StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why do you have to discuss this in such a detail? What do you gain from that, seriously?
Thirdfain says so, you should abide by it. Endless pages of discussion will only steal vital life time from all parties involved without any benefit.

I missed the suppy ship comment-post of AdrianLaguna when writing mine, in light of this it's redundant, and I withdraw the idea.

I do not know what sombeody else is going to post

and I'd expect details is just why this game is going to be fun, otherwise we would just be throwing numbers on each other's heads.
so I apologize for the 'theft' of 3 minutes of your life.

EDIT: fixed typos

Clarification on the rules for luxury good trading:

Is it the case that both trading away luxury good and trading FOR luxury goods will help your national economy? I know that is the case IRL, was wondering if that was the case in-game. You seem to suggest that the person receiving luxury goods will benefit as well, but it is not explicit, so I want to check before I start trading willy-nilly

I actually agree with Adrian, one year more or less from the (pretty much arbitrary) 1892 limit shouldn't matter.

When I envision the destroyer, I'm envisioning the destroyers of the Russo-Japanese war, and the like. Fast vessels making devastating attacks. The destroyers of the Great White Fleet making an around the world voyage. If the destroyers don't have the range, how the heck can they make it from my ports to the enemies to make those attacks, or circumnavigate the world?

Fair enough; I'm merely trying to make a place for unarmoured cruisers and other such light and medium vessels in the game- after all, they were FAR more common than TBD's in this time period, even with the advent of the Havock.

I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the whole "trade of luxury goods" thing. I think we need to make some changes to the system, half for game balance, half because this shit just doesn't make sense.

First off, what are the benefits of TRADING a luxury and KEEPING a luxury? When luxury goods were first introduced onto the scene, the description was written from the perspective of the person trading away the luxury good. But little was said about the player receiving the good, and nothing about the benefits or liabilities of NOT trading the good.

Some thoughts:

Trading the good:
Exporter: Big boost to income, small boost to happiness.
Importer: Small boost to income, big boost to happiness.

Not trading:
Big boost to happiness, small boost to income.

As previously specified, income leads to bonuses in economic development (ICs ftw!), and happiness leads to political stability.

Edit: With the clarifications to the trade system, we might need to re-evaluate how much shipping capacity it takes to transport luxury goods, as a game balance measure (assuming we are going with Pablo's scaled shipping capacity scheme). Or we could just make the benefits of luxury trade - already intangible - scaled to the shipping capacity requirements.

Thoughts, anyone?

BTW, Thirdfain, you wrote "steel" in the re-investment part of the initial rules. But I fail to see any "steel" anywhere. An oversight?

Dahak wrote:BTW, Thirdfain, you wrote "steel" in the re-investment part of the initial rules. But I fail to see any "steel" anywhere. An oversight?

Nope, simply meant Iron.

Thirdfain wrote:Fair enough; I'm merely trying to make a place for unarmoured cruisers and other such light and medium vessels in the game- after all, they were FAR more common than TBD's in this time period, even with the advent of the Havock.

I think maybe if we emphasized the vulnerability of lone destroyers to larger vessels in open seas, cut off from the line of battle. What I was going to use the destroyers for would be escorting a line of battle, and very marginally filling in for motor torpedo boats in a first strike role, when the target is too far away for MTBs to get at. The destroyers would be basically useless as screens if they were limited to just a thousand miles off my own coast, anyway.

To emphasize the utility of light and medium vessels, we could just reinforce that destroyers only useful for killing torpedo boats and other destroyers, and maybe commerce raiding. Even an unprotected cruiser ought to have far more gun power than even a group of destroyers, so that they could only overwhelm it in a swarm attack or surprise port strike.

By the power of Greyskull, arise!

Okay, now that the necromantic rituals are out of the way and He-Man has been paid-off:

Rules wrote:shipping capacity can be used to move troops at a rate of 40 infantry (or 10 horsemen) per 1 point of shipping.

I think it should be done as "points of infantry/cavalry per point of shipping" rather than "number of infantry/cavalry per point of shipping". Infantry consisting of riflemen only (less points per man) would occupy less space than infantry with artillery (more points per man).

Yeah, yeah, I know the game is already underway, but not much has happened. We could say that from the next turn onward the new rule applies. Or not apply it at all.

More Rules wrote:You can spend points on shipping; it goes directly into your shipping pool.

Does "directly" mean we don't have to wait 3 months for the new transports to arrive?

Have underwater telegraph cables been developed by this point? I'm wondering becuase I really don't want all my communication to have to go by ship.

More Rules wrote:You can spend points on shipping; it goes directly into your shipping pool.

Does "directly" mean we don't have to wait 3 months for the new transports to arrive?[/quote]

No; all points spent arrive 1 turn later. My apologies.

A-Wing_Slash wrote:Have underwater telegraph cables been developed by this point? I'm wondering becuase I really don't want all my communication to have to go by ship.

Yes there are. But they are easily susceptible to damage and breakage. And they are of course still point to point.

Wireless telegraphy may or may not be available depending on technical advances. But quite probably not.