Inaccuracies

[Serenissima]

The map is actually wrong in the Solomons, in that it shows the islands south and east of Bougainville as being British territory.

But fortunately, nothing needs to be done. Because we just signed a treaty that, as historically happened, transferred them to Britain anyway! Lucky, that.

[Master of Oblivion]

Yay! For everyone who pmed me today, I will respond tomorrow.

[Huojin]

So just to formalise the suggestion I made to Dr. MoO PhD regarding calling up reserves, since it seems a little silly to wait six months to mobilise your army when in reality it can be done far more quickly.

If we read the rules carefully (unlike I did initially >_>), we see that recruiting 1 unit adds it to the reserves. So currently the only way to call up troops is either wait 6 months for your reserves, or get a handful of conscripts instantly. We need an alternative to allow for quick-mobilisation. I propose as follows:

Mobilising 1 reserve unit -> 10c/6 months/high quality
Conscript (2-4 units) -> 50c/instant/low quality
Instant mobilising 1 reserve unit -> 15c/instant/med-high quality

So that per-unit you mobilise instantly you pay 15c, as oppose to 10c normally, but you get them immediately. However they may be slightly less ready than if you took the full time to prepare them, so for that initial turn alone their readiness may be considered to be degraded when the GM takes things into account

This disparity in cost may seem small, but it soon adds up. Observe: if Germany wants to mobilise its full reserves (80 units), that'll cost it 800 credits with waiting-time. However if they wanted to mobilise the whole lot instantly, that's 1200 credits - considerably more.

If Russia wants to mobilise (130 units), that'll be 1300 credits normally, or 1950 credits instantly - something probably beyond Russian capabilities anyway.

On a smaller scale: if Italy wants to mobilise its 20 units, that's 200 credits normally or 300 credits instantly. If Japan wants to mobilise its 4 units, that's 40 credits normally or 60 credits instantly.

In an actually fairly realistic way, this scaling detriments large-to-massive forces wishing to mobilise instantly more, as the cost of rushing all your reserves into battle quickly mounts up.



Also an accuracy note, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece are all much too strong. In the First Balkan War their forces all fully mobilised were perhaps double what the Ottomans had in the region at the start, and Ottoman numbers quickly increased to be much more numerous. As it stands, the four combined have 192 units (reserves included), where the Ottomans have 100 all told. Also significant is that by the time of the First Balkan War, Bulgaria had broken free from Ottoman suzerainty well and truly, fully established its control over Eastern Rumelia, etc., plus every one of those nations had spent significant time improving their military, plus Greece wasn't suffering from the aftermath of their heinous defeat in 1897 to the Ottomans.

I'd revise it as follows: Bulgaria 25, Serbia 30, Montenegro 10, Greece 25.

[Master of Oblivion]

I will be keeping mobilized units the same but will change it so that the USA already has their reserves called up.

[Serenissima]

Question: with the increased size of navies and army changes, have the maintenance costs similarly been adjusted? An explanation of the exact meaning of some of the stats now might be helpful. Similarly, are our existing expenses like military upkeep factored into the 'credit income per turn' stat already, or are we all running deficits for the military? Because that doesn't seem feasible in the long run.

[Master of Oblivion]

It costs one credit to maintain a unit and five to maintain a ship.

[Serenissima]

It costs one credit to maintain a unit and five to maintain a ship.

Is this factored into the credit gains per turn noted down on the statistics? I'm also curious as to if this system is the same as it was when we were using a completely different naval scale.

[Master of Oblivion]

It costs one credit to maintain a unit and five to maintain a ship.

Is this factored into the credit gains per turn noted down on the statistics? I'm also curious as to if this system is the same as it was when we were using a completely different naval scale.

Yes it is factored. When we were using a completely different naval scale I believe ship maintenance was ten credits a ship.

The deficient is a BOP tradition of preexisting government debt. It really should be called debt, but oh well.

[Serenissima]

I knew that part about the debt being part of government debt. I more meant if a credit gain in the lower section of, say, 100, was wiped out by the military expenditures further up.

[Master of Oblivion]

If I understand what you are asking, yes.

[Snacks]

Given the Qing started trying to modernize their military, shouldn't their infantry (if not also cavalry) tech level be at 3, if the estimate of the section of them in Game Rules is to be believed. They'd still be lagging behind the Great Powers, as they should be.

[Serenissima]

I'm not going to argue for or against any game changes with regard to the Qing military in this era - a tech level increase might well be valid - but as my thesis was related, I can briefly give my two cents: that purchasing bucketloads of European equipment (as they did) and actual military modernisation were distinctly different. Of course, just buying bucketloads of modern equipment will give anyone a military-tech boost to some degree, just not up to the same level as those that produce it. And in the case of naval assets, buying too-new equipment when not ready could be actively a bad thing - note the case of the four state-of-the-art German torpedo boat destroyers possessed by the Chinese at the Battle of Dagu Forts, which put up little resistance to British capture due to the crews having no knowledge on how to actually operate the vessels.

It's been noted that the actual Chinese military forces opposing the Eight-Power Alliance expedition were sometimes lavishly equipped and enormously well supplied - which was extremely helpful, as the expedition was able to capture an enormous amount of ammunition and equipment (at the Xigu Arsenal) - but that they generally didn't actually present any serious opposition to the smaller expedition, due to the lack of doctrinal and tactical modernisation to go with the equipment.

This isn't saying that all of the Qing forces were poor quality - the Beiyang Army did particularly well, with the foreign invaders only being saved by the poor quality of Chinese native ammunition manufacture. The Japanese forces in the conflict, in particular, were using extremely outdated equipment like single-shot rifles dating to the American Civil War era, compared to everyone else's bolt-action weapons, but had modernised their training, leadership and discipline very successfully. As the Russians would learn in 1905.

The broader point, which is applicable to the 'modernisation' actions available in the game in general, is that merely having the tools doesn't mean you've actually got the capability to use them to their full potential. Literacy rates are, by this era, becoming as important a 'force multiplier' as modern weaponry, due to the complexity of military equipment. Which isn't to say that it's impossible or even unlikely for the Qing or anyone else to successfully modernise the military - just that it's a more difficult process than merely buying a ton of modern rifles and artillery pieces and calling in a few foreign advisors.

[Snacks]

Which is why I'm not saying that the Qing should have equivalent strength to the Great Powers. I'm not even arguing it should have the same technology level. I'm pretty sure the GM is capable of taking the divide between technology available and the ability of doctrine to make use of that into account, because it's necessary even in a system with technology levels, dude.

[Serenissima]

Which is why I'm not saying that the Qing should have equivalent strength to the Great Powers. I'm not even arguing it should have the same technology level. I'm pretty sure the GM is capable of taking the divide between technology available and the ability of doctrine to make use of that into account, because it's necessary even in a system with technology levels, dude.

Nor was I saying you were saying that, don't worry.

[Coin]

Given the Qing started trying to modernize their military, shouldn't their infantry (if not also cavalry) tech level be at 3, if the estimate of the section of them in Game Rules is to be believed. They'd still be lagging behind the Great Powers, as they should be.

They would then be at the same level as the Russians and Japanese, though, which is probably not accurate?

Edit: Well, the Japs actually have level 4 according to the stats for infantry. But my point stands on the Ruskies