WesWorld

I do agree with having "Advent Dates" as the basis for tech rules. However, just because the date says you can doesn't mean you actually can. Case in point the entire discussion about Mexican Aviation. I was following the +3 rule. However, the argument was that Mexico did not have the capacity to build up to the +3 limit, while I made the argument that Mexico could by not investing in other technologies and just concentrating in that one alone. Unfortunately the argument could not be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, because of the lack of some sort of tech system.

Because of that I proposed the rules above. The point of them being that no one country can be +0 in everything. That just because the date says you can have semi-auto rifles, hydrofoils, snorkelers, advanced ASW, etc, you cant introduce them all at the same time.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
The debates about technology, from my perspective, are not necessarily bad. So long as the discussion stays positive and collaborative, it's good to have chatter back and forth, as well as give and take about allowing, or rejecting, certain new technology (rather than an inflexible hard-and-fast rule). That sort of discussion is how I've learned as much as I have while playing here.

The discussions about technology have been informative.


The battles and rancor about the introduction and use of specific pieces of equipment and technologies has been so bad as to sour me on this sim and lead to a substantial reduction in my participation.
When I started the Belgians, I crafted a large Army encyclopedia, wound up getting so many hits from elsewhere I put a disclaimer up. Used tanksharp and planesharp, researched engine introduction dates, HP/Wt ratios, debated how planesharp handles radiators and oil coolers, proper weights for armor, ejector seats and self-sealing tanks. I tried damn hard to make sure what I did had a good basis.

I thought the +3 rule was simple. Introduce something new, provide the evidence that it was in service in +3. I expected the same would apply for the +0 of land stuff.

Didn't work out that way.

I regard the current tech level of most tanks as unacceptable, and due to how badly the tech agreements have been adhered to I refuse to update my land and air units, annoying those that insist for some reason that I have to have them or they can't conceive of scripting a war with me...yet looking at their tech, I can't conceive of how I would script a war with them. I regard the system as hopelessly broken at this point.

The problems and hostility that came up in the T-34 discussions, the Howard discussions, in some of the Red Admiral discussions, in the comments on Persian planes (sorry Foxy, not up on the Mexican issue, guess

So to me, how we handle tech is to me a very critical and excessively broken part of the sim.

The presence of a tech tree, and thus the promise of no such fights was one reason I agreed to play in Nav 3. True, I discovered the research aspect was broken in that one, and the tech tree had some issues- which is why I'm not advocating such a system for WW2.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Case in point the entire discussion about Mexican Aviation. I was following the +3 rule. However, the argument was that Mexico did not have the capacity to build up to the +3 limit, while I made the argument that Mexico could by not investing in other technologies and just concentrating in that one alone. Unfortunately the argument could not be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, because of the lack of some sort of tech system.

Sorry Foxy, I remember doing some planesharps for you of some fighters, but I must have been in inattentive mode during that debate.

From a simple historical perspective, it appears to me, that to have a successful plane you need 2 elements - a successful designer/engineer and a good engine.

Shops like Fokker are a good example - very successful warplanes. Handled great, well built, but the engines were imports and generally lacked 1st rate power. Take a planesharp G-1 with "stock" engines, good but a bit lacking. Add 1st rate engines...extremely competitive. Refine the design and you get a P-38 (requested shortly after the G-1 was shown in Paris). It's a genius thing, and can be seen all the way through the SR-71 and the lockheed Skunkworks. Fokker was a big domestic producer, and a big company with access to Dutch aviation labs, but even tiny Reynard was a going concern. Size of nation is pretty irrelevant. Give a little govt support and it's doable- perhaps not as efficient as buying overseas, but doable.

Engines through...really seemed a Major power thing.
The USA really had only the P&W radials as 1st rate. The choice of turbosuperchargers sabotaged the inline until late/after war.
The UK had the Rolls Royce inline, and the Bristol Radials
France had the Hispano-Suiza inlines and and Gnome-Rhone radials.
Germany, Russia, both had inlines and radials- the Russian inlines were copies of the French
Japan had decent radials, don't recall any stand out inlines.
Italy had some very very good engines, but not mass produced really.

Other nations either license built or imported, but generally didn't have claim to 1st rate engines. I would presume because the domestic and military markets were not big enough to support both the company and the R&D to make the new engines.

Now, we could handle this several ways -
A) Everyone can build everything......very non-realistic.

B) Have "factories' for tanks and planes and engines and and and and .....yeech. Ok, not a fan of micromanaging that much.

C) Encyclopedia entry at start :
Country N , Mid size power
Military manufacturing base :
X Small Arms,
X Motor Vehicles
Armored Vehicles
Armor plate
x Light Artillery
Heavy Artillery
x Domestic aircraft
Aviation Research Labs
x War planes
Engines

Its best not dug up.

Actually my idea for tech rules presented previously is very similar to your c). Everyone is assigned a set number of tech points/tech factories based on their size at start. And these points/factories are assigned as the player sees fit. With every year the points/factories being modified as advancements and so on come online.

On the same vein, I advocated a similar set of rules for aircraft on N-Verse 2.0. Where the players would not buy a set # of aircraft, but rather buy a factory capable of producing a set # of aircraft a year. Ie the player wouldn't buy 100 B-17s, it would buy "Boeing Bombers Division" a factory capable of producing 100 heavy aircraft a year. Say greater production was required, the player would buy an extension to the factory t produce say 200 a year. Such a rule would also make buying and selling stuff more realistic and interesting, as nations would need to import aircraft to meet shortfalls in their own production and RFP competitions would also be limited by the seller's capacity to produce stuff.