WesWorld

Rules are the core of any simulation or game. They may vary in complexity and precision but only with rules WesWorld2 may be kept ticking after the initial launch. But while rules are essential to provide a frame in which a game can develop, they also form a corset to the freedom and individuality of all participants. They may even be a handicap or barrier to people joining the WesWorld community if they are too rigid, strict and complex. A good balance has to be kept to keep things simple and easy to understand and to handle while the sim is running, yet complex enough for those participants that enjoy a high level of detail.

Obviously industrial potential of a specific country provides a player with the stuff he can form his dreams of and keep them around. So rules for definition and handling of industrial capacity are required, as well as rule how to improve infrastructure and how to maintain fleets, airforces and armies. Rules for trade or technology are required too, probably. Depending on the time frame we define for WesWorld2 some kind of tech tree and rule how to climb it may be required. What about separate sources for industrial output (material/IP in Original WesWorld) and science (TechPoints)? There may be powers that have lots of factories but lack bright minds versus other that favor quality over quantity, resulting in either a country with 12 factories and one scientist or a power with 10 factories and three scientists. However, the more complex sources are (e.g. dedicated factories for infrastructure vs building material vs armament or factory output vs TechPoints), the better our tools have to be to allow easy use of the rules set – or we will run into troubles finding enough participants to take on the burden to handle such a complex system.

Overall the biggest issue is to keep the balance with whatever rules we create, making sure factories and TechPoints, to stick to the example above, allow nations of various character to be created but do not allow to open a loop hole or favor one over the other in the long run.

In Original WesWorld there was no Combat System. Conflicts had to be scripted, results aligned among all affected. In consequence a player could not be forced into a war that would probably destroy his hard work. On the other hand, large wars with many players were avoided as scripting and aligning results is deemed impossible. In a world of large alliances this equals a stand-still. Proposals for combat systems, either large scale or to sim individual naval battle, were made (e.g. by alt_naval), but were finally not accepted or developed to a final set of rules. The question of Combat Rules is also link to the question whether there should be a game master involved or the rules should allow self management by the players.

This thread is meant to provide a platform to discuss rule proposals, test them against each other and draw conclusions how to set up WesWorld2.

I'm quite agreeable with Kirk's dual-sytem idea. Perhaps some kind of IP/ cash system (tonnage = cash, as it does now in a way) both independent of each other would be good. Civil capacity is an issue that needs addressing (here I mean shipbuilding capacity rather than washing-machine and food production capacity).

I'm not so fond of tech rules, again certain nations will always have an advantage and I just find the whole notion of somehow controlling scientific advancement to be bogus, largely its not controlled and how do you sim the brains a nation has? How many scientists does China have over America? Peru versus Britain? How do we construct a tech tree without imposing artifical limits? How could we accuratley sim other nations buying tech from other nations. All well and good on a PC game but not so easy to track on the report system.
I'd be willing to back an agreement on a +0 tech rule on everything so nothing can appear before OTL.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I'd be willing to back an agreement on a +0 tech rule on everything so nothing can appear before OTL.

Yes and no. How you will handle for example all the World War 2 aircrafts and technology ? Many, most ... nearly all of them are the result of the war. We all know, a war shrink years of development, so if there is no war than the whole timeline collaps in my eyes.

For better understanding, no war means in my eyes (for example) ...
- no ME-262 in serial production in 1944
- no B-29 bomber because there is no need (no war against Japan)
- and so on

The OTL dates are all based on the OTL-history.

I think if there is no great war, we need a +X year rule and not a -Y year rule.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
How many scientists does China have over America?

Good example. If there is no Hilter and so no Holocaust, many of the Jews won't go to the USA so how this will be handled ???

Hmm I made a long post over in the Good, the bad and the Ugly I should move here instead.

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.

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.


Technology:
Wesworld's lack of a tech system has led to many arguments.

While I liked the Tech tree there, mainly because of the tech arguments here... I know others did not. Plus it led to research issues as big states were favored, and folks had to trade research to stay 'ahead' etc.

So... Either a +0 rule, no one's ahead.
OR... copy & modify the Nav 3 tech tree as a guide to when things are available. Allow countries to pick 1-3 (dep on size/education) categories which they are "advanced" in and get 3 years earlier than everyone else. This replicates WWI British fire control, USN 1940 engines, IJN Long Lance torpedoes, Russia T-34s, German jets.

WWII Technology explosion - Just spread it out over 10 years. 1939 last 1939-40, 1940 then is 1941-42, 1942 is 1943-44, 1943 is 1944-45, 1944 is 1946-47, 1945 is 1948-49. So end of WWII Tech is end of Sim.

Land / Air :
Wesworld originally made land/air optional.
I'd like to see that maintained at a basic level,
with options for folks.

Default "units" of Army/Air/Marines should be available.
These can consist of RL analogs.
"Congratulations, you have a 1930-35 Tank Regiment of !, You have chosen the T-26 analog to be your tank type !"

1930-35 Choices would be the T-26, the Vickers E, FMC36, etc etc. Or the player could pull out tanksharp and produce something equivalent- up to them.

Likewise with aircraft.

If I was going to get more fancy, I would design a default Division with say an HQ unit, 4 infantry regiments, an artillery battalion, and a "support regiment". That could then be given a default cost and folks could then buy "an infantry division'.

The fancy part would be to say that HQ unit can control 3-5 regiments, have a regiment list with costs, and allow folks to build standard formations for their nation that are a bit customized. The support regiment could be specified as having motor battalions, etc etc.

This could also be done for air wings.

The goal would be to have something potentially very simple "Ok, I choose to have 4 standard Infantry divisions, one armored brigade, done. " that would be easy for players to do if they aren't overly interested,

Or something that can be detailed and fleshed out so our folks that like to specify can work with.

Maintenance :
The lack of maintenance and upkeep has been a recurrent bone of contention in Wesworld and probably has a bit to do with fleet sizes.

in Navalism3. I found swapping between reserve/active/mobilized, and tracking training rates and ammo supplies....burdensome

I'd like to avoid that. upkeep is not fun, not exciting, it's boring.

There should be 2 status tags - Active or Reserve ?
It should be a simple % of cost or of manpower or something that gets recorded when built, then never has to be updated.

The one complication - I really think Subs, Aircraft Carriers, and Destroyers should have a multiplier. Submarines and aircraft took allot of highly skilled folks and were more expensive than a standard ship, while destroyers were built with lighter scantlings and probably need more maintenance.

There, I've blathered on long enough.
Probably given y'all nightmares.

You do like to complicate things Kirk, it took me a few minutes to wrap my head around the trade part, but I think its interesting to sleep on (if I get nightmares I blame you!)

I agree on a +0 year for tech.

Land/Air

Personally, I am in favour of a system where the naval/air/land aspects are tied together. I realize this may seem complicated for some folks, but we could utilize the IP system to pay for divisions and air squadrons. The factory numbers might have to be a bit higher, but it would give players the option; do you want a large army, or a large navy? And I don't think there will be many nations that will be able to afford both. If we go with separate infrastructure factories for ports/factory improvements/docks/slips and perhaps air bases/fortresses then we would be separating the infrastructure side of the ledger from the navy/army/airforce. I am not going to nitpick about whether your infantry division has 3 regiments or 4, but rather state - an infantry division costs this much, and in this period the realistic size is around X men.

Maintanence - keep it simple. Have a rule saying after X years your ship begins to degrade by X amount if it is in active service. If it is in Reserve it doesn't degrade or perhaps not as quickly, but you do an X refit on it when you press the ship into service after X amount of time. You also shouldn't get a penalty for scrapping a ship that is in reserve.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Maintanence - keep it simple. Have a rule saying after X years your ship begins to degrade by X amount if it is in active service. If it is in Reserve it doesn't degrade or perhaps not as quickly, but you do an X refit on it when you press the ship into service after X amount of time. You also shouldn't get a penalty for scrapping a ship that is in reserve.

Someone once suggested - reasonably, I think - that a decent maintenance rule would be to give the ship a 1% refit every year.

That probably isn't a bad option either. Would be complicated for sim reports (not that we aren't already complcating them with these suggestions).

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
You do like to complicate things Kirk, it took me a few minutes to wrap my head around the trade part, but I think its interesting to sleep on (if I get nightmares I blame you!)

Part of my evil master plan, if I confuse enough people while sounding somewhat reasonable, they will appoint me Dictator for Life...

As far as tech trees go, you do not want to go N-verse way, the N-Verse tech rules are exceedingly complicated and greatly favors the major powers.

I did propose an alternate system that unfortunately was shot down without even being looked at.

Basically each country would have a set number of tech points based on its economy. The points would be assigned to individual techs. 3 points would give you advanced tech (+1), 2 points baseline (+0), 1 point dated (-3?), however 0 points would give you nothing. Say a nation spends 0 points on engine techs, that nation would have to import engines from outside for ALL of their ships. Nations would be allowed to go (+2) (+3) etc, but costs would double ie 6 points for (+2), 12 points for (+3) and so. Trying to go super advanced would restrict that nation to only that tech.

Tech points would be assigned at the beginning of WW2, and a limited number of them (10%) could be reassigned at the beginning of each year. Otherwise the player would not touch them at all.

In regards to tech systems, my vote would be for a researchable tech tree, without 'research spending' caps, and with 'new research' dates tied to the completion of the previous tech in a given tree. This system could organically absorb the 'compression' effect of conflict by use of a wartime multiplier, and would neatly avoid the need to argue about whether or not something was 'period', since it would be working by required technologies rather than timing.

But, really, while it'd be nice not to be slaved to historical tech progression, that issue is, IMHO, more or less a sideshow. A compromise - even in the sense of a deal that leaves everyone equally unsatisfied - can be worked out and lived with.

Conflict resolution is... thornier.

My suggestion would be to assign every combat unit in the game a 'point value' statistic; when armed conflict happens, add up the point values available to both sides and then compare them, possibly with 'luck dice' being rolled and added in to make things more interesting. Larger total wins, and both sides take damage according proportional to their enemies' total. This is, of course, a horrific oversimplification, but it has the advantage of being easy to adjudicate. The scripting of the actual conflicts would come after the point comparison, once the 'desired' result was known.

I can see tech rules being a real headache and who really wants to sit around a series of spreadsheets constantly remembering and planning every research need. Also such the tree is either going to be too long and complex or too simple in categories.

At least a +0 is fair on everyone and we can keep check on progression. Remember if we start at 1900 then the Great War won't happen either so the development of submarines, military aircraft and tanks are going to be long delayed. So I back Kirk's WWII tech spread-out but also would want a corresponding 1914-18 tech spread out too; 1914 is 1916, 1915 is 1917, 1916 is 1918, 1917 is 1919 and 1918 is 1920. The 1920s-30s OTL slump in miltary development could then be +0 until we get to 1939 and then we slip back to -2 to keep the field level. Even then who knows if tanks would be invented?

I like the idea of more trade, personally I've always found the reasons for many small nations in WW not buying ships from bigger powers understandable from a player point of view but its never been realistic. Kirk's idea is complex but perhaps some monetary element shoud be included or exports encouraged?

Land/ Air is a tricky issue, again without a Great War large Air Forces might not ever be so and Armies coudl well be more manpower intensive infantry and artillery units well into the 1920s (although trucks and armoured cars would begin some kind of mechanisation process). Perhaps alongside any naval dual infrastructure and material factory system there should be a land-based Army/ Air dual infrastructure and material factory system. Thus we would build 'barracks' 'forts' 'aerodromes' with IP and basic units/ equipment perhaps with 'material'. The trick will be to get the base levels correct and the prices, e.g. 50 single-engined biplanes in 1916 cost 100 land-tons? Even this simple system could get boring in overlong reports.

Basing it on manpower is also going to require a lot of maths and economic knowledge that's likely to be an enthusiasm killer.

I'd love to see an active/ reserve element in the game. It exists now but isn't really applied much.

I think a 1% refit per year would be a great idea too. That would limit naval growth a little, perhaps a 0.5% per year for ships under 5 years old could add a little incentive to replace older ships and perhaps 1.5% for ships over 20 years old?

I think we should expand the trade part in WW2. Why are there wars ??? Yes, because of the ressources. If i haven't much coal or oil, i can't have a big army / navy. So a) i can make an alliance with a country which has the ressources or b) conquer some of the ressources. So even smaller countries, but with many ressources will be getting more interesting to play.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I can see tech rules being a real headache and who really wants to sit around a series of spreadsheets constantly remembering and planning every research need. Also such the tree is either going to be too long and complex or too simple in categories.

As opposed to keeping track of the myriad technical details of what was in use when and decrypting what traits are appropriate for the chosen time period? Besides which, given the emphasis being placed - not unreasonably! - on keeping the rule burden down, 'too simple' is probably a virtue, providing a useful and effective 'skeleton' for uninterested players to pencil in and interested ones to riff around.

Likewise, tech trees would organically shape the capabilities of nations to match prevailing emphases and conditions, given the inclusion of 'time in use' gates - rather than having to argue about what's appropriate every time anyone wanted to do anything, the main guideline would be right there.

For non-naval unites, I'd figured as a given that they would be formations, not individual soldiers or vehicles, and paid for out of the same two resource pools as naval units - probably in different ratios.

A tech tree just seems so arbitary, not taking into account the impact of other tech. Games like Hearts of Iron are a case in point, lots of different interlocking bits need to make up the final product but it doesn't take into account what an enemy fields. E.g. the Fokker Scourge of 1915-16, although brief, had a far bigger impetus to fielding comparable Allied fighters with working sycronised-gun systems than otherwise would have been the case.

Also, it doesn't answer deeper questions, we've had debates over 75mm guns, in particular L70 guns and barrel lengths more than actual bore size. Would a tech tree simply have 75mm gun or 75mm low-velocity, 75mm high-velocity options?
Then do you need to develop diesel engines, V-12 diesel engines, torsion suspension, sighting equipment, lightweight radios, thicker armour, armour rolling processes, armour-hardening technology, welding processes etc. in order to get something like a T-34/ Panther? Or simply research a generic 'T-34/ Panther clone' ?
One is vastly more complex for the player and the other leaves a lot between the gaps of the basic OTL clone label.
Crafting a tech tree for ever nation likewise would be a nightmare and who could agree what's correct or not between the mods and the player or even define what's possible for Nation X over Nation Y?

I'd feel safer knowing that OTL equipment could be used at the correct times (often allowing smaller nations a degree of catch-up to even the field slightly, or the chance to buy the latest products) allowing for the +2 periods covering the Great Wars to even the balance a little.

Whichever system is used the absence of WWI and WWII is going to raise serious questions about what exactly is plausible to develop and not, currently in WW we have the full crop of WWII equipment by default due to ease of using OTL stuff as detail filler. This has often raised eyebrows and indeed some areas have surpassed WWII capability. One final observation is, of all the tech arguements we've had naval equipment has never been a serious problem (radar most obvious, auto guns and some hydrofoil stuff) but Air and Land has always been a serious headache. And I'm not sure why on the one had advances in naval haven't raised the same levels of concern than Air/ Land advancement. Have we been blind to the other?

Quoted

Whichever system is used the absence of WWI and WWII is going to raise serious questions about what exactly is plausible to develop and not, currently in WW we have the full crop of WWII equipment by default due to ease of using OTL stuff as detail filler. This has often raised eyebrows and indeed some areas have surpassed WWII capability.

Using a tech tree is, in fact, supposed to answer those questions, since it would interact organically with the world rather than attempting to enforce a 'hard parallel' with a completely different timeline, which, IMHO, is more fake and arbitrary than any amount of technology listing. New devices, new knowledge, arrive out of their circumstances - if those circumstances are different, as they would have to be even coming from a completely OTL pre-game if there's to be any purpose to the game at all, then their OTL year will not be correct, even 'adjusted' for the presence or absence of major wars.

Determining the correct degree of granularity and where the 'breakpoints' should go would, indeed, be the key point in using a tech tree - but once the work was done, it would be done, there for any new or casual player to use rather than forcing them to either gloss over the entire issue, import OTL designs with no regard for origin or plausibility, or learn all the details that would be there for themselves in order to come up with something appropriate.

I suspect that in practice the tree would have to be result-oriented rather than filled with things like 'MW-50 injection, +50HP', defining tank guns by their final armor penetration ability and heavy AA by its maximum effective altitude, rather than things like bore length and pressures. Discussion of how those results were achieved would doubtless remain a major sport in the community, but with the ultimate performance as an accomplished fact, it shouldn't be stressful.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I'd feel safer knowing that OTL equipment could be used at the correct times (often allowing smaller nations a degree of catch-up to even the field slightly, or the chance to buy the latest products) allowing for the +2 periods covering the Great Wars to even the balance a little.

Tech :
The kind of 'Tech Tree' I want is advent dates.
Once past 19xx, Tech X is available.
That could be illustrated with a "T-26B tank" if needed.

Research:
I don't think research should be necessary to unlock tech levels. I think Foxy is correct and the Nav3 tree was a failure.

I think, IF research is done, it should be "You can pick 1/2/3 fields you will get to 2 years before other people'.
Heck, you could make them pick some fields to be -2 in. That way you could have nations be in the lead, as historically happened, enough to allow for an export industry, but not so much as to tilt the sim.



Naval vs. Air/Land
There have been debates over naval tech, however there are fewer opportunities. There aren't as many naval techs, and they have been slower in developement.

Ahead throwing ASW weapons is a big one, RA tried to introduce them repeatedly and was shot down. It inspired me to produce a Dutch land-based weapon for assaults, which really should be replaced with Nebelwerfers by now.

Hydrofoils was another.

Italy's discarding of BB construction for Cruisers/Carriers in the 1930s was another, as was the size of the carriers.

Schnorkels not so much - I documented my introduction, and other people have miraculously stumbled on the same concept.

There have been talks over magnetic fuses on torpedoes

Over who had radar, who had sonar vs. hydrophones

Over long-lance, and the proliferation of 24" torps in general

Over weights for AA mounts, automatic guns, amount of AA guns, caliber of AA guns, etc etc

Over misc weight allocations (vary greatly player to player in amount/item, if things are broken out, or what needs to even be covered)

I've introduced Schnorkels, radar, stabilized AA mounts, bow thrusters, naval howitzers, and diving shells with disclosure and timelines and without major issue.

Air and Land issue have many more potential techs, and thus room for discussion. Plus Air & associated has the +5 rule that was sometimes up to +7, but was trimmed to +3.

The admonishing that introduction into Service was the guide for what's acceptable never sufficed to calm the waters.

The French and Russians introduced Semi-auto rifles in WWI...and then withdrew them. Does the intro into service, or them being withdrawn matter more ? The Breda (?) firm saw 800 SA rifles enter service in a Central American Civil war...is that sufficient to allow a major power to adopt? No major power actually took up smaller cartridges, and the Dutch actually wanted to move away from 6.5mm after Aceh, but they are the rage here. That's just rifles.

Airplanes and tanks have been worse. Ships are governed by consensus it seems, but there's been folks that get tons of flack for their planes / tanks, no consensus, and go ahead anyhow.

The tech situation, and how it's handled here, is a real negative to me.

I must note that, given Howard's obsession about "tech trees", I have a very thorough (and perhaps irrational) dislike of the concept. I once again go back to what I always harp on and on about: keep it simple. It's possible that a tech tree could be simplified enough, but I still have a complete dislike of the idea, and would prefer to avoid it entirely.

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.

I'd agree with Kirk about "Advent Dates" as sufficient; these are things moderators can update if sim events warrant them.