Proposal for New rules

[snip]

So as Tex stated, he and I have been working on a set of rules for a reboot of sort. The plan is for a post WWI start date, but with some political changes made that will have had an effect on the outcome of events. So for comment, here are the proposed rules:

•   Population Levels (in millions) and total Factories (Factories determine Industrial Strength)
o   Pop:IS ratio is a measure of the nations industrialization level. There are three levels, Industrialized (>1:1.5), Semi-Industrial (1:1.4 to 1:.75) and agricultural (< 1:.75)
o   Pop:IS ratio determines years behind OTL tech. 0 for industrialized nations, -1 for semi-industrial, -3 for agricultural
o   Pop:IS ratio determines the total number of domestic milestones that can be achieved each year. 3 for industrialized nations, 2 for semi-industrial, 1 for agricultural
•   Units of factories broken up into 4 sections Land, Sea, Air and Industrial
o   Sea works like WW but subs cost double to account for needed structural increases
?   Each factory produces 1000t of material a third
?   Costal defenses are charged the weight of the gun+armor in SS
?   Maintenance costs of 2.5% of total fleet tonnage including CDS
o   Air works of a tonnage system
?   Each factory produces 100t of material a third
?   The empty airframe weight is payed per plane rounded up to the nearest
?   Airships are (volume in m3/400) for tonnage
?   Maintenance costs of 20% of total invested tonnage
o   Land works off a points system
?   Each factory produces one point a third
?   Infantry Divisions costs 10 points, Armored Divisions cost 20, and Specialization of a division costs 5 plus the costs of the Division
?   Corps cost twice as much while Brigades cost half as much
?   Total manpower may not exed 15% of population
?   Maintenance cost of 5% of total invested points
o   Industrial factories provide a small amount of dedicated Industrial points that can be allocated to adding more factories or facilities for Land Sea and Air applications.
•   Tech is +0 from OTL unless GTL experience dictates otherwise
o   IE, no experimental jets until the late 1930s
•   Concepts require milestones to employ use. RPing must be done to work up to the employment of a concept.
o   IE, any way of bringing aircraft to sea onboard a ship requires experience related to the potential usefulness of having an aircraft.
•   Wars
o   All wars will be scripted
o   At the beginning of a war, an outline of events needs to be posted so if the writers fall behind, they do not hold things up.
•   Turns
o   A game year has three turns, Jan-Apr, May-Aug, and Sep-Dec
o   A rate of 3 weeks a turn is ideal
•   Start-up Rules
o   Start date is January 1st, 1919
o   The number of Naval factories is equivalent to the number of Capital ships that the nation layed down between 1909 and 1919 in OTL times 1.5 plus 7.
?   The official source on this is to be Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships
o   The number of Land Factories is equivalent to one-fourth of the number of divisions that were historically existent on December 31st, 1918
o   The number of Air factories is equivalent to the number of active squadrons and operational airships on December 31st, 1918
o   The number of Industiral factories is used to bump nations up into the next category of Pop:IS ratio if they are placed in the incorrect category by LSA factories

[Kaiser Kirk]

1. Appreciate the thought and effort.
2. Appreciate the sharing.
3. Would have preferred at least 1 example nation.  It appears historical nations are the starting point, which means those not participating in the great war (China, Mexico, Brazil, Netherlands, etc) will have far fewer Divisions, and so less resources.  Also, Division strength & TOE varied by nation, so did not represent the same # of troops and level of investment.
4. This is basically a large package of rule changes. The problem is lack of player participation currently blamed on length of times for wars. I don't see the need for a sweeping basic revision of the rule structure, but I suppose a potential reboot is grounds to discuss it.
5. Start in 1918... I'm pushing earlier is better.
6. All scripted wars... not acceptable to me. Part of the Allure of Navalism was the idea of 3rd party moderation of results. Further, my experience in WW is that they take longer, and appear hard to do with more than 2 parties.

ed: like the increased cost on subs. I once read that due to all the engineering and technical staff, they cost as much as a cruiser to run, so I'm thinking a massively inflated (5-10x) maintenance cost is whats needed there.

[TexanCowboy]

1+2. Appreciate the appreciation.
d
3. Ok. We were preferring a division size of approximental 12,500, just so we could keep track; however, just as long as the amount of men is equal to what you paid for and whatnot, it'd be fine by us. The non-war nations: That would be represented by "industrial potential", which basically means more industrial factories.

4. We realize that; However, many players, now and in the past, are being driven away by the extreme complexity of many things, including tech, sim reports...

5. Well, the problem with 1918 is that the Great War is still running. If you can figure out a way to have that settled earlier, be my guest, but the plan was for the US to not enter, being distracted with Mexico, leading to a Western Front stalemate (And fun Russian things *evil grin*)

6. We could have options: Players choose to script the war, or someone could sim the war as a 3rd party, giving basic results, leaving the players to fill in the holes, so to speak.

[Desertfox]

A suggestion on aircraft. Instead of paying for individual aircraft, I proposed that one payed for aircraft factories. A factory would say be capable of producing 100 aircraft per quarter/year etc, and could be expanded as needed. Factory cost would be determined by type of aircraft being produced and would have to be upgraded as new aircraft became available.

[snip]

Interesting idea, we will talk it over

[TexanCowboy]

Well, we are sorta heading in that direction; however, we figured that the option to build individual planes on a matter of tonnage would be more realistic; as a factory is not always running at maximum capacity; It also allows for differation in the planes being built. Besides, planes vary. A P-51 is not the same cost as a Sopwith Camel, and the "tonnage" factor attempts to realize that.

However, that is only my opinion, and it probably could be changd.

[Desertfox]

Well the factory would have say a peacetime limit and a wartime limit. And the difference between a P-51 and a Camel would be covered via factory "upgrades".

[ctwaterman]

*slaps forehead*

*sighs* Ok....  first I dont play West World so I am completely ignorant of what they do over there.   But lets be clear here KISS is going to be a guiding principle.

I have seen some really good proposals In the Military Sections for Brigades.   And the Fortress and Fortified Lines and Naval Gun Batteries sections all seem to work exceedingly well.

Aircraft can be built in Car Factories so no Specialized BP or IC or whatever we want to call them.   Aircraft need to be built and maintenance is going to be expensive.

And finally starting in 1880/90 means we have 25 to 35 years of sim time before we have to start worrying about them.

Charles

[snip]

WesWorld's system is very simple, I can do reports there much quicker then I can do ones here. (yes, I do run a much smaller county. But compared to Ireland, the conclusion is valid)

The cost for any specific item are in no way finalized

Aircraft can be built in Car Factories so no Specialized BP or IC or whatever we want to call them.   Aircraft need to be built and maintenance is going to be expensive.

20% of Invested tonnage not expensive? Also, we needed a way to keep track of it, hence the dedicated factories. IMO, a simple system (and so is Foxys proposal that may replace the current system)

And finally starting in 1880/90 means we have 25 to 35 years of sim time before we have to start worrying about them.

Then we have to worry much more about technology and such. In the opinion of Tex and myself, starting at a point were the airplane's power can be historically derived is much simpler then trying to moderate its development in a timeline without references to the OTL anchors it uses. The less we have to worry about research, the simpler the system as a whole is.

[snip]

For refference, here are WW Naval rules and a sample report

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=31034#post31034

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=9062&sid=

[Kaiser Kirk]

On Wesworld vs. Navalism...since I play the Dutch in Wesworld and Bavaria here... The Wesworld IP (Industrial Production aka BC) rules are naval tailored.  Discussions about appropriate country tech, army size, air force size, rate of infrastructure construction, etc has recurrently popped up there.   Personally, I like the additional economic categories - Pop, and IC give two different economic ways to present nations which are not present over there.

Yes, reports here take longer and are more complex. 
It was a bit hard to get going as Bavaria. I believe some have automated it more than others, I'm a bit of a luddite, so the simple act of mobilizing Bavaria meant I had to go change all the status tags in my army page and maintenance costs. 

The most complex thing I have for the Dutch in Wesworld is my master ship excel sheet...which is a bit behind the times, which tracks class, tonnage, laydown, completion, overhaul, refit times, etc. That's simply because several hundred ships eat up time.

Then we have to worry much more about technology and such. In the opinion of Tex and myself, starting at a point were the airplane's power can be historically derived is much simpler then trying to moderate its development in a timeline without references to the OTL anchors it uses. The less we have to worry about research, the simpler the system as a whole is.p

Starting earlier means there is less technology available, so less to worry about, and longer until we get to the sticky stuff.  In 1890 airplane power is ...0.... easy.
I don't suppose I can get folks to agree to ban heavier than air craft or submersibles ...

The only value I see in aircraft factories, or tank factories, is "even flow".  You can't order 1000 planes in HY1 1920, and then 1000 planes in HY1 1923 and expect to have an aircraft industry in between...while under the current rules thats exactly what one can do.  If you want to have aircraft, you need folks that know how to build them, even if you're paying them to just sit around.  Plus if you have to build a "factory" to ramp up production, it causes a lag during the war, which better echoes switching a civilian economy to a military one than suddenly ordering 2,000 planes in HY1 1925 and having them all built and delivered by HY2 1925.

[Delta Force]

WesWorld's system is very simple, I can do reports there much quicker then I can do ones here. (yes, I do run a much smaller county. But compared to Ireland, the conclusion is valid)

The cost for any specific item are in no way finalized

Aircraft can be built in Car Factories so no Specialized BP or IC or whatever we want to call them.   Aircraft need to be built and maintenance is going to be expensive.

20% of Invested tonnage not expensive? Also, we needed a way to keep track of it, hence the dedicated factories. IMO, a simple system (and so is Foxys proposal that may replace the current system)

And finally starting in 1880/90 means we have 25 to 35 years of sim time before we have to start worrying about them.

Then we have to worry much more about technology and such. In the opinion of Tex and myself, starting at a point were the airplane's power can be historically derived is much simpler then trying to moderate its development in a timeline without references to the OTL anchors it uses. The less we have to worry about research, the simpler the system as a whole is.

Aircraft are nothing to really worry about, the dirigible is the best flying machine around in all aspects for many years because it has ample payload, flight ceiling, time aloft, and range. It wasn't even possible to shoot one down until 1916 or so, when aircraft finally were able to reach altitude in time to shoot dirigibles down.

Someone could almost certainly go and make a steam powered airplane in the 1880s or 1890s. The Wright Flyer of our time line was something of a fluke that required just the right conditions to fly. When they attempted to recreate the flight in 2003 using replicas, they were unable to achieve flight. The thing is though, airplanes were considered impossible to do at the time and so no governments were actively promoting research into them. Aviation research was mostly the hobby of wealthy people with a lot of time on their hands, and very dangerous. Someone could by pure chance develop flight earlier than historically, or later than historically. The Wright Brothers didn't so much develop a great innovation as much as have a number of small things all line up for them in order to get the aircraft to fly. If wind conditions hadn't of been just right, someone else would have achieved the title of first in flight. That said, if someone were to invest in aircraft, they would become subject of ridicule in any era before it was proven it was actually possible to do. The leading experts were all saying that the crash of Langley's aircraft proved that any further research was a folly.

If anything, I would consider ahistorical dirigible development to be more realistic. They were essentially just controllable balloons which had been around for decades and used to great effect in many wars. You could put some kind of heliograph on a dirigible and have a good high altitude observation platform. Lighter than air technology had been around for a very long time and was quite well developed by the 1870s.

[ctwaterman]

Aircraft are nothing to really worry about, the dirigible is the best flying machine around in all aspects for many years because it has ample payload, flight ceiling, time aloft, and range. It wasn't even possible to shoot one down until 1916 or so, when aircraft finally were able to reach altitude in time to shoot dirigibles down.

I believe the problem with Zeppelins is how really fragile they are.  And how very much influnced by wind currents they were.  Yes they had payload, and range, advantages but they got them by carrying and explosive filler.   They are and were susceptible to ground fire prior to 1916 especially if someone wants to dedicate alot of guns to shooting them down.  This was why the Germans after 1915/16 went to operating only at night over GB.

Over all I agree from 1880 thru 1916 the Zeppelin is the best we have available starting with early tethered observation ballons used durring the American Civil War and other places as well.  Once we Get Zeppelins they should however be extremely expensive and labor intensive just as they were historically.  The Crew is small the ground crew is huge by comparisson.

[miketr]

Aircraft are nothing to really worry about, the dirigible is the best flying machine around in all aspects for many years because it has ample payload, flight ceiling, time aloft, and range. It wasn't even possible to shoot one down until 1916 or so, when aircraft finally were able to reach altitude in time to shoot dirigibles down.

I believe the problem with Zeppelins is how really fragile they are.  And how very much influnced by wind currents they were.  Yes they had payload, and range, advantages but they got them by carrying and explosive filler.   They are and were susceptible to ground fire prior to 1916 especially if someone wants to dedicate alot of guns to shooting them down.  This was why the Germans after 1915/16 went to operating only at night over GB.

Over all I agree from 1880 thru 1916 the Zeppelin is the best we have available starting with early tethered observation ballons used durring the American Civil War and other places as well.  Once we Get Zeppelins they should however be extremely expensive and labor intensive just as they were historically.  The Crew is small the ground crew is huge by comparisson.

There was a BIG ramp up in Zeppelin performance during WW1.

Michael

[Darman]

A suggestion on aircraft. Instead of paying for individual aircraft, I proposed that one payed for aircraft factories. A factory would say be capable of producing 100 aircraft per quarter/year etc, and could be expanded as needed. Factory cost would be determined by type of aircraft being produced and would have to be upgraded as new aircraft became available.

If you were going to use a factory-based production system, where each factory produces X amount of equipment, then this is the idea that I would favor most.  But rather than 100 aircraft, what about making it 100 tons of aircraft?  Factories will still cost more for each level but as the aircraft get bigger you produce fewer of them per factory.