simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 5,300
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 9, 2021 9:28:50 GMT
I just did some digging and have the following:
GDPs and Population Data for the start dates Espionage Rules Technology Rules Combat Rules System Armaments System Shipbuilding System Military Maintenance Historical unless stated otherwise rule
I should be able to help knock up a guide to Embassies, Orbats and Budgets
Edit:
I also found this in some notes on a 1900 game:
A List of Things Nations Can Do Besides War, Economics, Foreign Policy and Industry
Infrastructure: Ports, railways, telegraph lines, highways, cities, slum clearance Cultural Development: Food, fashion, Art and Literature et al: Create a new great artist/author or develop an existing one, new dramas, books, opera Film: Alternate film Establish international or national prizes Sports: Domestic and international sporting competitions, with the Olympics being a category of their own Architecture Superliner Construction Education Policy Archaeology and World Exploration International Gifts and Cultural Exchanges Royal Families: Alternate marriages and/or children Wonders New or Alternate Political Parties
15 Tips and Hints 1.) You say you want a revolution? No, you don't. You really don't. Try to avoid internal revolution and chaos if at all possible, as it has a far reaching impact.
2.) Checkmate! Don't kill off your king/emperor/head of state. Not only are you opening the door to a lot of butterflies and bad precedent, but it doesn't gain anything that could be achieved using more subtle methods of altering/influencing policy and character.
3.) Have a plan to kill everyone you meet War plans and contingency plans are useful, as you don't have to think on the fly and can react swiftly to a range of circumstances and think several moves ahead. This also includes...
4.) We can't be beaten! Everyone can be beaten or lose out in a situation. Have a rough exit strategy or contingency plan so you don't end up in a Downfall parody.
5.) The false allure of stats Pure numbers and stats don't necessarily translate to game power or achievement. GDP and population aren't as useful as GDP/capita, relative levels of industrialization and annual conscript classes/availability. Furthermore, superior numbers don't always equal success; the different production levels of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are quite educational.
6.) It's in the way that you use it Military or economic power counts for nothing if you get yourself into a situation where you cannot use it to the best of your abilities to maximise success in the pursuit of your interests.
7.) Hide in Plain Sight By having a hidden programme, secret construction or unspecified budget spending, you light up a lot of warning lights. It is better to channel funding through innocuous means, state the truth obliquely or use slightly altered "public design characteristics" for things such as ships.
8.) Know your enemy and know yourself Be aware of what your country and opposing countries can and cannot do. It is better to overestimate than underestimate.
9.) Economy of effort It is better to devote full effort to that which can benefit you the most, rather than using up diplomatic capital/trust/goodwill in pursuit of goals which do not justify the expenditure.
10.) Don't shoot too long or too short Don't get caught up in plans for 25 years down the line when there are matters of more immediate concern, but likewise don't get so caught up in the momentary ebb and flow of international politics and diplomacy that you lose sight of the benefits that may come from a thoughtful tactical pause or retreat.
11.) There are no prizes for speed There isn't a bonus for early victory or finishing first a la some of the Civ series games. Give plans some time to play out, both for more likely victory and a richer experience.
12.) Nothing personal, just business All nations will act differently towards one another depending on their interests. This may result in things getting a bit heated. This isn't a personal attack, either on you or your nation, but rather a clash of different interests.
13.) Beware self immolation Some tactics in war or peace seem worthwhile, but can often backfire upon the one using them. Think very carefully if it is worth using them in balance of the worst case situation.
14.) Don't bite off more than you can chew This one should be fairly self explanatory.
15.) Let your deeds do the talking Don't feel the need to employ diplomatic one-upmanship, anachronistic public announcements or zingers. It isn't reflective of the discourse and attitudes of the time, isn't good roleplaying, doesn't have any effect in a world without large numbers of significant neutrals and muddies the waters for what may happen after a conflict; propaganda isn't truly effective in this sort of game except in a meta sense. If you have to declare war, do so formally and then don't engage in extensive discourse with your enemies, either directly or indirectly. Don't mock their mistakes or what you think are mistakes, but let your actions speak for you.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,406
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Feb 9, 2021 10:01:24 GMT
One thing I would suggest in a mid-1930's game is that you might need to have a clearly set idea as to what the various economic systems are and how well or not their working. For instance there's a considerable difference on the view of the New Deal in the US and mixed economics as opposed to swinging towards the more extreme free market systems now as opposed to the viewpoint in the 70's say. Also traditionally there was a view that Germany put relatively little effort into the military initially under the Nazis because they were fearful of popular unrest, the guns and butter approach. Which was why they went for short successful campaigns. However reading Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" he takes a totally different view that Nazi Germany was rearming like a maniac and only partly checked by the sheer size of the build-up in what was still a very weak economy. It was staggering from crisis to crisis economically and only getting by by various means to loot internal groups and those territories it seized to avoid total economic melt down. The traditional view was that if war had come in Autumn 38 over the Sudatenland it would have been vulnerable to a western allied attack is still accurate because while its army was large it was only partially trained and equipped and desperately short of ammo and spares. However also the resultant drastic cuts in international trade would have crippled it very rapidly.
This would apply to a greater or lesser degree to other periods but I suspect it might be especially the case in this period.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 5,300
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 9, 2021 10:15:20 GMT
There are two separate issues there:
Economics - One chap I gamed with once asked an economics professor about properly simulating the past. The answer was that it was essentially impossible. We would have to have a clear common understanding of the economic system and particularly its limitations before the kick off. Broadly speaking, the more OOC politics and modern day attitudes are cut out of play, the better. Having an ideologically neutral system that simply seeks to simulate GDPs, GDP growth and from them, industrial capacity would be a sine qua non.
In games I’ve played, players do budgets of spending in peacetime based on roughly historical levels of spending. In wartime, mobilisation gives access to more of the National economy, but with costs, both in terms of postwar debt and other issues.
Above all, it needs to be understood that an economic system is an abstraction and thus operates within limits. I’d personally love to drill down to the level of Tooze, but I am known for taking a greater than usual level of interest and enjoyment in economic minutiae.
Preemptive Action, Military and Otherwise - This should be discouraged unless clearly motivated by IC actions AND very clearly signposted; the more of the latter, the better. In various war games, such as versions of HoI, the AI has a nominal chance of going for earlier war with Germany over the Rhineland, Sudetenland etc, but it is a very, very small chance. For a player in a forum game, it would need the right type of government and reasoning, depending on the nation.
Training is factored into the combat system and that can be reinforced. Ammunition and logistics can be factored in without a great deal of trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Don Quijote on Feb 9, 2021 23:58:32 GMT
Agree and disagree on various points made by Simon Darkshade. A pre 1800 setting is absolutely possible - I've seen several popular and long-running medieval NGs, and a few going as far back as the 4th century BC. There's inevitably doubt over things like army numbers, but nothing that's impossible to resolve. Ultimately it's down to player interest in the setting, and that's where the Victorian era has generally come out on top. I'm entirely with you on the fact that WW2 "raises issues" due to OOC knowledge, and if anything that's an understatement.
In terms of player numbers, 1815 sounds about right, but 1900 and 1934 can easily manage with less than suggested. We may as well be realistic - this is not the busiest of forums, and there's not much chance of getting 16+ players for a 1934 game. If we made double figures we'd be doing well.
The 15 tips are all good, and better put than I could have done. Contingency plans are overlooked by a lot of players, but are great for avoiding a panic when your not-so-friendly neighbour marches over the border.
Finally, formalised systems for deciding combat, rating economic strength, etc, can be a bit of a double-edged sword. It cuts down on long and often futile research into the specific details of every country's economic output, for example. However, they can reduce the incentive for creativity and may encourage an attitude of trying to win the numbers game. If you've got a moderator team with historical knowledge and the common sense to be impartial, there's plenty that can be left to their judgement.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 5,300
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 10, 2021 1:07:14 GMT
Pre 1800 is possible, but takes a deeper knowledge and understanding of the culture of the time. It also rules out anything economic or industrial of any depth and can rapidly spin out of control with a few calculated moves.
If you set out already not aiming at the highest and best in the name of realism, you are fundamentally limiting what can be achieved.
If everyone already knows the “secrets” and paths to victory in WW1 and WW2, then there will be necessity be a large element of AH. However, you’d want to avoid Frisian Islands levels of AH and “creativity”
Creativity is a good thing if everyone is on the same page as to what it means and the extent it works. I’ve never encountered that. Without rules, cracks appear and people try to exploit them. Frankly, the World Wars were prime examples of numbers games beating creativity. Systems don’t need to be complex, but they are needed if you want to simulate land, sea and air war, strategic bombardment, submarine war and ASW/tonnage battles, blockade and other aspects. I would suggest that these can’t really be handwaved. The economic front allows clear limits on what can be afforded and an industrial system allows both the build up of production infrastructure and the capacity to hurt that of your enemy.
“I vant to build 200 U-Boats!” “Meiji Fuhrer...Steiner...” “Steiner says that the attack by the Allied bombers destroyed our capacity in several yards. We are limited to 100.”
Creativity is not always a good thing. This came from a WW1 game in 2012:
The Bulgarian division that is currently stationed in Sofia (D8) is to be moved to join the new recruits for an offensive strike against Serbia. this Offensive strike will take place with little to no siege weapondry and no machine guns. However, Bulgarian soldiers will be broken up into a different type of unit then normal.
Due to the lack of firepower by our army, the Tzar has decided to employ a new type of warfare. This warfare is primarily one that has been used by our people since before the Middle Ages. This is the war of aggression. Boyars were used more as a shock effect force then, but now, we have lost our old ways.
The Tzar has made it clear to the men training our companies that the old ways are to be used along side of the new ways. After this great war, we will stand the victor and the Serbians will be crushed. The men are to be deployed among the following orders and trained to do their specific jobs.
200,000 of the men are to be deployed as normal troops. They are to be armed with the normal attire of the Bulgarian Army and will be divided up as normal Bulgarian troops would be. These men are to know nothing of the special forces of the Bulgarian invasion. They are cannon fodder.
The rest of the 350,000 men are to be deployed as following: The most physically fit men, who can run five kilometers in twenty minutes or less, will be the light shock troops. These men, numbering in the 100,000 range. Will be armed with nothing more than pig bladders filled with black powder, knives, and a Luger P08 with no ammo refills. Their uniform will be that of a Serbian lower class. Once these men are trained in the way of their weapons, they are to break up into 5 man squads, one man is to know the Serbian language, and travel into Serbia along its non-Bulgarian borders. They are to be careful to not be caught and will be denied of existence and labeled as traitors and deserters by the Tzar if they are caught. Their orders, however, are simple: blow up any ammo depots of the Serbian Army, avoid the mobilized Serbia troops, and make their way to the Serbian capital and cause as much havoc as humanly possible for the Serbian government. These men will know of the existence of the other squads, but will not contact them in any way. The next 200,000 men who are to be deployed are to be armed with the standard rifle and ammo capacity, and are to be deployed in 10 man squads that are to make their way through Serbian territory and meet with ten other squads at a predetermined location. These men are then to ambush and harass the Serbian Army as they mobilize against Bulgaria's 200,00 man deployment. THEY ARE NOT TO DIRECTLY ENGAGE THE SERBIAN FORCES. These combosquads will have one commander in their midst who will give orders that they believe are to benefit the Bulgarian cause. The last 50,000 men will be deployed by Bulgarian forces to spy upon the enemy. Armed with nothing but a combat knife, and their own prowess, these men will be the smartest of the 550,000 men that have been drafted (Must be literate and show aptitude for learning military strategy). They are to work in direct conjunction with the 200,000 man harassment force. These two man squads will spy on the mobilizing forces of Serbia, and the cities within Serbia that hold key officials. If the squads are not in conjunction with the harassment force, then they are to attempt to eliminate key government officials who are for the mobilization against Bulgaria.
Bulgarian forces will mobilize in the following waves: First five hundred five man squads will mobilize and make their way into Serbia. Then, a day later one hundred two man squads will mobilize and begin their spying efforts. Then finally, 1,000 ten man squads will mobilize and meet all along Serbian space.
These mobilizations are to loop until all units are deployed. Once these deployments have taken place, the 200,000 remaining cannon fodder units are to mobilize against Serbia with an ultimatum: "Serbia is to surrender or Bulgaria will mobilize more troops than our 200,000 men."
This was in the context of a new, teenage player coming into a full World War, with Bulgaria having previously won at Catalca and occupied Constantinople in the Balkan Wars. The order was knocked back by disbelieving staff and his next attempt consisted of sending 90% of his forces to fight in Galicia. Between the Serbs, Greeks and an Allied force landing in a virtually undefended Gallipoli peninsula, he didn’t end up so well.
Conventional Numbers War 1 - Creative Pig’s Bladders 0
The overall strategic approach taken by players in games can be divided into the following categories: - Do what occured historically, with historical means and equipment, in order to achieve historical goals. - Do what occured historically, with historical means and equipment, but with a greater degree of expertise or intensity in order to achieve slightly better results than historical in the pursuit of broadly similar historical goals. - Historical path with different means and equipment to achieve the same general goals - An ahistorical path with different means and equipment for the same general goals - Ahistorical path, different means and equipment, different goals
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Feb 10, 2021 1:57:25 GMT
Pre 1800 is possible, but takes a deeper knowledge and understanding of the culture of the time. It also rules out anything economic or industrial of any depth and can rapidly spin out of control with a few calculated moves. If you set out already not aiming at the highest and best in the name of realism, you are fundamentally limiting what can be achieved. If everyone already knows the “secrets” and paths to victory in WW1 and WW2, then there will be necessity be a large element of AH. However, you’d want to avoid Frisian Islands levels of AH and “creativity” Creativity is a good thing if everyone is on the same page as to what it means and the extent it works. I’ve never encountered that. Without rules, cracks appear and people try to exploit them. Frankly, the World Wars were prime examples of numbers games beating creativity. Systems don’t need to be complex, but they are needed if you want to simulate land, sea and air war, strategic bombardment, submarine war and ASW/tonnage battles, blockade and other aspects. I would suggest that these can’t really be handwaved. The economic front allows clear limits on what can be afforded and an industrial system allows both the build up of production infrastructure and the capacity to hurt that of your enemy. “I vant to build 200 U-Boats!” “Meiji Fuhrer...Steiner...” “Steiner says that the attack by the Allied bombers destroyed our capacity in several yards. We are limited to 100.” Creativity is not always a good thing. This came from a WW1 game in 2012: The Bulgarian division that is currently stationed in Sofia (D8) is to be moved to join the new recruits for an offensive strike against Serbia. this Offensive strike will take place with little to no siege weapondry and no machine guns. However, Bulgarian soldiers will be broken up into a different type of unit then normal.
Due to the lack of firepower by our army, the Tzar has decided to employ a new type of warfare. This warfare is primarily one that has been used by our people since before the Middle Ages. This is the war of aggression. Boyars were used more as a shock effect force then, but now, we have lost our old ways.
The Tzar has made it clear to the men training our companies that the old ways are to be used along side of the new ways. After this great war, we will stand the victor and the Serbians will be crushed. The men are to be deployed among the following orders and trained to do their specific jobs.
200,000 of the men are to be deployed as normal troops. They are to be armed with the normal attire of the Bulgarian Army and will be divided up as normal Bulgarian troops would be. These men are to know nothing of the special forces of the Bulgarian invasion. They are cannon fodder.
The rest of the 350,000 men are to be deployed as following: The most physically fit men, who can run five kilometers in twenty minutes or less, will be the light shock troops. These men, numbering in the 100,000 range. Will be armed with nothing more than pig bladders filled with black powder, knives, and a Luger P08 with no ammo refills. Their uniform will be that of a Serbian lower class. Once these men are trained in the way of their weapons, they are to break up into 5 man squads, one man is to know the Serbian language, and travel into Serbia along its non-Bulgarian borders. They are to be careful to not be caught and will be denied of existence and labeled as traitors and deserters by the Tzar if they are caught. Their orders, however, are simple: blow up any ammo depots of the Serbian Army, avoid the mobilized Serbia troops, and make their way to the Serbian capital and cause as much havoc as humanly possible for the Serbian government. These men will know of the existence of the other squads, but will not contact them in any way. The next 200,000 men who are to be deployed are to be armed with the standard rifle and ammo capacity, and are to be deployed in 10 man squads that are to make their way through Serbian territory and meet with ten other squads at a predetermined location. These men are then to ambush and harass the Serbian Army as they mobilize against Bulgaria's 200,00 man deployment. THEY ARE NOT TO DIRECTLY ENGAGE THE SERBIAN FORCES. These combosquads will have one commander in their midst who will give orders that they believe are to benefit the Bulgarian cause. The last 50,000 men will be deployed by Bulgarian forces to spy upon the enemy. Armed with nothing but a combat knife, and their own prowess, these men will be the smartest of the 550,000 men that have been drafted (Must be literate and show aptitude for learning military strategy). They are to work in direct conjunction with the 200,000 man harassment force. These two man squads will spy on the mobilizing forces of Serbia, and the cities within Serbia that hold key officials. If the squads are not in conjunction with the harassment force, then they are to attempt to eliminate key government officials who are for the mobilization against Bulgaria.
Bulgarian forces will mobilize in the following waves: First five hundred five man squads will mobilize and make their way into Serbia. Then, a day later one hundred two man squads will mobilize and begin their spying efforts. Then finally, 1,000 ten man squads will mobilize and meet all along Serbian space.
These mobilizations are to loop until all units are deployed. Once these deployments have taken place, the 200,000 remaining cannon fodder units are to mobilize against Serbia with an ultimatum: "Serbia is to surrender or Bulgaria will mobilize more troops than our 200,000 men."This was in the context of a new, teenage player coming into a full World War, with Bulgaria having previously won at Catalca and occupied Constantinople in the Balkan Wars. The order was knocked back by disbelieving staff and his next attempt consisted of sending 90% of his forces to fight in Galicia. Between the Serbs, Greeks and an Allied force landing in a virtually undefended Gallipoli peninsula, he didn’t end up so well. Conventional Numbers War 1 - Creative Pig’s Bladders 0 The overall strategic approach taken by players in games can be divided into the following categories: - Do what occured historically, with historical means and equipment, in order to achieve historical goals. - Do what occured historically, with historical means and equipment, but with a greater degree of expertise or intensity in order to achieve slightly better results than historical in the pursuit of broadly similar historical goals. - Historical path with different means and equipment to achieve the same general goals - An ahistorical path with different means and equipment for the same general goals - Ahistorical path, different means and equipment, different goals Agree and disagree on various points made by Simon Darkshade. A pre 1800 setting is absolutely possible - I've seen several popular and long-running medieval NGs, and a few going as far back as the 4th century BC. There's inevitably doubt over things like army numbers, but nothing that's impossible to resolve. Ultimately it's down to player interest in the setting, and that's where the Victorian era has generally come out on top. I'm entirely with you on the fact that WW2 "raises issues" due to OOC knowledge, and if anything that's an understatement. In terms of player numbers, 1815 sounds about right, but 1900 and 1934 can easily manage with less than suggested. We may as well be realistic - this is not the busiest of forums, and there's not much chance of getting 16+ players for a 1934 game. If we made double figures we'd be doing well. The 15 tips are all good, and better put than I could have done. Contingency plans are overlooked by a lot of players, but are great for avoiding a panic when your not-so-friendly neighbour marches over the border. Finally, formalised systems for deciding combat, rating economic strength, etc, can be a bit of a double-edged sword. It cuts down on long and often futile research into the specific details of every country's economic output, for example. However, they can reduce the incentive for creativity and may encourage an attitude of trying to win the numbers game. If you've got a moderator team with historical knowledge and the common sense to be impartial, there's plenty that can be left to their judgement. There are two separate issues there: Economics - One chap I gamed with once asked an economics professor about properly simulating the past. The answer was that it was essentially impossible. We would have to have a clear common understanding of the economic system and particularly its limitations before the kick off. Broadly speaking, the more OOC politics and modern day attitudes are cut out of play, the better. Having an ideologically neutral system that simply seeks to simulate GDPs, GDP growth and from them, industrial capacity would be a sine qua non. In games I’ve played, players do budgets of spending in peacetime based on roughly historical levels of spending. In wartime, mobilisation gives access to more of the National economy, but with costs, both in terms of postwar debt and other issues. Above all, it needs to be understood that an economic system is an abstraction and thus operates within limits. I’d personally love to drill down to the level of Tooze, but I am known for taking a greater than usual level of interest and enjoyment in economic minutiae. Preemptive Action, Military and Otherwise - This should be discouraged unless clearly motivated by IC actions AND very clearly signposted; the more of the latter, the better. In various war games, such as versions of HoI, the AI has a nominal chance of going for earlier war with Germany over the Rhineland, Sudetenland etc, but it is a very, very small chance. For a player in a forum game, it would need the right type of government and reasoning, depending on the nation. Training is factored into the combat system and that can be reinforced. Ammunition and logistics can be factored in without a great deal of trouble. One thing I would suggest in a mid-1930's game is that you might need to have a clearly set idea as to what the various economic systems are and how well or not their working. For instance there's a considerable difference on the view of the New Deal in the US and mixed economics as opposed to swinging towards the more extreme free market systems now as opposed to the viewpoint in the 70's say. Also traditionally there was a view that Germany put relatively little effort into the military initially under the Nazis because they were fearful of popular unrest, the guns and butter approach. Which was why they went for short successful campaigns. However reading Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" he takes a totally different view that Nazi Germany was rearming like a maniac and only partly checked by the sheer size of the build-up in what was still a very weak economy. It was staggering from crisis to crisis economically and only getting by by various means to loot internal groups and those territories it seized to avoid total economic melt down. The traditional view was that if war had come in Autumn 38 over the Sudatenland it would have been vulnerable to a western allied attack is still accurate because while its army was large it was only partially trained and equipped and desperately short of ammo and spares. However also the resultant drastic cuts in international trade would have crippled it very rapidly.
This would apply to a greater or lesser degree to other periods but I suspect it might be especially the case in this period.
I just did some digging and have the following: GDPs and Population Data for the start dates Espionage Rules Technology Rules Combat Rules System Armaments System Shipbuilding System Military Maintenance Historical unless stated otherwise rule I should be able to help knock up a guide to Embassies, Orbats and Budgets Edit: I also found this in some notes on a 1900 game: A List of Things Nations Can Do Besides War, Economics, Foreign Policy and IndustryInfrastructure: Ports, railways, telegraph lines, highways, cities, slum clearance Cultural Development: Food, fashion, Art and Literature et al: Create a new great artist/author or develop an existing one, new dramas, books, opera Film: Alternate film Establish international or national prizes Sports: Domestic and international sporting competitions, with the Olympics being a category of their own Architecture Superliner Construction Education Policy Archaeology and World Exploration International Gifts and Cultural Exchanges Royal Families: Alternate marriages and/or children Wonders New or Alternate Political Parties 15 Tips and Hints1.) You say you want a revolution? No, you don't. You really don't. Try to avoid internal revolution and chaos if at all possible, as it has a far reaching impact. 2.) Checkmate! Don't kill off your king/emperor/head of state. Not only are you opening the door to a lot of butterflies and bad precedent, but it doesn't gain anything that could be achieved using more subtle methods of altering/influencing policy and character. 3.) Have a plan to kill everyone you meet War plans and contingency plans are useful, as you don't have to think on the fly and can react swiftly to a range of circumstances and think several moves ahead. This also includes... 4.) We can't be beaten! Everyone can be beaten or lose out in a situation. Have a rough exit strategy or contingency plan so you don't end up in a Downfall parody. 5.) The false allure of stats Pure numbers and stats don't necessarily translate to game power or achievement. GDP and population aren't as useful as GDP/capita, relative levels of industrialization and annual conscript classes/availability. Furthermore, superior numbers don't always equal success; the different production levels of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are quite educational. 6.) It's in the way that you use it Military or economic power counts for nothing if you get yourself into a situation where you cannot use it to the best of your abilities to maximise success in the pursuit of your interests. 7.) Hide in Plain Sight By having a hidden programme, secret construction or unspecified budget spending, you light up a lot of warning lights. It is better to channel funding through innocuous means, state the truth obliquely or use slightly altered "public design characteristics" for things such as ships. 8.) Know your enemy and know yourself Be aware of what your country and opposing countries can and cannot do. It is better to overestimate than underestimate. 9.) Economy of effort It is better to devote full effort to that which can benefit you the most, rather than using up diplomatic capital/trust/goodwill in pursuit of goals which do not justify the expenditure. 10.) Don't shoot too long or too short Don't get caught up in plans for 25 years down the line when there are matters of more immediate concern, but likewise don't get so caught up in the momentary ebb and flow of international politics and diplomacy that you lose sight of the benefits that may come from a thoughtful tactical pause or retreat. 11.) There are no prizes for speed There isn't a bonus for early victory or finishing first a la some of the Civ series games. Give plans some time to play out, both for more likely victory and a richer experience. 12.) Nothing personal, just business All nations will act differently towards one another depending on their interests. This may result in things getting a bit heated. This isn't a personal attack, either on you or your nation, but rather a clash of different interests. 13.) Beware self immolation Some tactics in war or peace seem worthwhile, but can often backfire upon the one using them. Think very carefully if it is worth using them in balance of the worst case situation. 14.) Don't bite off more than you can chew This one should be fairly self explanatory. 15.) Let your deeds do the talking Don't feel the need to employ diplomatic one-upmanship, anachronistic public announcements or zingers. It isn't reflective of the discourse and attitudes of the time, isn't good roleplaying, doesn't have any effect in a world without large numbers of significant neutrals and muddies the waters for what may happen after a conflict; propaganda isn't truly effective in this sort of game except in a meta sense. If you have to declare war, do so formally and then don't engage in extensive discourse with your enemies, either directly or indirectly. Don't mock their mistakes or what you think are mistakes, but let your actions speak for you. simon darkshade and others, thank you for your advise. This has lead me to believe the 1815 scenario is the best to do, and I will probably write up a game plan/rules for this weekend. Darkshade, since you seem as the most educated in this realm (as in alternate history gaming) if you could be a Game Mod with me, along with someone else TBD I would be most appreciative. I plan on making the game centering on the following aspects: 1) Military Maneuvers: This would be recruiting and training, stuff like that. 2) Economics: Trade, economic growth, tariffs, etc etc 3) Foreign Policy: Mixed in with various diplomatic events and crisises I will through into the mix (Pandemics, volcanic eruptions, etc etc) 4) Technological Development: I'm still working on a way to have countries be able to effectively advance technologically. 5) Infrastructure development and internal policy: As it says. 6) There will be more Of course you'd be able to hold sporting events and found prizes and do all the things you've listed. I plan on making each week roughly 5 years, if that helps anyone. The nations I'm thinking of starting with are Great Britain, France, Spain, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden, the Ottoman Empire, and the US.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 5,300
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 10, 2021 2:13:57 GMT
I can dig out systems that correspond with that.
A week being 5 years is too quick, allowing someone to miss wars and revolutions if they blink. The slowest I’ve done is a month/day, but an argument could be made for 2 months/day.
It will take longer than a weekend to prepare properly, even if you would like to use the rules sets I can offer. If you do something on the fly, then it usually ends up collapsing quickly.
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Feb 10, 2021 2:46:00 GMT
I can dig out systems that correspond with that. A week being 5 years is too quick, allowing someone to miss wars and revolutions if they blink. The slowest I’ve done is a month/day, but an argument could be made for 2 months/day. It will take longer than a weekend to prepare properly, even if you would like to use the rules sets I can offer. If you do something on the fly, then it usually ends up collapsing quickly. I have a four day weekend from school I'm sure I can do it. It won't be any on the fly thing. Let's go with a month per day then, although that could really slow things down.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 5,300
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 10, 2021 3:05:29 GMT
Depending on what you’d like, I can dig out most of the systems/rules.
Other tasks: - Preparing a mission statement - Getting a sub forum in place - Signing up a full roster of GP players and allowing them time for research and planning - Discussing the degree of alternate history and developments - Setting roles and systems in place - Forward planning for events in 1815-1825 at a minimum - Recruiting threads on other places to get the additional players
The more, the merrier. Whilst there are a small number of major nations, the minors make for interesting game play and greater interaction/activity. You will want a Netherlands player in your initial 10; from there, the next ones would be Denmark, Portugal, Persia, Egypt, Bavaria, Two Sicilies, Savoy; Greece will come in time, as will Mexico and South America. Spain and the Turks aren’t powerful enough from an 1815 start to stop those separations, which have the tacit support of other powers.
I’d say that you can’t really have non playing GMs with a small player base.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,406
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Feb 10, 2021 11:36:23 GMT
Guys Interesting discussions and some very good points here.
a) End Date
In terms of the game what end date is planned? I suspect american2006, was thinking of something that goes from 1815, if that's the start point, immediately after Nappy's final defeat, to possibly the end of the century and beyond. Hence the proposed 5 years per week of real time. By the sound of it simon darkshade, is thinking of something markedly shorter, or possibly lasting much longer in real life. Say a month a day would mean 120 turns getting us to 1825. In that case technology is a lot less important and you wouldn't probably have the game reaching the end date. It possibly needs to be clarified as to as to what sort of end date we're going for. If we go on into say the 1840's then technology steadily becomes more and more important but you really need technological advances to be slow and expensive early on and cheaper later.
b) Victory Conditions.
Similarly to ask what is the designated victory conditions? Someone establishing a universal empire is possibly in many computer games because they overlook or greatly reduce the role of public opinion. For instance reading the other day an AAR [After Action Report] of a multi-player WWII game and it has Japan running rampant in the S Pacific and shortly after their conquest and release as puppet states you have Australian and New Zealand forces fighting alongside the Japanese against Britain. This is ASB to be frank but a someone conquers everywhere - or other players accept he's unstoppable - is a simple solution to the question of victory conditions.
I would prefer some system that recognising, especially with nationalism spreading, that its impossible that newly conquered populations will be willing to support their new rulers. [With some exceptions possibly for an Italian state pushing the idea of unifying Italy for instance in which case [some of the] people from other Italian populated areas they come to control are willing if not eager to support them]. However this means we're not going to have a single player conquering everybody else so what are the victory conditions? Especially since they are likely to be different for different nations. In some cases it could simply be surviving is a low level one. For the US it might be expanding to its historical size or further, Britain maintaining naval control and being the dominant economic power - plus making sure no one controls Europe, France staying the dominant land power in west/central Europe, Prussia or Austria being the centre of a unified Germany [although for Austria that leaves the question of their vast non_Germany lands], Russia, take Constantinople, etc. Of course there are likely to be multiple such conditions for each power. For instance its not a win for Russia to take Constantinople if someone else is occupy St Petersburg and Moscow!
Or possibly if the map is based on provinces - as opposed to say hexes for instance - on holding a certain number of provinces. However while simpler this raises the question of whether all provinces are equal or not. Plus another problem with victory conditions, unless the power is required to maintain that position for a number of turns is someone managing to make a sudden grab despite their economy collapsing and their army being reduced to a shell. All in all this is something we need to have sorted out before we start.
c) Resource Extraction I used to pbm a fair bit and remember one game I was observing as I didn't have the time to play. It was actually based on an alternative 1815 start with Napoleon having been victorious. Players were allowed to develop their provinces, improving agriculture and also any mining attempt had the possibility of finding new mineral resources. It was realising mid-game that there needed to be some limitation on this as otherwise nations which had the wealth to do this repeatedly could get virtually unlimited resources out of provinces. Hence they decided that any single province could provide at most I think it was 3-4 products, some provinces which had already been developed beyond that losing those excess.
d) Other NPNs [Non-Player Nations]
For a 1815 scenario we will have to consider not only the faltering Spanish and Ottoman empires, as well as what might happen with Portugal/Brazil. At the very least you would have to have some factors for India, where Britain is the dominant military and economic power but there are still a number of powerful states challenging it, China, especially from about 1830 onward, the Boers and Zulu, NW Africa if France expands there as historically, Egypt [which is still semi-independent and OTL threw up Muhammad Ali who nearly overthrew the Ottomans in the 1830s] and probably some other Asian powers. We definitely won't have enough players for them but need to handle the
e) Internal politics This would be important in a lot of nations, with liberals and conservatives contesting for power in many countries with possibly only Russia and Austria avoiding this. France would be even more complex with the restored Bourbons potentially challenged by both liberals/republicans and also Napoleon's descendants. Also a struggle between agricultural interests [which is likely to see contests between peasants, small farmers, aristocratic estates etc], assorted commercial/trade/industrial interests and in a number of countries the military and the church/mosque. Also growing questions over morals, including things like slavery, assorted internal corruption and injustice and the like.
f) May I also suggest that the minimum turn date is two days? Thinking that there's too much chance otherwise of a player missing a turn because of some crisis or problem?
Some of the above, such as c) and e) we might decide to ignore to keep the game simple but if not then there will need to be a way for the organisers to handle them.
Could add other points but this has already ballooned beyond what I intended.
Steve
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 5,300
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 10, 2021 14:06:59 GMT
Steve
a.) I've never had a game go long enough to need an end date, so I'd see it going on as long as there is interest. You are right on the relatively slower pace of tech in 1815-1830 or so. b.) Likewise, I've never had a game that had victory conditions, as there was more of an emphasis on roleplaying. If they were in place, I'd recommend something on a points based system; however, having victory conditions would encourage it to turn out like Risk and I'd wager there would be a major European war by the 1820s. c.) There is data on historical resources that I like to use, as it prevents nations with no historical coal deposits suddenly rivalling the Ruhr or South Wales. A resource system is possible, but would take a lot more time to develop and implement. In general, it would be obvious if someone is trying to do too much. d.) NPC nations would generally pursue a path of "Historical Unless Stated/Moved Otherwise". There would have to be a decent case made to engage with an NPC nation and there would be an appropriate malus to the likelihood of any intended action. The aim would be to try and fill as many places as possible and to allow them to be filled after kick off. e.) In general, internal politics would be driven by the player, but within reason. For example, attempted massive reform in Russia or Austria would be deemed very unlikely and probably spawn some events in response. A clearly signposted gradual series of changes accompanied by a reasoned case would be much more likely to have success. Historical developments would spawn events, however, if for example Austria had a different path over 30 years, it wouldn't be slapped with an exact facsimile of 1848 just because. There would need to be some sense of flexibility in that respect, I think. I do have some ideas for general initial sliding scales for some characteristics which would be changed in yearly updates with budget processing, based on HoI 2 Arsenal of Democracy's CORE Mod and some elements of the AmericanHistoryUSA Presidential Election Game, indicating where the country stands based on perhaps 5 different measures. f.) 2 months per turn, changing over every 2 days could work.
Running any game like this would take some serious commitment and would only be worth it with a decent, committed crew. I'd say there is a need for 10-12 players, with at least 3 of them being GMs as well as nations. That way the game does not die if someone disappears due to work changes and orders can be processed if they involve another GM.
I'd prefer to take Britain, given a choice - I wouldn't see myself as a non-playing GM; it would be useful for another GM to be the USA and thus nominally neutral for intra-European affairs and the other to be from a European great power (perhaps Russia). Even then, I'd prefer a staff of 5.
It is reasonably moot without some indication that there is enough interest to get it together.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 5,300
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 10, 2021 14:07:52 GMT
Having said all that, if what is preferred is a far simpler forum type game, I'd perhaps still be interested. It really depends on the scope, players and nature of it.
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Feb 10, 2021 15:26:32 GMT
Steve a.) I've never had a game go long enough to need an end date, so I'd see it going on as long as there is interest. You are right on the relatively slower pace of tech in 1815-1830 or so. b.) Likewise, I've never had a game that had victory conditions, as there was more of an emphasis on roleplaying. If they were in place, I'd recommend something on a points based system; however, having victory conditions would encourage it to turn out like Risk and I'd wager there would be a major European war by the 1820s. c.) There is data on historical resources that I like to use, as it prevents nations with no historical coal deposits suddenly rivalling the Ruhr or South Wales. A resource system is possible, but would take a lot more time to develop and implement. In general, it would be obvious if someone is trying to do too much. d.) NPC nations would generally pursue a path of "Historical Unless Stated/Moved Otherwise". There would have to be a decent case made to engage with an NPC nation and there would be an appropriate malus to the likelihood of any intended action. The aim would be to try and fill as many places as possible and to allow them to be filled after kick off. e.) In general, internal politics would be driven by the player, but within reason. For example, attempted massive reform in Russia or Austria would be deemed very unlikely and probably spawn some events in response. A clearly signposted gradual series of changes accompanied by a reasoned case would be much more likely to have success. Historical developments would spawn events, however, if for example Austria had a different path over 30 years, it wouldn't be slapped with an exact facsimile of 1848 just because. There would need to be some sense of flexibility in that respect, I think. I do have some ideas for general initial sliding scales for some characteristics which would be changed in yearly updates with budget processing, based on HoI 2 Arsenal of Democracy's CORE Mod and some elements of the AmericanHistoryUSA Presidential Election Game, indicating where the country stands based on perhaps 5 different measures. f.) 2 months per turn, changing over every 2 days could work. Running any game like this would take some serious commitment and would only be worth it with a decent, committed crew. I'd say there is a need for 10-12 players, with at least 3 of them being GMs as well as nations. That way the game does not die if someone disappears due to work changes and orders can be processed if they involve another GM. I'd prefer to take Britain, given a choice - I wouldn't see myself as a non-playing GM; it would be useful for another GM to be the USA and thus nominally neutral for intra-European affairs and the other to be from a European great power (perhaps Russia). Even then, I'd prefer a staff of 5. It is reasonably moot without some indication that there is enough interest to get it together. Given the small size of the forum and the likely smaller number of participants the GMs should be able to play as well. As for an end date, I don’t really have any in mind and I really don’t think we need one if we can keep interest in it, remembering that every six days in one year in game (2 months per day) and with this we could probably progress at a pace that all can keep up with. As per victory points I think that maybe we can have certain checkpoints or something of the like (like a war or other events) where we can rank the players/countries. As for me I think I could take the USA as a GM.
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Feb 10, 2021 15:31:16 GMT
Additionally, would anyone aside from Darkshade and myself want to potentially be a GM
|
|
|
Post by Don Quijote on Feb 10, 2021 19:16:45 GMT
Pre 1800 is possible, but takes a deeper knowledge and understanding of the culture of the time. It also rules out anything economic or industrial of any depth and can rapidly spin out of control with a few calculated moves. If you set out already not aiming at the highest and best in the name of realism, you are fundamentally limiting what can be achieved. If everyone already knows the “secrets” and paths to victory in WW1 and WW2, then there will be necessity be a large element of AH. However, you’d want to avoid Frisian Islands levels of AH and “creativity” Creativity is a good thing if everyone is on the same page as to what it means and the extent it works. I’ve never encountered that. Without rules, cracks appear and people try to exploit them. Frankly, the World Wars were prime examples of numbers games beating creativity. Systems don’t need to be complex, but they are needed if you want to simulate land, sea and air war, strategic bombardment, submarine war and ASW/tonnage battles, blockade and other aspects. I would suggest that these can’t really be handwaved. The economic front allows clear limits on what can be afforded and an industrial system allows both the build up of production infrastructure and the capacity to hurt that of your enemy. “I vant to build 200 U-Boats!” “Meiji Fuhrer...Steiner...” “Steiner says that the attack by the Allied bombers destroyed our capacity in several yards. We are limited to 100.” Creativity is not always a good thing. This came from a WW1 game in 2012: The Bulgarian division that is currently stationed in Sofia (D8) is to be moved to join the new recruits for an offensive strike against Serbia. this Offensive strike will take place with little to no siege weapondry and no machine guns. However, Bulgarian soldiers will be broken up into a different type of unit then normal.
Due to the lack of firepower by our army, the Tzar has decided to employ a new type of warfare. This warfare is primarily one that has been used by our people since before the Middle Ages. This is the war of aggression. Boyars were used more as a shock effect force then, but now, we have lost our old ways.
The Tzar has made it clear to the men training our companies that the old ways are to be used along side of the new ways. After this great war, we will stand the victor and the Serbians will be crushed. The men are to be deployed among the following orders and trained to do their specific jobs.
200,000 of the men are to be deployed as normal troops. They are to be armed with the normal attire of the Bulgarian Army and will be divided up as normal Bulgarian troops would be. These men are to know nothing of the special forces of the Bulgarian invasion. They are cannon fodder.
The rest of the 350,000 men are to be deployed as following: The most physically fit men, who can run five kilometers in twenty minutes or less, will be the light shock troops. These men, numbering in the 100,000 range. Will be armed with nothing more than pig bladders filled with black powder, knives, and a Luger P08 with no ammo refills. Their uniform will be that of a Serbian lower class. Once these men are trained in the way of their weapons, they are to break up into 5 man squads, one man is to know the Serbian language, and travel into Serbia along its non-Bulgarian borders. They are to be careful to not be caught and will be denied of existence and labeled as traitors and deserters by the Tzar if they are caught. Their orders, however, are simple: blow up any ammo depots of the Serbian Army, avoid the mobilized Serbia troops, and make their way to the Serbian capital and cause as much havoc as humanly possible for the Serbian government. These men will know of the existence of the other squads, but will not contact them in any way. The next 200,000 men who are to be deployed are to be armed with the standard rifle and ammo capacity, and are to be deployed in 10 man squads that are to make their way through Serbian territory and meet with ten other squads at a predetermined location. These men are then to ambush and harass the Serbian Army as they mobilize against Bulgaria's 200,00 man deployment. THEY ARE NOT TO DIRECTLY ENGAGE THE SERBIAN FORCES. These combosquads will have one commander in their midst who will give orders that they believe are to benefit the Bulgarian cause. The last 50,000 men will be deployed by Bulgarian forces to spy upon the enemy. Armed with nothing but a combat knife, and their own prowess, these men will be the smartest of the 550,000 men that have been drafted (Must be literate and show aptitude for learning military strategy). They are to work in direct conjunction with the 200,000 man harassment force. These two man squads will spy on the mobilizing forces of Serbia, and the cities within Serbia that hold key officials. If the squads are not in conjunction with the harassment force, then they are to attempt to eliminate key government officials who are for the mobilization against Bulgaria.
Bulgarian forces will mobilize in the following waves: First five hundred five man squads will mobilize and make their way into Serbia. Then, a day later one hundred two man squads will mobilize and begin their spying efforts. Then finally, 1,000 ten man squads will mobilize and meet all along Serbian space.
These mobilizations are to loop until all units are deployed. Once these deployments have taken place, the 200,000 remaining cannon fodder units are to mobilize against Serbia with an ultimatum: "Serbia is to surrender or Bulgaria will mobilize more troops than our 200,000 men."This was in the context of a new, teenage player coming into a full World War, with Bulgaria having previously won at Catalca and occupied Constantinople in the Balkan Wars. The order was knocked back by disbelieving staff and his next attempt consisted of sending 90% of his forces to fight in Galicia. Between the Serbs, Greeks and an Allied force landing in a virtually undefended Gallipoli peninsula, he didn’t end up so well. Conventional Numbers War 1 - Creative Pig’s Bladders 0 The overall strategic approach taken by players in games can be divided into the following categories: - Do what occured historically, with historical means and equipment, in order to achieve historical goals. - Do what occured historically, with historical means and equipment, but with a greater degree of expertise or intensity in order to achieve slightly better results than historical in the pursuit of broadly similar historical goals. - Historical path with different means and equipment to achieve the same general goals - An ahistorical path with different means and equipment for the same general goals - Ahistorical path, different means and equipment, different goals I think we've been talking past each other a bit. I've never run a game as a full-blown simulation of a historical period, only as an approximation. I'd far rather sacrifice the fine details of economics than shut the door on over 2000 years of history, or force players to pore over said economic details and take away the enjoyment of the game. And your Bulgarian player? I know all about that type, and if nothing else they can add amusement for a turn or two. But it's entirely possible for the mod(s) to curb the wildest schemes while generally allowing more freedom than a regimented system permits. Having said all that, if what is preferred is a far simpler forum type game, I'd perhaps still be interested. It really depends on the scope, players and nature of it. So in short, this. I would keep an eye on a more detailed game, but wouldn't be able to get involved if there was a heavy time commitment needed.
|
|