Print

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

Generals.

7 (36.8%)

Engineers.

7 (36.8%)

Nobility. (ie. Neither, just observing.)

5 (26.3%)

Total Members Voted: 19

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Generals Thread
Design Corps Thread

The Georgian Empire

The Georgian Empire is the final remnant of the ancient Roman Empire to survive into the modern world.  While not an immediate descendant of the Empire, it is a descendant of the Trebizond-Georgian Commonwealth established between the Byzantine successor state of the Empire of Trebizond, created as a result of the Fourth Crusade, and the Kingdom of Georgia.  The slow loss of much of the de jure land of Trebizond to the Ottomans eventually reduced the power and importance of the former aspect of the Commonwealth that the nation slowly began to be referred to as the Georgian-Trebizond Commonwealth.  As further time passed and Georgia grew in strength, the Commonwealth was officially reorganized into the Georgian Empire in the late fifteenth century.  To secure its borders against the Ottomans, many alliances were sought out and established over the years, the most important of which by the nineteenth century being with the Russian Empire.  It is noted that relations were recently damaged through the Georgian Empire remaining neutral in a few of their recent wars out of fear of the Ottomans.

Noting the effectiveness of the militaries during the war and the damages caused to their relations with Russia by sitting out multiple wars, the Empire recognized that they would need to advance their military technology in order to maintain their sovereignty.  To this end, they began laying the groundwork for the Weapons Design Corps within their military under the direct command of the military's commanding generals.  In 1860, the establishment of the Corps was completed and the first weapons were to be designed.

Spoiler: Equipment (click to show/hide)

Infantry Equipment
Imperial Musket - A precussion cap smoothbore musket with a length of 1.9 arshin and a 1.3 arshin barrel.  It fires a 7 line ball at an average of 175 rounds at an average rate of 3 rounds per minute. (1 Ore)
Imperial Bayonet - A 1 chetvert bayonet that is able to be attached to the end of the barrel of an Imperial Musket. (1 Ore)
Imperial Pistol - A single-shot pistol used by officers and cavalry that fires a 4 line ball. (1 Ore)
Gladius - An officer and cavalryman’s sword that has heritage in the ancient weapon used by Roman Legions. (1 Ore)
Uniforms - Wool uniforms stylized in the red and gold in expression of the nation’s flag.
 
Artillery
Imperial Cannon - A cast iron cannon with a carriage able to be pulled by horses that fires a 11 funt ball. (2 Ore)
 
Navy
Imperial Sloop - A single masted wooden ship armed with six Imperial Cannons, four on each side of the ship.  (2 Wood, 2 Ore)(Expensive)
Imperial Frigate - A three masted wooden ship armed with twenty Imperial Cannons, ten on each side of the ship.  (4 Wood, 3 Ore)(Very Expensive)
 
Infrastructure
Horses - Animals that have been used for centuries for cavalry, messengers, pulling carts, and other tasks.
Carts - Wooden carts pulled by horses to carry supplies between cities and to the front lines. (1 Wood)
Work Crews - Teams of civilian laborers that are hired in order to build new equipment, ships, structures, and infrastructure.  Better working equipment increases their efficiency.
 
Structures
Old Castles - A number of large, old castles that had been built up in the middle ages for defense that are now used as military bases.  (6 Stone)(Very Expensive)
 
Resources
Russian Measurement System
1 Wood
1 Ore
1 Stone
 
Doctrine
Infantry Battle Lines - Infantry are march to the battlefields in columns that then deploy into two parallel lines facing the enemy before engaging the enemy with either fire or bayonet.
Flanking Cavalry - Horseback mounted forces attempt to strike at enemy forces from the flanks and rear rather than attempt a frontal charge.
Concentration Targeting Artillery - Artillery forces focus fire upon the largest concentrations of enemy forces.
Harassing Navy - Ships focus on short, rapid attacks before retreating in order inflict the most damage with the least losses.

Spoiler: Rules (click to show/hide)

We will be largely utilizing the rules of the latest Arms Race game.  They will be quoted in the next spoiler, for reference.  The following are the changes.

Phases of the Generals:
Composition: The generals collectively compose a message to the engineers making a request for what they want designed.
Create Doctrine: The generals create a new aspect of the military's combat doctrine.
Meeting: In the main thread, the generals meet with the engineers to look over the design and request modifications.
Revise Doctrine: Modifications to the doctrine are made based upon received feedback gotten this phase, or modifications are made to old doctrines in order to better integrate them with the new.

Phases of the Engineers:
Revision: Repair problems in equipment that were only found under large scale and long term use over the previous turn.
Design: Create a new piece of equipment to satisfy the specifications the generals sent to the engineers.
Meeting: In the main thread, the engineers meet with the generals to counter their critiques and limit their modifications.
Update: Modify the design according to the surviving Meeting phase requests of the generals to finalize the design.

Resources: As the game progresses, new resources may be introduced (ex. Oil) when a design utilizing them comes along.

Win Condition: Keep your nation alive and independent until 1920.

Spoiler: Relevant Parts of Sensei's Arms Race Rules (Largely directly copied from a WWII game, so exact details may not be true in some cases for this 1860s game.) (click to show/hide)

Resources and Expense:
Most pieces of equipment have a resource cost, expressed in Ore and Oil. For examples see starting equipment, below. Ore represents the total amount of mining effort which an item costs, and oil represents its use of chemicals. If something is big, or uses rare metals, it will have a high ore cost. If something burns a lot of fuel, or uses very high-grade fuel, or uses exotic chemicals then it will have a high oil cost. Costs represent what is needed to supply a company's worth of men, or about 100 men. This means, that prices given might be for 100 rifles, 50 motorcycles with sidecars, or 5-10 tanks or planes, or even a single ship.

Your nation has limited resources: The continent you start on provides 3 Ore, and 2 Oil, and plentiful wood. This is also listed in your Equipment section in each battle report. You can gain resources by taking certain sections of the map, and then holding them for one turn without losing ground. The map section, below, describes the resources available. If a design costs resources which you don't have, it becomes expensive, and can't be issued to everybody. The total amount of resources a design costs more than you have is called the Resource Deficit. A design with no resource deficit is Cheap, this means it can be issued to every soldier, or as often as your generals decide is tactically sensible. A resource deficit of up to 2 makes a design Expensive, meaning it can only be issued to officers, or 1 in 10 men. A resource deficit of 3-5 makes a design Very Expensive, available to only about 1 in 100 men. A resource deficit of 6-9 makes a design a National Effort, you can only field one at a time- so this is only worthwhile if it's something like an enormous battleship, a nuke, or mecha-godzilla. A resource deficit of 10 or more is Theoretical, and cannot actually be built. Some technologies Complex, being new and difficult to manufacture, and designs featuring them become one level more expensive. Consider expenses when planning your designs! Also, if you lose access to resources, any designs which become more expensive will immediately see the effects- equipment which doesn't have enough fuel and spare parts will need to be decommissioned.

There are also special resources. In the last game, each side captured some Aluminum and Manganese, and you still have access to these. Using them in your design adds ore cost, which is partly negated by holding the resource. On the new map (below) there are resources of Aluminum and Titanium, which can help you use even more aluminum or to use titanium, respectively.

The last thing about resources to remember is that you have a limited Transport Capacity (see Starting Equipment, below) which determines how much resources you are capable of claiming from other territories you control. Your TC is given from the single vehicle which gives the highest TC in each mode of transportation (land, sea and air). Your homeland's resources do not consume transport capacity.

Armor:
The following rules apply to armored land vehicles, with thickness for reference being Rolled Homogenous Armor, steel armor standard throughout WWII.
Weapons capable of penetrating armor have "Armor Penetration" values, which are hidden. A round striking armor has a penetration value at medium range, with a +1 bonus for close range and a -1 penalty for long range. Armor values are as follows:
1) Thin, <10 mm (all measures approximate and used for historical reference)
2) Light, 10-24 mm
3) Medium, 25-50 mm
4) Heavy, 51-100 mm
5) Extra Heavy, 101-150 mm
6) Super Heavy, 150-200 mm. Only historical example I can find is the Maus tank and ironclad ships.
7) Extreme, 200+ mm, or composite equivalent.
8 ) Composite only, we might never get this high in this game.

Materials give a bonus to that value. Cheap, mild steel is -1, RHA is 0. Aluminum is -1 but lighter, Titanium is lighter with no such penalty, and alloys like manganese steel, composites or more exotic armors may be +1 or higher with various effects on the weight and cost. Good spacing and angling can give a further bonus (which might be wholly or partially negated by APBC rounds or an opponent's good marksmanship).

When building armor, you can specify the thickness and material of the armor in different areas, as well as attempt to research new materials and techniques. Thicker armor also presents an engineering challenge in general; making thick armor is a technology on its own.

Keep in mind that 0 armor is still armor and can stop stuff like 9mm pistol rounds, or small shell fragments.

Naval Advantage:
The fights which take place on the sea don't represent a distinct territory; only land is gained and lost. However, each turn the effects of your naval efforts are calculated and can change your performance on land. Depending on how well you perform, one of the following traits is assigned: If your naval strength is Equal to the enemy, nobody has an advantage. If you are doing noticeably better, you have an Advantage, and have the benefit of outnumbering the enemy when fighting for islands. If you are doing better than the enemy in multiple aspects, you will have a Large Advantage, which confers the previous benefit as well as reducing enemy transport capacity at sea by half, rounded up. Naval advantage can also determine whether you have opportunities to use tactics like shore bombardment effectively, provided you are equipped to do so at all.

Design Difficulty:
The following difficulties apply to both Designs and Revisions, (henceforth just "Designs" for brevity) but revisions will usually be about one step more difficult than designs in addition to being limited in scope. For example, making a whole new design for a simple rifle in a new caliber would probably be Trivial, but Easy as a revision. Simple revisions are still perfectly capable of being trivial. Difficulty is mainly judged by three factors: What the best similar example of a technology you have built is, how long ago you built it, and what progress the outside world has made in that area. It's usually easy to make incrementally better designs, and the longer your factories build something, the better your engineering bureau grows to understand it. Real world countries serve as a frame of reference for what is cutting edge technology, it is very hard to get ahead from them, but it is also assumed your engineers might be able to spend some of their time learning from books, academic papers, photos, films and lectures available to the general public- although their reading comprehension is not to be relied on. Lastly, it is important to make a distinction from advances in engineering and advances in military doctrine: For example, assault rifles depend on using smaller caliber bullets than normal rifles so they can be controlled under automatic fire, and it took real life countries a long time to realize this. However, in the last game, you were able to make them far ahead of time because they are not actually difficult to manufacture.

In addition to having "bugs" as a result of a poor die roll, some designs will simply have inherent drawbacks. For example, if you build a bomber with no top-facing guns, it will always be vulnerable to attack from above, or if you specify a tank design with lots of armor, a big gun, and a small engine, no die result is going to cause it to go fast. The consequence of bugs also depends on the nature of the design, a radio with severe bugs might just stop working and be hard to fix, but an aircraft with severe bugs will probably result in dead pilots. If a design makes simple advances in multiple areas, a poor result might only advance in some of those areas, where other areas suffer bugs or do not advance.

Keep in mind that, as with all things in this game, design results are subject to a lot of, well, subjectivity. These are merely guidelines which I follow.

Trivial:
A trivial-difficulty design would be one that pushes no new ground in terms of technology or engineering. If something is likely to be trivial, it should be done during a revision so as not to use up a design phase. An example might be adding an existing cannon design to an existing ship design which previously used a different kind of cannon. While revisions involving new technology are harder than designs involving new technology, revisions involving combining existing technology are often trivial.
1: On a roll of 1, there might or might not be a minor bug, depending on whether I can think of a bug that makes sense. If I can't think of a good one, the design succeeds as planned.
2-6: The design succeeds as planned.

Easy:
An easy design would be one that makes only a very small step in technology and requires some new engineering effort, such as making a new tank with thicker armor or a bigger gun or engine than previous tanks, but without any particularly new ideas involved, or a rifle designed to fire faster or be more accurate than its predecessors. It might also be several trivial changes in one design.
1: The design suffers some kind of bug, how severe it is depends on what sort of bug I can think of that makes sense. For example, perhaps a tank's ammunition is stored in a vulnerable spot or the new cannon jams often. Or the whole thing is just a bit rubbish.
2: The design probably suffers some kind of bug, but probably not too severe, or it just isn't as effective as you hoped.
3-4: The design succeeds as planned.
5-6: The design might accomplish something better than planned. For example, the geometry of a tank's armor might make it more effective than normal for its thickness, or a rifle might be extremely reliable even when caked in mud.

Normal:
A normal design advances your technology one "step" in a certain area, making it noticeably better. For example, you might build a cannon which fires shells about 50% larger than your existing ones, a machine gun which uses a new more effective type of action, your biggest ship yet, and so on. This is often the difficulty of a revision to remove a bug in an existing design.
1: The design suffers a pretty severe bug and the main advancement in technology probably isn't accomplished.
2: The design suffers a bug but the advancement in technology might be effective, or it works without any notable problems except that it isn't remarkably effective.
3: The design succeeds. It might suffer a minor bug, but it won't be crippling and probably won't affect future uses of the new technology.
4-5: The design succeeds.
6: The design might accomplish something better than planned. As with bugs, this depends on whether I can think of a way this makes sense.

Hard:
A hard design advances your technology by a couple "steps", such as building a new cannon more than twice as large as your previous largest one, or advances technology in multiple areas, such as building a tank with a new type of armor and new cannon and better engine than your previous one, or begins into a new field of technology but one which you would reasonably have access to, like your very first shaped charge explosive or radio system. A hard design might also be a design which was deemed Very hard or Impossible and failed before, but your team learned from the experience. Getting a technology advancement in a revision is usually Hard.
1: The design suffers multiple serious bugs or a bug which is difficult to fix, and the design is not very useful until these are corrected. It might not advance the technology as planned.
2: The design suffers a severe bug or multiple less serious ones. It might not advance the technology as planned.
3: The design suffers a noticeable bug, which future designs using this technology might have to deal with, or works in principle but isn't very effective.
4: The design succeeds. If it's a new type of technology altogether, it might suffer a minor bug.
5-6: On a roll of 5, or 6, the design succeeds.

Very hard:
A very hard design is something which world powers struggled with for years to get right, like radar or jet engines. It represents the very cutting edge of technology. You should expect to fail the first time you attempt something like this, but it can be worthwhile nonetheless. A revision which attempts to make a leap forward in technology might be Very Hard.
1: The design fails to yield a useable example. Your designers simply couldn't get anything produced in time.
2: The design suffers a serious bug or bugs which make it nearly useless. For example, a rocket explodes on the launch pad.
3: The design suffers severe bugs which might prevent it from being very useful, but a working example is produced. At this level of success or higher, attempting another similar design might be Hard rather than Very Hard.
4: The design suffers moderate to severe bugs.
5: The design succeeds, maybe with a minor to moderate bug.
6: The design succeeds.

Impossible:
A design with the "impossible" difficulty stretches credulity, or is out of your depth. If any real life countries attempted your design, they didn't succeed until a later time period if at all, and the engineering complexity involved is staggering. Alternatively, your design takes a flexible view towards the laws of physics. If you attempt an Impossible design, you risk wasting your turn. Examples might include a tank which is much bigger than your previously largest tank, but also uses less resources. Other examples would include being the first country to put a satellite into orbit well ahead of Sputnik, creating a working powered exoskeleton, or building effective laser weapons.
1-4: The design fails, probably with nothing to show for it. You might gain some small understanding of the technology with which you were attempting to pervert nature or flaunt physics.
5: You don't build a working example of your design, but your understanding in this field grows like succeeding on a normal design.
6: Depending on just out-there your design is, you make a significant breakthrough which will later allow you to attempt it again at Very Hard difficulty, or get a severely buggy working example. Depending on how badly you ignored the laws of physics, your working example might or not look like what you actually intended: For example, you might make a laser powerful enough to use as a weapon, but it requires a power source the size of a semi truck trailer.

Spoiler: Largely Obsolete Information (click to show/hide)

This is a minor experimental idea I came up with for Arms Race wherein rather than the players being divided into factions at war with each other, both factions would be on the same side.  However, this would not be two design bureaus belonging to the same nation, but instead a group of generals that creates the doctrine for the military and the engineers that designs the equipment for the military.  Further, there will be a slight twist in the turn progression, seen below:

Due to time restraints of mine, there won't be any wars going on for the first couple of turns in order to limit word count, and therefore the time taken up writing a turn.

Anyway, there are two questions.  One, is there anyone interested in this concept?  Two, which starting year do you want to use, from the list below?
1790 (5 year turns)
1860 (3 year turns)
1910 (1 year turns)

[NAV]

Sounds interesting, though engineers sound more interesting to play than generals.

I vote we start in 1860.

[RAM]

The generals sound as though they have no authority. I think that they should be able to choose designs. Like, maybe the engineers have to submit at least three designs, and the generals can punish them in some way, like just not using any of the designs and they get a bonus to production of an existing design instead?

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Sounds interesting, though engineers sound more interesting to play than generals.

I vote we start in 1860.

Well, the generals do decide which route is being taken to equip the military and get to mess with how the military applies equipment in battles.

The generals sound as though they have no authority. I think that they should be able to choose designs. Like, maybe the engineers have to submit at least three designs, and the generals can punish them in some way, like just not using any of the designs and they get a bonus to production of an existing design instead?

During the composition phase, the Generals are setting up all the conditions that the engineers need to fulfill with a design.  The engineers have to satisfy all of the criteria listed (unless they literally cannot find a way to put something on it), or it won't be rolled for at all (Hey, the in-universe engineers don't want to get shot for disobeying orders).  Then in the meeting, both sides are arguing whether it fulfilled the criteria/why certain parts could not be included.  While the engineers can argue against the additional and for removing criteria, the final say on whether or not to add/remove them is in the hands of the generals.

As such, while the lists do need to leave a bit of wiggle room for the engineers to work upon, the generals are able to have a very high level of authority if they include a large amount of criteria (ex. We need a river going boat for troop and supply transport that may defend itself if necessary).  Conversely, they can also have a low level of authority if only a few criteria are specified (ex. We need a better gun).

[Khang36]

How about having 2 different engineer teams? They can be two seperate arms company competing with each other for military contracts this way we still have some of the competitive aspect common with arms races.

[RAM]

How about having 2 different engineer teams? They can be two seperate arms company competing with each other for military contracts this way we still have some of the competitive aspect common with arms races.

The problem with that is that it would be a different idea, one which I believe has already been done around here somewhere. The point of this thread is the generals and engineers idea.

[Doubloon-Seven]

I'm quite interested, and believe that 1790 would be a bit of a slog, and that 1910 would be too similar to the original arms race. Therefore, I vote 1860

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

How about having 2 different engineer teams? They can be two seperate arms company competing with each other for military contracts this way we still have some of the competitive aspect common with arms races.

Because I am aiming to model the internal struggles of a single faction rather than working with two competing factions.  I may switch over to the traditional Arms Race style in civil wars from time to time, but keep it focused around doctrine in those times with new tech only brought out through the rare design credits.  Wars against NPC nations would keep the style of using engineers and generals as two factions, I should note.

The actual goal for this game would be simply keeping the nation sovereign until a certain future date (exact year depends on starting year).


Oh, should mention the setting.  I'm thinking of making it a small nation in the Baltic or Black Sea/Caspian Sea area.  Maybe have it descended from exiles and refugees of the Byzantine Empire, making it the final remnant of Rome.  Most wars would probably be against Antegria (if I don't just make that nation be who you are), and I could make a couple 'oh shit' moments if the Ottomans, Russians, or (if on the Baltic side) the Austro-Hungarians invade.

I'm quite interested, and believe that 1790 would be a bit of a slog, and that 1910 would be too similar to the original arms race. Therefore, I vote 1860

Well, not too much, actually.  While wars will reduce the years per turn speed, here's the amount of turns between each date:

1790-1860: 14 Turns
1860-1909: 16 Turns

Might actually speed up the 1910 date to be 2 years at a time when at peace until 1940 (where things ratchet down to 1), to make 15 turns, keeping pace with the prior brackets.

Anyway, this means that the 1790 start wouldn't be too much of a slog.  As a side note, in that start date, the Napoleanic Wars are a mere 3 turns off.

[Aseaheru]

I like plan of 1860 start and, well, this in general.

[Madman198237]

I just keep getting in these things...Ah well. PTW for now. I'll grab a spot when/if this gets going, after I see how many people join each side.

[mastahcheese]

I'd like to be a general so I can send completely unreasonable/impossible demands to the engineers.

1860 sounds good, too.

[Playergamer]

1860.

I'd like to be a general so I can send completely unreasonable/impossible demands to the engineers.

1860 sounds good, too.

"This is what we're building?"

[Aseaheru]

 That about sums up arms race games anyways.

[3_14159]

1860s sound nice; getting away from the standard "let's design a tank" part.

[Chiefwaffles]

Players will always find a way to make a tank.