Post OOC Chatter or Commentary here.

I applied a 3 column shift for SADC during their attack in the first combat cycle (making a 2:1 a 5:1) and had the hostile impose a 1 column shift to the left (making it a 4:1).

During the Red forces attack I applied the same column shifts... 3 to the right and 1 to the left keeping them as global shifts for the cycle.



Except it isn't a ratio of size but a ratio of power\effectiveness.  It's an area to look at because it runs straight into the age old argument of quality vs quantity.  Should a mechanized brigade be able to pacify roughly 10 brigades worth of armed rebels (50k green infantry) in a single cycle...assuming that they'll nearly always have at least one column shift advantage?

On the converse should a inferior force be able to inflict 20% casualties on a lucky roll (as far down as 1:5) on the opposing force no matter how many brigades are involved?  For example a single mechanized brigade attacked by at least 50 rebel units (a quarter of a million troops and probably more since the brigade would have column shifts).  Yeah extreme example but not impossible (China in Korea for instance).

Something to consider at the very least.  Anyway, will resolve round 2 shortly.

As far as bringing up reinforcements, this may be an apples and oranges situation.  Essentially Zimbabwe is a better armed and trained Somalia facing a less effective (but still superior) intervention force.  It's not quite a conventional war and not quite a guerrilla one...where the rules in place are more for a conventional war.

I used a 'rehabilitated' Juju (the guy is kicked out of the ANC for now but the ANC is trending his direction...if he moderates his position a little I think he stands good odds to come back) to explain why South Africa would put it's hand into the hornet's nest and the mission drift.  Bringing up troop numbers from the original force deployment\mission...well we pretty much only really have Iraq and Afghanistan as recent historical examples for big redeployments for these kinds of things but the cycle seems roughly to be 3 months for heavier forces from a logistical perspective.  Looking back on similar historical situations... forces bring up reinforcement at a slower rate than their raw movement rates would indicate (at least if you want to do something other than shell coastal settlements or bomb them from the air;-).

As far as artillery...I don't really want to create a whole new category of 'self-propelled artillery' units and there are a number of different types...from foot infantry motar maggots;-) to MLRS or even something along the lines of the cancelled Crusader.  Essentially viewing each unit a brigade level formation with a focused specialty (so the artillery brigade won't need around 3 units\brigades of normal infantry to protect it).

I'm really just outlining a few things but not making any hard decision for now.

As far as time spent... I'm not familiar with these mil rules yet and work was a bit busier this week (worked late twice this past week whereas the previous week was a bit easier).  I'll get through this turn and we'll look at things before next turn starts.  I may find an old avalon hill game with some good ideas to yoink (or at least keep the Good Ideas Fairy busy).... but overall the philosophy of this game I do really want to trend towards automating as much as we can on the excel sheet and find a happy balance between realism and simplicity.

Well SADC is done.  Going to finish up the other listed news items first and let this sit for a moment for you guys to look over before I approach Kurdistan, Iran and the other related items.

In reply to Referee (msg # 3):

You know, one easy thing we could do to address your timeline issue is state in section 8.5 that some (50%?) of the Insurgent units would have 'Stealth' ability , meaning they do not have to engage in combat unless they want to.
.
.
.
and this is why it is important that we conduct dress rehearsals like this, the paragraphs that explain the above about Stealth ability (and what CCC ability can do to find them) got lost when we dropped the whole section on detailed combat.  Will work on fixing that.

Let me rephrase my objection to be more clear.  "But that would be doubly applying the ratio of combat strength to damage allocation.  The combat results table, by having different results for each different ratio of combat strength, already includes having damage based on the combat strength of the opposite side.  You would be right if the table in 12.5 consisted of only 1 column"

Well what I'm getting at... an armor brigade (somewhere around 80 armored vehicles to 120 very roughly) at 8.5 tech level is a combat factor of 216.7 assuming it's experienced is the rough equivalent of 3 similarly experienced infantry brigades 9 to 15k of foot infantry at the same tech level.  Shrug... tank brigade has a 10% chance of getting wiped out (or rather reduced to 50% because of armor) and other the other end a 30% chance of reducing the other side by 40% of its entire combat value.  Understanding it's not actually killing every single guy...just destroying the brigades as cohesive units (and killing some etc).

Same 8.5 force against a 1970s equipped infantry unit... 216.5 is roughly the equivalent of 4 brigades...prolly closer to 5....automatically gets a +30 to initiative ...so probably at least 4 column shifts....very likely more.  So it has an 80% chance of inflicting 100% reduction on a 20k force....120 vehicles in a combat cycle breaking up a 1970s equipped force...it gets worse considering they will almost certainly have a higher mil rank, gps, a veteran or elite tank brigade etc etc.....making it possible a brigade of tanks to break up a forces of over 50k infantry (and probably higher).

A modern tank brigade might not be damaged by a 1970s force (assuming they fought at range in ideal terrain, still the infantry would still have some mortars and other heavy weapons...mines etc that could make it hard for the modern brigade) but there's logical limits of how much force a brigade can project in a single combat cycle no matter what their advantages are.

I'm also looking at the fact that the game is very much on a Grand Strategy Scale with it's 5 year turn cycle and by the nature of PAs but the military rules are around the Operational Scale of things or lower.

I don't know what I'm going to do for Kurdistan yet.  It's not quite an insurgency and it is not quite conventional.

For instance in Turkey....I'm not sure the Turks can suppress the Kurds short of an Armenian level genocide, but historically what they've done when things get really hairy in the Kurd region is pull the troops back and bomb them (and certainly haven't done it on the scale to eliminate the peshmerga yet).  But by the combat rules... it's possible for them to eliminate the peshmerga by air without moving a massive amount of troops into the hills.

In reply to Referee (msg # 7):

If the combat turns were short then sure, but they are a month long (and this also forms the first part of my objection to calling this an 'Operational Scale of things'), you can get a whole lot of fighting done in a month.  The example that I can think of an armoured tech 8.5 vs. a 4x larger force of infantry tech 7 is the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, about 250k of Allies vs. 1M of Iraqi's, lasted about 1 month, trivial allied causalities, an estimated 1 - 5% of the Iraqi force actually killed...but ~100% of Iraqi Military Units destroyed.  When your scale is a month and you only care about units destroyed, then modern set piece battles are bloody and over fast.  Kursk was 2 months, from Normandy beaches to Paris was 3 months, the China-Vietnam war of 1979 was 1 month, each was contained within 1 hex, each involved the destruction or reduction of huge numbers of military units.

>it's possible for them to eliminate the peshmerga by air without
>moving a massive amount of troops into the hills.
Which would be why I added that bit to section 10.7, that up to 50% of a Military Rank 4 nation can have Stealth ability ...they are just militia that can fade into the general population. To continue the Iraqi example:  The Iraqi insurgency started with [31million /5000 people per PU X 0.05 % of pop in Insurgency X ~0.5 AM / ~2 Stab] ~50-100 units, ~25-50 would have Stealth Ability, at 10 pts of Initiative Advantage each to force a Stealth unit to be revealed (note the addition to section 12.4) it is going to take a long, long, long time for the occupying force (or Turkish airforce) to root them out.  Plenty of time to drag out the fighting into the next 5-year Turn where the mere existence of Insurgent units (section 8.5) will contribute to the roll for ANOTHER Insurgency to break out.  The strength of the Insurgency being to outlast rather than outfight the occupiers.

>Operational Scale of things
Our War rounds are a month long, our hexes are the size of France; Kursk was 2 months, from Normandy beaches to Paris was 3 months, the China-Vietnam war of 1979 was 1 month, each was contained within 1 hex. When the only combat choices that a player has is 'Fight', 'Move', 'Allocate Damage' and 'Resupply', if section 12 is 'Operational level' then it is only just.  And I must point out that for Wars that you do not care about, there is section 12.10
This message was last edited by the player at 20:41, Tue 14 Aug 2012.

I still fret about the time it takes for damage allocation.  How about instead of letting players spread it around it becomes 'all or nothing', hits are allocated to a unit until the whole unit is destroyed the excess goes onto the next unit, and the next unit, until there are not enough hits to be taken left to destroy a unit?  I forsee that this change will not actually speed up an individual combat, but it will speed up a war because units will disappear faster.

Just got back from work... in the case of Iraq it wasn't 1 brigade rolling over the Iraqi's in a month;-)  And arguably the war wasn't really over for years.

Looking for some way to simulate non-conventional warfare that just doesn't hand victory on a plate to the better equipped more conventional force in a one and done combat cycle or two.

I'm going to approach Syria and Turkey next before handling the rest of the arab spring insurgencies (some of which players may want to interfere with so I want to have a sort of impartial regimen in place that 'fits' the current structures in the game...assuming players like having brigades to keep track of and that sort of thing).

I figure no one is going to interfere in Syria... well probably not <eyes Russia>.... so it's another test bed.  And Turkey... they should be able to put down the non-kurdish insurgency (yeah reading up here with the events that have happened in Turkey and other aggravating factors they have to worry about keeping people other than Kurds down as well)...don't think it's likely the Bosporus will close and since NATO's been a bit dead in this game (and the Turks sortof moved away from the west last turn) I don't think either the EU or Russia will have to step in.

Egypt... could be another matter.  There's also a few states like the UAE that could get knocked over by a stiff breeze.  The situation is aggravated in our timeline for the factors I've covered, but I'll come up with something to dice it out and see which nations have arab spring related issues.

It could be a messy turn... I'm not entirely sure (have a few things to reference) but Lluis may have spent PAs that undercut the Saudi royal family's support base and legitimacy...they've always sort of been in a tiger by the tail type situation.  However he spent other points on stability so it may be a soft landing at worse.  Will probably dice that one out last in the Middle East.

In reply to Referee (msg # 10):
>in the case of Iraq it wasn't 1 brigade rolling over the Iraqi's in a month;-)
I was not arguing that, I was showing that modern set piece battles/wars are over in a very few months (War Rounds), and easily result in the destruction of large numbers of military units.  In the case of Iraq->military units can eliminate without loss within 1 War Round the military units of a 4x larger but TL -1.0 force.

>And arguably the war wasn't really over for years.
>Looking for some way to simulate non-conventional warfare that just doesn't
>hand victory on a plate to the better equipped more conventional force in a
>one and done combat cycle or two.
Certainly.  Reread par#2 of msg#8, it is what I had addressed in the changes to section 8.5, 10.7, 12.4 and 12.11 of the rules version 20120810 that is posted to the yahoo group.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:43, Sun 09 Sept 2012.

If I don't have to pull an extra half a shift again tonight (this weekend was horrible, my replacement called off the entire weekend), I'll hopefully get the Arab Spring thing resolved tonight.

I'm thinking since all the players essentially 'knew' this was coming down both from last turn's results and the post up by Andreas this turn and the PAs submitted addressing the issue were for the most part (or rather entirely) limited in scope I'm probably going to restrict player responses to affecting things 'after the fact' rather than to preventative or more direct control of events to shape them as they occur.  Only 'hard power' need apply after this part of the resolution.

Just a heads up in any case;-)

In reply to Referee (msg # 12):

Sure, otherwise you will never get anything done, but I think you should at least give players with available response PAs a 'heads-up' that the Arab spring is being processed right now and if they want to use those response PAs they have (?) days to do something or forever hold their peace.

Ugh, just got home (though earlier than last night), it's been a rough couple of days but going to do some work on this before bed;-).

What was the Israel-Syria-Russia-Germany thing?  I only have the brief mention under assorted notes but no real details.

Israel expressed concern that Russia was selling loads of weapons to Arab/Muslim countries and wanted a Shtil submarine based space launch system as compensation. Russia countered that Israel would have to persuade EU/Germany that in the event of intervention in Syria and replacement of the regim, all old agreements would be honored by the new Syrian regime. Israel asked this of Germnany who did not give a clear response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtil%27

Okay, here's how I'm handling Iran and any level 7+ insurgencies to explain what I'm doing\thinking...

The Insurgency 'periods' I'm rolling for are 1 year cycles as a rule of thumb.  The modifiers between cycles can change between cycle to cycle...for instance if the food or fuel situation slowly recovers or if a neighboring country falls into anarchy.

A 7+ insurgency moves into a more aggressive unconventional war.  I'll figure out how many rough 'brigades' worth of guerrillas or other forces the insurgents will put up and will run however many combat cycles (up to 12).  In all likelihood the government forces will destroy the 'fielded' insurgent force.  This does not represent the utter destruction of a unit (even in conventional warfare), but the loss of combat effectiveness and cohesion of a fighting force.  The insurgent forces are dispersed.

In normal COIN operations, the government forces very rarely suffer enough casualties to significantly impair combat operations.  Granted there probably are a few exceptions but the biggest I can think of is the 1983 Marine Barracks attack in Beirut...which was under 250 men iirc.  Considering our combat scale is mostly brigade level...

What the combat cycles represent are opportunities to do 'real' damage to government forces.  I'm mostly looking a Vietnam here which had several up tempo cycles.  On the basis of how well or poorly the insurgents did that combat cycle I'll apply a modifier to the yearly insurgency roll.

If the insurgency is still rated at a 7 or higher the following year, I'll set up another combat cycle and repeat the process up to five times total.  Damage to the committed government forces will be repaired and supplied, more units may be committed to the COIN theater (or moved out), and if applicable reliability and other factors may be checked and adjudicated (for instance if active fighting occurs for 12 full cycles or in the case of something along the lines of Syria a unit mutinies).

Some insurgencies have lasted for decades with up and down cycles (heh...Stalin had Ukrainian guerrillas well after world war 2 as a side note...into the 50's iirc;-).

Anyway, I thinks that's it for this bout of insomnia...off to bed;-)

And
This message was last edited by the GM at 02:52, Sat 08 Sept 2012.

In reply to Referee (msg # 16):

>destroy the 'fielded' insurgent force.  This does not represent the utter destruction of a unit (even in conventional warfare), but the loss of combat effectiveness and cohesion of a fighting force.

Actually that is what I already have in my latest version, just polishing up a few details before I post it to the management page, probably by this weekend.

When a unit is destroyed it is temporarily reduced to Reserve status, if no more non-Reserve units left to attack in a hex only then may the Reserve units be totally destroyed.

Well just wrapping my head around this in regard to insurgents who can disperse into the local populace, and historically 'get stomped' when they go toe to toe during 'maximum efforts' against regular forces.

The VC had to be rebuilt a few times if I recall correctly.  But on the other hand it never recovered after it was burnt down to the waterline during the Tet Offensive (and from an old General Giap interview I recall Tet was not planned as a political propaganda stunt, it had military goals and it didn't include killing off the insurgency network in the south).  I figure an Iraqi Kurdistan functions similarly as a North Vietnam (as well as an independent Baluchistan to the East).

The experienced units and veteran unit involved are pretty much directly connected to the supply and training pipeline to Iraq Kurdistan (where they've had a increasingly free hand to do that sort of thing post Gulf War I in 1991)... so they function a bit like the NVA.  The green units are a mishmash (more so than the experienced+ peshmerga at least;-), made up of more locally supported units... beat up Toyota pick-ups with the machinegun welded on the back, irregular supply and equipment, and in manpower probably have more than 5,000 men per unit (one or two steps above a mob).

This theater got a veteran unit because of persistent rumors that Israeli commandos have been working within the peshmerga in Iran.  Given the game's history\circumstances I felt it was logical.

I'm still iffy on the combat system... on a roll of 7+ Iranian air (essentially 2 units of multi-role fighters) would have eliminated the entire Kurdish force of 12 'brigades' (60k+).  Giving the Kurds column shifts due to terrain (both urban and rough countryside) would have made it more likely that the Iranian air would take more damage... that would be likely impossible for the Kurdish forces to inflict.

Attacking this round with the Kurdish forces against forces with a 50% damage absorption seemed too suicidal.  As an observation, initiative purchases seem pretty powerful and racking up a high initiative bonus can build up fairly easily.  I felt the +6 in 'GM call' bonuses I applied to the Kurds were reasonable (terrain, support from local population, and covert support from a effective intelligence agenc(ies)).

In reply to Referee (msg # 18):

>insurgents who can disperse into the local populace, and historically 'get stomped' when they go toe to toe
As I have pointed out, the most recent version posted to the Management page allows units of military rank 4 nations to have 50% with stealth ability.  Most of these are going to be Reserve quality units so they cannot go toe to to with regulars, their power is in forcing the regulars to stay in the field because as Stealth units they cannot attack or be attacked unless they want to or unless a very heavy initiative toll paid by the regulars.

> on a roll of 7+ Iranian air (essentially 2 units of multi-role fighters) would have eliminated the entire Kurdish force
There is a reason why modern forces put so much attention to air defense, why big ships and close formations are history.

> initiative purchases seem pretty powerful and racking up a high initiative bonus can build up fairly easily.
They are powerful deliberately, to give some choice and interest to what is otherwise a dry exercise of math.  Was not quite expecting how free you would be with the bonuses, + in the few combats so far you have also tended to roll very high or low with the initiative rolls -->Has resulted in initiative values with a greater spread than I was expecting.  In the long run though these should even out, for now though it just makes combat even more decisive, hence resolved faster, for the victorious side.

I'll try to keep commentary out of the battle threads (and keep it in the gallery).

In regard to the likelihood the Kurdish forces getting wiped out, these battles represent an active phase of the guerrilla war that depending on what happens will apply a modifier to the year long insurgency phase.  So if for instance the Kurds were wiped out in the first combat cycle and inflicted no casualties against the Iranians, I'd probably apply a -3 die modifier to the Kurds insurgency roll this year.

If the Kurds still have a 7+ level insurgency, before the next years insurgency phase is rolled I'll run another combat cycle (after figuring out what forces the insurgents are putting in the field).  Basically the insurgents regather and reconstitute their forces year after year until the insurgency level is reduced to 6 or less no matter how badly they are slapped around the previous year.  The Order of battle may not be the same year after year...

Given the current status the combat forces, both the Kurds and Iranians are down 40% each though the Kurds got to pick where the damage went with their initiative purchases so I chose to pick on the unarmored Iranian units rather than the 50% damage reduction of the tanks.  Granted, had they eliminated a tank unit or two I would probably rule the Kurds may be able to field an adapted tank unit in some very limited capacity of their own from captured equipment.

It's devilishly hard to simulate an insurgency using the same system as is used for regular armies in open battle. Basically insurgencies tend to suck but they do have one big benefit: relatively rapid replacement of losses.

You can pound an insurgency in one month, and then it fields basically the same forces the next month. This will go on as long as the base population that supports the insurgency (be it an ethnic, religious, cultural, or ideological "base population") continues to have enthusiasm for the mission.

That enthusiasm can be disipated either through genocide, successful ethnic cleansing, or simply causing them to lose heart (which usually only happens after some "major" setback, disruption, or event. Otherwise insurgencies tend to go on and on).

Like Chris said earlier: a "destroyed" unit doesn't mean every member is slain, captured, or wounded to the point of being combat ineffective forever. It simply means it ceased to exist as an effective military unit.

This means that under most circumstances, with respect to insurgencies, cadres will continue to exist and will reform basically the same insurgent unit until one of the three things mentioned above (genocide, successful ethnic cleansing, or a setback/event significant enough to convince the base population that insurgency is no longer worth participating in).

In reply to USA (msg # 21):

...or the reason for the rebellion is improved/removed, ie conditions improve, certain rights are extended to the population.

In reply to USA (msg # 21):

I have not added it to the Management website yet (fixes to 12.2 and 12.9 to do, was a busy weekend, got nothing done on the Game) but what I have changed is making units be temporarily reduced to 'Reserve' status upon being destroyed.  The original intent was that I shared the same concern, a military unit is a very hard thing to completely destroy, especially given how I defined them as per sec 10.0 par#1, Reserve units only completely&finally destroyed if no other non-Reserve unit is available to take the hits.

But this could serve equally well in an insurgency, where so many of the rebel units have Stealth (sec 12.11), they can avoid combat long enough to be repaired (sec 12.7), so the core of the rebellion can survive to return again and again until finally rooted out

That's a "special case" of getting them to lose interest in insurgency. I suppose I phrased it badly when I said "getting them to lose heart" - but of course at extremes this blends into "insurgency ends because it wins" (succeeds in achieving enough of their goals/objectives that the insurgents see it as fullfilling their victory conditions).While that works in a sense I'm still not sure it replicates the "strength" of an insurgency; insurgent economies tend to be "weak" by official stats, but they can keep fielding units rather repetitiously. Not, say, once every five years or even once every year or so.

What makes insurgencies bothersome, at least to powers as represented in this game, isn't their threat to win battlefield victories against a great power (typically), they'll get repeatedly defeated. But they just don't go away and they raise a disproportionate cost threshold on their opponents. Basically in "game theoretical" terms, insurgents try to affect the cost/benefit ratio to the point where intervening powers question whether it's worth continuing to stomp the anthill month after month year after year. (Contrarywise, the government/intervening allies attempt to affect changes as mentioned above, aimed at making the insurgency go away. And, yes, "carrots" can be part of changing the perceived cost/benefit ratio in the minds of the "base population" of insurgencies).

It's probably going to be kludgy to try and satisfactorilly model insurgencies in the game system, since overall it's intended for interstate war rather than intrastate conflicts. But I decided to babble anyhow.

It is going to be even more kludgy to have one system for regular army combats and then a whole different system for insurgencies and then another one for when the two intersect i.e.insurgents+regulars vs. other regulars.  I so very much believe that combat, whether it be insurgents or regulars, needs to be fully integrated.  I will take the headsnapping to realism over the heartache of unplayable.

I am not doubting the existence of the various bonuses you gave to the Kurds, it is a weird world out there, but I think the magnitude of those bonuses you have assigned are a good bit larger than I was anticipating when I set up the tables.  Bonuses are very powerful, it does not take much to completely upend a fight, as we have seen several times now.

Increase Initiative point cost for a column shift from 5 to 10?
+
Add to 12.3 "5 points:  to add or subtract 1 from combat die roll.  A final result of 0 or less is treated as 1 column shift to the left, a result of 11 or more is treated as 1 column shift the right"

As mentioned previously I found it very easy to accumulate big initiative totals.  And results tend to skew especially when there is a 10 pt or more separation between initiative totals.  I do find the combat system a bit too focused on the operational level rather than the grand strategic one, but I haven't looked around for some Avalon Hill or some War College strategic sim to steal a simple developed tool set from.

As far as the bonuses....they are in line with the other bonus as set up currently (which are all either +2s or +4s).  Favorable guerrilla terrain and strong local support are equivalent advantages to what is listed in the system.

I haven't bothered putting the reserves on the board and anything listed as 'peshmerga' is essentially a unit trained and more directly supported by the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

Shrug...it's the system we have this turn but as mentioned previously after this turn is processed I want to look at things and put the system in a solid state that won't be touched afterwards before recruiting a bunch of new players.

Oookay- ran the next cycle in Iran.  I added more irregular Kurds who would jump off the fence given last turns results (armed with the salvage of abandoned Iranian equipment most likely).

The Kurds attacked during their phase rather than avoid going up against armor, figuring the larger irregular force would be harder to hold back.

The Chinese\Iranian forces just spent initiative to reverse order (to knock down the kurds before they had a chance to regroup\retreat).  Odds were in the favor of the C-I forces but heh.

There will be at least one more combat cycle in Iran for this year.  More local insurgents will pop up but satellite imagery seems to indicate a very active border on at least the Iraqi side of things (and Turkish border is a possibility as well depending how that runs) as peshmerga forces could be readying to jump over into Iran.

The Iranian Kurdish population centers are not under Iranian control at current....Iranian ground reinforcement were delayed this cycle by a combination of increased civil disturbance and other logistical issues.  At least some forces should be available and arriving next cycle during their movement phase.

Actions?

Place any specific orders in a PM in your post.

Please keep any discussion in the rpol forum rather than via email so it makes it easier for me to keep track of actions and discussions as well as results.

You can insert any 'secret' information or the like using the 'Insert a private line' function with your posts.  Any non-action discussions should use the PM function on this forum (and include me).

See section 8.0 for some guidelines of what may require a PA and what will not.  You do not require a PA to respond but some desired results may not even have a chance to achieve without PA expenditure.

When posting keep in mind you are setting the policy approach and guidelines as well as your responses for your country from January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026.  We'll kick the tires on the format but this turn we'll be using a 'Historical Interval' format (an idea yoinked from a LUG game called Aria) because of the series of complicated 'crisi' coming to a head.

Send me a 'request to join' if you are not already a member of this forum or a PM if I have not created a specific country handle you wish to post as.

Any OOC commentary or questions should be restricted to this thread.

Thanks;-)

Good to see you back. How does this "Historical interval" system work? Is it just that we partition the turn into year intervals or is it something else?

In reply to Japan (msg # 30):

Essentially cutting the turn down to year by year intervals.... sortof what was done for the Pakistan crisis (or Iran) except on a much wider scale with decisions and policy shifts influencing and shaping the pathway we'll be taking down the outline for the turn.

This won't be the default format for future turns (at least on this scale) but what is happening in the developing world is a symptom brought on by primarily three root causes that emerged during previous turns.... in no particular order... 1) 'Peak Oil', 2) Global Trade Uncertainty (piracy and other factors), 3) Food Security (the world's largest AG exporter is out of the market this turn, as well as the consequences of other events and policies in game).  However, within the turn it is likely beyond your reach to address any of these core issues directly beyond what you've already submitted within your turns (your submitted PAs will develop within this interval), this is more about reacting to issues as they crop up and navigating your country through the turn.

Section 8.0 goes into a little depth what would require a PA but I'll give you a heads up if you post an action that I feel verges on requiring a PA expenditure.  Doing nothing or not changing policy as well is a legitimate action, and there are times where sitting on your hands or seeing an action through is the best move.

If you feel I'm forgetting something about the game or not factoring in some other consideration throughout this send me a message (I'm not a touchy\sensitive GM;-).

Another note is I realize there is a ton of stuff in that wall of text.  Your reactions\policy positions do not have to be as detailed or react to each specific thing but could be as bare-bones as "Pressure IMF to extend exceptional forgiveness on interest payments by Sub-Saharan African nations."  (As a neutral example.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:35, Wed 17 July 2013.

Another note- if you'd like to have a specific private thread including two or more players, like a working group EU countries... for instance to have a place to privately discuss their approach without using the PM system... drop me a line and I'll set up the thread.

In reply to Referee (msg # 32):

I'm still here, but in the process of finalizing the sale of my house & moving.

I think the USG's reaction to 25-26 was already covered in my earlier e-mails but if I think of something else, I'll post it there. ^_^

In reply to Referee (msg # 31):

Are Terrence (Canada), Thomas (France) and Steve (India) in this board?

In reply to Referee (msg # 29):
Getting back up to speed and checking notes and reading thru ..I should have some ideas by tommorow ..

Just one more question:

This applies only to the current crisis/situation or to the game as a whole?

I'm a bit more comfortable with the tools here.  If it pertains to this current turn (actions or process) post it here.  Otherwise the other forum is fine.

If you want to call other countries names or have a public diplomatic discussion the other forum is fine as well, just post the agreed upon results here.  If it's private discussion I would prefer to put up a private thread (or pm exchange) here for your discussions rather than sort through a folder in my saved mail.

I haven't gotten a rtj from Terrence, Thomas, or Steve yet but they're part of the yahoogroup (and not bouncing).  So they got the message.  If they don't show up in the next few days, France and Canada will follow NATO consensus in general while India will carry out previously established policy positions as a guideline.

I'm looking at next Friday to put up the next year shaped by any decisions or policies posted in between (as well as shaped by what you've put in your turns as well unless you reverse course here).

I tried keep relevant details in the posts without expanding too much (yeah...limited success;-) but if you have any questions or need a bit more information (about your country, an event, or something I missed or didn't post, or other mistake). feel free to PM.  Granted most of us here are policy wonks of one shade or another, but I didn't know what kemalists were exactly until a few months ago, other than offhanded info regarding a ban on fez's so ...;-).

Chris

While I haven't set a hard date to finalize your decisions for this cycle, I think a few more days will be required.  I'll look for any decisions to firm up by Wednesday before I put a bow on this cycle and post.

I work tonight and this weekend so while I'll keep an eye on the forum I probably won't have time to manage any postage until Monday.

Back from cleaning up after Labor day weekend.  I have all the decisions from players I need to finish writing up this cycle... you may still continue to discuss any other foreign affairs or whatnot but anything resulting from those will not apply until the 2027-28 cycle.

The change in my schedule got a bit crushing the last two weeks, so sorry for the delay as ... heh... all of my available freetime got gobbled up by working through compliance programs for my clinical hours (and no time to snag them during the day).  Just finished those tonight and I'm ahead of the study game so I have some blocks of freetime this weekend.

At this point 26-27 is set as far as policy directions.  Any other negotiations or decisions will apply to 27-28 (shaded no doubt by incoming factors).

Is there any estimate time for the cycle/turn to get run?

Travel times with my clinicals and to classes\lab is erasing any freetime I have during the week (getting home with enough time to get cleaned up, cook, do minor housework, prepare for the next day before bed).  My weekend freetime is pretty spotty even after cutting my per diem work hours way down per month (which in net really has only given me time to keep in front of the class workload\exams with a little bit of time to do the family\church\friend thing on Sundays).

As a result I don't have an estimate but after this week I think I have two entire weeks without an exam to study for during the weekend;-).  Sorry for the non-communication.

Any idea about when (if) it will resume?
This message had punctuation tweaked by the player at 18:02, Mon 17 Mar 2014.

In reply to Germany (msg # 45):

I am happy to see that you are still interested. I am also hoping that we can get the game going again.

In reply to Japan (msg # 46):

If we have to judge for the ones who regularly (nearly daily) visit this page or the forum, at least Kelvin, you and me are still interested...
This message was last edited by the player at 15:08, Wed 19 Mar 2014.

In reply to Germany (msg # 47):

I'm still here as well, hoping we're going to start up again sometime

In reply to Germany (msg # 45):

Still Here as well

Any news about the other players (Brazil, Canada, France, US...)?

In reply to Germany (msg # 50):

Yeh, It would be handy to get a revised list of current players and what countries they are playing so I can update my great game address book for emails

In reply to Referee (msg # 44):

I am still in.  I don't check here often, and so didn't see the roll call until now.  My apologies.

I hope this is the right place to post something like this.  Found this article this morning (http://cimsec.org/china-conventional-strike-us/); it's about the likelihood of China developing conventionally armed ICBMs to attack US aircraft carriers.  Art Game Imitates Life, no?

To now, we used to post those things in the forum, but the first sight to it seems interesting...

Indeed! Interesting, thanks.

Thats the upgrade to what has existed for awhile (DF-21 series ..the D mod being the first anti ship ballistic missle produced by China)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

Looks like that one is the DF-5x series

In reply to China (msg # 56):

Hi Guys, sorry I've been a bit quiet the past week - its been my friends wedding - just not seemed to have had time recently to come on and do anything in full just checking to make sure nothing blows up whilst I was distracted - if you're waiting for a reply from me you should get it tonight or some time tomorrow night

I guess you all received this message from yahoo:



I guess that answers the question about Thomas keeping in the game or not...

In reply to Germany (msg # 58):

<sigh> We had until lately been effectively on hiatus for over 2 years. We have to expect that many of the people on our lists had long ago lost hope on us.

I guess this is the right place to ask. Is Ben (and so France and Indonesia) still a player?

I see he has not loged since March 5^th...

In reply to Germany (msg # 60):

I've not spoken with him for quite a while since he got a new job... I'm honestly not sure - I will try and get in touch with him again.

In reply to UK (msg # 61):

I've spoken to ben and he's not going to be able to pick it back up so we'll need someone to take France I guess

In reply to UK (msg # 62):

Grump. I can take Indonesia. Anyone want to take France for the time being?

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 63):

I could give France a whirl..They will be easy enough to compartmentalize from the other two ...

Completely off topic ..This turn has some fairly strange events I am beginning to think you had some homebrewed mushroom beer at a scadian event..;)

In reply to China (msg # 64):

Ok, France to Morgan.

I do not drink, I cannot hear the whispers when I do.

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 65):

Any ETA on the next round?

In reply to UK (msg # 66):

Heya guys, do we have any ETA on when orders are being sent out?

GM Andreas says: I am immersed in work IRL right now so it is all on Kelvin´s reliable shoulders at the moment. All progress is due to his diligence and all delay is on me I am afraid. So, sorry, no ETA.

In reply to Referee (msg # 68):

Now that things are gearing up I thought I better say a bit old 'Welcome' to our new players!

Hope you guys have fun and I look forward to playing with you.

In reply to USA (msg # 69):

Welcome to the game..

In reply to China (msg # 70):

Greetings my fellow Great Gamers - as part of an ongoing bout of insanity I have been working on some ideas to help keep the game flowing and that will hopefully help you have time to see your loved ones/ pets/ miscellaneous others, in between writing your turn orders

I give you - The Spaceship Designer!

https://docs.google.com/spread...uKU/edit?usp=sharing

This little baby will work out almost all of your spaceship related questions

Just design a ship and it will tell you if you're missing anything, how many trips it can make between two stellar bodies, maximum distance it can travel and all that Jazz!

Also, you and I owe a huge debt of thanks to our friendly Co-GM Kelvin, who not only put up with whatever insanity drove me to start doing this, but who Beta Tested this out, and basically did all the QA and made sure I made it presentable

So please - check it out, play around with it and hopefully this will make your lives just a little bit easier.

If you find any bugs please report them to me as the US by PM- keep an eye out for more utilities I intend to get out as we go on. I will be creating a utilities page on the website once I get round to it, but for now have fun with this.

In reply to USA (msg # 71):

This is great device!

My turns (germany, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia) are sent now, so no more diplomacy will be performed.

Does any of you have any news about Andreas?

I hope it's only lack of time that is not allowing him to play...

I see some players are not logging in:

• Australia: 5 months
• India: player has never logged in.
• Indonesia: 11 months.
• Japan: less than a month, but no answers from him (AFAIK to anyone).
• UK: less than a month, but no answers from him (AFAIK to anyone). In out last mails he casted doubt about keepiing playing.

It is known if they keep playing?

If not, what to do with their countries (see that they have some international treaties that would be affected)?
This message was last edited by the player at 16:55, Thu 22 Feb 2018.

In reply to Germany (msg # 75):

I heard from Australia on the 19th Feb - so three days ago?

In reply to USA (msg # 76):

Glad to know

Germany and Saudi Arabia have already sent the turns, so no more diplomacy can be performed (or at least will not be efective until the reactions phase)
This message was last edited by the player at 04:31, Fri 02 Mar 2018.

Now that Liam has taken the role of co-GM, I see US is listedas NPC in the Cast in this page.

Will Liam keep playing it or it will have to be treated as an NPC (so treating it with PAs)?

In reply to Germany (msg # 79):

I will be continuing to play the US.

Glad to know

Any news about Michael?

I just realized China and France logged up again in August 5^th. They hadn't since February 27^th (IIRC).

In reply to Germany (msg # 82):

Little PSA for all of you, the GDW books for 2300AD are currently up for sale on the Bundle of Holding website

https://bundleofholding.com/presents/GDW2300AD

Thought you might find this of interest if you don't already have them

In reply to Germany (msg # 82):

>I just realized China and France logged up again in August 5th. They hadn't
>since February 27th (IIRC).
I sent emails to him weeks ago. No response.

So did I though CotI, whose Email adress is not the same, and with the same results...

That's why I was so surprised to see they had loged in.

In reply to Germany (msg # 85):

Welcome to our new player for China!

Vladimir, welcome to the game. Any problems you have feel free to contact Kelvin and myself and we'll try and help as best we can - though everyone here is usually helpful too.

I look forward to playing with you.

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 86):

Thank you! ATM I reading alot. ))
What level of since fiction do we have here?
Hard or soft? Lasers like bullets and shields or realistic physics?

In reply to China (msg # 87):

>What level of since fiction do we have here?
>Hard or soft? Lasers like bullets and shields or realistic physics?
We are playing the canon universe of the 2300AD game by GDW, which means pretty hard but with FTL drives and laser rifles


HOWEVER

This is a game, a game that deals with nations and centuries, the details of almost any one technology is almost completely irrelevent e.g. your fighter planes could be the highest tech level, but if your supply officer is using pen&paper instead of a Linked I-pad then the unit fights as lower tech. I know, I know we all want to jump in on the cool techno-babble sci-fi stuff, but you just cannot run the mechanics of a game that way and we have to treat technology in a very abstract, numerical manner. Please read the rules, everything you need to know is in there.


HOWEVER

I made sure that there is nothing in the game mechanics that says you cannot Role-play to the cool techno-babble sci-fi stuff. Indeed I would strongly encourage you do so and praise and reward you if you did. This game could be very dull if we do not role-play such things as technology; just keep in mind that when writing you orders the GM can only deal with rule mechanics, and yes, that includes having convincing (e.g. cool techno-babble sci-fi) arguments for why your action deserves a bonus to succeed.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:25, Mon 22 Oct 2018.

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 86):

Question. Cant understand, were was lost over 77 000 000 of population between 40 and 45 years. As I see, there is no shortfalls anywere.

In reply to China (msg # 89):

That number is only big because China has so much population to begin with. As a percentage, the amount is still small.

But to answer your question: Random events+long term consequence of one-child policy+failure of player to do much about any of it.

With regards to lack of shortfalls: Do not underestimate just how much the game has changed since the beginning; instead of by numerical based mechanics, so much was, and to no small degree still is, done by GM fiat.
This message was last edited by the GM at 16:21, Tue 16 Oct 2018.

In reply to Referee (msg # 90):

We have been joined by another player who has taken over the UK.

Frank is joining the game as the player for the UK - so Welcome Frank and we extend the usual offer to you for all new players (and old) - if you have any issues or need a hand just PM me and Kelvin - but everyone here is pretty helpful, so don't be afraid to ask anything.

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 91):

A big old welcome to Derek, who is our new  USA player. Derek takes the "policy wonk crown" from whoever currently holds it as he is a member of a real legislative body.

As ever Derek, any problems or issues send me and Kelvin a message and we will try to help but the others here are all pretty helpful too.

He has taken over the USA from me and you will be terrified to know that I will be taking over France until we can get a player for them too.

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 92):

Welcome our new player for India, Jason!

The same message as ever applies, don't hesitate to ask anyone for help, either here in the forums or in direct communication with Me and Kelvin!

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 93):

OK Guys, you've all been patient waiting for us to get this moving again, so I have some good news for you.

I've written and formatted the articles, Kelvin has gone through the 'pleasurable' experience of crunching numbers to get sheets together and we're at the stage we can say the new turn will be starting very soon. Kelvin will be reviewing the articles and putting the finishing touches to budgets, then it should all be being pushed out to you shortly.

We're trying something new this turn too - The news will be coming to you in a new format as we wanted to bring out more of a storytelling feel to the news articles rather than just posting up a list of dry articles we're trying to convey something of the world we've created in game.

How successful this will be I do not know, but I would love any feedback you have on this when you see it. Don't get too used to it yet, we'll see if the extra effort is worth it as far as you guys are concerned, but I have had fun doing this.

Thank you all for keeping up posting and checking in whilst the management have been doing this and keeping the game ticking over in the background, but its time we get down to this in earnest again!

Happy mid-November-in-whatever-part-of-the-world-you-live-in everyone! The 2050 Turn has officially begun! The new budget files and history section for 2050 have been posted. Thank you to Liam for his efforts helping to write the articles section, he does in a few weeks what would take me months to achieve. The way we did the articles this time around is a bit of a one-off experiment; I think it looks pretty damn amazing, we may try to do something like it again sometime in the future.

The deadline for submitting your orders is December 06, 2018 at 1200 UTC. As always, if you have questions or are unsure about something then write to me at kelvinsoice@hotmail.com. [For the new players: Send me your trial set of orders well ahead of time and we can go through them and sort out any problems you might have. Note that most of the really interesting action of the turn, e.g. combat and most player-to-player interactions occur some time after the budget and written orders have been submitted, after the Dec 6th deadline.]


Onto bonus Response PAs. [For the new players, this is the closest we get to some kind of victory conditions in this game, this is where the GM hands out bonus Response PApoints as a reward for good play in the previous turn]
Kelvin gets 1 bonus PApoint: For being so helpful with the game. I checked with myself, its cool.

Sergey gets 2 bonus PApoints: For being so active on RPOL and contributing to rules etc all the time.
Liam. 3PAs because he is totally awesome in all the work he does for the game, in not just putting up with my strange requests but actually getting them done.

Over the past turn we have added things to game which have filled major gaps, namely a usable map of Earth and the Stars which actually relates to the game rules as well as a consistent way for everyone to track the motion of units and the same for the construction of facilities. As I have said before, the first GMs likely did not imagine that we would get this far in the game and so in a myriad of ways, large and small, they designed the game around the assumption that Earth would never change and we would never really get beyond Earth's atmosphere. There is still much to do to overcome that mistake. Yes,I know of many, many problems that still exist with the game, particularly with the Settlement_List/Budget_Spreadsheets, the Management is working on it. No, complaining about how the numbers in the Settlement_List/Budget_Spreadsheets are unfairly stacked against your nation is not going to get you anything, we have too many other more important problems that need fixing first. I still hope to significantly increase the pace of the game for the next Turns and I am heartened by fact that last Turn *merely* took us 8 months, we have not had such a short turn-around since the beginning of the game when turn-around was so quick just because the rules back then did not have the capacity to give the players options, so we all did almost nothing. While there have been a number of changes to the game to fix definite errors, the real reason behind almost every change is been to make the game easier for the GM to manage. I think you will find that the game will run a lot faster when the GM does not approach each session of working on the game with '<stares glumly at the screen>' and '<takes deep breath>'. I do note that the length of the change log on the rules versions between turns is finally trending down, still horrifically long, but it gives me hope that we are finally homing in on a stable game. Of course, we have never yet had a real test of large sections of the game, I can only image what is going to happen when someone finally builds an extra-solar colony and then a war is fought over it using the detailed combat rules!


Let the games begin!,

K

Updates, there are always updates!

One of the big downsides of a rapidly evolving game is that everything we have has had insufficient testing done on it to make sure everything is working as intended. I have had to replace all of the budget spreadsheets with new versions. These new versions fix several errors, most notably the calculation for cost of increasing Military tech level was wrong for Mil-Ground, Mil-Naval, and Mil-Space. Thank you to Sergey for point it out.

Everyone, be sure to use the new version when creating your orders.

In reply to Referee (msg # 96):

Quick question - how do people find the new news format?

Not-so-quick answer:

On one side, I agree they are more living, so giving the game a more RPG feeling.

OTOH, they are more confusing. Aside from the fact news in other languages are not always well understood for people not knowing the langauge (e.g. in my case, Russian messages, I guess Catalan for most of you, etc.), and Google translator can be trusted only to a point, the fact we have not a space reference (as we had before at the begingin of each news piece, where it was told where it come from) makes me sometimes wonder where in the hell is this happening.

In reply to Germany (msg # 98):

EDIT : Disregard my original message - comprehension fail on my part when reading your message

- The articles are all set from a UK view point, the whole thing being a news site that has detected the user is in London and set up news articles based on that

(hence the whole News-Link : London in the front page title)

The idea is more to try and give a better feel for the world rather than the rather dry 'this is what is happening' kind of feel we had in previous turns.

I get that it might be a bit more confusing, but think of this as a snapshot of the world at this stage, as all initial news articles kind of were, but more focused on one location - though this is the kind of thing going on around the world.

We have had no player actions from this turn to run for articles so everything now is flavour and representations of how the world is going given current trends and previous actions - in the released articles I'll try to make sure it's clear where things are happening
This message was last edited by the GM at 11:16, Thu 22 Nov 2018.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realice that the news were already posted...

I guess I was too used to the new format, and did not see that the link was to the new one. I thought you asked for the last changes we've done about hte news (as the use of other languages, and making htem less as news format, begining with the place it refers to).

So, my first thing I was to say now was "disregard my previous post", but I see I was right in that they are quite confusing. I guess this will wind out as I gues more used to them.

In reply to Germany (msg # 100):
Perhaps I should make the link more obvious on the news page...

Well then. Incase any of you have missed it please click the link below to view this turns news articles

https://sites.google.com/view/...2050-54news/updating

One more comment about it. I think it has been actualized, does it show up as a modification in the suscriptions if so (to now  Ireceived nothing, and in the case of the units files, it does not).

If it doesn't, it may be a major inconvenience...

In reply to Germany (msg # 102):

Subscriptions? I didn't even know the usual google site had subscriptions?

The news has been set up using the new google sites format, and so is essentially on a different site from the original

That being said, the link to it was posted on the original, and that would have shown in the updates list, so should have hit subscriptions if there are such things

In addition when the news was released that was announced by email.

----

On an unrelated note - Derek has, unfortunately, had real life get in the way and will not be able to play the US for the next couple of months - I will be taking back over until he can come back or we get a new player for the US

Subscritpions are quite useful to know when something has been updated (and what is it), but I'm afraid they don't work for this...

Could I suggest to add a new page: latest news?

You could post any new piece of news there for about 1-3 days, so that we can know what is new instead of having to dig for any update by rereading all news again (at least if we log in dayly or nearly so)...



US seems the cursed country in this game, when regarding to the players that played it...

In reply to Germany (msg # 104):

>US seems the cursed country in this game, when regarding to the players that played it...

Hey..... I'm doing OK.

But in Derek's case it would more be that he is a victim of his own success! From the sound of it hie got a lot more work and responsibility than he previously expected - he has said he hopes to be free to play in about 4 months , so hopefully he will be back with us.

>Subscritpions are quite useful to know when something has been updated (and what is it), but I'm afraid they don't work for this...

If thats the case then we can just update the page to state the last date articles were updated? You should, then, have got a subscription notice when the link to the news articles was added?

There's always an exception to confirm the rule...



If it is because of a success in real life, them I'm glad for him (and the fact he told you speaks good for him).



It would surely help, but We'll have to dig the new pieces anyway...

I guess I'll get used to it

German and Saudi turns for 2050-54 are already sent, so further diplomacy will be on this premise

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 107):

Again I'd like to ask what others thought of this turns news articles? Is it worth management setting things out with a theme  or is no one that bothered?

Anyone? Seriously, just some kind of indication on if you even like them?

If there's no responses then all we can assume is no one cares, at which point we'll just revert back to the original style because its easier, if less fun for us making it and (I hope) you reading it

Have people found any of the Easter eggs I left around, like Dennis?

Has anyone even tried to put their own comments in the comments sections of pages? Can you do that or did we mess up the permissions for that?

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 109):

Well, it looks really cool, but I'm afraid that this would increase amount of work and would slow down the game, and if it is the case, then I think this finery is unjustified (unless it is real fun for Kelvin and you in making it).

Comments section is not working for me, I thought it was under construction :)

Well. I already did...


I've not tried. I'll do so that we can see it...

Hence me quoting the bit where I asked for any other opinions.






Hmmm... I'll have to double check. Could have sworn we got the permissions sorted though...

Could you please tell us how to post a comment in the news?

In reply to Germany (msg # 113):

When you go on to a page with comments at the bottom, so lets say page 2 you should see in the bottom right hand corner a circle with a pencil inside it?

If you click that you can edit the page, and thus make changes to the comments sections at the bottom of pages?

If that button is not there, then we've not got the permissions set up right.

I'm afraid I don't see it...

In reply to Germany (msg # 115):

You do not see this icon?
https://docs.google.com/viewer...c1NjAxYzUwMDU4YzYwNA

In reply to Referee (msg # 116):

No I don't see it.

Nope.

This link sends me to the Settlement spreadsheet...

If you mean the icon you showed in the HP, no, I don't see it.

Ok, lets try this again:
This is a screen capture of the image
https://sites.google.com/site/...n.JPG?attredirects=0

The site permissions swear that "Anyone (sign-in required) Can edit" I am not sure exactly what 'sign-in' means in this context. In messing around a bit it seems to mean you will not get the icon if you are using Microsoft Edge browser. However, when using Google Chrome browser AND you show signed in to Google in the upper right corner e.g. an orange circle with the first letter of your name, then the icon will appear.

Does any of this work better for anyone?
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:30, Wed 19 Dec 2018.

In reply to Referee (msg # 120):

I can't see it now either, no.

Now that the turn is closed:

Quick answer:

I prefer the older fromat. In fact, IMHO, the best format to keep them easy to read and infomative would be something like the JTAS News Service in Travellr (I asume you know it), that was quite similar to the older one.

Longer answer:

• I see this format quite confusing, as one must (aside from logging in, something you didn't need in the older format, but that's not a mjor issue) jump from page to page to see more news, instead of just scrolling (something you also must do in this format if there are several news in a page.
• I see no point in some of the pages (as obituaries or horoscope) fro mthe game POV, as I cannot think in many articles for them that could really have game impact, but this can be just my lack of imagination.
• I find this new format to be less informative than the earlier one. As (according your own explanation) the first news were mostly color, and the other news are players' (all of them,unless I cannot see some, mine, BTW), there's no information from "neutral" sources.
• This puts most the info we receive from what's going on in the players' actions section, but this ignores the actions done by NPCs (e.g. Italy was involved in Lybia, and we have no news about how is this going).

As a resume:

I miss the info (relevant or red herrings) given in former turns by the news section, and find this new format not worth the effort you invested on it, as I see no advantages (color aside, but, as much as I like color, as my HP show, if color goes against info, I see it a hindrance instead of an asset).

Side note:

Another point is that I don't like in general is this policy to quizz that give response PAs. This might have a maning if it encouraged the players to participate more, but as such it seems to have been a failure (again, as the only articles I can see are mine). See taht if really I'm the only to have sent articles, according the letter of Kelvin End of Turn message, I should have been given a lot of response PAs, as my articles are clearly the best ones, even if only by default, but even I think this would have been quite unbalancing for the game...

Just a question, who'e now playing US right now?

Has Derek retourned or it will be played by Liam for the time being?

In reply to Germany (msg # 123):

Currently it's myself still

In reply to Germany (msg # 122):

>I should have been given a lot of response PAs, as my articles are clearly the best
>ones, even if only by default,
No, that is not the conditions that I laid out in the Feb 3 message. Your articles got 0 valid votes, so you got 0 points.


>Has Derek retourned or it will be played by Liam for the time being?
He promised to return in May. I will believe that when I see it, so for now we are proceeding ahead with Liam change.


Doing final details now on getting the new turn started. A few more days at most.

Do you mean I should have voted myself for the articles, so they would have been the most voted ;)?

Now seriously, as I already stated, this would have been too unbalancing for even myself claiming them.

In reply to Germany (msg # 126):

You could have tried, that is why I had put in the Feb3rd message the words "..the GM will choose who based on..". Everything in the game always happens at the pleasure of the GM.

Everything.

Always.

I would propose to return to the previous way of articles' visualization but make a separate page for each piece of news (there can be a single "root" page for each turn which contains links to all the articles). This would allow to place links in the History page of each nation to the relevant articles at will, and/or create pages dedicated to a certain event with links to the related news (thus "wikifying" the whole site).
I'm sure it is a better and newcomer-friendlier way to structure information.

Do you mean more or less like the NPCs page, but puting the news hadlines as the names of the NPCs are?

I like it, if it's not too dificult to do...

In reply to Germany (msg # 129):

I am considering producing audio content as part of the news, maybe a podcast style thing, or a news program broadcast system wide, or something in that kind of vein.

I've never done something like this, but there's only one way to find out how to! And that's google and giving it a shot.

I have to ask, does anyone have experience in this kind of thing (Podcasting etc)

Would people be interested in contributing their voice to this?

Would people find this fun/interesting?

This would be all be for the fun of doing it and to give us a different way to set the tone of the world.

I'm afraid I cannot help in this, as my computer skill is quite limited and have no experience in podcasting.


Frankly, I find this news system, while very colorful (something I tried to keep since I joined the game), quite  confusing.

In fact, after trying to read them, I have little (if any) idea on what's going on in the world. THe former system, while lacked all this color, gave me the (maybe false) feeling of at least knowing a Little of what's going on and what evnts are ocurrying (aside from player's actions, that now are posted).

I'm afraid this will add more to confusion than to fun/interest.

In reply to Germany (msg # 131):

The problem with the old style of articles was that no one knew what was relevant and what was not and it was a massive info dump for new players - we lost time and potential players to that style of news.

Flavour and player action needs to be differentiated - now we have important information being supplied by the GM in a list of actions, as posts on here saying what NPCs are doing when its important to the world and info given with budgets & orders.

We have separated the actual meat of 'what is going on' and the news becomes more about putting together something that captures the zeitgeist of that turn.

NPCs can only do so much, and story is coming more and more from the players interactions - for this to work we need to remove all the superfluous nonsense we used to publish that just distracted from actual player interaction.

What is happening is covered by your budget and the other resources, what the world feels like to those in it is what we're trying to capture in the news now.

I hope that makes sense?

While seeing your point, I mostly disagree. One important part of any RPG (and real life, for what is worth) is to discriminate what information is relevant and what is a red hirring, or just color.

The way you say, the Korean Nuclear Crisis would probably have been different:

• where would have the appearance of the space objects (that we all ignored as color, and they ended up to be the only warning) have been published?
• not appearing in nay of the players' actions list, we would not have the many suspicions we had, and that probably added to the Crisis (to the GM joy, I guess)

Worst yet, I’m afraid this is only a symptom of the course the game is taking, one that I don’t like too much

Let me explain myself (and rant a while):

Formerly (for those new players that have not lived it), the turn began with a few news, mostly events and color, that might give clues about what was going on, with time to react. Now, having no news previous to making our turns, we have no clues, and an ycrisis must be reacted when our assets are committed.

Reacting after the crisis begins limits our possibilities to reaction PA (more expensive, despite the lowering of the Price in the new rules) or direct military action.

So, we must either invest strongly in reaction PA, so limiting our action capacity just in case there's some crisis, or be left unable to react (military action aside) in case there is. Buying PAs mid-turn to respond would  (aside from needing GM approval)mean being quite indebted for next turn, so increasing the problem until it snowballs, while resorting to military action is quite expensive in SU terms, probably leading to having to shortcut other projects.

This way, I’m afraid we will all end to be just spectators of the world history when we should be the history makers, limited to watch and see what crisis come over us and react to them, unable to any preventive measures (as we have no clues) other than accumulate resources to react, never being able to stop them on a preemptive way.

This is fine for most RPGs, where the players are minor actors unable to have any influence in the general course of timeline, but here we’re supposed to be the powers that decide the timeline, and, IMHO, the game is taking just the opposite course. As the game is now, we don’t have the flexibility for it to be a RPG nor the information to be a strategic game, keeping it as a pure reactive game with little (if any) maneuver margin for the players.

I’m sorry to be so negative in my foreseeing, but, once again, I’ll feel to be failing you all if I just stood silent hoping my fears do not come true and not sharing them with you just in case they have some basis.

In reply to Germany (msg # 133):

I personally wrote many of the old style articles, and had a significant role in the writing and editing of all of the rest. I know what is behind each of those old style articles, why they were written, how they were written, how much effort they took to write, which details are true or important, which details are false or irrelevant, and what the Management hoped to achieve. From countless emails and posts I know what players think when they see the old style articles, what they believe these articles represent, and what use they hope they can make out of the articles.

The new style of articles is how it is going to be.

My opinión was asked, I answered. What you do with my answer it's up to you , of course.

In any case, I won't send more news for the PAs, as now it's irrelevant . I guess you've deleted the part about them from the rules.

To those more veteran that may be interested:

I've just received a short answer (as CotI PM) where he just tells me that he's alive, but that he had a painful year (not entering details, nor have I asked).

I thought I had to share this piece of news with you who might still be concered about him.

In reply to Germany (msg # 136):

Its good to know he's ok.

Yes,that's why I wanted to share the news. We can rarely share good ones...

In reply to Germany (msg # 135):

>In any case, I won't send more news for the PAs, as now it's
>irrelevant . I guess you've deleted the part about them from the rules.
I do not see a single word of section 3.4 that is at odds with the new policy on articles.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:22, Sun 27 Oct 2019.

Well, when I read the example given in 3.4:


I see it quite different fro mthe current news style.

Maybe I need to check my sight, of course...

< begin press release>

The recent suite of National Elections in Canada saw the old regime swept away in a surge of popular opinion. The newly installed Prime Minister and Cabinet look forward to working with your great nations to assure the freedom and prosperity of all Mankind, whoever he may dwell.

<end press release>

G'Day all - Paul from Australia checking in as the new Canadian player. Looking forward to the fun, having been a keen 2300 player since the release of 1st edition. Still getting myself sorted with the GG rules so please be gentle!

You can get hold of me via email if required at Pauljamesog (at) gmail etc

thanks!
Paul
This message was last edited by the player at 17:45, Mon 25 Nov 2019.

In reply to Canada (msg # 141):

I'm a bit late to the party as they've introduced themselves already, but just to keep everyone up to date we now have players for Canada and Indonesia. Paul taking Canada and Kerry taking Indonesia.

If you have deals or arrangements with these nations from previous turns make sure you re-introduce yourselves to the new players if you have not already!
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:00, Thu 12 Dec 2019.

I've seen in another game (completly a different one) I play in rpol that the GM has asked OOC comments outside OOC threads (here they would be this one and the rules one, I guess) to be posted in Orange.

I find it a great idea, and I will do it from now on. I suggest other players to do it too, so OOC comments are easier to distinguish them (the OOC note is still written):

E.g.:

OOC: happy christmas to everyone

Another stupid question:

Shoudn't also Puerto Rico appear in the US as a separate settlement?

I guess most US players would know more about it tan myself, but, for what I know, its sttus would be closer to it than anything...

In reply to Germany (msg # 144):

Okay, that is reasonable. It is though something that can wait until next Turn.

In reply to Referee (msg # 145):



Nooooo. nope nope nope

Whilst I'm all for giving the USA another Hex, are we really sold on adding another settlement?

Firstly I will argue that the USA is more than complex enough to manage without having to deal with a fourth core settlement, especially one that is already connected to settlement #145 by contiguous hexes now - I get why Hawaii and Alaska are split, they're geographically large, important and not contiguous with the mainland USA, but adding Puerto Rico just means more work for everyone.

Secondly - If we take Puerto Rico as a separate thing then what next, the French Overseas territories? British crown colonies? Guam and other US Pacific islands? Kaliningrad? These are all significant population centres separate from their home settlements but integral parts of them. How about Hong Kong, since although it is connected to China its under a different government system and so should arguably have a different auth and stability score from the mainland?

We should draw a line on how detailed we want Earth to be, and that line should be drawn in big, chunky crayon - simple and obvious!

If we are absolutely determined that Puerto Rico has to be a separate settlement then let me know because I'll spend PAs on turning it into the 52nd state and incorporating it into the America settlement this turn!

Sorry, not my intent. I just had talked to a friend from Puerto Rico and thought about it...

I'm good at any option, and I understand your point about simplifying the game (though, as you named French Overseas Territories, the specificcase of French Guyana should, IMHO, be,  as it's the site of its launching facilities, even if only as a colony with those facilities...

In reply to Germany (msg # 147):

Everyone welcome Robert - who is taking Korea from me.

If you have / had deals or outstanding messages to Korea - it's his problem now!

Welcome to the game Robert!

Hello All!

Another new player here. <waves>

I will be playing the UK and India, as separate countries, that is.

I haven't fully read *all* of the game history, but I think I have most of it.  If I make any errors in this first turn, I apologize in advance.

Good Luck and Good Gaming, All!

You must be quite a quick reader then...



We all make them, so don't worry.


**************

Happy 2020 to everyone.

As this means the begining of a new turn, I hope you all have you turns ready ;)

Hi! Welcome aboard!

It is not convenient that all the international talks are held in a single thread. We can sink in the various talks about oil, nuclear weapons, African water projects... It will be better if we have separate threads for every such theme.

In reply to Russia (msg # 152):

I agree with the Russian player on this comment. :D

In reply to China (msg # 151):

Thank you!

So ... when does the next phase of 2060 AD begin?

I fully agree with this problem, but I'm afraid Rpol, for good or bad, only allows the GM(s) to start public threads. Of course we can ask them each time we see a reason for another public thread (mostly an international discussion in UN or other forums), but they are not always available, andwhen they are they use to be busy.

Another option is to start a "private" thread marking all players. Probablynot as good, but it works too...

Next up is Combat and once that is resolved, it is end of turn processing then AD 2065 Turn begins, yes?

It depends.

Usually the GM specified in each combat round what combat would be expected. As he has specified none, I guess that's what he expects (of course, things may change if any player decides to make a show or byGM decision).

After the WaR Rounds are finished, the GM uses to issue an "end of turn warning" message, and give us some days for final dispositions (as investing unused response PAs).

After that, he began with the updating of budgets and other spreadsheets for the new turn (to begin this can take a while).

In reply to Germany (msg # 157):

What can you invest in with your unused Response PAs?

Mainly in unexpected events, as if some war erupts you didn't expect, or to fix any problems your (or other players') PAs have produced (due to mishaps, unexpected other player's actions, etc).

If there are none (or they don't affect you, or so you think), they can always be used as regular ones, to make more diplomacy, internal actions, etc...

As a resume, they can be used as any PA, but at any point of the game, not only with your turn initial orders.

In reply to Germany (msg # 159):

Many thanks!

You're welcome. The game is quite complex, and so feel free to ask any question to the more veteran players. We will help you to the best of our capacities.

BTW, dont forget this part of 6.7:


So, to a limited extent (and with referee's permission) you can buy those response PAs in midturn at a debt for next turn. It's more expensive, but sometimes not acting may be even more...

In reply to Germany (msg # 162):

Thanks for the tip!

I have some Response PAs already bought, as I am paranoid like that. :)  I just wasn't sure what all they could be used for if my Nation wasn't reacting to something external or internal, in the case of a standard PA project going horribly awry.

From International Forums Thread:

Which reasons I gave are good examples to keep the current system?

The fact the old system allowed us to know what was happening in the world (at least what was public, as if country A was at war with country B?

The fact we knew the random events when we could still react?

Currently, the only information I have about what is going in the whole universe is the lñist of the actions done by the players, so it seems the NPC countries are quiet waiting for the players to do something. Not even the (quite complicated, by the way) Daily Mail is available (not that I liked it, BTW, as I've never liked the games where you have to explore the whole screen to find the clicking spots, but that's a matter of taste, not of being better or worse).

Formerly, we had some news before we made our budgets, so we at least knew the main events occurring in the world, and could react to them. CUrrently, we are supposed to react to events we don't know, so going blind.



Does that mean that we have to ask for any situation that we're interested to? See that there are several conflicts about whom none has been said for several turns now. Must we ask specifically for every of them to know if they still keep or peace has been reached?

Or are we expected to spend PAs on this too, when it means just reading the newspapers?

If only PCs actions produce changes and events, then the game has (IMHO) lost part of its meaning. If NPCs are active too (not matter how few), having not even general news menas we have to ask for each and every former conflict, and I guess you're busy enough for this...



And what have they to do with this problem?

I was not asking what my advisors say (as would be Q7), and while Q11 could have more to do, I was asking if there's a war, and I guess this ir public and relevant information...

... or that's what he said us! I learned not to trust anything unless the info was obtained via successful PA. So we should vote in the UN and use a PA in order to learn for sure who stands behind the COVID-19.

In reply to Russia (msg # 165):

>...in order to learn for sure who stands behind the COVID-19.
Your particular phrasing there ...can be taken to mean that you are a supporter of and are publicly calling on all people to come out and openly help support the goal of the group know as 'COVID-19' ...<pauses in awe of the possible implications>

In reply to Referee (msg # 166):

Greetings and Solicitations, I represent the Fatherland, Greater Germany! ;-) Glad to meet you and hope we all have fun.

In reply to German Republic (msg # 167):

Greetings from the USA!

Happy to be here! Apologies in advance for the inevitable new player mistakes or misunderstandings!

In reply to USA (msg # 168):

Same here.

In reply to German Republic (msg # 169):

Welcome!

In reply to Russia (msg # 170):

Thank you, not sure what is going on yet, working on it.

In reply to German Republic (msg # 171):

Welcome to the game, all four of you! Hope you enjoy your time here!

In reply to Australia (msg # 172):

Hope I can figure out what is going on, sort of like Diplomacy in the Far Future?

Long-time activity from USA Player has not been seen. It's one of the key geopolitical players. I cannot plan my next moves w\o a response from him. I ask GMs to clear the situation, is he active?

One more thing. Continual players shifting very bad for the game. It's impossible to do something long-term. Even just relations.

I have no idea what kind of "initial" data was given to Japan player, but with the previous player, and the country he represents, was built good relations and international economical project. When a new player come - all was changed to opposite. What is the point to do something now if there will be no tomorrow?

I insist, that if player changes, GMs should include in their "setup" info for the new players a more detailed situation description, with previous deals and relations, and WITHOUT their personal vision. Maybe even include setup files written also by other players, with their point of view.

The situation file, which was given to me many years ago was clearly claim Russia as the main enemy and a country that should not be trusted in any circumstances. Without any explanations why. I found this very wrong and unprofessional, but our GMs were unexperienced at those times, so I follow this setup partially and do not say any objections. I am afraid, that this practice continued.

Yes, we play a turn-based game, but it's not one turn - a one-session game! Many decisions come from relations and understanding of opponents and friends. And they are formed in many turns. Stop the chaos, please.

And one more. Like Korea reunification was a very impossible event, more impossible is united "country" of Japan and Indonesia. There is no way it can happen. It's totally different countries and different religions. Can you imagine Japan full of minarets? Will deeply conservative Japanese peoples welcome another religion as their state religion? It's a very bad move from player who plays both countries as one, without separating their interests and goals. And more questionable, that GMs approve this. If a player can not play 2 countries well, he should play one.

Also, I want to point to events of far away past. GMs every time tells, that government, military, and other state organizations do their best, so players do not need to find solutions, just give directions. If so, why clearly strange events, which lead to the nuclear strike on Korea were not investigated? Keeping in mind, that there was beyond our PHYSICS and capabilities events that happens? And it was documented. Do all understand the priority and magnitude of this?! But China player leave the game that time and all is forgotten. All attempts to find something now were not successful. SO, DO OUR GOVERNMENTS DO THEIR BEST?

Next thing. Is this game about space and the future, or just about... something else. Were are spaceflights to other systems? Were is riddles, events, aliens...e.t.c.? How many real years has all this happened? Don't you think there is something wrong? Are you looking for players? I do not want to offer this to anyone of my friends. In this state of development.

What I suggest. I can't do something with GMs vision. It's up to GMs to grow or not. But I can offer my knowledge in UnrealEngine. There is not so big effort to move all this excel nightmare to a real computation engine, networked it, and have a game that happens even very slowly in real time. We can alter parameters when we want, move units, and so on.

I cant offer my time. I have my own project to do, BUT I can consult how to do right. It's not as scary and hard, as it looks.
We do not need fancy graphics. Just primitive interface, Database connection and a very little networking understanding.

The more playable temp will make the game more user-friendly and bring players. Or at least they do not leave each turn.

Maybe some of you have skills in other development systems?

Thank you for your time.

In reply to China (msg # 174):

>Long-time activity from USA Player has not been seen. It's one of the key geopolitical players. I cannot plan my next moves w\o a response from him. I ask GMs to clear the situation, is he active?
He is active. If, for whatever reason, he has chosen to not talk to you, then that is his choice.

>One more thing. Continual players shifting very bad for the game. It's impossible to do something long-term. Even just relations.
I agree. However, as much as I would love to, the Referee has no power to force people to stay in the game.

> When a new player come - all was changed to opposite. What is the point to do something now if there will be no tomorrow?
Because this is a game, not a simulation, and it is not much of a game if players are forced to do something, including staying with the game.

>I insist, that if player changes, GMs should include in their "setup" info for the new players a more detailed situation description, w
There is, it is called the 'Handover' thread. Keeping it updated is the responsibility of the player ...which like DocRocket (Japan, India, Indonesia), who just quit the game, rarely if ever do. Again, the Referee has no power to force people to update the Handover thread before they leave. The Referee could write something, but it would be no better than what the new player could find out for themselves without the Referee having to take the time to do it.

>It's a very bad move from player who plays both countries as one, without separating their interests and goals. And more questionable, that GMs approve this.
Agreed, and the Referees do not approve, but then the question becomes: Exactly what constitutes unrealistic collusion between nations played by the same player? We are 70 years down an alternative timeline; how can we realistically judge an action to be unrealistic based on today's real life standards ...could a person in 1952 foresee the position that Russia is in today? Regardless of the answer to these questions the only real solution is to have more players so we are not forced into the situation of having more than one nation played by the same person.

We need more players!

In reply to China (msg # 174):

>I cant offer my time. I have my own project to do,
That would be the real reason behind every problem in this game. It is no use talking about these problems until you are willing to offer your time. Expecting someone else to put in the time to perfect this game is not fair as we all have are own projects too and we have put quite a bit of time already into this game.

Way back, when I was just a player and after multiple Turns the game was still little more than a collection of good intentions, everyone else in the game was still not willing to do anything but talk about their various plans for an amazing and completely realistic game they were eventually going to create; including the various Referees that we had. I was the only one to put in the time to actually create something that works, no matter how badly, because I decided that I wanted to play the game rather than just more talk about eventually creating an amazing and completely realistic game. It is the reason why I am the Referee now.

In reply to Referee (msg # 176):



As interesting as the idea sounds to make it all database dependent rather than various sheets all over the place, a lot of stuff is still very GM dependent, and I don't see how that can change.

I spent some time on Monday night thinking about this idea, and I don't see how it would change massively. I could see maybe doing something like Aurora 4x(1), but at the end of the day, that's basically a spreadsheet with basic OS UI, and is just really a matter of making it look nicer. It might help organize some info, like the dreaded Settlements list(2), and make looking at the solar system a bit easier.

I can give it a go when I have some time between IRL stuff, to see if I can find a way to nicely organize it and make it more accessible. I've already screwed my remaining braincells protesting work-intensive ideas by attempting to Google Sheets-Fu a colony calculator with all the math into existence

It all depends on how much math the Referees are doing by hand and if they have any input, because otherwise, the sheets Kelvin and others have made are, in my honest opinion, not that bad. Aside from the settlements list, which is awful out of necessity of not having hundreds of tabs and wanting centralized information, the google sheets system is fairly decent.

Changing the game so it runs slowly in real time, I don't see being particularly feasible. People have lives outside of the game, sometimes people require more time than originally given by the Referees due to IRL circumstances and the game being turn based gives everyone equal opportunity to act regardless of IRL circumstances. From the point of view of a player with no access to any behind the scenes stuff (thank god), it seems most of the time spent between turns is not math related, but instead the writing needed for things and simply the fact that our Referees are human and have lives outside of the game that need to take priority.

EDIT:
A lot of the turn orders math would be nice to automate to a degree too, so I'll take a look at that as well.

Hyperlink formatting refused to obey my commands, so here are relevant links
1. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESWylNpWAAEF1Fr.jpg
2. https://docs.google.com/spread...sBJI4wTXnDAY7FSvA9vw
This message was last edited by the player at 13:27, Tue 22 Feb 2022.

In reply to Australia (msg # 177):

Hi all -
apologies for the lack of comms - been very unwell for some time now.
But I am still active and talking, albeit slowly.
:)
John / USA

In reply to USA (msg # 178):

Nice to see you back, John, and get well!

In reply to Russian Federation (msg # 179):

Bless you for your kind words! Full recovery is some time off, but every day I'm a little better (or at least that's what I'm telling myself).
:)
John

In reply to USA (msg # 180):

In those conditions, it's good to switch to something completely other. Books, games, sport on TV, something that keep your head totally from bad thoughts. With "every day a little better" it will help to recover faster. A positive attitude is very important. And it help.

Get well, John! All will be ok.

In reply to China (msg # 181):

Thank you! What has surprised me with my current issues is just how many friends have suffered the same. So my very best wishes to you all, whatever your state of health!

:)
John