The problem was that last time Sheppnukistan only really went of the deep end after acquiring a huge nuclear arsenal.

Edit: another way to try and leverage assholes without invasion would be to make all nations not neccesarrily fully independent on food and natural resources automatically. Therefore trade embargoes can have a serious effect.

Well, I was also referring to the use of OOC information for in-game affairs.

That aside, perhaps we should consider adding strategic resources to the game, but the issue then would be just how many resources do we allocate to each country. The periodic table has just way too many elements and a good portion of them are vital to many sectors.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Raj Ahten wrote:That would have to be in game I think. The international community could just decide to invade someone who rocks the boat, preferably before they get nukes . The problem was that last time Sheppnukistan only really went of the deep end after acquiring a huge nuclear arsenal.

Edit: another way to try and leverage assholes without invasion would be to make all nations not neccesarrily fully independent on food and natural resources automatically. Therefore trade embargoes can have a serious effect.

Well, I was also referring to the use of OOC information for in-game affairs.

That aside, perhaps we should consider adding strategic resources to the game, but the issue then would be just how many resources do we allocate to each country. The periodic table has just way too many elements and a good portion of them are vital to many sectors.

We could put most of the resources in the third world shit holes. That would give people a reason to bother with them.

Raj Ahten wrote:We could put most of the resources in the third world shit holes. That would give people a reason to bother with them.

And if Shep happens to be "one of those third world shitholes"?

Barring that, if Stas agrees, we'd have the Middle East right on our Continent.

Coyote wrote:As for a Moderator, I nominate...

STEVE

And as Mod, he gets his pick of nation level.

Well, huh, I'm... I'm flattered, really.



And for non-playing mods, it does work well in theory, but it requires someone willing to approach the entire STGOD as a job and to apply the necessary time and will and thinking to it (including, if it's decided, the fair running of every single NPC).

I'd suggest a three mod system, with - if it's desired - one non-player mod to serve as the final authority and appeal for everyone. The two player mods would be in a better position to handle day-to-day affairs, since they'll be reading the threads as a matter of their daily routine, and should be trusted, experienced players.


Finally, I took like Beo's system.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
And if Shep happens to be "one of those third world shitholes"?

Barring that, if Stas agrees, we'd have the Middle East right on our Continent.

Well I'm talking more on the lines of having the resources in a Congo anolog. Shep would be the man exporting revolution to such locales. And having extractive economies would be a good reason why the third world in this world sucks.

People run nations could have some resources lets say, but a lot of the major deposits could be in the third world.

Steve wrote:And for non-playing mods, it does work well in theory, but it requires someone willing to approach the entire STGOD as a job and to apply the necessary time and will and thinking to it (including, if it's decided, the fair running of every single NPC).

I'd suggest a three mod system, with - if it's desired - one non-player mod to serve as the final authority and appeal for everyone. The two player mods would be in a better position to handle day-to-day affairs, since they'll be reading the threads as a matter of their daily routine, and should be trusted, experienced players.

I like your idea of a non-player mod who would service the NPCs. It removes the conflict of interest issue, and also, we don't have to scream around for someone to roleplay the NPCs, like the last time round.

Well, I could do it. I moderated games on The Frontier before without trouble, though the owner of the website ultimately got pissed off at me since he was also a player and that was that. I'm a fairly strict realist though. But I do have the time to keep up on it, and I'd consider it penance for my part in the fall of the first iteration. That would let Steve play, and since even Beowulf knows that I simply have no interest in playing in the game myself I'd be quite impartial.

I should say I like Beowulf's model, though the number of planes etc ar likely going to be tweaked some. The system gives some customization. With natural resources being a changeable category, people can add more if they want while the third world can be a resource source for everyone else.

Raj Ahten wrote:I should say I like Beowulf's model, though the number of planes etc ar likely going to be tweaked some. The system gives some customization. With natural resources being a changeable category, people can add more if they want while the third world can be a resource source for everyone else.

There would really need to be a point system for aircraft as well. As for ships, I like the present point spread but the totals probably need to be increased slightly--5 trillion is 20% greater than the budget I worked out for Kaetjhasti, and they can operate 5 super-carriers with slightly less than 5% of the GDP going to defence.

Going to start in the 1960s, probably? Or later? That ALSO affects the military calculations--the figures definitely need to be larger in the 1960s because electronics costs per unit were a lot less then. 10,000 Mig-21s could easily be afforded in the 1960s by the same nation in 2008 which can only afford 400 F-22s, to provide an example. The number of units that you can buy with a particular point spread should actually decline over time.

Nations start in 2012 SDN, I would believe... or something. Most favoured the same tech level as before (modern technology).

How about a tiered system? After all, we already tiered our nuclear and convention warships. We could do the same for our fighters with regard to the fighter generation.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Well, I could do it. I moderated games on The Frontier before without trouble, though the owner of the website ultimately got pissed off at me since he was also a player and that was that.

Was that because you were the one who essentially manouvered your nation into a position of unassailable power equivalent to the 1960s US, with thousands of bombers, and 16,000 NIKE-HERCULES missiles armed with nuclear warheads and all tied together in SAGE, or was that another game?

MKSheppard wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Well, I could do it. I moderated games on The Frontier before without trouble, though the owner of the website ultimately got pissed off at me since he was also a player and that was that.

Was that because you were the one who essentially manouvered your nation into a position of unassailable power equivalent to the 1960s US, with thousands of bombers, and 16,000 NIKE-HERCULES missiles armed with nuclear warheads and all tied together in SAGE, or was that another game? :P

I told the American player he could pull that off. He chose to ignore the enormous possibilities that offered him in favour of destroying the game over a dispute with the British player (Chris Purnell) over the fairness of my moderating in the Arab + Britain Vs. Israel (with Soviet aide!) conflict that was happening at the time, because it didn't fit how he wanted the game to go.

I, as Britain, was simply trying to turn the British Empire into a trade bloc instead while I still could before I dropped the country in favour of Chris to take over the modship, which is where the accusation of unfairness came from--despite the fact that the outnumbered Israelis had badly mauled British forces throughout the conflict, let alone the Ay-rabs. I'm sorry, but having a battalion of brand-new T-54s that the crews have no experience with annihilate itself destroying a Centurion battalion of British Regular Army is unfair--to the British.

I went out of my way to be impartial like that, and they still tore the game down over accusations of unfairness.

Which stats are we allowed to swap around? I have a tentative setup. Is starting with 12 mil instead of 15 mil and 750 billion instead of 625 billion ok?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Raj Ahten wrote:I should say I like Beowulf's model, though the number of planes etc ar likely going to be tweaked some. The system gives some customization. With natural resources being a changeable category, people can add more if they want while the third world can be a resource source for everyone else.

There would really need to be a point system for aircraft as well. As for ships, I like the present point spread but the totals probably need to be increased slightly--5 trillion is 20% greater than the budget I worked out for Kaetjhasti, and they can operate 5 super-carriers with slightly less than 5% of the GDP going to defence.

Going to start in the 1960s, probably? Or later? That ALSO affects the military calculations--the figures definitely need to be larger in the 1960s because electronics costs per unit were a lot less then. 10,000 Mig-21s could easily be afforded in the 1960s by the same nation in 2008 which can only afford 400 F-22s, to provide an example. The number of units that you can buy with a particular point spread should actually decline over time.

Start date appears to be 2008-2012 era. The problem with setting points for the aircraft is that it's a lot of variation. How many points does a tanker take? F-16? F-22? A-10? B-1? F-4? Su-27? JAS-39? C-130? C-17? E-2? E-767? primary flight trainer? jet trainer? Gets really complicated, really fast.

You can simplify allot of that by going by by units instead of 1x F-22, it's a full flight(4x) or squadron(12x). Also you can group it into levels of quality.

Lets me give an example, lets say I have a country with 1,000 points for military equipment on "round start" for lack of a better term.

Planes are very high cost unites, divided into Low, Medium, High and Ultra(Ultra is reserved for limited next-gen planes like F-22's and Stealth bombers)

But again we get into highly complex things again, it gets complicated but once set up could be much easier to deal with but we lose alot of the free-formless of the last game.


Are we committed to 2012?

Well, I can review stuff and make sure it fits into the same broad framework, allowing for some latitude and keeping us from all becoming asses about the rules.

I'm cool with Duchess being the game master. I mean, she's cool with statistics and figurines. But I hope we can have some leniency so I can still go about doing my loopy stuff.

Um, but let us not forget that she was the one who caused Shep to kill us all the last time

Beowulf wrote:My suggestion: *snip*

Under this system duchies end up with a GDP of 1.25 trillion dollars, despite having a population of only 7.5 million people (!!). Not only that, but the duchy now only has 62.500 km^2 in territories, a mere fifteen fleet points, and only 63 planes.

If you ask me, it requires further tweaking.

We can easily tweak the duchies to have more land area and people, and downsize the Imperiums a bit. Also, OOBs should be based on real-world deployments rather than Zor's ridiculous "Oh a Kingdom gets dozens of AEGIS destroyers while Duchies get diddly squat".