Just something that came up in a chat room with Valles and a couple of involuntary WW participants.
It's another naval sim idea. Think David Drake's "Surface Action", but as nations rather than mercenary fleets.
Setting:
-It isn't Earth. It's another planet, settled by humans. It might be a different Venus or Mars, or Alpha Centauri A-3, or an Earth in an alternate universe where its poles are different.
-Whatever the planet is, it's mostly water.
-And the land is...problematic, because the biosphere is a lethal jungle. Everything wants to eat everything else.
-So most people live in underwater cities, or in fortified "domes" on "sanitized" land, mostly smaller islands.
-Tech has regressed to ~1930s-1940s era. Not enough people, and too much difficulty with basic colonization, to support anything more advanced.
Nations:
-Entirely fictional, based on whatever ethnic/philosophical/political concept a player wanted his to be.
-They're initially individual city-states. In time, they grow to become multi-city states through conquest or union or colonization.
Focus
-Nation creation: Its personality.
-Nation building: Conquering neighbours, settling land.
-Naval Warfare: The primary form of power projection. Wars are likely limited and not to the death, because if one's ship gets sunk, the crew probably gets eaten by carnivorous fish before the escort arrives. Even if the admiral is prepared to risk it, the crew probably won't be.
-Land Warfare: Limited; given how lethal the biosphere is, cracking a city is virtually a death sentence for its inhabitants, because then they can be eaten. Traditional seige rules might be typical. Most land units will rather be used to sanitize the land of the lethal plants and animals residing on it; these could be primarily armored units, as grunts will not have a good and long career.
Rules
-The focus is on money and access to a few commodities - probably food and steel-making, maybe others. Fuel not an issue - probably bio-diesel, refined everywhere.
-No BP. Just cash. You're playing your government, not your private sector.
-Seaborne trade important, obviously. Will need access to stuff you don't control yourself.
-Very limited infrastructure considerations. Big cities can build/service big ships, small ones can build/service small ones. Ship construction consists of designing the ship, paying for it, and taking reciept when it's finished - so much less sim report work.
-Tech progressions limited, and more tied to general ability to use historically known ideas rather than develop new ones.. Nukes outlawed or handwaved ("old world with limited U308). A limited range of general techs to consider, rather than many specific incremental ones.
Valles - what am I forgetting?
Folks - whatcha think?
...And to be clear, I'm not trying to muscle in on N4 turf or anything. It's a discussion topic. If folks wanted to take it somewhere, peachy.
I think you've covered it fairly well. I suspect that atomic weapons might be possible, but simply not considered that desirable - producing a compact weapon with 1930s tech would be... nontrivial, even if all of the theoretical knowledge needed had survived as probably wouldn't. More massive devices would only be worth the sheer hassle of deploying for strategic strikes or fleet-killing operations - and nuking and poisoning cleared land would probably be a last-resort option even if it weren't outright taboo.
Might see distinct 'classes' of settlement/infrastructure - city domes vs 'suburbs' vs 'greenhouse complexes', and a distinction between landside and aquatic development.
I'd want to go into a fair amount of detail about just how and why the biosphere is so nasty, because that would have follow-on effects on settlement, economy, and culture - view the influence of Bellevue's life on the 'Spirit of Man' cult in the Raj Whitehall books for a milder example.
The background in Drake's book - based on some other guy's book decades earlier - was that humanity terraformed Venus, and seeded it with normal Earth life. However, greater UV exposure due to proximity to the sun meant that things mutated really quickly - animals and plants that were small and had short reproductive cycles rapidly evolved to be more competitive. That means bigger, faster, and nastier. Vines creep and attempt to strangle or root in animals. Mosquitos impale you. Fish are shark-sized.
By the time humanity figured out just how shitty a job they'd done, they had no choice - Earth had nuked itself, so there was no turning back.
(Hence no nukes in the book - Earth was a constant reminder of the risk).
The underwater cities were supposedly safer, though I don't recall why, exactly. The approach to land was - for the most part - to leave it alone. Given that a lot of minerals would be on land, landings would nonetheless be necessary to a point. In those situations, people's approach was usually to go to war with the environment - burn, shoot, or blow up everything organic - and establishing sanitized areas behind walls and defences.
On that basis, I expect settler culture would be oriented strongly towards human survival, with a distinct antipathy for any organism other than humanity and perhaps domestic pets. Probably codes of honor around safety of people - let a ship strikes its colors rather than sink it, let a city surrender rather than damage or destroy it - and, conversely, seek terms rather than dying a futile and horrific death.
We'd probably see a strong trading attitude, expansionism. The setting might play out closer to Risk than a geopolitical sim, but to be honest, it's often how people approach these things anyway.
I quite like it- simple, easy to make things 'fit' and very 'rules-light.'
I find this intriguing and wish to know more.
;)
I suspect that the really troublesome aspects of 'clearing' land wouldn't be three-foot bloodsuckers or anemone-brambles, but smaller and more 'subtle' things, like fast-growing molds or malaria-equivalents. Ultimately, what we're looking at is a biome or set of biomes with a lot of free energy and water, and the things that tend to be hardest for humans attempting to adapt to those on Earth are disease and things like those ohgoditseatingitswayout flies from Africa. Horrible, and plausibly a serious barrier to colonization to the point of forcing domed or arcology settlement, but the Venus presented in the actual books is IMHO somewhat past plausible.
I don't think that the premium on individual life would be so high - it might be noticeably low in some cultures, given the naturally higher mortality - so much as there being a premium on infrastructure: smashing a city to ruins would be a capital-A Atrocity not because of the loss of life, but because of the ruined greenhouses, factories, water purifiers - the loss of those assets to the struggle to survive.
Quote from: Valles on November 15, 2011, 10:52:53 PM
I suspect that the really troublesome aspects of 'clearing' land wouldn't be three-foot bloodsuckers or anemone-brambles, but smaller and more 'subtle' things, like fast-growing molds or malaria-equivalents. Ultimately, what we're looking at is a biome or set of biomes with a lot of free energy and water, and the things that tend to be hardest for humans attempting to adapt to those on Earth are disease and things like those ohgoditseatingitswayout flies from Africa. Horrible, and plausibly a serious barrier to colonization to the point of forcing domed or arcology settlement, but the Venus presented in the actual books is IMHO somewhat past plausible.
I don't think that the premium on individual life would be so high - it might be noticeably low in some cultures, given the naturally higher mortality - so much as there being a premium on infrastructure: smashing a city to ruins would be a capital-A Atrocity not because of the loss of life, but because of the ruined greenhouses, factories, water purifiers - the loss of those assets to the struggle to survive.
Valid points there. I hadn't thought at all about diseases and fungi in this context
Yes - infrastructure might be of more concern to some cultures than the people within them.
2 Words...
Soilent Green... :o
Quote from: Carthaginian on November 15, 2011, 10:15:42 PM
I quite like it- simple, easy to make things 'fit' and very 'rules-light.'
Light-er, anyway. There's no getting around a minimal rules set, especially one that establishes the setting. The key's more to keep the ongoing paperwork lighter than has been the case.
this could be interesting...
Sounds fun
Interesting Rocky.
It would eliminate virtually all the potential for large scale land combat. Damaging livable space would be bad. Resources would be hard to develop in such a place making trade more desirable than finding and prospecting your own ore. Wars would be over livable space and accessible resources. Aircraft might not seem so obvious if everything outside your city is nasty.
I'm fine with the real world and it's abundance of known data.
If I was going with an alternate, my alternate world would be one with mid-sized nations, more important straits/canals, shallow shelfs, mid sized islands - kinda like the Dutch East Indies- and a short list of primary resources and a list of substitutes- everyone would have some but not all, so you'd need to specify where you get them for your economy to work full speed, giving motive for trade or war. Lots of lower tech areas scattered about for colonies/forts/strategic points. Meanwhile the geography would introduce more 'terrain' in strategic points, opportunities for smaller craft, mine barrages, and impose draft or beam limitations.
If I may make a suggestion- any of the Civilization series games (Civ IV would be the best choice) could produce a semi-detailed map with random seeds, resource distribution, and generalized ocean data (shallow vs deep) which would suit this endeavor nicely.
We could choose to use or ignore the resource distribution... but the random map generator would give a good starting point for the new world.
I have Civ V, Snip has Civ IV... either of us could submit a few examples.
I have III, IV and V. But I know the map generators in III and IV best.
It'd feel really weird to be playing a 'deathworld' game on what was effectively Earth, even a spun one. I'd rather reserve that variant for something with a more orthodox premise. Something that I've been considering I'd like to try if we used an actual Venus map would be a state that's specializing in clearing one of the two main continents, rather than smaller islands, precisely because it's a lower-payoff option that no one else is likely to compete for.
I'd figure that the rules would divide the land map up into 'provinces', and that each province would cost twice as much to clear initially of native life as it was likely to produce once developed, and that holding provinces clear would cost, say, 10% of the 'clearance cost' in areas reseeded only by the wind, 25% in areas reseeded by sea, and 75% in areas immediately adjacent to 'uncleared' land provinces.
Do the newer Civilization engines include an option for estimating plate tectonics, or would we essentially be looking at some kind of 'alternate Venus', terraformed to human taste?
No need to start killing a great idea talking about 'clearing costs' and bean counting at this stage.
Let's just let the idea develop before we start talking about stuff like that- lest we kill it before it starts.
And the map would be as fictitious or realistic as we want it to be. Since the generator in the Civ games can make plausible, totally fictitious maps- well, the only limitations on this will be the random number generators in the game.
I don;t see Venus working- even terraformed- simply because the proper landforms for Rocky's proposed situation do not exist. It will have to be a new world, cut from whole cloth to accommodate our plan.
Fractal-generated maps, from what I've seen, don't look realistic or plausible to people who've spent too much time studying Earth's actual geology. Certainly they don't to me. That's why I asked if Civ could actually simulate surfaces from the plates up, rather than just throwing random pixels at the map - if it doesn't, then the planet we came up with would have to be some planet that, like Venus or Mars, lacked an Earthlike mantle and therefore was not originally habitable.
In mechanical terms, I'm aware that it makes no difference, but I think the fluff distinction is important. Depending on the water level chosen, too, I think that Venus itself could be very suitable, with a number of extensive chains of large islands, several open seas, and a couple of considerable continents. Just right.
I have no intention of getting into any permanent positions regarding rules at the moment, but I don't think it's too soon to be turning over concepts for same - what I'd suggested would, I hope, be the sum total of our terraforming rules, so I'd hardly think that that'd count as 'bean counting'.
Quote from: Valles on November 24, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
Fractal-generated maps, from what I've seen, don't look realistic or plausible to people who've spent too much time studying Earth's actual geology. Certainly they don't to me. That's why I asked if Civ could actually simulate surfaces from the plates up, rather than just throwing random pixels at the map - if it doesn't, then the planet we came up with would have to be some planet that, like Venus or Mars, lacked an Earthlike mantle and therefore was not originally habitable.
In mechanical terms, I'm aware that it makes no difference, but I think the fluff distinction is important. Depending on the water level chosen, too, I think that Venus itself could be very suitable, with a number of extensive chains of large islands, several open seas, and a couple of considerable continents. Just right.
I have no intention of getting into any permanent positions regarding rules at the moment, but I don't think it's too soon to be turning over concepts for same - what I'd suggested would, I hope, be the sum total of our terraforming rules, so I'd hardly think that that'd count as 'bean counting'.
OK... I think that Rocky is
just feeling out things ATM- and from how he describes wanting the world, neither the topography of Venus or Mars would work. Anyone who knows anything about 'xenogeography' (closest thing I can come to a proper term) knows that they lack the necessary geologic features to use them as a basis. Mars lacks any kinds of real 'choke points' as it largely would consist of a single global sea; Venus would work a little better, but it has your 'issue' of being 'not believable' due to lack of plate tectonics.
MARS:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/blok/rgb1440_copy.jpg
VENUS:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/venus/pvo_topo_mercator.jpg
As for your issues, Valles:
Offer, scientifically and conclusively, proof that life cannot arise on a planet without tectonic activity. Please give at least one example- excepting Earth- of a planet which required tectonic activity to develop life and one planet within a star's habitable zone- again, excepting Earth- which did not develop life because of a lack of the same, in order to support your hypothesis.I can sum things up without you doing this, though, by saying quite bluntly that
we have no idea what a planet requires to begin the development of 'life'- either in our narrow carbon-based, DNA-template definition or something more exotic and yet undiscovered- and thus cannot say either way what the 'minimum system requirements' are for life to develop. You are basically making an issue out of a non-issue, and thus adding an unnecessary degree of complexity and effort to an exceedingly simple concept for recreation.
Can we have
PLEASE a sim without trying to write a doctoral dissertation prior to starting it... and having the sim wind up stillborn as a result?
And here are an example of some Civ IV 'random maps' to ease your troubled mind that plate tectonics can indeed be taken into account.
http://www.wuphonsreach.org/Games/CivilizationIV/Tectonics/60PctWater/Civ4BtS-Tectonics-60PctWater-ContactSheet.jpg
On the Civ notes: I currently have access to and could get access to more custom map scripts that allow for more realistic simulation of a planet rather than just plopping pixels down. The really nice thing about Civ maps IMO that other maps do not really allow for is that with the built-in squares (or Hexes if Five is used) a min or max distance represented by each square or hex can be set. This would allow for all distances to be known from the getgo, with IIRC is something that is of great concern to those who do not wish to play a fantasy map. While the inherent lack of detail can be minimised be going to a very large grid, this ability to calculate distance gives such a large advantage over a drawn map that I think it is the only way that a custom map could really work. In addition, the random generation makes things much easyer on any mapmaker as well.
Quote from: Carthaginian on November 24, 2011, 08:38:34 PM
As for your issues, Valles:
Offer, scientifically and conclusively, proof that life cannot arise on a planet without tectonic activity. Please give at least one example- excepting Earth- of a planet which required tectonic activity to develop life and one planet within a star's habitable zone- again, excepting Earth- which did not develop life because of a lack of the same, in order to support your hypothesis.
I can sum things up without you doing this, though, by saying quite bluntly that we have no idea what a planet requires to begin the development of 'life'- either in our narrow carbon-based, DNA-template definition or something more exotic and yet undiscovered- and thus cannot say either way what the 'minimum system requirements' are for life to develop. You are basically making an issue out of a non-issue, and thus adding an unnecessary degree of complexity and effort to an exceedingly simple concept for recreation.
I know very well that there's no evidence to support the assertion a plate-divided crust causes life. Fortunately, that's your misinterpretation rather than what I was actually saying. Rather, I think there
is enough evidence in our understanding of the role of water in tectonics to suggest that significant surface oceans are a major
cause of plate behavior when present over geologic timespans.
A terraformed world which had not previously
had liquid surface water would have less familiar landforms and processes, and the decades or centuries of the transformation wouldn't be enough time for the equilibrium to change significantly. Hence, I have no real objection to saying that a fractal map is a terraformed world. Granted, that between Venus, Mars, and Io, we have some significant clues as to what those 'alien processes' would look like, but reverse-engineering them is heavy PhD territory that exceeds even my interest/patience threshold.
Was I unclear? Possibly, and I'm sorry if so, but that was and is the logical half of my reasoning.
The illogical being a sort of plaintive wail of 'But it just doesn't look right! It's so
sloppy!', but I don't expect people to indulge that.
Quote from: Carthaginian on November 24, 2011, 08:38:34 PMCan we have PLEASE a sim without trying to write a doctoral dissertation prior to starting it... and having the sim wind up stillborn as a result?
...Worldbuilding is
fun. I don't see the problem, here.
Quote from: Carthaginian on November 24, 2011, 08:38:34 PMAnd here are an example of some Civ IV 'random maps' to ease your troubled mind that plate tectonics can indeed be taken into account.
http://www.wuphonsreach.org/Games/CivilizationIV/Tectonics/60PctWater/Civ4BtS-Tectonics-60PctWater-ContactSheet.jpg
Honestly? I don't think they work. They come closer than I'd expect from a random-generated seed, but... not quite.
Also, depending on whether we go with the seaborn settlement model from the original Drake books or a 'cleared land' model, they may be insufficiently fragmented, but that's much easier to deal with.
Quote from: snip on November 24, 2011, 10:50:29 PM
On the Civ notes: I currently have access to and could get access to more custom map scripts that allow for more realistic simulation of a planet rather than just plopping pixels down. The really nice thing about Civ maps IMO that other maps do not really allow for is that with the built-in squares (or Hexes if Five is used) a min or max distance represented by each square or hex can be set. This would allow for all distances to be known from the getgo, with IIRC is something that is of great concern to those who do not wish to play a fantasy map. While the inherent lack of detail can be minimised be going to a very large grid, this ability to calculate distance gives such a large advantage over a drawn map that I think it is the only way that a custom map could really work. In addition, the random generation makes things much easyer on any mapmaker as well.
This is a very good point, and very good news all around. Thanks, Snip. I'd love to see some examples of what the custom scripts come up with, and if they pass I'd certainly be first in favor of using them, but, as I noted above to Carth, even a fairly raw fractal can work for a terraformed planet - and the measuring function will be very useful.
I am just kicking the tires, as Jamie notes. I'm not yet pitching it as a sim to sign up for, though that may come to pass later.
I cited Venus as it's the only example I had at hand of wet-naval stuff on non-Earth worlds, and it has a built-in excuse to focus on naval stuff rather than air and land stuff. I know there's a series called The Destroyermen, but I haven't read the books and I'm not sure how much the alternate-Earth setting differs from our world.
On that basis, the precise story behind the setting is not critical, yet. The scenario simply requires that, somehow/some way, humanity settles on a world that is not Earth. Once that basic requirement is accepted, we can move on to looking for a map that appeals to us.
Given the naval focus, as Kirk mentioned, we'd want to generate or select a map that provided a cool playground with a variety of neat naval puzzles - choke points, straits, passages, archipelagos, canals, shallow seas, deep oceans, and what-not. I would also want to ensure the world is similar in general characteristics - gravity, diameter, air pressure - to Earth simply to ensure mechanics of flight, ship design, and gun design can be carried over en masse to the new place.
I agree that a distance-measuring system would be very helpful.
Questions I'd pose to potential map-makers would be:
-Can you tell your software what basic land/water ratio you'd like?
-Ditto the ruggedness of the terrain (mountains on land, ocean depths at sea)?
-Can you tell your software whether you want a few big land masses or lots of small ones?
-Can a person "touch it up" after the basic generation?
As for map "texture" ala fractals, yes, it does sometimes look odd to my geologist eyes. Other times, the products look plausible. Still, we can make a map "work" by mixing and matching a considerations that might affect local tectonics: age of the planet, amount of internal heating, nature and timing of impact events, etc. Mars offers an example of a planet with limited internal heating and less erasure of old impact events. Venus offers something closer to Earth, but with the suggestion of a differing form of tectonics.
On resources: I agree we would need to establish a few basics. This would help underpin the distribution of people and states across the planet as well as the economic system. Left to my own devices, I would start with a map I liked, sketch out some crude plate boundaries (to establish natural hazard areas and some recent forms of mineral deposits), then bodge together some basics about the geology of the landmasses. I'd probably just use Valle's notional "provinces" as the basis for blocking out a crude geological map.
Sea floors are somewhat simpler affairs, being both younger and more homogenous than continents. "Provinces" wouldn't be necessary - I'd manually add in the neat stuff like seamounts, black smokers, reefs, etc.
This physical world-building may not be everybody's cup of tea, but it'd be something I'd contribute to.
Sent a note to a guy that does some world-building exercises on another discussion board, to see what software he uses and such. I'll report back.
NICE!
That'll knock out a lot of headache for us Rocky- much appreciated.
If you'd share the name of the forum I'd appreciate it as well- my brother and I do Star Wars Saga Edition twice a month, and it occasionally becomes a lot of work trying to come up with new planetary maps every month or so... especially without the requisite degrees (our playgroup is two English majors, two retail, an RN, an X-ray tech and 'a guitarist that drives forklifts during the day') at our disposal.
Also, any books that you can recommend would be nice as well... I can handle anything at undergrad level and am willing to read it by a computer to Google stuff I don't understand. I DO enjoy world-building and I DO understand some of the problems that come with it... but not so much that I generally go beyond the whole 'these mountains here mean a desert there' level.
The forum's Alternatehistory.com, and the fellow's called The Kiat. The last map he generated was not detailed enough for our purposes, but it did include variations for biota and climate, so he's got something, anyway.
There are maps to be found elsewhere on that site, though a lot of it is, naturally, Earth with changes.
And if you do sign up there, don't look for me under this handle. I go by "Talwar" there.
Still, there's no guarantee this fellow will be able to help at all, so you guys should continue hunting.
I'm not sure what degree of detail is needed for Star Wars Saga. Basic geology texts could be useful reads. One potentially useful resource could be the Colonial Atlas for the Traveller 2300 AD RPG. There's about thirty entries, each with: System overview, generalized planetary map, planetary description, and some himan geography. Pretty good "hard" settings, yet most of the planets are somewhat different than Earth in some way. I don't have a link, but it can be downloaded for free in .pdf form...somewhere on the net.
QuoteQuestions I'd pose to potential map-makers would be:
-Can you tell your software what basic land/water ratio you'd like?
-Ditto the ruggedness of the terrain (mountains on land, ocean depths at sea)?
-Can you tell your software whether you want a few big land masses or lots of small ones?
-Can a person "touch it up" after the basic generation?
For Civ IV, the answer is yes to all of this aside from water depth, tho III would be a bit better at approximating this due to having Coast-Sea-Ocean as opposed to just Coast-Ocean. The terrain ruggedness on land could be represented by flats-hills-Mountains. While this is not as detailed as some would undoubtedly like, it at least gives a very good (and easily tweaked) starting point. Reasouse distrobution is also something that can be done randomly as well, if desired. Off the top of my head, Copper, Iron, Aluminium, Coal, Oil and lots of luctury and food can be randomly distributed to start and manipulated further by the maker. The fact that it gives descreet deposits could make keeping track of trades easy. In example:
Country A has 5 Iron sources, but no coal sources. They could trade one (or more) iron sources for a coal source to enable them to take advantage of coal. Sort of like how resource trading works within Civ itself. Of couse this could be modified further, but as a starting point it works rather well IMO.
Thanks Snip, that's good to know.
Rocky N4 looks to be dead to me. Real life killed all the mods free time at the same time.
The problem with using any non earth world is as always the maps. Calculating distance, travel, etc. There are ways around the problem. Plotting out travel distances between key points and with such data other choices can be figured.
If anyone wants to read David Drakes books on the world Rocky Suggested.
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/03-SlammersCD/SlammersCD/Seas%20of%20Venus/Seas_of_Venus.htm
Michael
I read them a while ago. It is definitely an interesting premise.
Mike,
The distance thing could easily be solved by using a map creator such as Civilization III or IV that uses squares to create the map. Given a sufficiently large grid, a rather detailed map would be plausible. If we were to then say that each square represents an area that is X km by X km, we then have an approximation that is good enough for the vast majority of our purpaces. The same could also be done for Hexes ala Civ V, but it would take more work. While some detail would have to be sacrificed, I for one would be fine with throwing out an ultra-detailed map for the ability to play a custom-created map. Also, as I stated above, a Civilization-generated map would have resources as well (if anyone wants a complete list feel free to Google it. I have access to the mapmakers for III IV and V) that could be used to add in a trade system with relativity little hassle.
Rocky,
I missed the refference to the Destroyermen books you made until just now. As far as I have figured out from reading the first three (want to get to the fourth), it is just some playing around with sealevels as was proposed in the early N4 talks. I would be aprehensive about going this rout again, if we are going to have a fictional geography, might as well take it all the way. Also, given what my winter break is shaping up like, I would most likely have time to do a few maps in about 3 weeks time.
Given the desire to avoid or minimize land conflict and its inherent paperwork, I have an alternate sugesstion for what a world could look like. Considering all of the current suggestions all have land being at a premium, what about a very arid world? Most of the arable land would be clustered in small chunks along rivers, making that the area in which Civilization develops. Unlike the other worlds proposed, food would be the limiting factor, not space. Due to the climate, most of the population would be in these arable coradors, making travel overland a very risky proposition both from the climate and the nomads who would undoubtedly would live there. Destroying or otherwise inhibiting the ability of any arable land to produce food would all but seal the fate of those who rely on the land. IMO, this would lead to a military and political environment where land invasions and land fighting in general are considered a weapon of last resort, while Naval matters would be at the forfront of any planing. Who would want to fight on land when the very survival of those they are trying to defend is hinging on the crops not being harmed? This would not be a world of sustenance farmers, but one that is very near to, or even at its enviromental caring capacity but is capable of supporting industrial civilization.
That's an interesting and different approach, Snip. Something to think about.
Yeah, I prefer not to use an alternate Earth if possible. I think part of the fun of this idea would be the complete re-set on human civilization, with each player creating his own new idea.
Mike: I wondered, but didn't want to push the matter.
So, folks, I'll invite you to work with me on developing this concept some more.
First question: Do you broadly agree that an "All-big-gun battleship fleet" is approximate technological standard we're aiming for here? We may find that certain details - whether radar, aircraft, snorkels, or otherwise - are more advanced or less advanced than the baseline tech depending on the background story.
Second question: Given that a lot of work has been done on rules for N4 - what do you like and see as being potentially transferrable to this concept? Bear in mind the discussion to date here.
Third question: What resources should be tracked, if any? Consider the opposing possibilities that this planet may have oil/coal, or that it may not (resulting in biodiesel or some other substitute).
Fourth question: Is there interest in the idea of applying "character points" to each player-state? There'd be very few - say, racial chauvinism (how easily do you make and keep friends), militarism (how likely are you to fight to the last man), innovation (how likely are you to make tech advances). I see it as a potential way to limit what we might consider as "mass suicide attacks" and such.
Fifth question: Timekeeping. Would turns be three months, six, or twelve?
Answers below:
1. Yes. I however would like to see things be at a WWI/1920's tech level more then a WWII one.
2. I like the tax system. I like custom slip and DD sizes, but think the DD system could be simplified. Construction rules and the like are good, not much needed fixing from N3 there IMO. I like the Army system, but the numbers will need tweeking for the size of units that we apper to be talking about.
I do not like the trade system, if we are going to do it, it should be based around resources as opposed to cash. I do not like the research system, still to clunky IMO, but with a more advanced start some of that could be avoided, Ideal would be to not have tech at all.
3. I think that Iron (and hence Steel), Coal and Oil (or other fuel types), explosives (aka access to fixed nitrogen), general industrial ability, and food. given a working trade system, this could lead to a system that would be representative of the trade that is needed for societies to function without getting to overbearing. If wanted I can elaborate on what I have in mind.
4. Im not sure exactly what you are getting at here, care to elaborate?
5. I think three or six. Twelve does not allow much flexibility.
1. I'd certainly be happy starting in the 'all big gun' period, yes. Ideally, I'd set things up so that the first generation of ships built 'in game' rather than out of starting tonnage would also be the first all-big-gun battleships. A thought I've had in the past might be to write a major global war into the immediate pre-game to 'kill off' all or at least a majority of the previous generation of ships, simplifying startup.
2. This is not a simple question.
Construction rules - costing, design standards, and so forth - can, I think, be ported over without demur from, well, anyone. They haven't changed much, they're well established, they work.
I like the idea of abandoning specific tracking of slips, drydocks, and so forth in favor of simply specifying the capability of given ports - my suggestion would be to assign each port a harbor depth and a support capacity and call it good.
N4's handling of expansion and occupied territory should be abandoned with the greatest alacrity and permanence in favor of something historically better-supported and mechanically amenable to more than one pre-determined playstyle. The difficulty of assimilating and using taken territory would be one of the statistics in the 'point buy' table.
If we choose to keep technological progression 'fixed' to a particular rate, then the establishment system is as good an approach as I think we're going to get. I would vastly prefer non-fixed progression, and would instead suggest a more freeform system where money is spent to buy 'research points'. A player wishing to develop a particular ability or technology for their nation would define their goal and then throw it open to either the mods or the entire playerbase for 'costing' and plausibility checks, preferably against mod-defined standards. Possibly a percentage of RPs already spent could count towards 'related' technologies, at moderator discretion. Research point maximums should explicitly not be tied to national budget in any way beyond the overall money available.
Under no circumstances should we abandon player-directed technological progression of some sort. Steady state would get boring very quickly, and 'free' use of 'historical precedent' wouldn't be much better.
The tax system as written for N4 is concise, elegant, and seems to be a fairly accurate model within its necessarily crude limits. Trying to apply it to a tile or province-based map, however, would very quickly balloon the bookkeeping, with each area needing to have its economic size, growth, and tax income tracked separately for consistency's sake. Calculating 'province costs' whenever they were traded wouldn't be much better. A flat 'cash per production point', with the points being buildable, is an ugly and inelegant solution, but it's simpler to keep track of who's got what that way, and I think that that makes it preferable.
3. Resources... Iron, Aluminum, coal and oil if present in the setting, nitrates, and rubber would be the ones I'd consider 'essential'. Depending on the detail level people are willing to adopt, these could be backed by commercial and industrial settlements, food production regions, and possibly hydroelectric-and-geothermal power sources. (Consider the role of electrical power in the processing of bauxite into aluminum for why.)
4. I am extremely in favor of this idea, unto the point of squee.
5. I don't particularly have an opinion on this score.
Q #1.) Yes. As inviting as the possibility of starting a sim early and then developing a nation with 'flavor' was on paper, it seems to be impossible to do so without 1.) some complaining that players can't have too much freedom and 2.) some complaining that players are not being allowed any freedom. Apparently, the later that we start, the less possibility of 'hindsight-itus' comments cropping up. This is a good thing. I am very open to us having a starting tech level assigned to us related to the backstory; I would say that players should be able to choose a 'focus' and be ahead of the curve in one thing.
Q #2.) Uhm... a lot of work has been done here- but there hasn't been a lot of solid tech development, which is the hardest part to agree upon. IF it seems that the rules can be transferred and would work with whatever tech trees that are devised, I wouldn't mind seeing them transfer... but if a conflict arises, I would prefer simpler rules developed than current ones revised.
Q#3.) What resources should be tracked?
For a WWI-era game, I would say that initially it should be nitrates, iron (steel) and coal, and possibly oil (petrol/diesel). In the 1920's, the list should automatically add oil (if not already tracked), aluminum and rubber. In the 1930's, the list should remain fairly static... or at least, only add natural gas (helium). For the 1940's, the tracking of uranium should be considered, if only for possible developments in propulsion in the latter half of the last decade of the sim.
Q #4.) I love the role-playing connotations of 'character points'... this would allow us to have a clear-cut description of our nations from the very beginning and would give an extremely concrete picture of what it's citizens would and would not tolerate. Everyone could choose, say, two 'Advantages' (innovative, negotiator, militaristic, industrious, zealous, green)... but each advantage would require accepting the attached 'Disadvantage' (hodge-podge*, pacifist, aggressor, uncreative, fixated, technophobe). These would cause a rather believable nation-state to develop.
*Hodge-podge would mean, basically, that your forces are unable to maintain a basic coherence, due to each and every item having to incorporate 'the latest thing' in tech.
I have always like White Wolf and GURPS because they allow this kind of mechanic, and have always felt it was something missing from D20 system games!
Q #5.) Three or Six month turns... a year would cause too many missed opportunities- both for role-playing and for tweaking the ships. ;D
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 27, 2011, 07:46:07 PMFourth question: Is there interest in the idea of applying "character points" to each player-state? There'd be very few - say, racial chauvinism (how easily do you make and keep friends), militarism (how likely are you to fight to the last man), innovation (how likely are you to make tech advances). I see it as a potential way to limit what we might consider as "mass suicide attacks" and such.
Quote from: snip on November 27, 2011, 08:20:21 PM4. Im not sure exactly what you are getting at here, care to elaborate?
The Civilization series has, IIRC, pre-defined factions with their own unique bonuses and weaknesses, right? Other 4X titles sometimes get the same effect by assigning their factions stats like in an RPG, which the player then has a limited number of points to buy up with. Like, say (my own example ideas only!)...
Administration: Administration represents the efficiency and honesty of a polity's government. A nation with a low score in this category will be corrupt and inefficient; one with a high score wastes little and reacts quickly, based on plans thought out well ahead of time.
Education: Education represents the knowledge of a polity's common citizenry and the effectiveness of their research establishments. A nation with a low score in this category will have low literacy and worker productivity, and will have a hard time creating new technologies natively, while one with a high score will have mechanized production lines and be a center of innovation.
Orthodoxy: Orthodoxy represents the degree to which a polity's people 'buy in' to the idea of themselves as a nation and to its common cultural assumptions. A nation with a low score in this category will have a hard time staying mobilized, and won't show much in the way of restiveness if occupied, while one with a high score will be able to fill its armies with highly committed soldiers and leave an endless headache in insurrectionists for any would-be conquerer.
Let's say each stat goes from one to five, and starts with one 'free' point.
Player A and Player B both want to run expansionist, military-focused powers. Each gets six points to work with.
Player A has privately negotiated with another player regarding tech-sharing and purchase of military equipment, and thinks he can get by without a 'native' establishment, so he spends three points each in Administration and Orthodoxy, leaving Education with only its single base point. His Nation X therefore has a
highly motivated but mostly ignorant populace, and a government with a very solid idea of what it's doing.
Player B isn't thinking quite so mechanically, and he's a big fan of the United States (but not of the Federal Government), so he also models his country with three points in Orthodoxy, to represent the National Dream of Making It On Your Own, but spends only one in Administration to represent the venal influence of politicians. His last two points go into Education, giving him a solid but not exceptional industrial efficiency and research establishment. Player B's Nation Y also has a very determined citizenry who have the information to make at least decent choices for themselves, but their government is mostly a popularity contest rather than a working instrument of policy.
...
It also might be neat to let players come up with (in addition) more limited unique 'special powers', like very slight bonuses to construction speeds or crew quality, or more significant ones to less important tasks like clearing native life, just to further differentiate the nations from a roleplay standpoint.
Well, to me that just seems like much added book keeping for not much gain. It also takes away flexibility for when a nation will inevitability change hands. Forcing new players to adopt a stratagy which they may not support with no way to change it, as the manor in which this is presented would seem to imply, is not a really good way to get and keep new players.
The gain would be in 1, increasing the realization and distinction of the player nations in question - rendering them less faceless voids that happened to have navies attached and more realized elements of the world of the game - and 2, by linking mechanics into it, positively reinforcing their players' desire to play them 'in character'. 'You get this if you do it!' is a lot more pleasant a way to manipulate the playerbase's behavior than whacking them on the nose and going 'Bad boy!'
I think that there certainly should and would be a way to change these national statistics, probably using the same system used to assimilate captured territory. Reform movements, muckraking, religious revivals, new colleges and school reforms - these things happen all the time, just like the election of bad leaders. New players who disliked the open countries available to them - based on our experience with N3, there's liable to be several at any given time - could easily be granted a one-time 'bonus' to their culture shift rates.
While I do like the idea in concept, I see the book keeping associated with it to be quite massive. While I would wait for an official proposal to say yay or nay in a final manor, my initial thoughts are unchanged. Not worth it for the book keeping it requires.
Well, the scores result in multipliers to the base numbers for tax rates, research costs, and combat morale, right? Any given player is going to need to keep track of what those numbers do anyway - but because the national bonuses are usually static, that player will only need to keep track of their own adjusted numbers, rather than the actual base or anybody else's abilities. Knowing 'I'm average at this, bad at that, and really good at the other thing' is all you need beyond that, and frankly, is trivial.
*shrug* Free to disagree, though.
I wouldn't suggest more than three or four stats, and they would not be employed often. It's not something I would highly integrate into the rule set, but rather primarily use as a threshold for Mods to roll against when the player wants to do something extreme/wacky/questionable.
--If you're at war and want to make an attack - sure, no problem.
--If both sides have taken some early losses and you want to press the enemy - sure, no problem.
--If your flagship's been sunk, the second-in-command is dead, and you want to aggressively attack the enemy some more - hey, maybe we need a roll to see if the fleet is up to it.
I agree that some provision for change would be necessary. It could perhaps change a certain limited amount each year on its own as a population's viewpoint slowly changes. It could probably change more noticeably due to a change in government. Perhaps a government could also sway numbers by spending on propaganda or bread and circuses.
My take on naval infrastructure is as follows:
-We do away with individual slips and drydocks entirely.
-Our naval infrastructure is the port, which will come in a set of increments. Each level of port will have a maximum building capacity - representing the total tonnage it can build, repair, and refit in one turn. Its ability to "supply" naval forces will be some simple multiplier of that first figure.
-Below a certain amount of building capacity, a port will not be able to construct/repair/refit armored warships, nor "exotic" types like MTBs, destroyers, or submarines; it'll be limited to stuff like auxiliaries, gunboats, escorts, and such. Above that certain amount of building capacity, the port will theoretically be able to build/repair/refit anything of any length and displacement. Your ability to splurge on capital ships will be limited by the fact that only a few of your largest ports will have the building capacity to actually build those capital ships in a reasonable timeframe.
-You can probably throw a heap of cash at a port to make it grow. Alternately, there is probably some small chance that it will increase on its own over time, especially if you keep throwing work at it. An idle port might gradually shrink over time.
-I like the idea of harbour depths. This could be randomly generated at the start of the sim. To a point, it would correlate with port size - you won't get a huge port if the harbour depth is no more than 4 metres.
Quote from: snip on November 27, 2011, 05:45:27 PM
Mike,
The distance thing could easily be solved by using a map creator such as Civilization III or IV that uses squares to create the map. Given a sufficiently large grid, a rather detailed map would be plausible. If we were to then say that each square represents an area that is X km by X km, we then have an approximation that is good enough for the vast majority of our purpaces. The same could also be done for Hexes ala Civ V, but it would take more work. While some detail would have to be sacrificed, I for one would be fine with throwing out an ultra-detailed map for the ability to play a custom-created map. Also, as I stated above, a Civilization-generated map would have resources as well (if anyone wants a complete list feel free to Google it. I have access to the mapmakers for III IV and V) that could be used to add in a trade system with relativity little hassle.
As long as people are willing to accept area based system I am fine.
As to resources, it sounds nice but it would be a BIG increase in paperwork load. My suggestion is as few as possible, if not none all together.
If we are going to track resources I would rather have a BP / Factory system. Where we need X resources for Y output. Otherwise you defeat a good chuck of advantage that the cash system offers.
Michael
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 27, 2011, 07:46:07 PM
So, folks, I'll invite you to work with me on developing this concept some more.
First question: Do you broadly agree that an "All-big-gun battleship fleet" is approximate technological standard we're aiming for here? We may find that certain details - whether radar, aircraft, snorkels, or otherwise - are more advanced or less advanced than the baseline tech depending on the background story.
SS is best used for capital ships. A MacGuffin were airplanes, etc don't work is fine with me.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 27, 2011, 07:46:07 PM
Second question: Given that a lot of work has been done on rules for N4 - what do you like and see as being potentially transferrable to this concept? Bear in mind the discussion to date here.
Tax system is straight forward, we can play games on tax levels without issue.
I suggest we just DITCH the tech system all together. There is no research; its static and well devolved. Limiting factor is what you can afford to buy. Its also one less thing to track.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 27, 2011, 07:46:07 PM
Third question: What resources should be tracked, if any? Consider the opposing possibilities that this planet may have oil/coal, or that it may not (resulting in biodiesel or some other substitute).
See my answer to snip. My gut reaction is none or if we do want to track resources we use a different economic system.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 27, 2011, 07:46:07 PM
Fourth question: Is there interest in the idea of applying "character points" to each player-state? There'd be very few - say, racial chauvinism (how easily do you make and keep friends), militarism (how likely are you to fight to the last man), innovation (how likely are you to make tech advances). I see it as a potential way to limit what we might consider as "mass suicide attacks" and such.
Not in favor of it
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 27, 2011, 07:46:07 PM
Fifth question: Timekeeping. Would turns be three months, six, or twelve?
Economics half year to a year is reasonable. Turns... we could do it more often. It would depend on players pace.
Michael
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 28, 2011, 09:12:52 AM
My take on naval infrastructure is as follows:
-We do away with individual slips and drydocks entirely.
-Our naval infrastructure is the port, which will come in a set of increments. Each level of port will have a maximum building capacity - representing the total tonnage it can build, repair, and refit in one turn. Its ability to "supply" naval forces will be some simple multiplier of that first figure.
There is a big difference between a fleet anchorage like say Scapa Flow or Pearl and Newport News.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 28, 2011, 09:12:52 AM
-Below a certain amount of building capacity, a port will not be able to construct/repair/refit armored warships, nor "exotic" types like MTBs, destroyers, or submarines; it'll be limited to stuff like auxiliaries, gunboats, escorts, and such. Above that certain amount of building capacity, the port will theoretically be able to build/repair/refit anything of any length and displacement. Your ability to splurge on capital ships will be limited by the fact that only a few of your largest ports will have the building capacity to actually build those capital ships in a reasonable timeframe.
Whats wrong with just having 3 attributes for ports to track?
Support, Repair and Construction?
If you want a port that is just a building hub then just shove up the construction value and call it a day.
In either case certain assumptions were built into N4 with respect to upkeep. I would suggest a return to scratch on costs if a new system is to be used. To figure the balance between upkeep and construction.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 28, 2011, 09:12:52 AM
-You can probably throw a heap of cash at a port to make it grow. Alternately, there is probably some small chance that it will increase on its own over time, especially if you keep throwing work at it. An idle port might gradually shrink over time.
Hmmm... My response is m'eh. Just have the port be a port, it goes up if the player spend resources to do so.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 28, 2011, 09:12:52 AM
-I like the idea of harbour depths. This could be randomly generated at the start of the sim. To a point, it would correlate with port size - you won't get a huge port if the harbour depth is no more than 4 metres.
This sounds reasonable.
Michael
Harbor depths sound especially good... especially since we are dealing with a fictitious planet and can have everyone assured at least a single 'good' port.
Mike's idea of '3 Values' seems like a good idea- I'd have to see more on how it was presented before I say I like it, but ATM is sounds reasonable. If it gets too complicated, it won't be so interesting anymore.
We have to have some kind of tech development... unless we have an over-arching agreement like the WNT or LNT governing the pave of development (such as in WW). We could, in fact, go precisely that route; tech has been 'capped' at a certain level and there has to be an 'international conference' in order to raise the tech level.
The character points, as I said above, are a strong selling point with me.
I support them pretty strongly- in the event that a nation is handed off, they will serve as a guide for a new player at the start... something that can be changed over time, but something to prevent 'about face' changes.
My concern with character points is how to balance them? What exact effect do they have?
A role playing persona is easy enough to set.
Michael
As long as the paperwork is minimized with any "character points" system I am amendable to it.
Im apprehensive about ditching a tech system compleatly, as it can cause problems when ppl try and push it regardless of setting.
Harbor depth and the harbor systems being talked about are good.
On resource tracking: We dont necessarily need to track how much of a given resource is needed, just if access to it is posible. While it would be more then posible to track numbers given some map creation programs (Civ III and IV), access should create enough of a system to make it something that can influence policy.
As an example that I am not necessarily proposing, consider a system with four traits, each rated on a scale of 0 to 10:
1. Chauvinism: how well you get along with others in a peaceful way. 0 = well, 10 = bad.
2. Militarism: how likely you are to resort to violence. 0 = pacifist, 10 = psychotic.
3. Determination: how likely you are to tolerate hardship. 0 = whiner, 10 = dogged stubborn.
4. Risk-taking: How likely you are to take chances. 0 = no risks, 10 = footloose & fancy-free.
You'd get 20 pts to spend.
1. If you (Chauvinism = 3) wanted to pitched a non-aggression pact to an NPC (Ch=8), the odds of him refusing would be (8-3) * 10 = 50%.
2. Your fleet is getting clobbered (60% casualties) but you (Militarism = 9) order a death ride. The odds of your fleet obeying are (9*10) - 60% = 30%.
3. You want to raise taxes to fund your war machine. Exact math to be determined, but your determination score would influence whether or not your public rioted at the thought.
4. You want to spend a pile of cash developing ballistic missiles, which nobody has. You'd have to make a succcess roll against your risk-taking to be approved.
...something like that. I'll look for my Imperial Starfire rules tonight...
Im strangely attracted to it.
My view point on tech is there has always been a constant tug on how much hindsight was being used in designs. I say just end the debate; open the door up to whatever. X reason there are no air planes or don't work.
On resources. I don't want to deal with endless debates as to what effect disruption on access is. To be very blunt I am not impressed by past attempts to moderate on this issue. Doubling down by adding another element without attempting to do the under pinning to make to handle it is just a waste of everyone time. If you want resources then lets do it right. If all you are going to do at the end is some type of hand waving solution then why are you bothering? Just call it flavor text.
Michael
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 28, 2011, 01:51:02 PM
...something like that. I'll look for my Imperial Starfire rules tonight...
POOF, all hail the Unified Rules Document; pity Marvin and Steve were total DORKS.
Rocky when did you play Starfire and what versions?
Michael
Quote
14.05 RACIAL OUTLOOK
Any NPR (or, for that matter, player race) has a Racial Outlook (RO) which governs the way in which that race approaches the rest of the galaxy. A racial outlook may be thought of as a mind-set made up of a host of cultural and intellectual elements. For the purposes of STARFIRE, only three of these elements really matter: Racial Chauvinism (RC); Racial Militancy (RM); and Racial Determination (RD). Whenever an NPR (or, for that matter, a starting player race) is generated, these three attributes are generated by rolling percentage dice once for each. The RO of any race is the average of its RC, RM, and RD. Each of these attributes has its own role to play in different rules sections, but at this point we will simply define them.
Racial Chauvinism: RC is a quantification of how the race views other sentient races. It combines fear of the unknown, eagerness for new knowledge, arrogance, caution, etc. The higher the RC, the less tolerant of and eager for contact with alien civilizations a race will be.
Racial Militancy: RM is a quantification of a race's aptness to the use of military force to resolve difficulties. It combines ferocity, timidity, military tradition, courage, etc. The higher the RM, the more likely a race is to resort to war in a threat situation and the more willing it is to accept casualties in warfare.
Racial Determination: RD is a quantification of a race's obstinacy, or how likely it is to persevere in a course of action once adopted. It may be thought of as stubbornness and may reduce the willingness of a race's military units to surrender, but should not be confused with militancy. A race need not be militant to be
determined.
Quote from: miketr on November 28, 2011, 02:09:43 PMPOOF, all hail the Unified Rules Document; pity Marvin and Steve were total DORKS.
Rocky when did you play Starfire and what versions?
Michael
Quote
Yay! I figured I'd have to spend my evening in the basement hunting for it.
I played around 1993-1996. Not sure which versions, exactly. Plain ol' tactical stuff first, then the Imperial campaign version.
Quote from: Nobody on November 28, 2011, 03:17:21 PM
I think you're forgetting something about the Civ maps. They are rectangular, so your world would be a cylinder without bottom and top. Maybe even a torus/donout or Möbius strip! If we don't want nuclear power, than we should just say that this is world simply has no uranium...
A year is too long, a half year still long and it feels strange to me. I like quarters, but this might be too much - how about terms (4 months)?
Advantages for short terms include:
- not much to change from previous report
- less important. It doesn't really matter if you forget something. Just remember for the next
- better reactions on each others course of action without changing previous ones
First off, nothing is going to be perfect. Yes, the Civ maps will be cylindrical... but so are all naval charts in the world, and this is a naval sim. ;) We should be able to do fine with it; we all know that the planet is round, the map is just an abstraction.
I like your 'Trimester Report' idea- best compromise between the flexibility of quarters and simplicity of halves.
Could we move the economic snipping elsewhere please?
I agree... economics at PhD level was one of the things that appeared to play a part in stalling/killing the reboot.
I'd just as soon it not take place here.
The economic system should be as simple as possible... period.
It is supposed to enable the game, not become the game.
I agree that I don't want to do this particular fight, again, for the 3rd time now. It was a blood bath behind the scenes, it was a blood bath when the system was presented and like a zombie crawling its way out of the grave its more blood. Yah this is my idea of fun, NOT. The fighting just sucked the life out of me, it wasn't fun.
Rocky has stepped up here, I view myself as part of the peanut gallery at this point. My game mod mandate ended when the game imploded instead of took off. New game new leadership.
At the same time a system needs to be agreed to; I am not sure how much the debate can be ignored.
Michael
As requested I moved the overt economic stuff to a new thread. Will be back in a day or two.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on November 28, 2011, 11:45:38 AM
Whats wrong with just having 3 attributes for ports to track?
Support, Repair and Construction?
If you want a port that is just a building hub then just shove up the construction value and call it a day.
In either case certain assumptions were built into N4 with respect to upkeep. I would suggest a return to scratch on costs if a new system is to be used. To figure the balance between upkeep and construction.
I'm not sure I'd distinguish between Repair and Construction - but in that case, we could just have
two stats, and players could mix and match them as they required. Yeah, I'd be cool with that.
Costs can certainly be done from scratch.
Quote from: miketr on November 28, 2011, 07:44:17 PM
As requested I moved the overt economic stuff to a new thread. Will be back in a day or two.
Michael
Thanks, Mike.
I appreciate the interest you, Nobody, and others have in the issue. It's something I still need to wrap my head around.
Just a general observation for all:
I'm putting this whole thing forward out of a general interest in seeing a sim go ahead. I wasn't planning to play in N4, and I probably wouldn't play in an N5 (or whatever this would be called).
However, if the thing comes together, I'd be prepared to moderate it.
To that end, my thinking is that in such a role, I want a reasonably simple yet realistic rules set to work off of. I want players to be concentrate on play, and I want mandatory Mod rulings/rolling to be as limited as practical.
What I think I'd find helpful is if y'all would individually consider the following areas, and consider proposing alternative ideas for rules beyond the concepts that have already been considered:
-A Tech tree based primarily on reverse-engineering of old historical data.
-Civilian population centres, based on the notion that humans are primarily settled in closed, multi-functional industrial/agriculture megastructures on the coast or in the oceans. What do they look like? What do they cost, and what do they produce in terms of cash/BP/food/whatever?
-Army rules, with urban combat/assault and anti-environment clearance as the two main roles. What units, what sizes, what costs, what techs?
-Simple trade warfare/blockade rules, based on the assumption that we break out the water terrain as distinct operating areas.
-Simple commodity rules. This may be as simple as ensuring there's a SOC to a place with what you need. It may be more elaborate to a point.
IF you would like me to moderate, please note that after a point, I will reserve the right to unilaterally decide on rule wording/meaning/purpose rather than risk protracted and unsuccessful consensus-building. Just sayin'.
Any support you need, man, you got.
Army: urban combat/assault, defoliation, and riot police/anti-insurgency. Biggest unit size: Brigade. Preferably only unit size for book-keeping purposes. I'm having trouble seeing more than one brigade being needed for defoliation/deforestation duties and urban defense could easily be 1 brigade against many others, but you wouldn't get much benefit from calling them a division because its going to be a smaller unit type of combat anyways.
For blockade/trade interdiction just figure out some chance that for a given density of warships in a square of water a single merchant ship has of sneaking through. Or a warship. Or just decide that if someone has declared a blockade then nothing can get through.
I was kind of liking the idea that you control the source of a resource and can pretty much extract everything you need from that source. Or at least that is how I understood it. So if I had 2 coal fields in my territory and no iron mines I can trade with my neighbor who has 2 iron mines but no coal fields. So we exchange access to one of my coal fields for access to one of his iron mines. As long as the trade routes are held open we have access to those minerals.
I suspect that settlement architecture would also vary depending on the nation building them. I can think of something like five possible layouts just off the top of my head - a 'tower' with a central atrium acting as a hanging garden and mirrors at the top to redirect sunlight, mixed use geodesic domes, reinforced versions of real-world agribusiness greenhouses with interspersed residential/commercial/industrial areas adjacent, sealed residential areas with open farmland for those who prefer to spend their efforts on The War On Weeds rather than structural maintenance, individually sealed homes and businesses connected by subterranean streets, with rooftop garden plots, shallow-water Raptures with floating sea farms... Probably everyone would have their own idea on how to do it. The precise design of the settlements honestly wouldn't be relevant, I don't think. I'd personally suggest that the basic building block be quite small - however many people, $1/turn of income. Settle on a 'theoretical maximum growth rate' and then work backwards from that to get the per-unit cost.
Probably there'd end up being two kinds of trade warfare - raiding (the percentage chance option) - and close blockade (airtight).
It seems to me like we're more or less in consensus on how the resources would work, if not yet what they should be - each resource site produces enough to supply one nation's needs, and usage of sites can be traded if desired. I'd be inclined to treat certain technical capabilities as resources, also - building, say, turbine-powered destroyers would require a supply of Iron and a Turbine Factory, and operating them would need some form of Fuel. Obviously, things like ores wouldn't be under player control, but the choice of whether or not to develop a coalfield or whatever might be, as would building particular factory types. For what the 'technical resources' should be... Offhand, Gun Foundries, Armor Mills, Steelworks for structural steel, Turbine Factories, and Gear Cutters to allow geared drive.
Settling on final rulings is one of the things mods are for; as long as those decisions have solid gameplay or historical reasoning behind them, I can live with that.
If we adopt relatively small army units - and I agree it seems reasonable to do so - then I'd suggest getting very coarse about their ability levels - determine, say, three or four tech levels then say that a unit of the first level and of average quantity has a combat value of two points, a unit of the second level gets four, and so forth, with 'troop quality' being a one point shift up or down. Want to know how a fight is going? Compare the numbers, let the mods roll a die to see if one side 'gets lucky', then subtract half of each side's combat value from their enemies. Possibly let players assign 'specialized training' to their units - +1 in their chosen situation, -1 outside it - but I'm not sure it's necessary to bother. A soldier who can shoot his way out of a shrieking utaraptor ambush isn't going to find his nerves shocked by mere rioters... I would, however, like to be able to note what each unit has by way of attached transport, even if it's just as simple as options for 'trucks', 'landing boats', or 'walk, you poor bastards'.
I'd have no clue how to distinguish technological advancement as being 'recovery' of abilities in any way except fluff.
...wow, I get disorganized when I'm tired.
One thought on arms is to ditch them all together. Before anyone drops dead of shock at the idea think it through.
Alien world with a hostile environment requiring confined and dense population centers. This means there are no farms and other open places for warfare to occur at. Instead every fight devolves into street by street urban warfare or long drawn out sieges that end in urban warfare. The absolute worst and most destructive type of fighting in terms of losses and damage to the city.
There is a massive counter incentive to NOT fight in the cities. The attacker looses lots of troops and material and even when they win their prize is damaged. The defenders loose everything in defeat and not much better in victory. Warfare has always had many traditions to it and these tend to evolve for good reasons.
How about a tradition that when cities or whatever get cut off they surrender upon request? A notional garrison / police unit is needed of course but thats it. Pure naval combat. Cities that refuse to surrender as requested have broken the traditions are subject to the most extreme punishment. The city can be bombarded, the cities killed to the last man, woman and child. Its a harsh code.
This is the setup for Seas on Venus.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on November 29, 2011, 09:12:05 AM
How about a tradition that when cities or whatever get cut off they surrender upon request? A notional garrison / police unit is needed of course but thats it. Pure naval combat. Cities that refuse to surrender as requested have broken the traditions are subject to the most extreme punishment. The city can be bombarded, the cities killed to the last man, woman and child. Its a harsh code.
I don't think a city should surrender immediately, the defender should have some time to break the siege first and free his city. Maybe until the supplies run out? That should take a few weeks to a few months (1 turn max) and would resemble the classic besiege of a fortress or fortified city.
Other than that, I like the idea.
About Army/Police units (if we have them in the first place). I would vote for a unit size of 100 - whatever that is called in English. Such a small unit could be easily put on most ships - which are quite small compared to modern standards.
And I could live with a single type of unit, because the weapon isn't going to make much difference in urban warfare - except for rapid fire, muzzle loaders and massive explosions though.
Thinking a little more on the tech and start-up:
-I've been pitching a future-based sim, in which much tech is reverse-engineered from old data
-We're looking at an all-big-gun battleship era but
-Valles suggests that the first such battleships be built during game-play
So I'm thinking along these lines: Although the planet has been settled for some time, the concept of naval warfare will be "new". Everything's been happy and peachy for a long time but some factor - perhaps nationalism - has led to a change. This explains the reverse-engineering aspect of the tech: it will be quicker to back-study historical guns, ships, and stuff from Old Earth than to invent it from scratch. Early 20th century stuff is about as advanced as the engineers think they can "start" with - more advanced tech is too cash and labor-intensive for available budgets.
So the tech tree, in whatever form it takes, will be partly known to you in-character. You may not know precisely when you'll be able to introduce a system or device, but you'll know it's coming.
This will pose a significant challenge to you, the player, because historical building patterns will no longer apply. Hindsight exists, and is justifiable. You might only be able to build a USS Texas or Seydlitz or QE, but the records clearly show that in time, you will be able to build USS Iowa, IJN Fubuki, submarines with snorkels, and maybe airplanes with large AP bombs. Therefore - would you build a 19 knot battleship with thin deck armor and casemated secondaries? You probably wouldn't, unless it fits your immediate needs.
So here's the thing: That makes a long-term, large-scale build up of navies untenable. You'd be building in a vacuum.
What does this mean for starting forces? Truthfully, I think everybody would be starting small - maybe just a few (1-3) years of actual military builds, preceded by a couple of years of limited experimental building. In the first year or two of the sim, the light cruiser could be your capital ship. You might have laid down a capital ship, but you aren't likely to have any in service.
This will:
A) Create a real dynamic of arms-racing amongst players. Go for quantity early, or quality later? What's the guy next door doing? There will be a lot of one-upsmanship here.
B) Small starting navies mean small naval battles, and short wars. You won't have the numbers necessary for bloody attritional wars, not yet. We'll get to the big battles and long wars, but later. In the short term, I see this being good for game pacing and OOC player relations. Might also put more emphasis on secret spy-ops and asymetric warfare, though.
Thoughts?
Mike: Interesting thought.
I can see a city holding out while it can - but the threat of destruction may cause its leaders to give in, and if they don't, perhaps an internal uprising analagous to the citizens throwing open the gates.
Warfare might take on the dimension of 18th century wars, where each power picks off the other guy's colonies, and then they negotiate who gets what back at the end of the fighting.
If implemented, cultural characteristics - chauvinism, militarism, etc - may be important here, in determining whether an attacker could/would bombard or assault, and how long the defenders could hold out before an internal rising.
OK how about this as a modification.
If something like Sea's of Venus is the setting the environment, in particular the animal life is a major and on-going threat. As such the cities / whatever would by default have defenses around them to protect vs. giant / highly aggressive animal life that thinks humans are tasty treats.
At the same time no one wants to fight in the cities, it might wreck things to the point that the native life just wins out. So what happens is when an enemy army first shows up the city is summoned to surrender. Even with defenses sometimes the city just folds but most times they hold out. Next the reduction of the defenses begin. Once a breach is made in the defenses are made the city is summoned again to yield; at this point I would say the chance is at least 50/50% the city does just that. The attacker can run the risk of an assault or try to reduce the defenses more. The city can raise the Black Flag* and tell the attackers to screw off.
*Raising a Black Flag in ACW was done by some confederate units, it was a symbol that did not seek and would not give any quarter. IE it was a fight to the death.
Michael
Sounds about right to me.
I like the idea of having the ability to use our inherent hindsite as opposed to trying to snuff it out or burry it under huge amounts of rules. The premise of all of these ideas is great.
OK... so we are basically looking at 1800's siege warfare rules, AND battlefield civility:
Initially the fort/city is given a chance for surrender, soldiers are given parole if they agree not to take up arms again for X number of months, and the civilian population will be integrated into the new nation-state without malice. If the initial offer is refused, a major artillery bombardment begins: a defense breech is achieved, a 'Forlorn Hope' attempts to enter the breech, and if it succeeds the rest of the attackers pour through the area. If the breech assault fails, then long-term siege warfare begins: all military supplies are cut off from entering the city, communications are cut off, power to the city might be cut off as well... starvation warfare basically ensues. AT HIGH TECH LEVELS you might even see a 'selective agent' employed to kill defenders without damaging the infrastructure (i.e. mustard gas).
Rock's idea to let us 'know the future' does indeed allow for a great degree of freedom- WE CAN BUILD ANY SHIP THAT WE CAN DESIGN. The limitations on this are placed by manufacturing problems related to shipping large numbers of people through interstellar space- your ship can only carry so much. Since we've had to basically start from the Iron/Steam Age and work our way back up, those capabilities are slow in coming. We've only just recently gotten rid of 'Wooden Ships and Iron Men' and are now looking forward to the days when those damn titanium extraction facilities come online and we can start shooting rockets to the moon and mining asteroids.
Of course, till then, we're stuck with battling ourselves with steel and aluminum and trying to be the most powerful kid on the block... so we can block everyone else from those 'oh so close, yet distant' resources.
One thought is that with any type of chemical industry Haber–Bosch process is a given so naturally occurring nitrates are mute. Depending on level of chemical industry; etc there might be no need for oil as gen tailored microbes produce bio-fuel. Sun light, CO2, water and some food, poof out comes petroleum products. This is being worked on in the real world right now.
So the question is what is the tech level of this world?
Michael
Quote from: miketr on November 30, 2011, 01:59:06 PM
So the question is what is the tech level of this world?
Michael
http://gurps.wikia.com/wiki/Tech_Level
OVERALL - TL6
Chemistry - TL8
Weapons - TL6
Computers - late TL6/early TL7 with
rare TL11 examples (national data cores that hold all accumulated knowledge)
1880 - 1939 is a wide range in there.
With chemistry at 1980's level lots of things are possible its all just a question of cost really. Electromechanical computer is a big deal. Both of these require precision processes in terms of machining knowledge. Fire control would start at 1945 level of accuracy.
Almost sounds like a steam punk setting.
One thing to keep in mind. All of the military knowledge is book learned. Its taken out of a manually but the practical experience in application; especially on the small unit level is lacking. Its like given person off the street infantry officers hand book and some books on tactics; it doesn't mean they are good combat leader. It would be like the start of the ACW lots of volunteers, lots of enthusiasm but very little practical experience even the generals in charge of 10's of thousands of men were typically used to commanding at best battalions and mostly companies.
So not sure how you have a tech tree under this setup is all. It would be more of an experience growth than anything. Re-discovering the fine details as to what does and doesn't work.
Michael
Mike, look down the page at the examples listed for each tech level- that was more what I was going by.
TL6 Automobiles; continental railways; ocean liners; submarines; aircraft.
Smokeless powder; automatic weapons; tanks; combat aircraft.
Steam turbines; internal combustion; alternating current; hydroelectricity.
Antibiotics; blood typing and safe transfusions; heredity; biochemistry.
TL7 Nuclear submarines; jet aircraft; helicopters; manned space flight.
Ballistic body armor; guided munitions; combat jets; nuclear weapons.
Gas turbines; fission; solar power.
Discovery of DNA; organ transplants; pacemakers.
When you look at these examples, then it makes a bit more sense than looking at the dates given.
Computers that are late TL6/Early TL7 would be the primitive electronic computers of the Apollo program (computers that can fit into a single room), the stuff on ships would be more like the Torpedo Data Computers on American submarines. Some factories would have modern desktops/servers for managing production, but these computers would be in very short supply and impossible to reproduce (at startup). Each nation-state would have one central computer that is 'handwaviumed' to allow it to contain all the accumulated knowledge of mankind, for research purposes.
I think that it might go better if the 'data cores' were either lost, or not yet readable - if the research going on wasn't so much just looking things up then working out how to carry them out, as reconstructing techniques from vague, fragmentary references in works that might well not have anything to do with their actual application.
Like trying to figure out how to build a battleship by collecting books about WWI.
It seems to me like this approach would strain the suspension of disbelief less - less chance of one major breakthrough by one power leading to a runaway success.
Quote from: Valles on November 30, 2011, 03:28:18 PM
I think that it might go better if the 'data cores' were either lost, or not yet readable - if the research going on wasn't so much just looking things up then working out how to carry them out, as reconstructing techniques from vague, fragmentary references in works that might well not have anything to do with their actual application.
As I said in the other thread computers can only develop as fast as the rest of your tech.
I might be able to read about designing an interstellar spacecraft with a fusion core, but until I have built the things I need to build the things I need to build the ship... well I really can't do shit with that knowledge.
Jamie's broadly on target with the GURPS comparison.
The nations are at TL7/8 (or early/mid 21st century) in terms of the critical areas necessary for enclosed cities and vertical farming: Construction, hydroponics, fish-farming, mining, life-support systems, renewable power. These were the essentials; this is what the first colonists specialized in.
In other areas, TL6 applies. These are skills where high-tech was either not necessary (basic ship building) or they weren't needed at all but are now being reverse-engineered due to the new political situation. Most military techs apply in the latter category - the colonists didn't have the skills when they came, didn't have the luxury of learning them until recently, and now, don't have the luxury of not learning them afresh.
Computers may vary. They may have "modern" tech to run their cities and such, but no experience in writing software for gunnery programs or in wiring up a warship's C3I network.
Side-observation: There are probably no technological "barbarians" on this world; they would not have survived its environment. Imperialism here will be more like Maine annexing Kansas than Belgium annexing the Congo.
Good point on Haber, Mike, that didn't occur to me. Oil's a valid thought - my question there would be if the scale of facilities existed to support military operations. Something to consider...
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 30, 2011, 06:12:22 PM
Good point on Haber, Mike, that didn't occur to me. Oil's a valid thought - my question there would be if the scale of facilities existed to support military operations. Something to consider...
I'm something along Mike's line here... IF humanity could travel the stars, then we could probably have some custom-tailored microbes that are designed to produce biodiesel. As they would require very little in the way of storage space (being microscopic and all ;)), our NewWorlders would be able bring a supply along with them to help build their civilization.
Biodiesel should be pretty easily accessible- whether or not in the quantities needed to supply a large naval force, though, might be up for debate.
I am seeing different visions in terms of what these people have.
If they have a functional tech base but just not used to making military hardware they will quickly jump up that tree. Nuclear Weapons, Chemical, no screwing around with chlorine they jump straight to Nerve and Blood agents. Missiles, etc.
The cycle time will be impressive and messy.
So again if its like Sea's of Venus then airplanes are a non factor not because they can't build a jet fighter its because a jet fighter is just a flying target with the type of radar / fire control they can generate. Or is it that they have lost something after getting to this new world and they are in a neo-barbarian stage?
Michael
Quote from: Carthaginian on November 30, 2011, 06:21:20 PM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 30, 2011, 06:12:22 PM
Good point on Haber, Mike, that didn't occur to me. Oil's a valid thought - my question there would be if the scale of facilities existed to support military operations. Something to consider...
I'm something along Mike's line here... IF humanity could travel the stars, then we could probably have some custom-tailored microbes that are designed to produce biodiesel. As they would require very little in the way of storage space (being microscopic and all ;)), our NewWorlders would be able bring a supply along with them to help build their civilization.
Biodiesel should be pretty easily accessible- whether or not in the quantities needed to supply a large naval force, though, might be up for debate.
Fair enough. In that scenario, we're probably looking at each city being generally self-sufficient in terms of food, energy, and fuel. Metals would be the only
necessary import.
So - is there any significant basis for merchant marines here? There would be some movement of passengers/immigrants and metals. Perhaps it's luxury/consumer goods that are the valuable "spice" of this setting, but these could likely be shipped by small "banana boats" rather than bulk freighters.
Quote from: miketr on December 01, 2011, 07:09:24 AM
So again if its like Sea's of Venus then airplanes are a non factor not because they can't build a jet fighter its because a jet fighter is just a flying target with the type of radar / fire control they can generate. Or is it that they have lost something after getting to this new world and they are in a neo-barbarian stage?
More the latter. the planet's harsh enough that until recently, it took all their time, effort, and money to build and operate the cities and farms. None could be spared on expansion-related skills, so those were lost.
I suppose if we find the scenario too confining, we can drop the "Deathworld" aspect and assume that all of the colonists regressed past early 20th century tech across the board, and are now just re-attaining that point.
Quote from: miketr on December 01, 2011, 07:09:24 AM
So again if its like Sea's of Venus then airplanes are a non factor not because they can't build a jet fighter its because a jet fighter is just a flying target with the type of radar / fire control they can generate. Or is it that they have lost something after getting to this new world and they are in a neo-barbarian stage?
Mike... let's examine the logistics of interstellar travel.
Maybe that will answer some of your questions.
These people boarded a ship that took them across at least a dozen light years of space. Now, that means that we are looking at probably 10 generations of people that have to be fed and clothed aboard ship.
This is your primary cargo, and there must be a lot of it. You build a ship full of hydroponic gardens, living quarters water recyclers, etc. As a result, if it wasn't microscopic or self-sustaining, you couldn't bring a lot of extra 'stuff.' Bulky items like weapons would be carried in the most minimum amounts- you are not planning on fighting civil wars when you leave... and if you were, then you picked the wrong people to put on the roster.
When you arrive, there will only be a limited amount of things that your ship has that will move you up the tech ladder. There will be a necessary 'rebuilding period' where your tech is reduced, by and large, to the early Industrial Revolution stage- using coal and water powered machinery, wooden buildings and ships, and hand mining iron ore and coal. This will take a bit of time to achieve- all during that time, you wind up having to fight the environment. You maintain the equipment that you brought very carefully, but you can't reproduce it. You can build some simple analog computers, ballistic weapons and other things using the technical knowledge you already have, but you still can't duplicate the tech you know. Sure, you have a computer that knows everything that was on the Internet when you left Earth-That-Was... but your people live in houses built with hand-hewn logs felled by crosscut saws. Your production of iron, steel, fuel, power and your precious technical items are mostly directed to producing the tech to keep you alive and safe.
For a few decades, you live in a strange world where the elite are ruling from a high-tech citadel... but the majority of the world lives in an early 20th century time capsule. That's where we are, and where we will be until some warring power reaches critical mass- taking enough resources and population under it's influence to take society and technology to the next level.
Multiple ways in scifi to travel across space.
One is the generational star ship as you point out.
Another is a ship traveling at high fraction of C and time dilation effects reduce the amount of time for the colonists.
Cryogenic / Hibernation tech where the settlers were in suspended animation.
Name your flavor of FTL; maybe its stupid crazy power intensive and only works one way. Who knows.
All have very different advantages and disadvantages.
Michael
Meh- I was looking at realistic ways to travel, sci-fi need not apply.
While I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that FTL is possible, I have no proof and therefore I must proceed as if it is not when planning this... so it's a generational ship operating at a low fraction of c that I'm assuming is being used. Yes, it's beyond what we can do, but not beyond what we could conceivably do.
A generation ship will work (with problems, but not insurmountable ones) and we know this- no one has got up the guts to try and build one, though... or rather, no one has been willing to strip the world of a large part of it's potential wealth and possibly bankrupt the planet to build one. Nothing else has been proven workable... yet. ;)
The high fractional C ship is possible. Its all a question of energy to power the thing. If you have space flight to the point that you are talking interstellar travel then that assumes a fairly impressive deep space presence. Put massive solar power emitters up near the sun. Then beam the energy to the star ship via microwave. Just dump tons of power on it, you have the sun, the energy budget is no option during the boost phase. Key is to be able to push the speed north of 0.9 C to get useful dilation effects. The issue would be as the distance between the sun and space ship increases the energy beaming becomes more and more inefficient. If you could some how get 0.995 C you are over 10 to 1 on dilation effects.
The problem is slowing the damn thing down when you get to the other system. What you would really need is a two stage operation.
A ship with a robot factory is sent a head to the star system; assume you can't do better than 0.2 of C. So something 10 LYear away is a 50 year voyage. The factory ship arrives in the system and sets up a beam system on that end to provide power to allow d-acceleration when the colony ship arrives. Then the colony ship is disassembled and they have unlimited power from the 1st ship.
Michael
IIRC, it's possible to use a magnetic field (the 'magsail' type, generated by a truly enormous superconductive loop) as a 'drag chute' to slow down with.
There's also the 'sleeper ship' approach, of course, if the needed technical bits for that can be gotten to work.
Tonight's idle thoughts:
I'd like to use normal-load displacement as the benchmark for determining ship cost. This would reflect the reality that two ships of the same light displacement, but with differing bunkerage, will have different overall dimensions. It will also put a bit of a check on anybody tempted to give their ships huge bunkers for SS-related advantages.
I think chemical weapons, delivered by container or artillery, will be available as researchable tech; PCs have probably used similar stuff as pesticides in their terrain-clearance work. However, I also expect that its use against cities would be rather unpopular with NPCs.
Comms would be by radio or buried undersea cable. Seabed cables are possible but vulnerable to critter damage. Satellites do not exist - those orbited during settlement have long-since degraded, and nobody currently has a space program.
I agree on all three counts, they are all logical points.
Normal load makes sense as it is the easiest to control using Springsharp, and super-long range ships were a problem under the old sim.
Chemical weapons- definitely any NPCs (and most PCs) will probably bring down the righteous thunder on the user.
I would allow satellites as a researchable tech... but I would allow anti-satellite weapons as well. ;)
Silly question: SS2 or SS3? I know my preference.
Quote from: Darman on December 01, 2011, 10:51:16 PM
Silly question: SS2 or SS3? I know my preference.
Actually hasn't been discussed- I'd prefer SS3... but SS2 is very doable.
My vote goes for SS3
I could go with either, but is SS3 bug-free? I'm sure I've had issues with it not accounting for DC/torpedo/mine weight.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 02, 2011, 03:17:44 AM
I could go with either, but is SS3 bug-free? I'm sure I've had issues with it not accounting for DC/torpedo/mine weight.
I don't know, that would be a serious problem. On the other hand, I would really like its enhanced abilities for individual gun and weight placement.
I have to admit, I did kind of like the idea of a 1,500 minelayer that carried 2,000 t of mines.
SS3 isn't bug free, but it is much more reliable on everything BUT mines and depth charges.
It's easy enough to enter Misc. Weight for those items though.
This is true, and then you get uniform display of the mines/DC along with the other weapons.
If everyone wants to work with SS3 that is fine with me. I'm getting my new laptop in about a week so then I can begin playing around with it once more.
You could just have the technology that runs the habitats be relatively advanced but beyond duplication with the current industrial base. Even worse you may lose the knowledge of how or why something works, so even if you can make it you are unable to modify the design without ruining it, making the design dogmatic. If you gave someone in the early 1900s the design for something as easy to build as a pulsejet engine but did not explain the theory of how it works, they might be able to produce an excellent copy of that specific blueprint, but until they know how it actually works they cannot improve the design or make it larger or smaller.
At the other extreme, you could have a 100% reliable and automated fusion plant that extracts deuterium from water and fuels itself, and has documentation on how to run it and a physics book on how it works and its blueprints. You could even have the designer present. But if you do not have extremely precise CAD equipment and metallurgy, all the knowledge in the world will not make building another reactor possible.
You have the choice between having the knowledge to build but not the capability, the capability but not the knowledge, both capability and knowledge (likely in a limited capacity or there would not be steamships), or the total loss of knowledge and ability to build advanced things (by advanced I mean things like spaceships and nuclear power).
Mike, can you send me a link or a copy of that Starfire doc? It had some good stuff on international relations and espionage that I'd like to look at and perhaps borrow from.
So - I've been plunking on rules this weekend, when not out poking about the farm.
-Wrote down rules regarding international relations: How to set up trade agreements, gradually annex consensual NPCs, etc. Still need a part about pacifying and annexing non-consenting NPCs.
-Wrote down a blurb on terraforming land.
-Have an idea about "resources" to throw out at y'all. We talked about commodities, and it seemed like our cities actually have many of the essentials covered: Food, fuel, etc. So how could we assign a little flavor/niche value to specific cities? Each gets a special industrial unit that produces stuff in addition to those aforementioned essentials, such as:
-->Steelworks: Would produce X amount of steel for shipbuilding. Lose your steelworks(s) and you can't build.
-->Boutiques: Produces niche consumer goods - nice clothes, books, jewellery - that are the basis for international trade.
-->Dirt Farm: Produces a terrestrial-friendly soil that is used to help terraform land.
-->Construction Centre: Specializes in building stand-alone shipyards, ports, cities, and such away from existing cities.
I figure a half-dozen or so options would let a player inject a bit of flavor into their economy, while quantifying things like one's ability to colonize distant locations, etc. Whatcha think?
Oh, and the other thought: How would you (...or could you...) design an oil rig or semi-submersible platform in SS? If, say, one wished to park a rig in the middle of deep ocean as a waypoint or something.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 04, 2011, 08:35:53 PM
-Have an idea about "resources" to throw out at y'all. We talked about commodities, and it seemed like our cities actually have many of the essentials covered: Food, fuel, etc. So how could we assign a little flavor/niche value to specific cities? Each gets a special industrial unit that produces stuff in addition to those aforementioned essentials, such as:
-->Steelworks: Would produce X amount of steel for shipbuilding. Lose your steelworks(s) and you can't build.
-->Boutiques: Produces niche consumer goods - nice clothes, books, jewellery - that are the basis for international trade.
-->Dirt Farm: Produces a terrestrial-friendly soil that is used to help terraform land.
-->Construction Centre: Specializes in building stand-alone shipyards, ports, cities, and such away from existing cities.
I figure a half-dozen or so options would let a player inject a bit of flavor into their economy, while quantifying things like one's ability to colonize distant locations, etc. Whatcha think?
I don't think that would help the "keep it simple" game mechanics at all. It a bit like the N2 system, but with half a dozened additional columns.
If we track resources, than I think Coal, Oil, Iron, maybe Aluminum and Copper (could be all Metal though, or 2 of 3 could be sufficient) and "Excess Biomass", which can replace coal (charcoal) or oil (with microbes or a special factory), would be my choice.
By the way: We all seem to agree that on this hostile world humans can only live in special fortified and rather large cities, which also have direct access to the sea, right? Is anyone else reminded of civ as well?
That being said, we could track the cities themselves rather than the territory, couldn't we?
I suspect that there will end up being two ways to produce foodstuffs and/or biomass - greenhouses in cities, and growing crops on 'sanitized' land. The latter are required for 'industrial' fuel production - greenhouses just can't manage the necessary volume.
Or possibly the difference will also end up being a fluff matter - so many acres of cleared land produce so much and cost so and so to keep sanitized, while a greenhouse of however many square meters produces the same amount and costs the same in structural maintenance.
In general, I seem to be one of the players more willing to tolerate complex systems and less willing to tolerate restriction of player choices, and I'm used to keeping track of those kinds of requirements and bonuses from playing Total War, so the resource system sounds good to me.
Resource System sounds fun... adds some complexity, but not too much.
I think that the city types might best be left to fluff- they just kind of specialize in what is nearby. If the city is near a deposit of iron, it's probably not gonna be specializing in a lot of farming. A city with no minerals nearby will likely be a farming/biomass center.
Also- another thought on the semi-submersible platforms: just sim them as an unpowered barge in SS, with, say, 20% of their tonnage devoted to anchoring systems. I'm going to be looking through the interwebs for the next few days to see if I can find any statistics on precisely how they are built, but I think an SWAG might be good enough.
Quote from: Nobody on December 05, 2011, 09:05:05 AM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 04, 2011, 08:35:53 PM
-Have an idea about "resources" to throw out at y'all. We talked about commodities, and it seemed like our cities actually have many of the essentials covered: Food, fuel, etc. So how could we assign a little flavor/niche value to specific cities? Each gets a special industrial unit that produces stuff in addition to those aforementioned essentials, such as:
-->Steelworks: Would produce X amount of steel for shipbuilding. Lose your steelworks(s) and you can't build.
-->Boutiques: Produces niche consumer goods - nice clothes, books, jewellery - that are the basis for international trade.
-->Dirt Farm: Produces a terrestrial-friendly soil that is used to help terraform land.
-->Construction Centre: Specializes in building stand-alone shipyards, ports, cities, and such away from existing cities.
I figure a half-dozen or so options would let a player inject a bit of flavor into their economy, while quantifying things like one's ability to colonize distant locations, etc. Whatcha think?
I don't think that would help the "keep it simple" game mechanics at all. It a bit like the N2 system, but with half a dozened additional columns.
If we track resources, than I think Coal, Oil, Iron, maybe Aluminum and Copper (could be all Metal though, or 2 of 3 could be sufficient) and "Excess Biomass", which can replace coal (charcoal) or oil (with microbes or a special factory), would be my choice.
By the way: We all seem to agree that on this hostile world humans can only live in special fortified and rather large cities, which also have direct access to the sea, right? Is anyone else reminded of civ as well?
That being said, we could track the cities themselves rather than the territory, couldn't we?
It would be more complex, though I don't think it would be any more complex than tracking resources.
Agreed - "territory" is set of small circles on a map, consisting of cities and some sort of exclusive zone around them.
if that process is used, then Civ itself could be used to do the map in its entierty
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 03, 2011, 06:51:51 PM
Mike, can you send me a link or a copy of that Starfire doc? It had some good stuff on international relations and espionage that I'd like to look at and perhaps borrow from.
Signed an NDA, sorry :(
Try to see if you can get a copy of SkyMarshal 2 or something as an e-copy it had updated diplomatic. Most of which was to go into URD.
http://www.starfiredesign.com/
Michael
*Behaves like a petulant child*
This would be much easier if I could just find my own copy of the rules. I've got the box, the counters, the maps...just the rules are on walkabout somewhere.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 04, 2011, 08:35:53 PM
-Have an idea about "resources" to throw out at y'all. We talked about commodities, and it seemed like our cities actually have many of the essentials covered: Food, fuel, etc. So how could we assign a little flavor/niche value to specific cities? Each gets a special industrial unit that produces stuff in addition to those aforementioned essentials, such as:
-->Steelworks: Would produce X amount of steel for shipbuilding. Lose your steelworks(s) and you can't build.
-->Boutiques: Produces niche consumer goods - nice clothes, books, jewellery - that are the basis for international trade.
-->Dirt Farm: Produces a terrestrial-friendly soil that is used to help terraform land.
-->Construction Centre: Specializes in building stand-alone shipyards, ports, cities, and such away from existing cities.
I figure a half-dozen or so options would let a player inject a bit of flavor into their economy, while quantifying things like one's ability to colonize distant locations, etc. Whatcha think?
Hmmm.... Hmmmm... I don't know. I am afraid this could get out of hand quickly.
Also tracking raw materials kills most of the advantages of having a GDP economic system.
So what do you want the economics to do? What is the base way to build things in the game and how does this system help with that?
Michael
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 05, 2011, 12:33:22 PM
*Behaves like a petulant child*
This would be much easier if I could just find my own copy of the rules. I've got the box, the counters, the maps...just the rules are on walkabout somewhere.
I checked my copy of Sky-Marshall 2 and it has updated diplomatic rules its 13 pages long. SM2 SHOULD be in the legacy product package for $10 US.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on December 05, 2011, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 04, 2011, 08:35:53 PM
-Have an idea about "resources" to throw out at y'all. We talked about commodities, and it seemed like our cities actually have many of the essentials covered: Food, fuel, etc. So how could we assign a little flavor/niche value to specific cities? Each gets a special industrial unit that produces stuff in addition to those aforementioned essentials, such as:
-->Steelworks: Would produce X amount of steel for shipbuilding. Lose your steelworks(s) and you can't build.
-->Boutiques: Produces niche consumer goods - nice clothes, books, jewellery - that are the basis for international trade.
-->Dirt Farm: Produces a terrestrial-friendly soil that is used to help terraform land.
-->Construction Centre: Specializes in building stand-alone shipyards, ports, cities, and such away from existing cities.
I figure a half-dozen or so options would let a player inject a bit of flavor into their economy, while quantifying things like one's ability to colonize distant locations, etc. Whatcha think?
Hmmm.... Hmmmm... I don't know. I am afraid this could get out of hand quickly.
Also tracking raw materials kills most of the advantages of having a GDP economic system.
So what do you want the economics to do? What is the base way to build things in the game and how does this system help with that?
Michael
Economics should support the construction and maintenance of militaries. Stuff is purchased and maintained with cash.
The notion of these industrial things, and related talk about terraforming, is to provide some flavor that explains why nations will fight, and what their strategies may accomplish.
I was surprised to hear in the news that "a second earth" had be found and I thought if it could be "our" world.
Take a look: Kepler-22b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-22b)
What do you think, or is its bigger size too much of a problem (a too high gravity would render SS useless)?
High gravity and assumed atmospheric density would make it a bit hostile for us.
I think they are more excited that it could support another intelligent life form, rather than that it could be anything (even with FTL drive) that humanity could easily use.
I'm excited... we're getting to the point that we can see Earth-sized objects now.
Our biggest problem is that most of the free world is hostile to manned exploration, and thus no work is being done on improving drive technologies. With a ship that could get to 50%c, travel to nearby systems (20ly or so) could be done in a single lifetime... meaning that colonization would be possible!
Not that we should necessarily do this, but you could divide the production of components for the ships and other military goods up as something of a resource. For example, ships could have components from steel mills (structural members, armored plates, and turrets), gun forges (large artillery pieces), and boiler/engine works. Certain cities/countries could specialize in certain areas, so one city might make the best armament (like Krupp) and another might make more powerful engines (like Parsons). Some facilities could produce special equipment too. For example, an engine factory could produce nuclear reactors.
A somewhat similar process could be used with aircraft, either using existing structures or special ones set aside for aircraft. Obviously they would use aluminum factories and propeller engine factories. Over time the factories could produce pulsejets and jet engines to power aircraft and rockets.
Ground forces (tanks) could use naval armor and naval gun factories (they use steel armor and big guns) and aircraft engine factories (being smaller engines).
General industries would be ore mines (iron/coal and rare), oil refineries and wells, and munitions factories (making all kinds of munitions, from 16 inch naval shells to torpedoes).
Everything could run on the basic resources of steel, rare materials (aluminum and copper), petroleum, fuel (representing lighter fuel grades, for game purposes warships can use crude) and petrochemicals (includes rubber, which can be grown or refined from oil, along with plastics). Food might be included, unless it is produced in hydroponic food towers or something.
Having resources can provide more strategy to the game. If someone starts stockpiling large amounts of oil it may be a sign they are preparing for war, for example. It also adds a degree of differentiation, as you can choose to have an advanced aircraft engine industry or naval gun industry and export them to others.
I'll be quiet the next day or two - dealing with a flooded cellar.
I like this idea, Rock... sorry it took so long to comment.
Building 'special' equipment make a great role-playing opportunity, and could drive a nice trade in weapons and armament. I say a special facility- perhaps even limited to one per 'empire'- could be built, and designated to allow for a superior product in an area: naval propulsion, naval guns, aircraft, land vehicles. These would be traded, sold, used as bribes, etc.
Also, we might need to allow for several NPC's who are also specialized, in order to give them a greater chance of survival (and to prepare spots for any future players). They could actively be courted, negotiated with and paid for their special equipment.
My condolences on the flooding; I hope nothing irreplaceable was stored there?
Flooded basement is an unknown quantity in the South.
Hopefully it was just the stored junk.
We have about 1,400 jars of canned food on shelves in there, plus three bins of potatos. Thus far, the water's only gotten up about an inch - that flooded a potato bin that had a hole in the bottom, but everything else is okay.
However, in keeping with the past owner's tradition of half-ass-edness - there is no sump hole or sump pump in the cellar. Just a little drain. So I've been improvising a sump hole (bucket), sticking an old pump in there, and using a wet-vac to transfer water in. Takes about 30 minutes three times a day to empty the cellar, which promptly begins to fill back in again anyway.
Today we said "Fuck it", bought a sump pump, and an eight pound sledge hammer. A sump hole is now in progress - very wet and laborous work under the circumstances.
Can't wait till everything freezes up outside...
Speaking as someone who's had a basement apartment flood outright on them, I'm very glad to hear that it's as manageable as that! Given the option of a day or two of labor in miserable conditions vs thousands of dollars of books, I wish I'd been in your shoes.
Quote from: Carthaginian on December 08, 2011, 06:10:09 PM
I like this idea, Rock... sorry it took so long to comment.
Building 'special' equipment make a great role-playing opportunity, and could drive a nice trade in weapons and armament. I say a special facility- perhaps even limited to one per 'empire'- could be built, and designated to allow for a superior product in an area: naval propulsion, naval guns, aircraft, land vehicles. These would be traded, sold, used as bribes, etc.
Also, we might need to allow for several NPC's who are also specialized, in order to give them a greater chance of survival (and to prepare spots for any future players). They could actively be courted, negotiated with and paid for their special equipment.
Perhaps improved factories could have technology levels a few years ahead of other factories (1935 engines or guns when everyone else has 1930)?
what version of SS3 are we using? SS3.0b3?
Quote from: Darman on December 15, 2011, 10:32:02 PM
what version of SS3 are we using? SS3.0b3?
Yep... the last one.
Nothing after 3.03b in the last 3+ years.
Quote from: Carthaginian on December 15, 2011, 11:16:47 PM
Quote from: Darman on December 15, 2011, 10:32:02 PM
what version of SS3 are we using? SS3.0b3?
Yep... the last one.
Nothing after 3.03b in the last 3+ years.
I couldn't remember what I had downloaded last time. Thanks