You are not logged in.

61

Friday, September 13th 2019, 9:38pm

What would you define as ahistorical? By definition wouldn't everything be ahistorical? Say the point of departure is a victorious CSA in 1864, would that be considered ahistorical?


A victorious Confederate States of America is a premise I would be willing to consider, if a convincing-enough historical backstory could be constructed - though I would not admit mere hand-waving of the CSA into existence.

A Grand Mexico would not. The suggestion of an all-Boer South Africa would not - there were never enough Boers to drive the British back into the sea, even if the Boers were interested in such an idea. I would entertain the idea of China as a major player, though again, I would need to be convinced.

The greatest stumbling block to any Wesworld 2.0, as I see it, is the willingness of potential players to invest the time and effort to contribute to the game in a timely and consistent manner. That is the problem Wesworld 1.0 is suffering from at the moment, and I do not see a rush to WW 2.0 as resolving that problem.

62

Saturday, September 14th 2019, 7:27am

Well for starters the chance to reset and start with something new is rather appealing to me, and I'm sure others.

63

Saturday, September 14th 2019, 3:17pm

I've been away this week on my holidays so just getting back into all this, although I was keeping an eye on this thread.

Wesworld 2.0 is a thorny issue for sure on many levels.

I am open to some ahistorical development, but only with a clear rationale. What we don't want is a player cobbling together their pet dream fiefdom and then disappearing later and leaving the sim with a strange development that is hard to explain and keep going. This has happened in WW more than once and has some consequences when players have gone (e.g. nobody has ever really explained how the SAE functions, India's development as a power was unexplained and now as an NPC is ignored). From other sites I am involved in, I know there is no shortage of AU enthusiasts, but their fictional nations tend to be the tiny island chains with 50,000,000 people and the GDP of China kind of craziness. Getting ahistorical, imaginative, plausible and playable is a hard mix.

My preference is a broadly historical sim but starting around 1890 or 1900.

My reservations are the same as Bruce's, who is going to put the time and effort in?

WW began in 2003, that is 16 years to cover 29 years of SIM time (1920-49). If we ran a SIM 1890-1950 that could easily take 20 real years to get going. In a current format of 4 quarters per year and detailed reports and news each cycle is laborious given that in a real sense nothing 'happens' in the sim other than ships are designed and built. We've had a few wars with more deeper player interaction and they have been few and far between and in fact experience has proven that scripting even a short war is quite a burden on the players. I think people lost interest, friends left, we grew up and we lost the crazy fun elements of the old days (pirates, penguin-hunting battleships etc.). Is WW just too 'dry'?. Maybe other considerations might be splitting years into halves?

Navalism has taken 2-3 years to set up after numerous reboots. Yet it only has 4-6 players, most of whom were members who grew bored of Wesworld and wandered off and looking at their forum the activity rate is even more glacial than ours. Wesworld now has 5 possibly 6 active players. Neither sim seems sustainable in the long one. A merger has been mooted as a possibility, but that might not work given the different desires of the players.

Taccovert4 is the first new recruit we've made since Snip in 2010, a rather long time ago... forum-based sims just aren't popular, everyone else is playing WoW or watching youtube cat videos or something.

Speaking personally, I don't know if I will be there for Wesworld 2. We've all grown older and taken on different responsibilities. Sure I'd love to fiddle with SS and pretend to be Admiral Fisher all over again, but now I'm an author in my spare time I just don't think I will have the time. I have all my 1949 and 1950 stuff pre-written so for me the burden is currently small.

64

Saturday, September 14th 2019, 3:48pm

Quoted

The suggestion of an all-Boer South Africa would not - there were never enough Boers to drive the British back into the sea, even if the Boers were interested in such an idea.

If you look at the flag of South Africa, you know who really won the Boer War: The Netherlands and Jamaica. :D

Quoted

forum-based sims just aren't popular, everyone else is playing WoW or watching youtube cat videos or something.

I am actually playing Holdfast: Nations at War a lot these days as part of the 19te Prussian Infantry. :)

65

Saturday, September 14th 2019, 11:58pm

WW began in 2003, that is 16 years to cover 29 years of SIM time (1920-49). If we ran a SIM 1890-1950 that could easily take 20 real years to get going. In a current format of 4 quarters per year and detailed reports and news each cycle is laborious given that in a real sense nothing 'happens' in the sim other than ships are designed and built.

If we run a WesWorld2, it might be worth addressing that point. I can think of several possible ways to do so:
-- We could maintain the general pattern of the current Wesworld game (quarterly report, etc) but limit the game length to a decade (say, the 1920s). Stipulate that the new quarter in the game year starts at the beginning of the real-world month. That's still over three years of gaming.
-- For an 1890-1950 game, we could pull everything in to yearly reports (instead of quarterly) and do the same thing: one year in game equals one month real time. Even with such intemperate haste, that's still sixty months (five years) to commit to a game.

On a separate but related note, I also have an idea for a sim which would... perhaps, diverge slightly from the Wesworld model. We could create a scenario (let's say France versus Italy, 1930-1935), split off into two teams, and select an umpire. Each team can be broken down into roles - for instance, Operations & Doctrine might set the goals for the fleet, and arrange ship deployments. The team spends a few months designing their 1930 budget and simming their warships. Each team Springsharps the designs their nation wants to build. The umpire determines how accurate the information going to the other team will be (with the understanding that intel gets clearer as time goes on). Move on to the next year and repeat. The umpire can also choose to surprise both teams with current events (such as 'Your country has parliamentary elections and the Doves/Hawks get elected - budget reduced/expanded by 20%'). At the end of the agreed period, the two teams move into a tactical map with the navies they've created and built, and the game finishes with a quick naval campaign.

Taccovert4 is the first new recruit we've made since Snip in 2010, a rather long time ago... forum-based sims just aren't popular, everyone else is playing WoW or watching youtube cat videos or something.

As a side-comment, it was only by talking to Taccovert via the Discord channel that I discovered Hoo apparently hasn't been approving new member applications since I'm-not-really-sure-when. So who knows how many potential people we might have had join the forum, never get approved to post, and never figure out how to contact us for troubleshooting. Granted, most of our new member applications are bot accounts (which I need to go prune again), but possibly there might be a half-dozen needles in that haystack.

66

Sunday, September 15th 2019, 12:11am

Brock scripset:

Quoted

As a side-comment, it was only by talking to Taccovert via the Discord channel that I discovered Hoo apparently hasn't been approving new member applications since I'm-not-really-sure-when. So who knows how many potential people we might have had join the forum, never get approved to post, and never figure out how to contact us for troubleshooting.


This is unfortunate.

67

Sunday, September 15th 2019, 2:26am

Perhaps we should start a facebook page an screen/recruit potential players there? It can easily be recommended to others who surf warship related pages.

68

Sunday, September 15th 2019, 3:08am

Perhaps we should start a facebook page an screen/recruit potential players there? It can easily be recommended to others who surf warship related pages.

Another good way is via our Discord channel.

69

Sunday, September 15th 2019, 4:02am

I would generally tend to go for the Discord channel over Facebook. I'll also reach out to a few guys I know from my other wargaming days who might have the aptitude and interest to do something on this scale.

70

Sunday, September 15th 2019, 6:54pm

As someone who was around for a long time then took a long break, I feel like I can add some context. Did real life play it part? It sure did but it was not the real driver behind my decision to leave.

I'll be blunt about it, WW took what felt to be a directional shift. At one point WW embraced quirky, interesting, fun but realistic things. Walter gave us the casino carrier, Swampy gave us the cigar-smoking Filipinos, heck we even have Atlantis around. But then in a world that had Atlantis and Filipino battleships, it felt like people started demanding that smaller countries look more like OTL. I am an aerospace engineer, I love designing ships, but I love designing airplanes even more. So when I was told in no uncertain terms I couldn't play around with aircraft anymore (for doing things everyone else was doing) well that took alot of air out of my sails. I stuck around for a while after, but it just wasn't the same, it just wasn't fun anymore. Real life became a convenient excuse to step away at the time.

What I'm trying to say, is you can't be tied down to OTL too much, you have to give people some freedom to innovate and try new things, sure within reason and within the rules. I'm not talking about "tiny island chains with 50,000,000 people and the GDP of China", but if one isn't willing to consider even semi-historical nations such as a Greater Mexico that did in fact exist until 1848, then what are we doing? Are we just replaying history, fixing a bit here and a bit there?

I'm willing to stick around for the long haul, but it has to be something I believe in.

71

Monday, September 16th 2019, 1:51am

So when I was told in no uncertain terms I couldn't play around with aircraft anymore (for doing things everyone else was doing) well that took alot of air out of my sails.

It would be more accurate to say that you had Mexico use other people's historical aircraft, defied or ignored their requests for you to stop, refused any efforts toward a compromise, started using in-character actions to harass people who disagreed with you about those out-of-character issues, and then picked a fight with the moderators when we objected to your behavior.

72

Monday, September 16th 2019, 6:06am

There where miscommunication and misinterpretations on both sides and I will admit I did respond more harshly than I should have. But it is untrue that I made no attempts to compromise since I did specifically make a thread just to attempt to find a solution that everyone could live with. That said, its not something I want to get into.

My point being and maybe I was seeing things differently, was that the main issue was not "borrowing" other people's aircraft (which almost everyone did to some extent including mods, and was mainly caused by Nations changing players), but that people could not accept (in a world where South Africa was a major sea power) that Mexico was capable of building a modern fighter aircraft. It appeared like different nations where being held to different standards and that innovation and "fun" was being frowned upon. I understand and appreciate realism but you have to have a balance, too much realism and people will lose interest.

73

Monday, September 16th 2019, 12:12pm

I was not here for a few days and the forum is overflowing ....

First of all I have to say that I think it's great that we have won another player, because unfortunately we have lost too many good players in the past. Btw i was also sometimes short before leaving this forum / game forever.


First i want to say that I do not want to hurt or offend anyone. If someone is understanding it in that manner, I apologize, that is certainly not my intention. When I started here, 12 years ago, we were a collection of "crazy people". As Foxy said, there were different things that made the world as a special place (casino carrier, cigar-smoking Filipinos ...). And everyone had fun. But, so I have the feeling, then it came the point where things have changed and where we had two different ways to consider things. On the one hand, things were questioned because it was virtually historically excluded (advanced technologies for small nations or something in that manner) - but for other nations things were different. I do not want to list examples, but they exist. Sometimes it was a little bit like Animal Farm - All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And it looks like I'm not the only one who has this feeling. As said .... please don't take my words as an offending or something it that direction. But I think it's important that we understand each other or understand the motivations why someone is leaving the Sim or what bothers you in the Sim. Because only in this way can we prevent in the future that players are leaving us again. It is important that we learn from the past and do not make the same mistakes again. BUT let the past rest and see how we can make Wesworld 2.0 better.

I think, winning or losing a player is certainly because of how the world looks like or how we shape it. I think there will be always two "teams". On the one hand, there are the players who almost want to re-enact the reality more or less. On the other side are the "crazy guys", those who would like to find themselves in the alternative world. For us, the "creators of the world" it is now the task, to unite somehow the two teams. I am certainly not in favor of throwing all reason and reality overboard and allowing "everything". But a little "alternative" should already be allowed - if it is realistic or could be realistic.

What do i mean ? Sure as often mentioned, a small island-chain with a GDP of modern China isn't realistic and not my favor of being part of the sim. But why shouldn't a Great Mexico or something like this, with a "realistic" backstory not be possible in the Wesworld 2.0. But not only the backstory of each country is important. The development tree was also often the source of some annoyance here in Wesworld. How can something be prevented in the future ? In principle only if the starting point for each country is virtually identical. Otherwise there will be the discussion again that things are not possible because it was not possible in reality. Anyway Wesworld actually has nothing to do with reality, cause we are in an alternative universe. No matter what rules we set.

The top priority should be to find a common consensus that satisfies everyone - or everyone can live with. And that applies to all points - Countries - Tech Tree and so on.

74

Monday, September 16th 2019, 2:58pm

I actually quite like Brock's idea of a set scenario with some kind of end goal in mind and a way to pit perhaps a limited bunch of nations or a team of players against each other competitively.
That would remove the problem of worrying about what NPCs have or haven't got and other nations. We wouldn't need to flesh out an entire world, just the relevant nations.

We have never really had a problem with naval tech. We had some raised eyebrows over Italy's early angled decks and hydrofoils but generally ships have been non-contentious. But land and air have been a bit of a battle at times. One suggestion is that WW2 just focuses on the ships and naval infrastructure and aviation and army equipment only as far as the naval sphere allows (carrier-aircraft, flying boats, equipment for Marines etc.). Perhaps not easy to do but it might ease tensions and reduce the need to build up entire nations in minute detail for those players who don't want to go to that level of detail.

75

Monday, September 16th 2019, 7:55pm

Another option would be to treat Army and Air stuff the same as naval stuff and have infrastructure, tech development and production reports. We could use a pre made tech tree and currency to research the respective tech. Once researched it can be used/built. I'm not asking for an overly complicated system but something dummed down so that any player can use it. When you have to pay for stuff it becomes less casual, which would solve our realism problem with reguards to tiny nations developing big nation stuff. Simply find the right ratio of strength for nations, base it on factories as we already do and go from there.

76

Monday, September 16th 2019, 8:46pm

Ok, kind of working a synthesis of the arguments presented, here are my thoughts:

1) We need to reach agreement of a "Point of Departure" for any timeline changes. This will be set in stone once made and not subject to further retcon.

2) We need to reach agreement with reference to nations that are departed from the OTL. This will also be set in stone and not subject to further retcon.

-For instance, there's are two relatively legitimate issues to starting in 1890, first being the British Empire is literally overarching and quasi-omnipotent when you consider the commonwealths almost certainly follow the mother country for quite some time. The second is the USA as historical has almost unlimited potential to become quasi-omnipotent. Both of which aren't game breaking, but could potentially turn into either a war of blocs between British and American, or an Anglo Super-Treaty. A point of Departure in 1840 or so would allow for some developments that hamper this ability from occurring.

- I could get behind a Grand Mexico based upon Santa Anna not re-threatening Texas and the Gold Rush not happening due to the Mexicans finding the gold first and putting strong forces in place to nationalize it. This could result in Mexico maintaining California, New Mex, and Arizona. This could also result in a separate Republic of Texas that never joins the United States due to the massive internal tensions in the US at the time and less of an external threat by Mexico. Combined those wouldn't cripple the United States, though it would cut down on her potential somewhat and give her some regional allies or rivals that change the Western Hemisphere from rapidly becoming a purely American Hegemony with some Canadian involvement.

-I could possibly get behind the British not making serious moves in South Africa and only maintaining a small enclave near the Cape for purposes of ensuring Indian trade routes (one of their historical reasons for landing there in the first place). This results in a South African Republic as the Orange Free State and the Cape Colony amalgamate in time and set up a more formal government. Nothing like the SAE, this would be a relatively small minor power that does have to contend with British interests if they start getting antsy.

-There are a few other ideas I could get behind, but for brevity I'll leave it at two. Despite myself living in the former CSA, I wouldn't push for this as it has its own baggage that we would do well to avoid. A Texian Republic that never joins the US is not only slightly more plausible than a CSA that wins, it's also not controversial.

3) I would focus on Naval operations predominately, with land operations and air operations being an adjunct or background flavor.

4) I would set few 'points' at which certain ground and air technologies are considered to be 'generally known', at which point any nation from the small to the large are able to utilize them. I would set a schedule by which a nation could spend IP to advance an 'emergent' technology for itself, say .25 IP per year before the 'known' point with a maximum of 10 years.

5) I would not try to make a separate land and air economic setup. Players who want to invest in ground or air forces/tech will do so at the expense of the Navy, which is historical.

6) With having set points for techs becoming known, rather than requiring players to note precise equipment, I would leave that open for the players that have the time or interest, but have some basics for players who have neither.

-Infantry Equipment as follows: Bolt Action Rifles, Bolt Action Rifles/SMGs, Semi-Auto Rifles, Assault Rifles. It's simple, yet logical and historical.

Thoughts?

77

Monday, September 16th 2019, 9:16pm

I think at this point I am uninterested in any Wesworld 2.0 variant. At the present rate of gameplay, Wesworld 1.0 is good for another year, if not more. I will have been ten years of play for me, and time for a new phase of life.

But you will have me around until WW 4Q1950.
:D

78

Tuesday, September 17th 2019, 9:08am

I think at this point I am uninterested in any Wesworld 2.0 variant. At the present rate of gameplay, Wesworld 1.0 is good for another year, if not more. I will have been ten years of play for me, and time for a new phase of life.

But you will have me around until WW 4Q1950.
:D


This are bad news - Since we now know what you do not want- How has WW2 look like so you take part in it ?

I appreciate you as a very valuable player and would find it a very big loss if you were not there anymore.

79

Tuesday, September 17th 2019, 6:05pm

Parador scripset:

Quoted

This are bad news - Since we now know what you do not want- How has WW2 look like so you take part in it?

I appreciate you as a very valuable player and would find it a very big loss if you were not there anymore.


Thank you for your kind thought. However, let me make clear that I am not leaving the current game. I do not know how long it will take to play out (I am guessing at least twelve months at our current rate) but my intention is to stay to the end.

“How has WW2 look like so you take part in it?”

I’ve made my preferences known – historical, rather detailed rather than quick-and-dirty. The thing I have come to appreciate in Wesworld is the opportunity to work out consistent story lines in a shared world. That we have lost players over the years for a variety of reasons has dimmed those prospects. To play at the level at which I am happy takes time and commitment, and while some may have one or the other of those qualities few have both – and after nine or more years, my own commitment is wearing thin. Hence my decision to not participate in WW 2.0

Enthusiasm is great when starting a game; I do not believe it will sustain a game very long. This is why Navalism has gone through so many reboots during Wesworld’s life – enthusiasm can get you through building a nation – commitment and consistency is required to see that nation through the vagaries of a campaign of thirty years’ worth of quarterly turns. What has been the rate of player turnover in WW? Very high. Real life takes a toll, changing circumstances take a toll, and disagreements take a toll.

There are things regarding a Wesworld reboot that haven’t even been mooted in the current discussions. Where will it be hosted, and how will pay for the hosting? The current iteration of Wesworld is hosted on a server HoOmAn arranged for in 2003 and, I presume, been paying for ever since. His generosity should be lauded; but it would be wishful thinking to believe he would consider doing so forever.

These are just some thoughts. For me, I am going to concentrate on playing my current four nations and hopefully entertain you with budgets of news and events. That is what I really enjoy doing.

80

Yesterday, 9:55am

Parador scripset:
Enthusiasm is great when starting a game; I do not believe it will sustain a game very long. This is why Navalism has gone through so many reboots during Wesworld’s life – enthusiasm can get you through building a nation – commitment and consistency is required to see that nation through the vagaries of a campaign of thirty years’ worth of quarterly turns. What has been the rate of player turnover in WW? Very high. Real life takes a toll, changing circumstances take a toll, and disagreements take a toll.


Couldn't have said it better myself. Wesworld is the husk of what it was and Navalism seems to have imploded more times that the average red giant. Without commitment or at least fresh blood its hard to sustain these things.
Wesworld flatlines for months before enough people engage briefly to bring it back to life then it slips back into a coma for ages.

As for my personal intentions, its likely once WW 1.0 is over I too will retire my Admirals hat. I don't think I will have the time to commit to a long sim. I might come and pitch advice from the sidelines or if a shorter scenario type sim happened then I might consider it.