You are not logged in.

21

Friday, October 26th 2012, 1:32am

In theory - were I still actually interested in sims at such time as WW2 began - I would be fine with a non-historical setting. I attempted to kick-start a new version of Navalism in such a manner but got overwhelmed and crapped out on them instead.

The sim's managed to function reasonably well for a decade despite the lack of info on Atlantis, Iberia, SAE, and Nordmark. The sim rules, as written, require little beyond a basic sense of economic size and locaiton of infrastructure. Oil is useful to know, but the distribution of crops, iron, and such has no formal in-game effects.

Nation-building of fantastic or non-historic states can be incentivized - good work on an annual basis earns you some sort of bonus.

I have no strong opinion on nation size, save to note that a lot of folks will want to design big cool things. Whether everybody starts the same or there's a spread, there will almost certainly be a quick burst of alliance-making to offset perceived weaknesses.

22

Friday, October 26th 2012, 2:58am

And the numbers for this weekend's jackpot are.......

I'd like to play the Roman Empire too, but I would settle for a power like Spain.

23

Friday, October 26th 2012, 3:59am

I call King Soloman's Israel!

24

Friday, October 26th 2012, 4:37am

If I may provide some thoughts... we're still probably four or five years from finishing the current version of Wesworld, particularly at our current rate of posting. How about we concentrate on the next version when we're closer to actually needing it?

25

Friday, October 26th 2012, 4:49am

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
If I may provide some thoughts... we're still probably four or five years from finishing the current version of Wesworld, particularly at our current rate of posting. How about we concentrate on the next version when we're closer to actually needing it?


Agreed.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

26

Friday, October 26th 2012, 6:00am

My 2 cents.

Fictional world : I am willing to entertain such a notion. The Forgotten Realms map manages to remind me of Earth with the continents shoved around and mountain ranges that don't correspond to platetectonics. I can live with that. The attraction is that changing the map changes the static strategic elements that shape navies. By changing the underlying variables, we may find new and interesting results.

Civ 4 map : I found that just really ugly and clunky. Graphics are usually not a matter of concern for me, but that was not good.

Historical Earth : A little boring.

Ahistorical Earth : Probably "best". I would be interested in a version where people can play states that existed at some point in history, vaulted into modern day. So borders and relations have historic precedent.
Foxy's "Greater Mexico" would be simply Mexico before the clashes with the US. What if Santa Anna won? Or Gold was discovered by the Mexican Army instead of Sutter? Likewise someone could play the Mughal Empire, or Norman England or 1600s Spain. An argument could be made for a Russia that won the Crimean war, owned much of the Balkans as a 'protectorate' and so had an ice-free port on the Med.

Yes, the Holy Roman Empire *probably* overlaps multiple nations others desire to run, but why reject it now? If there is no one who wants the Benelux, then the 1600 version could be doable as a replacement for "Germany". Or Northern Italy and the Benelux could be trimmed.

Obviously where there is overlap with another's proposed nation there would need to be negotiations.

TIme : The "Devastation" class was laid down in 1869 and had the fore/aft rotating 4x12" main armament and lacked sails. The Colossus class in 1882 finally abandoned muzzle loaders, and by the Victoria Class, which entered service in 1890 they had triple expansion engines. So 1880s - still experimental, 1890s...classic Pre-dread available.

Any :
Countries should have a standard starting "description" - an encyclopedia type thing, made for PCs and NPCs.
This includes standard fluff, but also the existing major anchorages and their drafts, and the default "diplomatic state" defining who's been upset with whom for ages and why. Plus a checklist of major resources- Coal, Oil, Rubber, Iron, Tin, Copper, Zinc. Folks can ignore it, or amuse themselves by making sure they and their allies have them all (collect the set !)
This will help establish what the relations are, regardless of if folks make news, and also present little headscratchers such as the current US player feeling his nation has too few factories vs. my understanding that it's as designed, or my 1928 intro to the game I was told by Red Admiral that there was old problems between Iberia vs France & Atlantis which is apparently wrong...but is a big part of why I couldn't figure out why RAM had signed the NL up in an alliance with Iberia when we're the ones with no mountain range between us and the biggest @#$ army.
Having a baseline posted...which a current player could supplement... would set everyone at the same starting point.

There should be a "world encylopedia" listing Oceans, Seas, straits and standard depth ranges.
We see OTL restraints such as Panama and Suez canals, or the depths of the Baltic. The Netherlands has the Java Sea...which is pretty darn shallow. Thus I don't have as many coastal subs as one might expect, they would be pretty darned exposed.

27

Friday, October 26th 2012, 8:25am

Kirk, I just feel that without a very indepth backstory which in itself is time-consuming and difficult considering the number of players that want to play, and have an idea germinating in the back of their heads to mesh those ideas into a comprehensive world that going with a ahistorical Earth is in my mind opening the door to all sorts of problems down the road. Some of those issues we are now finding in Wesworld, others I see but haven't brought up, not bothering because I would rather see the game go on than quibble over things. Such a scenario might be better with a computer program, or with one or two people devising an alternate history storyline than say a game with around 20 people and personalities. Also understandably other players may not want/have time to put as much detail into the game as others, yet still want to play a decent sized power. With an OTL start or one close to it I have an understanding of what each nation is capable of - there is after all a guide in what they did IOTL. When I am playing a game with the Great Mexican Empire, or Narnia, or the Mallorean Empire, or Calimsham I have no clue what to expect from such a power, no frame of reference, no understanding if this is a reasonable course of action they are taking or if someone is trying to pull a fast one. And that inevitably leads to distrust, tension, turmoil, and strife (amongst the playerbase, not the countries themselves).

I realize with an OTL start there are only 6 or 7 Great Powers in the world in the 1880's. I also realize everyone wants to build that awesomey awesome ship and that folks need for the most part GreatPowerNation status to do so. So, in the interest of the game if this is the path taken I am willing to select a minor power and develop it rather than having the advantage of being a Great Power from the get-go.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (Oct 26th 2012, 8:25am)


Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

28

Friday, October 26th 2012, 9:27am

I tried to address the background bit with my suggestion of required standardized encyclopedias entries giving the nation's background.

Likewise, while I recognize greater problems in a fantasy world with "Narnia" or the "Malorian Empire", this should not be as extreme an issue with historic empires brought forward into modern times.

However, the original time line nations we have... the USA, Japan and...no one else outside Europe. Spain, the Ottomans, Brazil and Argentina barely afforded capital ships.

That leaves Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy and the UK.

AH, Italy and the bulk of the French fleet are hemmed into the Med by choke points at Gibralter and Suez.
AH is worse with the Straits of Ortranto.

Russia is stuck with dispersed ports and limited access to the high seas.

Germany has the baltic and then the UK across any conceivable trade route.

It's status quo, with most of the nations stuck in one spot and constrained by geography.

I somewhat get your concerns, but I just don't find the above terribly interesting. However it's good to get this out and discuss them :)

29

Friday, October 26th 2012, 9:37am

As will surprise no one at all who remembers my viewpoints during several of the Navalism Revival attempts, I'm inclined to favor a complete and systematic break from 'real history'. As much as attention to technological plausibility is a necessity, it's hard to really play with concepts and designs when you're trying to swim with 'historical precedent' congealed around your feet like concrete overshoes.

I am aware that my enthusiasm for whole-cloth worldbuilding is the exception rather than the rule, which is the reason that I tend to favor a reorientation of the real globe as the best compromise. It provides us with the ability to use existing resource maps, distances, and so on, while reshuffling the deck so that we're actually playing a different game rather than having exactly the same hands and just drawing different numbers of cards.

If that doesn't meet with favor, then I think that most attempts at rewriting history are going to fall foul of deep rifts over what's 'too much' and what's 'not enough' - so if my vote for a 'tilted earth' map gets overruled, I'd transfer it to suggesting a 'gentleman's agreement' to maintain parallelism in the 'Old World' while those interested in such things work out an alternate development path for the 'New'.

As far as the question of predicting a nation's priorities goes, I have to admit that I'm mostly inclined to consider this a question of player competence rather than something to be addressed by the rule and setup system, but I'd have no objection at all to requiring a player to prepare, say, a one or two paragraph 'Wiki article intro' for the country they want to run, which'd have to be approved by the other players.
Carnival da yo~!

30

Friday, October 26th 2012, 9:54am

If we go back before 1900 don't forget China ;) BEFORE the first Sino-Japanese-War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiyang_Fleet


So i hope in WW2 to play, what i'm playing now :D

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "parador" (Oct 26th 2012, 10:15am)


31

Friday, October 26th 2012, 10:59am

I think an historical background with some minor alterations (island ownership etc.) is a more sound basis than supposing what might of happened 200 years before or even 50 years before. Yes, that's interesting but we then only replicate what we have already in terms of vaugeness and the "oh well Atlantis exists so anything can happen" attitude.

At least 1890-1900 gives us some older nations, its pre-Alliance (in most cases but not all) and pre-Great War biases. E.g. a WW2 starting in 1900 might see UK seeing France as more of an enemy than Germany, Spain and America still hostile, and its pre Russo-Japanese War too. Actually it has more war script possiblities than any 1920+ scenario ever had.

32

Friday, October 26th 2012, 11:07am

So as first summary i see, that most of us won't prefer playing a pure fictional map. Even a pure fictional second world isn't favored by many of us.

In short, most of us are more interested in an alternate timeline of the real world.

33

Friday, October 26th 2012, 11:13am

Really, the only thing I'd be firmly against would be everything-just-the-same-up-to-game-start. There's very little room for any kind of maneuvering in that scenario, and none at all for doing so without having to argue about it's 'plausibility'.
Carnival da yo~!