Colonization and Concessions discussion

[Kaiser Kirk]

Nobody can stop me from spreading schnitzel and kielbasa around the world.

Nobody would want to stop you from spreading kielbasa around the world,
schnitzel though..... sorry that's just not acceptable.

[snip]

Proposal for procedure on colonial/consessional establishment.

1) The GM designates a day that reports for a given turn are due on.
2) Seven (7) days before the deadline for reports is set as the deadline for notifying the GM of colonial actions.
3) Notification is done by sending the GM the following items.
--A color designated part of the map that denotes the area in question for the action.
--The number of Land and/or Air points designated to perform the action. The number must be at least the number of Provinces claimed.
--Any involved Naval Units.
4) The GM will compare all the requests and note any areas claimed by more than one player nation.
5) In the event of a conflict, the players in question will be notified and both will be given an opportunity to redraw the boundaries of their colony. Players may elect not to change the boundaries if they wish.
6) If there is still conflict, the GM will simulate the outcome of a turn-length (6 months) engagement over the territory in question. The winner of this will be given ownership of the contested area.
7) The GM will notify all players of successfully claimed areas prior to the date listed and must factor those areas and actions within into that turn's report.

How does this look?

[Kaiser Kirk]

A) Reasonable.

B) For my purposes, I'd like landing dates to be part of that. I plan to land at A before I land at B.  Likewise, down the road, there may be a case where I deploy 30 DP to wring a concession out of an NPC, and once that battle's done, try to use some of them elsewhere later in that HY.

C) How do we negotiate with NPCs ?  For example, one thing I'm thinking is Parthia should offer to support Ethiopia in case of Byzantine invasion (concession demands). At the same time, I'm pondering Djibouti....which might involve invading, to defeat the 10 NPC armies...and then offering to support ? I'm confused.

D) I'm wondering how we could arrange it so we can react to another player.  Let's use my Djibouti example.
I turn in my orders, Jefgte turns in his. He's got Aden, the gulf of Tamboja isn't useful to him. Me, Djibouti/Tambjora is wonderful as it puts my MTBs in reach of Aden...
I list invading Djibouti in January. Jef does't.  So there's no contested landing.  So Jef can't make a counter?

E) Unclear by what you mean in #7)  I presume that if for some reason I land 4 Deployment points in Greenland in May of 1910, that I have to account for that in the next turn, not "into that turn's report" ??

[snip]

a) Good to hear

b) Something for me to think about. Im not sure how the complexity of that will be handled best.

c) Let me think about that.

d) How would you propose handling this?

A reminder: You deploy land/air points from your pool to handle colonial stuff. Deployment points are representative of your ability to support land/air points not in your home territory.

[Kaiser Kirk]

A reminder: You deploy land/air points from your pool to handle colonial stuff. Deployment points are representative of your ability to support land/air points not in your home territory.

Whoa,
I totally misunderstood that.
I thought they were self-sustaining deployable forces.
So I have to pair a deployment point WITH a Land point ?

edit :
1 ) I presume it's a failure on my part - relooking at the rule it seems obvious in hindsight. Maybe it wasn't as clear in the first draft and that's what stuck.
2) If I had known, the effect would have been.... probably I would not have boosted my fleet past the minimum, and instead have kept the larger army or boosted it further. That way when I deploy forces I don't deplete my frontline troops.
3) Like Walter, I have them assigned separate from the land points, with 2 assigned the African and Asian squadrons. I'll have to change that and pair them with a land point each.
4) In the Turn reports, I treated them like land points for maintenance, I presume that still holds up?  So having Infantry that stands in one place costs X, but having infantry that can march across a border + the support for that costs 2 X?  That's pricey for Quartermasters. Teeth:Tail in modern times comes to 1:1 ish, but back then it was more far more Teeth, less tail. Like 4:1 I think. Makes support functions remarkably expensive.

[Walter]

I missed that as well. I thought that they would be troops with the stuff attached so they can be moved overseas and I have got them like that in the report I was working on. If they do not represent troops then I have no need for the additional 16 startup deployment points and want them turned into Land points.

[snip]

Sorry guys.  :-[

[Jefgte]

D) I'm wondering how we could arrange it so we can react to another player.  Let's use my Djibouti example.
I turn in my orders, Jefgte turns in his. He's got Aden, the gulf of Tamboja isn't useful to him. Me, Djibouti/Tambjora is wonderful as it puts my MTBs in reach of Aden...
I list invading Djibouti in January. Jef does't.  So there's no contested landing.  So Jef can't make a counter?

Parthians invade Djibouti ...
That's a very bad idea.
A position to block the Suez Canal.
It is a provocation for the Mediterranean States.
Byzantium is the guarantor of the free passage.

[The Rock Doctor]

I interpreted the Deployment thing correctly; please send a cookie.

[The Rock Doctor]

I believe I understand and am cool with 1-6 in Snip's post above. 

On #7:  I'm deploying stuff in a turn, so increased maintenance and stuff is to be accounted for in that turn report.  However, I assume any related income from taking a colony will not show up until the following turn.  Yes?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Sorry guys.  :-[

No reason to be sorry.
I think it just got mixed up in my mind.

Though if I had understood it back when we discussing the rules, I would have made more suggestions on this point.

Anyhow, Parthia needs a large offensive capability, both to be a viable land ally for Sweden or Rome, and to steamroller NPCs, or those that contest her colonial ambitions.

[The Rock Doctor]

Exactly.  There is no point in giving an NPC a fair fight if you can give it an unfair fight instead.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Exactly.  There is no point in giving an NPC a fair fight if you can give it an unfair fight instead.

The fact I have enough deployment points to capture & occupy large areas, and still generate 3:1 on NPCs.
Also, if someone stuck with the starting 24, and deployed that force....well 3:1 is 72...and I have 74.
Not that I was planning on colonial wars or anything....

[The Rock Doctor]

OF COURSE NOT, KIRK, THAT WOULD BE WRONG.