Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

I don't. All hail the great me, Diktator of Murika.

[Iituem]

Spoiler: Cowards preaching anti-war, read all about it! (click to show/hide)

[heydude6]

Spoiler: Cowards preaching anti-war, read all about it! (click to show/hide)

*sheds tear*

That was beautiful.

[Sensei]

I am considering a few balance issues, but I've put off actually changing them because they might appear to snub one nation or the other:

-Extra spies should probably not work the way they do, where you have one spy who gets replaced and one who doesn't. Instead maybe spies should only be replaced up to the number of intelligence buildings you have. This would be kind of unfair to Arstotzka if they got a second spy and couldn't use the same tactics Moskurg used before.

-Rhino Recoilless Rifle probably a little OP/anachronistic in terms of weight and performance. Maybe should be less portable or short range only, or both. Obviously this would be snubbing Moskurg retroactively though. This is the first piece of equipment I've submitted and really had second thoughts about, so I'd like to also establish a policy for when I make a mistake in the future and give somebody a rocket launcher that shouldn't be easy to engineer for another 30 years.

-Possibly related to the above, is how should I set difficulty for equipment which COULD be really valuable, and from an engineering standpoint can easily be built/has been built, but historically wasn't used until later for the main reason that people didn't realize it would be valuable? Assault rifles and their medium-powered rounds are good example of this. Shaped explosive charges might be also, I'm still not clear on the challenges involved in delivering shaped explosives accurately in a warhead. And don't say "just base it on how hard it would be to build" unless you're planning to alter history/conquer Europe.

-I'm considering using less randomness overall. I've increased the importance of dice rolls compared to my original plan, which was to roll a die for each new technology and have a bad roll not get the technology or have a bug associated with the technology, and then have performance of equipment based on the technologies involved and the year created mainly. As it is I've been using dice to determine general efficiency/useability when I'm not sure, but this has had some questionable results (EG Moskurg and Arstotzka submit similar plane designs, Moskurg's is good and Arstotza's suffers from control and weight issues). In that example the triplane frame was an exacerbating factor but it remains that basically players took the same actions in the same year to different results. I'm considering using less dice rolls and having bad dice rolls be explicitly tied to discrete technologies so it's clear how to solve/avoid bugs in the future. I'd like your opinions before making changes in this department though.

-I'm also considering what to do when I realize that equipment should be useful in a way I haven't thought of after the fact, which seems too trivial to require a revision. Examples include towing artillery by truck (though not extremely useful) or machine guns on top of trains (somewhat useful). Another example is Arstotzkans performing strafing runs on rail tracks themselves (though I stand by my position on that not being valuable, but suppose I said it was). Should I keep a list of tactics used and not used for reference? Is it OK for a piece of equipment to suddenly become more effective than it was before because a player pointed out a more effective way to use it? Should I apply these retroactively, or characterize them as new orders given to soldiers? Should Moskurg get their alternate rounds in .60 caliber even though they said they wanted to make them for artillery? Should I automatically add what I think are very easy improvements like that in general/on good rolls?

-(Edited to add) Also, what about really small revisions? Stuff like Arstotzka getting the stupid flags taken off of soldiers' helmets. There are some things that seem to big to not do during a revision phase but also really small for a revision phase. Should I allow more rapid-fire revision, like I have with ammo types? Should I give something like a 1/2 Revision Credit rebate?

-(Also Edited to add) Right now, if you have 2 ore and 2 oil, a vehicle costing 3 ore and 3 oil is Very Expensive due to having two different expense sources, but one costing 4 ore and 2 oil is just expensive. Should I change this so that expense is based on TOTAL resources required that you don't have? EG, 3 ore and 3 oil is expensive, 4 ore and 2 oil is expensive, 4 ore and 3 oil is Very Expensive, 5 ore and 2 oil is Very Expensive. This seems like it would make sense. I'm not sure if it will affect any designs currently in place but people have certainly been taking the old system into account for new designs.

So, yeah, I'd like your opinions on this stuff, whether I should implement these changes at all, and if the parties injured by balance changes should be compensated in some way.

[Sheb]

I guess my main issue with the Rhino is that suddenly they have artillery in the mountains, whereas the fact that we have had a much superior piece for firing at fixed position for 10 years didn't do much. :p

[Happerry]

I am considering a few balance issues, but I've put off actually changing them because they might appear to snub one nation or the other:

-Extra spies should probably not work the way they do, where you have one spy who gets replaced and one who doesn't. Instead maybe spies should only be replaced up to the number of intelligence buildings you have. This would be kind of unfair to Arstotzka if they got a second spy and couldn't use the same tactics Moskurg used before.

Well, my big question for this would be 'can we spend a design turn designing better intelligence stuff to get more spies?' Though in general this sounds good to me.

-Rhino Recoilless Rifle probably a little OP/anachronistic in terms of weight and performance. Maybe should be less portable or short range only, or both. Obviously this would be snubbing Moskurg retroactively though. This is the first piece of equipment I've submitted and really had second thoughts about, so I'd like to also establish a policy for when I make a mistake in the future and give somebody a rocket launcher that shouldn't be easy to engineer for another 30 years.

-Possibly related to the above, is how should I set difficulty for equipment which COULD be really valuable, and from an engineering standpoint can easily be built/has been built, but historically wasn't used until later for the main reason that people didn't realize it would be valuable? Assault rifles and their medium-powered rounds are good example of this. Shaped explosive charges might be also, I'm still not clear on the challenges involved in delivering shaped explosives accurately in a warhead. And don't say "just base it on how hard it would be to build" unless you're planning to alter history/conquer Europe.

Personally, this sounds like a subject that's going to need a lot of judgement and few defined rules. We're not doing the same wars they did in Europe, we shouldn't be forced to follow their exact same path of technological and social advancement when our combat conditions are different. We started actual armor operations a lot earlier then they did, we never did Infantry and Cruiser tanks as separate things, and so on. If someone is being ran over by tanks, they're going to go look for anti tank weapons even if Europe didn't go looking for them until later, and if the things are possible to make then they're probably going to make them because no one enjoys being ran over by tanks.

-I'm considering using less randomness overall. I've increased the importance of dice rolls compared to my original plan, which was to roll a die for each new technology and have a bad roll not get the technology or have a bug associated with the technology, and then have performance of equipment based on the technologies involved and the year created mainly. As it is I've been using dice to determine general efficiency/useability when I'm not sure, but this has had some questionable results (EG Moskurg and Arstotzka submit similar plane designs, Moskurg's is good and Arstotza's suffers from control and weight issues). In that example the triplane frame was an exacerbating factor but it remains that basically players took the same actions in the same year to different results. I'm considering using less dice rolls and having bad dice rolls be explicitly tied to discrete technologies so it's clear how to solve/avoid bugs in the future. I'd like your opinions before making changes in this department though.

Personally, I think that while some less randomness might be a good thing, having a random factor is actually pretty realistic. Just because the tech is there doesn't mean people know how to use it, and we're a long way away from computer years of testing time to find all the hidden bugs. People are going to try things out, and sometimes those things are going to fail even if the technology to make them not fail was there because people were trying something new an innovative that just didn't pan out, or the person in charge didn't know the science, or just plain old bad luck. Sometimes, even if the nation knows how to make planes, someone messes up and designs a plane that has a critical weakness no one notices until the thing is actually being flown. Sometimes a tank is designed and no one notices it's really bad for combat until it's in combat because the errors only really show up when people are shooting at you, because when no one is shooting at you everyone is a lot more relaxed and aren't going to mix up the two big red buttons.

And so on.

Probably better to keep track, in a general fashion, of how much experience a nation has with doing whatever, and the more experience the more likely they are to catch major bugs before the design is finished or not put the bugs in in the first place. But even today, in the modern world, people mess up designing and building stuff and no once notices until the thing is actually in production.

-I'm also considering what to do when I realize that equipment should be useful in a way I haven't thought of after the fact, which seems too trivial to require a revision. Examples include towing artillery by truck (though not extremely useful) or machine guns on top of trains (somewhat useful). Another example is Arstotzkans performing strafing runs on rail tracks themselves (though I stand by my position on that not being valuable, but suppose I said it was). Should I keep a list of tactics used and not used for reference? Is it OK for a piece of equipment to suddenly become more effective than it was before because a player pointed out a more effective way to use it? Should I apply these retroactively, or characterize them as new orders given to soldiers? Should Moskurg get their alternate rounds in .60 caliber even though they said they wanted to make them for artillery? Should I automatically add what I think are very easy improvements like that in general/on good rolls?

Personally I'd call these new orders given to soldiers or people in the field figuring out new tricks out of a firm desire to not die. And even as a Moskurger, I don't see why inventing new Artillery shells also means new bullets, those sound like different projects to me.

-(Edited to add) Also, what about really small revisions? Stuff like Arstotzka getting the stupid flags taken off of soldiers' helmets. There are some things that seem to big to not do during a revision phase but also really small for a revision phase. Should I allow more rapid-fire revision, like I have with ammo types? Should I give something like a 1/2 Revision Credit rebate?

Maybe let people do a minor revision for that kind of small stuff every revision phase? I dunno.

-(Also Edited to add) Right now, if you have 2 ore and 2 oil, a vehicle costing 3 ore and 3 oil is Very Expensive due to having two different expense sources, but one costing 4 ore and 2 oil is just expensive. Should I change this so that expense is based on TOTAL resources required that you don't have? EG, 3 ore and 3 oil is expensive, 4 ore and 2 oil is expensive, 4 ore and 3 oil is Very Expensive, 5 ore and 2 oil is Very Expensive. This seems like it would make sense. I'm not sure if it will affect any designs currently in place but people have certainly been taking the old system into account for new designs.

Personally this sounds more realistic then the old system to me.

[Andres]

-Extra spies should probably not work the way they do, where you have one spy who gets replaced and one who doesn't. Instead maybe spies should only be replaced up to the number of intelligence buildings you have. This would be kind of unfair to Arstotzka if they got a second spy and couldn't use the same tactics Moskurg used before.

Simple. When we next get an extra spy, keep him outside the spy/building system you plan to implement. Besides that one spy, make sure all spies fall under the system.

-Rhino Recoilless Rifle probably a little OP/anachronistic in terms of weight and performance. Maybe should be less portable or short range only, or both. Obviously this would be snubbing Moskurg retroactively though. This is the first piece of equipment I've submitted and really had second thoughts about, so I'd like to also establish a policy for when I make a mistake in the future and give somebody a rocket launcher that shouldn't be easy to engineer for another 30 years.

You could give Arstotzka an OP weapon to balance it out if you want. We wouldn't mind.

-Possibly related to the above, is how should I set difficulty for equipment which COULD be really valuable, and from an engineering standpoint can easily be built/has been built, but historically wasn't used until later for the main reason that people didn't realize it would be valuable? Assault rifles and their medium-powered rounds are good example of this. Shaped explosive charges might be also, I'm still not clear on the challenges involved in delivering shaped explosives accurately in a warhead. And don't say "just base it on how hard it would be to build" unless you're planning to alter history/conquer Europe.

Just base it on how hard it would be to build. For the record, I'm planning to alter history/conquer Europe.
In all seriousness, implementing that kind of system would be difficult to manage. It'll basically be "No, you can't do that cool thing because your character wouldn't have thought of it!" It's not fun.

-I'm considering using less randomness overall. I've increased the importance of dice rolls compared to my original plan, which was to roll a die for each new technology and have a bad roll not get the technology or have a bug associated with the technology, and then have performance of equipment based on the technologies involved and the year created mainly. As it is I've been using dice to determine general efficiency/useability when I'm not sure, but this has had some questionable results (EG Moskurg and Arstotzka submit similar plane designs, Moskurg's is good and Arstotza's suffers from control and weight issues). In that example the triplane frame was an exacerbating factor but it remains that basically players took the same actions in the same year to different results. I'm considering using less dice rolls and having bad dice rolls be explicitly tied to discrete technologies so it's clear how to solve/avoid bugs in the future. I'd like your opinions before making changes in this department though.

I have a suggestion. Let's say you're using 1d6. To design something, you roll that die. If, however, the country in question has researched technology related to the design or has previous experience with similar things, you start taking numbers off from the bottom. First you remove the 1, leaving the possibilities as 2 to 6. Then take the 2, leaving you with 3 to 6, etcetera. This makes experience and technology useful while preventing the creation of wanderwaffes by having exp/tech be modifiers and adding to a natural 6.

Is it OK for a piece of equipment to suddenly become more effective than it was before because a player pointed out a more effective way to use it?

Yes, definitely.

Should I apply these retroactively, or characterize them as new orders given to soldiers?

New orders given to soldiers.

Should Moskurg get their alternate rounds in .60 caliber even though they said they wanted to make them for artillery?

If you switch what you gave them (removing what they currently have) and the thing they're switching to is worse, then yes. Otherwise no. Glory to Arstotzka.

Should I automatically add what I think are very easy improvements like that in general/on good rolls?

Yes.

-(Edited to add) Also, what about really small revisions? Stuff like Arstotzka getting the stupid flags taken off of soldiers' helmets. There are some things that seem to big to not do during a revision phase but also really small for a revision phase. Should I allow more rapid-fire revision, like I have with ammo types? Should I give something like a 1/2 Revision Credit rebate?

For the love of god yes. This would probably be a good idea, so long as Moskurg still has to wear their blue and silver capes. (Glory to Arstotzka.) A 1/2 Revision Credit rebate is unnecessary. Just give them out for free, but make sure they really are minor. AP bullets, for example, are not minor.

-(Also Edited to add) Right now, if you have 2 ore and 2 oil, a vehicle costing 3 ore and 3 oil is Very Expensive due to having two different expense sources, but one costing 4 ore and 2 oil is just expensive. Should I change this so that expense is based on TOTAL resources required that you don't have? EG, 3 ore and 3 oil is expensive, 4 ore and 2 oil is expensive, 4 ore and 3 oil is Very Expensive, 5 ore and 2 oil is Very Expensive. This seems like it would make sense. I'm not sure if it will affect any designs currently in place but people have certainly been taking the old system into account for new designs.

In my opinion, we have a problem with designs needing too many resources before they increase in expense. This will exacerbate the problem. Things ought to be more expensive, not less.

I guess my main issue with the Rhino is that suddenly they have artillery in the mountains, whereas the fact that we have had a much superior piece for firing at fixed position for 10 years didn't do much. :p

Indeed. That and apparently they can bring their 20mm recoilless rifle to the Mountains but we can't bring our 20mm autocannon. And also their RR can fire exploding shells while our autocannon can't.

[Happerry]

Didn't your autocannon have the special design flaw of not being able to work with alternate ammo nicely? As something specific to the Autocannon, I mean?

[Andres]

Didn't your autocannon have the special design flaw of not being able to work with alternate ammo nicely? As something specific to the Autocannon, I mean?

Kind of. It has a problem with changing between ammo types, meaning it can't switch from normal to AP quickly. It can still do so, though.

[10ebbor10]

Didn't your autocannon have the special design flaw of not being able to work with alternate ammo nicely? As something specific to the Autocannon, I mean?

It needs to be recalibrated for a different ammunition weight. This means adjusting the spring, not having to redesign the weapon.

It prevents the cannon from firing mixed belts, but it doesn't mean we need to revise it all the time.

[10ebbor10]

-Extra spies should probably not work the way they do, where you have one spy who gets replaced and one who doesn't. Instead maybe spies should only be replaced up to the number of intelligence buildings you have. This would be kind of unfair to Arstotzka if they got a second spy and couldn't use the same tactics Moskurg used before.

My opinion is, quite simply, that extra spies shouldn't be a thing. The spy action is an integral action of the game much like the design and revision action. Giving the one of the sides an extra action is way overpowered.

-Rhino Recoilless Rifle probably a little OP/anachronistic in terms of weight and performance. Maybe should be less portable or short range only, or both. Obviously this would be snubbing Moskurg retroactively though. This is the first piece of equipment I've submitted and really had second thoughts about, so I'd like to also establish a policy for when I make a mistake in the future and give somebody a rocket launcher that shouldn't be easy to engineer for another 30 years.

It really shouldn't exist now. The technology is simply not there to make the weapon function.

-Possibly related to the above, is how should I set difficulty for equipment which COULD be really valuable, and from an engineering standpoint can easily be built/has been built, but historically wasn't used until later for the main reason that people didn't realize it would be valuable? Assault rifles and their medium-powered rounds are good example of this. Shaped explosive charges might be also, I'm still not clear on the challenges involved in delivering shaped explosives accurately in a warhead. And don't say "just base it on how hard it would be to build" unless you're planning to alter history/conquer Europe.

Altering history sounds nice.

-I'm considering using less randomness overall. I've increased the importance of dice rolls compared to my original plan, which was to roll a die for each new technology and have a bad roll not get the technology or have a bug associated with the technology, and then have performance of equipment based on the technologies involved and the year created mainly. As it is I've been using dice to determine general efficiency/useability when I'm not sure, but this has had some questionable results (EG Moskurg and Arstotzka submit similar plane designs, Moskurg's is good and Arstotza's suffers from control and weight issues). In that example the triplane frame was an exacerbating factor but it remains that basically players took the same actions in the same year to different results. I'm considering using less dice rolls and having bad dice rolls be explicitly tied to discrete technologies so it's clear how to solve/avoid bugs in the future. I'd like your opinions before making changes in this department though.

Well, some randomness is needed for variety, otherwise it simply becomes a wiki-trawling/ convince the GM contest. Allowing the revision actions to be more powerfull can mitigate the unstability here.

-I'm also considering what to do when I realize that equipment should be useful in a way I haven't thought of after the fact, which seems too trivial to require a revision. Examples include towing artillery by truck (though not extremely useful) or machine guns on top of trains (somewhat useful). Another example is Arstotzkans performing strafing runs on rail tracks themselves (though I stand by my position on that not being valuable, but suppose I said it was). Should I keep a list of tactics used and not used for reference? Is it OK for a piece of equipment to suddenly become more effective than it was before because a player pointed out a more effective way to use it? Should I apply these retroactively, or characterize them as new orders given to soldiers? Should Moskurg get their alternate rounds in .60 caliber even though they said they wanted to make them for artillery? Should I automatically add what I think are very easy improvements like that in general/on good rolls?

New tactics should be able to be introduced, and then thus increase the effectiveness of a certain weapon. And I think we got alternate rounds for other ammunition, so the Moskurgians should probably get them too. Not that this time though, as the rounds simply won't work in the caliber.

All rounds rely on being filled with a substance which explodes on impact, and the round is simply to small for that.

-(Edited to add) Also, what about really small revisions? Stuff like Arstotzka getting the stupid flags taken off of soldiers' helmets. There are some things that seem to big to not do during a revision phase but also really small for a revision phase. Should I allow more rapid-fire revision, like I have with ammo types? Should I give something like a 1/2 Revision Credit rebate?

I suppose. On the other hand, we can just add more features to revisions.

[Sensei]

My opinion is, quite simply, that extra spies shouldn't be a thing. The spy action is an integral action of the game much like the design and revision action. Giving the one of the sides an extra action is way overpowered.

Well there's a thought. I could replace extra spies with Espionage Credits, giving your agent a second action.

It really shouldn't exist now. The technology is simply not there to make the weapon function.

My initial observation was that it's like the 1910 Davis Gun but smaller. There were also truck-mounted recoilless rifles used in the interwar period but I can't find much information on them. I know that infantry-portable recoilless rifles weren't invented for a while, and when they were they suffered from problems like the lightweight tubes failing after repeated firings, so I made it a disposable weapon (effectively, it had a long reload time and even a horse could only carry a couple shots). I figured it fell into the "people didn't realize they needed assault rifles until 1942" category of weapons since I couldn't find a specific engineering problem associated with it, but then again I couldn't find a lot of information altogether.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Sensei, my first problem that Rhino is two times lighter than the gun that Moskburgs used to model it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_recoilless_rifle (BTW, I find it soooooo boring to go to wikipedia, take real world successful weapon and bring it to the game with no changes. And if you do it, make GMs job easier and give him a link)


My second problem -
I totally support ahistorical developments, they are what makes such games fun. but... It is one thing when country that spent many design actions on small arms is capable to do and early SMG on a lucky roll, and other thing when country that has no artillery experience (one design and revision for weak howitzer+1 revision of shells) designs an advanced artillery piece without any drawbacks. They have no tools, no engineers, no experience, no necessary technologies.

[andrea]

espionage credits instead of new spies seems an excellent idea and way more in line with other game mechanics ( design credits, revision credits, expense credits). allowing a second espionage action in a turn, or a second attempt at the same, is a powerful but still temporary bonus.

The randomness you have right now isn't bad, as other people said just because 2 teams start with the same plan, it doesn't mean they get the same results , especially on the first attempt.

as far as weapons being used in new ways, no need for that to be retroactive. It is new orders given to soldiers.

about the recoilless rifle, I simply have no idea of the tech involved.

[Happerry]

All I voted for was an Anti-Tank Rifle, speaking for myself.

Also how does a Recoilless Rifle (Or at least I assume that's what you're talking about) count as an artillery weapon? It's more like a rocket then anything else, and you guys got prototype RPG rounds super earlier in the game as part of another design action all together, so personally I'm not seeing the problem...

Not that I'm a weapons guru who actually knows what he's talking about though.