WesWorld

Original WesWorld is probably the most survivable, longest running alternate history sim with focus on naval topics that is available in the Net, for good reasons. One of it being the simplicity of the original rule set, thus allowing maximum freedom as long as some general consensus is kept and the Gentlemen Rules honored. However, over the course of the years issues with the initial set-up popped up several times. They were dealt with generally “on the fly”, but some issues remained and are not solved to the current day. So obviously the not all is well with Original WesWorld, though some of the issues only came up when the character of our sim changed from what it was originally intended to be – a place to discuss naval tech and to couple alternative fleets with rudimentary rules to build-up and maintenance – to what it is now, a multi-discipline simulation and roleplaying game, albeit still naval focused.

Given this history and current status of Original WesWorld an analysis of what was/is good and what should be improved is worthwhile. This is the place for it, gathering points to be addressed when composing the background and rules for WesWorld2. However, it is not meant to be the place to discuss rule proposals in full length. For the latter a separate thread will be opened to keep this one clean and easy to browse as some kind of check list when work on a rule set for WesWorld2 was launched.

it's late, so i'll just say here that the main attraction I've had to Wesworld, compared to other ventures, was it being kept fairly simple.

Some players want to double, triple, or otherwise outrageously expand the ruleset and tools and other requirements for play (for example, I saw kirk suggest every ship having 4 different sim reports...).

I won't be terribly interested if I have to hire someone to do all the math for me in a future Wesworld. Or prepare the equivilent of an economics term paper / doctoral thesis on a regular basis.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
it's late, so i'll just say here that the main attraction I've had to Wesworld, compared to other ventures, was it being kept fairly simple.

Some players want to double, triple, or otherwise outrageously expand the ruleset and tools and other requirements for play (for example, I saw kirk suggest every ship having 4 different sim reports...).

I won't be terribly interested if I have to hire someone to do all the math for me in a future Wesworld. Or prepare the equivilent of an economics term paper / doctoral thesis on a regular basis.

I'll second that.

Frankly, if we could make the rules even MORE simple than the current Wesworld rules, I'd prefer it.

I too agree, lets take the orriginal rule set and tweak what needs to be tweaked.

I also agree, as easy as possible and as complex as necessary, thats the base for the fun here at wesworld.

As a former player currently lurker I have little say.
But I will jump the band wagon and say that simplicity is the best way to go about the rules for Wesworld2.

The simpler the rules the better.
Wesworld unlike the other sims is about designing ships and navies, and not about blowing them up in Jutland or Leyte type battles.

Since Hoo and Wes are the longest running players here from the start of the SIM, maybe they should tell their own rationale and planning for the start of the SIM regarding nations, rules and the Cleito Treaty. Maybe then we'd have a clearer view, as most of the current players have been on board for several years but were long after the ground rules had been developed.

For instance was it easier having 2-3 people planning the whole thing (their desires and dreams) to the potential of having 20 players today each sharing their own dreams and ideas and having to choose from potentially loads of different preferences and choices?

My ultimate fear is that we fail to agree a compromise between us that satisifies all the current player's wishes and that WW2 will be stillborn. Even the 1950+ or reset option is unclear to us at this point.

with Russia and France to balance Aowwt's megalomaniacal "Reich Roman Empire", so the diplomatic aspect was interesting, plus I thought it would be fun to SpringStyle ships for countries with such different naval-strategic problems to solve. The simplicity of the infrastructure/gentlemen's rules were a big plus.

Quoted

For instance was it easier having 2-3 people planning the whole thing (their desires and dreams) to the potential of having 20 players today each sharing their own dreams and ideas and having to choose from potentially loads of different preferences and choices?

I think we had 9 players at first, with the US and British Empire not played, so it wasn't that small, but everyone but Aowwt and me played single major Powers and were able to come to consensus pretty easily. With the present mix of:global superpower Britain/Canada/Oz, several major powers, several middle-ranking Powers, and then several minor Powers, getting rules we can all deal with might be hard, especially if major preadators are intraduced in the WesWorld II ecosystem.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
(for example, I saw kirk suggest every ship having 4 different sim reports...).

Noooooo....

I wanted each ship to simply list the speeds at which they hit different seakeeping levels. It's a simple matter of adjusting the speeds to find out when you're going slow enough to hit something.

When it comes to fighting, these could be then used as a basis for adjusting speed & accuracy based on sea state.

NOT 4 different sims.

Good:

-Reasonable level of ship rules
-Generally pleasant environment

Bad:

-Stiff infrastructure costs
-Build times for large ships excessive
-Refits costly, deter innovation

Huh:

-Spread of alliances; trend of neighbours versus "outsiders" despite historical neighbourly issues
-No rules for air, land forces
-Lack of coherent pre-sim history
-Status quo of economies; lack of any global trends to influence play

The one bone of contention I have with the system as is has to do with the lack of any hard rules governing land and air units. Im not proposing something like Navalism's system (I have my little sandbox for that). What I think at minimum needs to be tracked is the size of an army and air force. A simple "My army has X amount of men and my air force has Y aircraft" with the amounts being payed for somehow is all that is really needed. I think it would help to streamline wars, should they occur as then there is no debate as to the size of respective services.

One thing I'd like to banter about is my idea of having not just naval infrastructure but land, air and civilian infrastructure as well and have the ability to take from one infrastructure set and add to another if needed. It would certainly add some realism to the other services in the game as well as allow some more flexibility in using resources. Afterall some nations skipped their costly naval programs to free up resources for other branches to use.

Moved the long post to the Rules part

Basically :
Economy needs to be kept simple, but dual track. Wesworld's factories work fine for warship construction, but the rest of the economy appears to need a little work to flesh out and resolve issues of maintenance, army/air size, and infrastructure development.

Civilian/Military :
Slips are dual use, and shouldn't be fancy or hard to assemble. Total shipbuilding capacity should be established, not just military yards.

Military depots and dockyards are what should cost.


Tech :
Wesworld's tech non system has caused lots of arguments.
Navalisms research system didn't pan out.
I think a system of availability dates melding the two is best.

Military units:
The lack of the secondary economy and tech rules has led to silly variability in land/air units.
A simple standard unit system would make everyone able to participate, make a baseline, and be something we could then complicate.

Relations :
We've had to much backstory and backhistory seemingly wander off. Starting encyclopedia entries for PCs and NPCs should cover some standard points.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Economy:
I really liked Navalism 3s 'heavy' vs. Light industry, and growth mechanism and think it goes to answer many of the concerns. This allows for population to matter, gives a mechanism to govern maintenance and thus fleet size, army size, etc.
This also allows Smiling Assassin's concern to be addressed, would allow the US to swap stuff in event of a naval war, etc.

I've heard a lot of people say they liked that system, and just for myself, I'd be willing to try it. It would really answer a lot of my thoughts about how everyone is able to build their own warships in Wesworld, rather than ordering from a few of the major shipbuilding powers.

My worry, as I've stated before, is that I'm concerned about making too many rules. I've seen how many people even in Wesworld are driven away by our current rules.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Trade :
I'd like to complicate things.
I'd like for each nation to have a list of factories that was like this :
Netherlands
Factory 1 - Britain x 2
Factory 2 - Germany x 2
Factory 3 - Germany x 2
Factory 4 - DEI, Britain
Factory 5 - Nordmark, Belgium
Factory 6 - South Afrika, France
Factory 7 - USA, Colony
Factory 8 - France, Belgium
Factory 9 - Denmark, SAE
Factory 10 - Nordmark, USA
Factory 11 - Britain, Germany
Factory 12 - France, Italy
Factory 13 - Iberia, China
Factory 14 - Russia, Japan
Factory 15 - USA, France
etc etc

These represent your trade partners.

2 potential partners per factories, pretty static, no maintenance stuff.

If there is a blockade/ mining of ports etc, that trade gets severed. Factories with 0 trade partner make 800tons, 1 trade partner makes +100, 2 trade partners makes +200..or something.

I think it would make clearer where "national interests" lie, and the ripple effects something like the South China Sea war might have.

A variant would make the require be that you're specifying *which* foreign factory you're trading with. So Belgium's 5 factorys could only have 10 partners, while the Dutch would have 30...but obviously only 5 could be Belgian factories.
I have a feeling that recipricocity would become a bookkeeping nightmare. So just list em, and unless they object, that's the trade partner.

That's a very interesting idea. It took me a few moments to figure it out, but... very interesting.

Actually when push comes to shove there is actually very little about the current SIM I don't like. The refit rules seem a bit cumbersome and overpriced, as is ship construction but generally I've always felt willing to abide by the rules and don't get any sleepness nights over them. I think perhaps a tinker is better than an overhaul. Realism vs. complexity is going to be a problem to master though.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Economy:
I really liked Navalism 3s 'heavy' vs. Light industry, and growth mechanism and think it goes to answer many of the concerns. This allows for population to matter, gives a mechanism to govern maintenance and thus fleet size, army size, etc.
This also allows Smiling Assassin's concern to be addressed, would allow the US to swap stuff in event of a naval war, etc.

I've heard a lot of people say they liked that system, and just for myself, I'd be willing to try it. It would really answer a lot of my thoughts about how everyone is able to build their own warships in Wesworld, rather than ordering from a few of the major shipbuilding powers.

My worry, as I've stated before, is that I'm concerned about making too many rules. I've seen how many people even in Wesworld are driven away by our current rules.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Trade :
I'd like to complicate things.
I'd like for each nation to have a list of factories that was like this :
Netherlands
Factory 1 - Britain x 2
Factory 2 - Germany x 2
Factory 3 - Germany x 2
Factory 4 - DEI, Britain
Factory 5 - Nordmark, Belgium
Factory 6 - South Afrika, France
Factory 7 - USA, Colony
Factory 8 - France, Belgium
Factory 9 - Denmark, SAE
Factory 10 - Nordmark, USA
Factory 11 - Britain, Germany
Factory 12 - France, Italy
Factory 13 - Iberia, China
Factory 14 - Russia, Japan
Factory 15 - USA, France
etc etc

These represent your trade partners.

2 potential partners per factories, pretty static, no maintenance stuff.

If there is a blockade/ mining of ports etc, that trade gets severed. Factories with 0 trade partner make 800tons, 1 trade partner makes +100, 2 trade partners makes +200..or something.

I think it would make clearer where "national interests" lie, and the ripple effects something like the South China Sea war might have.

A variant would make the require be that you're specifying *which* foreign factory you're trading with. So Belgium's 5 factorys could only have 10 partners, while the Dutch would have 30...but obviously only 5 could be Belgian factories.
I have a feeling that recipricocity would become a bookkeeping nightmare. So just list em, and unless they object, that's the trade partner.

That's a very interesting idea. It took me a few moments to figure it out, but... very interesting.

I fully agree. Very interesting idea, on the first step it looks very complicated for me, but with a second view it looks good and sure a good base for diplomatic behavior in the game.