Well, thank you fer yer feedback there. If I may, I do have some remarks in response.
Ive tried games without rules, which most of the time results in how things work changing each and every round. It was not fun for me to run, and I feel it was not fun for the players to suffer under. I do try to keep a limit on what even gets a rule to things that really do need one.
Im not sure by what you mean by some of this second paragraph, particularly the instances of the "'Counter' artillery supremacy", As for the rest of it, yes. Most of this nonsense is the result of me trying to work out a system that can be used for most things, which I freely admit should have been worked out more prior to the start, the last few days prior to which I started rushing and thus forgot systems that I feel are important enough to require rules. (Most of the rest of it is the result of me just being crap)
Toomuch going on asin "these should be split up" or "this is just rambling"?
This, I feel, is more or less nonsense. If I went with a different system then its hardly doubling down, is it? It being dumb, however? Probably. However, there where indeed reasons for it, mostly "It gives the players some chance to set their own focus in a way clearly less complex as, for instance, in the asymmetrical race". Infact, it is because of those questions being asked that certian planned requirements have been
removed, such as ammunition production.
On specific portions:
Tokens: Partially this is because certain things should be easier and take less effort. Most of the problems arise from when I play games with different numbers(both allotted per turn and for specific actions) and from the fact that, indeed, there is only one flavor of token for almost everything.
Designs: The problem with removing components(which are, more or less, limited to guns, engines, an signaling equipment) is thats about as basic a setup as I fell is possible without removing the rational for using the same base thing for multiple roles. For ammunition, if you arent talking smallarms, thats indeed all that is needed, even here. The problem is, you kinda need a round before you can design a gun for it, and if yer talking things like grenade launchers, missiles, artillery or (in more modern times) shotguns, its an important aspect to have more than one flavor of ammunition. The number of dice, and how distributed, are a similar artifact of trying to both provide an enjoyable experience and juggle portraying atleast a veneer of realism to something.
Expeditions: The time taken is mostly in my thinking "oh, these will mostly be going across to other continents, which takes time, and when there they gotta get off, do X,Y, and Z, and then head back. One year should represent that nicley". I have been thinking of changing the time taken for local expeditions(or ones with a base locally anyways) as a result.
Logistics: This is all less of me trying to make a modern arms race and more of me trying to make an old-school weapon design game and work off of systems other than "everyone has this general level of X". But hey, Ive learned, no variable resource supply and no manufacturing and shipping ammunition, Im not suicidal. Divving up equipment into ranks is my method of permitting specialization of a unit.
Land Combat, i.e. numbers: its certainly labor intensive, but its not impossible, and it beats the pants off of "the gun stated to work 1/6 of the time is somehow killing everything". I just have to be reasonable about the actual numbers involved.
Naval Cultism: If this was just a game about cults on one island, absolutely. Its... not. You may have seen, but not noticed, that port capacity is another thing that has quietly been dropped, for most of that reason. Naval combat is still important enough to keep whats about alive, but the fat I have been able to find has been trimmed.
Armor: The behind-the-scenes of the math for armor is fairly simplified, even if it does work in a rather different method than the standard Arms Race one Sensei added midway through the first game.
Aircraft: Again, similar to armor, its important enough to exist. Is my method the best? Probably not. Is it more complicated than how Sensei set it up in the first two arms races? Yeah. Does it have potential for teams to do fun things with? Yes, and getting the rules for it written out ahead of time (unlike in the first AR, for instance) should reduce salt.
Map Movement/Logistics: This has been added to, again, hopefully increase potentially interesting results. Enemy have a factory complex with materials coming from the other end of the map? Well, that can be killed off. Want an army to zip around the enemy like yakety sax is playing? Thats an option. Yes, its more complex.
TLDR, most of this is the result of me
not trying to run a Sensei-style arms race. Part of this is due to the fact that I dont like running or playing weapon design games with things pulled out of someones ass, particularly when it is my own ass. Much of this is the result of my trying to work out a near-universal system for weapon-design games. Most of this is the result of my trying to reduce, or remove, salt by being as upfront as possible about how things function without actually just handing out the
raw numbers. Perhaps contrary to popular belief, I do try to keep these sortsa things in mind, even if it does appear that I fail fairly regularly.
Ninja edit
Allrighty, sorry to see you going Coleslaw. Most of the time spent isint somuch me suffering though the rules as my not doing anything. I have rather less time now than I did when I started and... well, Im lazy.
The quote is true though, these rules are the result of simplification.
Edit
On that note, I should ask, of the ~3 other players still about, any of yall still interested in this? I would rather not put further effort into something noone cares about.