Picking up where we left off...
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on March 28, 2018, 03:43:03 PM
Quote from: snip on March 28, 2018, 02:34:52 PM
The land points thing Kirk is referencing relates to a specific thing within the Concessions rules and should not be taken as a measure of the overall military power of a given NPC state. I really really really don't want to have to define and keep track of individual NPC values.
Wait, does that mean you aren't planning to track the number of official belt buckles issued in the various NPC states? What do we pay you for anyhow?
Oh...that's right....um, never mind ....
As for the 10, snip is correct, that comes from the Concession rules. However, currently that's the only number out there to gauge the Military strength of NPCs, and by the concession rules it applies regardless of if you're grabbing just the island of say Kagoshima, or if you're grabbing all the Japanese islands as a concession, (or the province of Hianan vs. 20 provinces of the mainland China) so I've been (apparently erroneously) taking as a gauge of the military strength of the NPCs.
Don't mean to digrees at this point, but it's probably worth another thread for clarification/discussion of how the NPCs are expected to work.
For example, Parthia will want to support some NPCs and rip of chunks of territory from others. :)
I realize that a key part of the Concession rules never made it into the official post. Oops. Its that there is a once province limit per concession. In addition to the one concession per NPC rule, this should keep things like annexing all of China to happen.
Concessions as a mechanic: This, IIRC, grew out of a desire to allow for something akin to the European-owned ports in China for centralized trade. A place which might on its own be more productive than a given slice of the colony of the same size, but unable to expand. I wanted to provide a way for this to happen
without requiring a full-blown war. So, hence the need for a fixed, solvable, number. I did give the out of "unless otherwise specified by the GM" to provide for an increase in difficulty if you try and do this to someplace with an in-game historically strong military.
NPC Military power: It has always been my intent to have the various NPC powers around the map be within horseshoe and grenade range of the player powers in terms of land power. The main difference is that the NPC nations ether cannot or will not do naval things on the scale of player nations. This does two things. First, it reduces the white space on the map, so ideally we see some colonial conflicts. Second, it means if we ever get to the point of adding players, its a matter of going "This NPC has decided to Navy now, enjoy". I don't want to put a hard cap on NPC power so that it's not a "solvable" equation in the case of just rolling over one of them. So consider that in a formal war of conquest, the NPCs would sit somewhere on the spectrum of not total pushovers, but still inferior to a modern force, to able to stand toe to toe with any of the player nations (NPCs like the Golden Horde would fall at this end). It's probably worth me getting a list written up placing all the NPCs on a power rankings list without hard numbers attached. In fact, let me do that once Im done posting this.
Rough NPC Power Rankings. I have
conducted lots of research gone with a dartboard and my gut feeling to make this list. Poke holes as you like. Remember that this is land (and later air) power only.
First Rank Powers: In addition to containing all the player nations, this rank represents the NPCs that can stand even, or maybe even win a major war against a player nation.
Quote
The Golden Horde
Heavenly Kingdom of China
(The blue place on the Indian Sub-Continent that I have forgotten what I named it)
Azteca Domain
Second Rank Powers: While likley unable to outright win a war against a First Rank Power, the second rank powers can make a first rank pay dearly for any invasion
Quote
(The remaining two Indian states)
Shogunate of Japan
Ethiopia
Peoples Republic of Maya
Third Rank Powers: The weakest formal nation states. These nations are still capable of putting up a fight, but the formal part of wars is all but a foregone conclusion given enough time. These powers likely have some sort of geographic isolation that has helped them coalesce.
Quote
Kingdom of Thailand
Unified Berber States
Confederation of the Five Nations
Fourth Inca Empire
Let's say the Vilnius Union wants to obtain a concession at, oh, Conakry. What do I do as a player to have this happen?
Thanks for the update Snip,
That changes my planning a bit, but is a useful update.
It does lower the chance of my simply taking over the Japanese islands...
quote author=The Rock Doctor link=topic=7166.msg91072#msg91072 date=1522289665]
Let's say the Vilnius Union wants to obtain a concession at, oh, Conakry. What do I do as a player to have this happen?
[/quote]
Well, get there before Parthia for one...
It's not in my 1st phase, or even 2nd phase plans, but I'm pretty sure it's on one of my maps as a target :)
-Is there a cash cost associated with colonies or concessions?
-Is there a cap or any kind of constraint on how many can be established per turn/in general?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 29, 2018, 09:32:10 AM
-Is there a cash cost associated with colonies or concessions?
-Is there a cap or any kind of constraint on how many can be established per turn/in general?
In the colony concession rule, there is a requirement to have either a Land/Deployment point assigned OR build an IC there (note that these IC generate higher returns), otherwise the province will revert. That is a part behind my having a large deployable force. With 74 deployable, I can colonize areas, and still generate the 3:1 odds that should lead to fairly quick victory to quickly claim a concession. Also, I can contest other's plans if necessary.
I am not aware of a limitation on establishment rates, but I expect some common sense is required. For example, while I dearly want a base so I can make Jefgte chase my raiders in the Med or Atlantic, I'm not going for Conakry until it's vaguely within my steaming range, which will be a while. I have asked and found you can establish a beachhead and expand it to a larger colony later. Same province limits as your average home region. One of the reasons I didn't start posting news is I felt it would be profoundly unfair to start claiming things before Sweden (then) and Iberia were even at the starting blocks.
I mentioned elsewhere that I had floated the idea of all of us starting with a small colony somewhere, got the ok for discussion, but never actually brought it up to everyone.
Also, I had advocated that provinces with pre-existing or natural harbors should have a lower cost for IC to reflect that you have easy transport from the beginning and so have quick & efficient loading/unloading without having to pay to develop a harbor and docks, but that has not moved beyond the talking aspect.
Land/Deployment points provide a cap on colonization, but it'd be a bit bizarre if we could throw all those points out at once. I could likely claim most of Canada or Australia in a six month period with that.
If limited to one tenth or one fifth of deployment points colonized in a single turn might keep us from painting the map too quickly.
The irony of being self-sufficient-ish for resources is that there's not much true incentive to go stake out any specific resources.
The deployment point numbers you guys are throwing around are, well high. Could you both post you total starting non-naval points broken down into components?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 29, 2018, 12:29:23 PM
Land/Deployment points provide a cap on colonization, but it'd be a bit bizarre if we could throw all those points out at once. I could likely claim most of Canada or Australia in a six month period with that.
I've been tempted with the same. I decided to roll out my plans in a somewhat logical sequence, and built a planning map based on desired steaming ranges, so each builds off the other. If someone else gets somewhere first, it will depend on how we get along to see if I kick them out, wait for them to build it up and then kick them out, or play nice. :)
Quote
If limited to one tenth or one fifth of deployment points colonized in a single turn might keep us from painting the map too quickly.
It would certainly disjoint my plans, as I meant to conquer a lot, leave the Deployment points there (same cost), and then slowly build IC, have those finance local defenses and then pull my forces home.
Still, I see the logic, and even at 1/10 that's 7 provinces/turn. It actually might discomfort those who didn't buy more DP, as the starting 24 becomes 2.4 provinces / turn. On the other hand, by limiting me, it does somewhat reward those that didn't put extra startup points there.
I suppose my view on this idea is mixed.
Quote
The irony of being self-sufficient-ish for resources is that there's not much true incentive to go stake out any specific resources.
That was a concern of mine- there isn't a great reason to stick your strategic neck out with some caveats.
A) The clarification on the strength of the NPCs matters, as simply kicking the Horde out and colonizing next door is not as attractive.
B) IC return more in colonies. It's quite possible to generate extra income by building there. Since the longer you have the IC built, the more game years it generates a return, the incentive is to conquer early and often.
C) Unfortunately, there's no difference between a colony built 'next door' or across the globe. I could set up shop in New England, or in East Africa...they 'pay' the same, and with no resources at play, the incentive is to stay as local as possible.
D) For me, I have long been tickled by the idea of playing Ancient Persia, but it does mean I'm on the sidelines. I can capture the Red Sea all the way to Port Said, and not really discomfort Jefgte. So there are strategic incentives to have bases scattered about so I can project power far from home.
Quote from: snip on March 29, 2018, 01:41:57 PM
The deployment point numbers you guys are throwing around are, well high. Could you both post you total starting non-naval points broken down into components?
Nation setup thread, reply 19.
Here's my points breakdown, I spent 12 modification points, or 24% of my budget, on more forces. Cap was 20pts item, which would have been +110 land and +90 deployment:
Modification Points
6 - +2 IC
20- +4 BP
7- +70BP Ships & Infrastructure (550 BP total)
12- +70 land (150 total), +50 deployment (74 total) 2 pts : Electric Drives, Oil Fired Boilers available 1906
1 pt : Up to Historical 1910 aircraft and countermeasures, available 1910
1 pt : Night Fighting Basic tactics, Specialised nighttime acquisition Searchlight mounts, night scopes available 1910
1 pt : Centralized FC, early directors – 10km, available 1910
---
50pts
-20 MP: +4 BP
-3 MP: +1 IC
-13 MP: +130 Land/Deployment (+80 Land, +50 Deployment)
-14 MP: 6 for RF, 2 for propulsion and planes, 1 for DD, mines, night-fighting, torpedoes
I was like, "I'm not going to conquer much of Rome with just 24 Deployment Points".
Well, I have paid dearly for getting 1000t destroyers during startup.
Quote from: snip on March 29, 2018, 03:53:33 PM
Well, I have paid dearly for getting 1000t destroyers during startup.
Well, I originally I had a larger army, but slimmed it for coastal forts. I also wanted to spend 0 extra on ships, especially as that meant buying soon-to-be obsolete vessels, and frankly Parthia can probably best afford to slight the navy. But I really wanted to play with some esoteric designs - my torpedo boat carriers, the armored cruiser progression, the double stacked casements, the early (and now horribly slow) minelaying cruisers, plus fitting in a couple earlier battleships etc.
So my forces are smaller than planned...and absolutely tiny compared to the might of the Vilnus Union. I mean, he has 234 points and I have only 224 !!!!
...the horror...
Nobody can stop me from spreading schnitzel and kielbasa around the world.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 29, 2018, 04:59:57 PM
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.
Proposal for procedure on colonial/consessional establishment.
Quote1) 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?
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" ??
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.
Quote from: snip on April 22, 2018, 09:14:14 PM
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.
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.
Sorry guys. :-[
QuoteD) 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.
I interpreted the Deployment thing correctly; please send a cookie.
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?
Quote from: snip on April 23, 2018, 01:02:58 PM
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.
Exactly. There is no point in giving an NPC a fair fight if you can give it an unfair fight instead.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 24, 2018, 05:04:50 PM
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....
OF COURSE NOT, KIRK, THAT WOULD BE WRONG.