Arms Race Rules

Bumping for massive interest

>>53208999

Expense Levels, Part 1:

Most pieces of equipment have a resource cost, expressed in Ore and Oil. Ore represents the total amount of mining effort which an item costs, and oil represents its use of chemicals and fuel. If something is big, or uses rare metals, it will have a high ore cost. If something burns a lot of fuel, uses very high-grade fuel, or uses exotic chemicals then it will have a high oil cost. This can be expanded to include specific resources (ex. Wood, Aluminum, split Chemicals to be separate from Oil, etc.) if the GM wishes.

Costs represent what is needed to supply a company's worth of men, or about 100 men. This means, that prices given might be for 100 rifles, 50 motorcycles with sidecars, or 5-10 tanks or planes, or even a single ship.

Your nation has limited resources. These is also listed in the faction's Equipment section in each battle report. Resources can be gained by taking certain sections of the map, and then holding them for one turn without losing ground. A map or a simple list describes what resources are available for capture in different zones.

>>53209171

Expense Levels, Part 2:

If a design costs resources which you don't have, it becomes expensive, and can't be issued to everybody. The total amount of resources a design costs more than you have is called the Resource Deficit. A design with no resource deficit is Cheap (As an example, for rifles, this would mean it can be issued to every soldier.) A resource deficit of 1 or 2 makes a design Expensive (for rifles, this would mean it can only be issued to officers/1 in 10.) A resource deficit of 3-5 makes a design Very Expensive (for rifles, this would mean it is available to only about 1 in 100 men.) A resource deficit of 6-9 makes a design a National Effort, you can only field one at a time- so this is only worthwhile if it's something like an enormous battleship, a nuke, or mecha-godzilla. A resource deficit of 10 or more is Theoretical, and cannot actually be built. Some technologies Complex, being new and difficult to manufacture, and designs featuring them automatically increase one level of expensive. If you lose access to resources, any designs which become more expensive will immediately see the effects (ex. equipment which doesn't have enough fuel and spare parts will need to be decommissioned.)

The last thing about resources to remember is that you have a limited Transport Capacity, which determines how much resources you are capable of claiming from other territories you control. Your TC is given from the single vehicle which gives the highest TC in each mode of transportation (land, sea and air). Starting resources do not take up transport capacity.

Design Difficulty, Part 1

The following difficulties apply to both Designs and Revisions, (henceforth just "Designs" for brevity) but revisions will usually be about one step more difficult than designs in addition to being limited in scope. For example, making a whole new design for a simple rifle in a new caliber would probably be Trivial, but Easy as a revision. Simple revisions are still perfectly capable of being trivial. Difficulty is mainly judged by three factors: What the best similar example of a technology you have built is, how long ago you built it, and what progress the outside world has made in that area. It's usually easy to make incrementally better designs, and the longer your factories build something, the better your engineering bureau grows to understand it. Real world countries serve as a frame of reference for what is cutting edge technology, it is very hard to get ahead from them, but it is also assumed your engineers might be able to spend some of their time learning from books, academic papers, photos, films and lectures available to the general public- although their reading comprehension is not to be relied on. Lastly, it is important to make a distinction from advances in engineering and advances in military doctrine: For example, assault rifles depend on using smaller caliber bullets than normal rifles so they can be controlled under automatic fire, and it took real life countries a long time to realize this.

>>53209241

Design Difficulty, Part 2

In addition to having "bugs" as a result of a poor die roll, some designs will simply have inherent drawbacks. For example, if you build a bomber with no top-facing guns, it will always be vulnerable to attack from above, or if you specify a tank design with lots of armor, a big gun, and a small engine, no die result is going to cause it to go fast. The consequence of bugs also depends on the nature of the design, a radio with severe bugs might just stop working and be hard to fix, but an aircraft with severe bugs will probably result in dead pilots. If a design makes simple advances in multiple areas, a poor result might only advance in some of those areas, where other areas suffer bugs or do not advance.

Keep in mind that, as with all things in this game, design results are subject to a lot of, well, subjectivity. While specific regulations could be made, problems arise if you want to set the game in different eras than the regulations are made (ex. Wanting to make the setting magic heavy, circa the American Revolution, or the far future, and the only regulations available were only completed on WWI-WWII designs.) The following charts are guidelines which the GM should follow, but difficulty placement is at their own discretion.

>>53209313

Design Difficulty Charts, Part 1

Trivial:
A trivial-difficulty design would be one that pushes no new ground in terms of technology or engineering. If something is likely to be trivial, it should be done during a revision so as not to use up a design phase. An example might be adding an existing cannon design to an existing ship design which previously used a different kind of cannon. While revisions involving new technology are harder than designs involving new technology, revisions involving combining existing technology are often trivial.
1: On a roll of 1, there might or might not be a minor bug, depending on whether I can think of a bug that makes sense. If I can't think of a good one, the design succeeds as planned.
2-6: The design succeeds as planned.

Easy:
An easy design would be one that makes only a very small step in technology and requires some new engineering effort, such as making a new tank with thicker armor or a bigger gun or engine than previous tanks, but without any particularly new ideas involved, or a rifle designed to fire faster or be more accurate than its predecessors. It might also be several trivial changes in one design.
1: The design suffers some kind of bug, how severe it is depends on what sort of bug I can think of that makes sense. For example, perhaps a tank's ammunition is stored in a vulnerable spot or the new cannon jams often. Or the whole thing is just a bit rubbish.
2: The design probably suffers some kind of bug, but probably not too severe, or it just isn't as effective as you hoped.
3-4: The design succeeds as planned.
5-6: The design might accomplish something better than planned. For example, the geometry of a tank's armor might make it more effective than normal for its thickness, or a rifle might be extremely reliable even when caked in mud.

>>53209343

(Copying from thread with occasional corrections. That's why there may have been an 'I' rather than 'the GM' in previous post.)

Normal:
A normal design advances your technology one "step" in a certain area, making it noticeably better. For example, you might build a cannon which fires shells about 50% larger than your existing ones, a machine gun which uses a new more effective type of action, your biggest ship yet, and so on. This is often the difficulty of a revision to remove a bug in an existing design.
1: The design suffers a pretty severe bug and the main advancement in technology probably isn't accomplished.
2: The design suffers a bug but the advancement in technology might be effective, or it works without any notable problems except that it isn't remarkably effective.
3: The design succeeds. It might suffer a minor bug, but it won't be crippling and probably won't affect future uses of the new technology.
4-5: The design succeeds.
6: The design might accomplish something better than planned. As with bugs, this depends on whether the GM can think of a way this makes sense.

>>53209391

Design Difficulty Charts, Part 3

Hard:
A hard design advances your technology by a couple "steps", such as building a new cannon more than twice as large as your previous largest one, or advances technology in multiple areas, such as building a tank with a new type of armor and new cannon and better engine than your previous one, or begins into a new field of technology but one which you would reasonably have access to, like your very first shaped charge explosive or radio system in a late Interwar period game. A hard design might also be a design which was deemed Very hard or Impossible and failed before, but your team learned from the experience. Getting a technology advancement in a revision is usually Hard.
1: The design suffers multiple serious bugs or a bug which is difficult to fix, and the design is not very useful until these are corrected. It might not advance the technology as planned.
2: The design suffers a severe bug or multiple less serious ones. It might not advance the technology as planned.
3: The design suffers a noticeable bug, which future designs using this technology might have to deal with, or works in principle but isn't very effective.
4: The design succeeds. If it's a new type of technology altogether, it might suffer a minor bug.
5-6: On a roll of 5, or 6, the design succeeds.

>>53209428

Design Difficulty Charts, Part 4


Very hard:
A very hard design is something which world powers struggled with for years to get right. It represents the very cutting edge of technology. You should expect to fail the first time you attempt something like this, but it can be worthwhile nonetheless. A revision which attempts to make a leap forward in technology might be Very Hard.
1: The design fails to yield a useable example. Your designers simply couldn't get anything produced in time.
2: The design suffers a serious bug or bugs which make it nearly useless. For example, a rocket explodes on the launch pad.
3: The design suffers severe bugs which might prevent it from being very useful, but a working example is produced. At this level of success or higher, attempting another similar design might be Hard rather than Very Hard.
4: The design suffers moderate to severe bugs.
5: The design succeeds, maybe with a minor to moderate bug.
6: The design succeeds.

>>53209443

Design Difficulty Charts, Part 5

Impossible:
A design with the "impossible" difficulty stretches credulity, or is out of your depth. If any real life countries attempted your design, they didn't succeed until a later time period if at all, and the engineering complexity involved is staggering. Alternatively, your design takes a flexible view towards the laws of physics (moreso than usual for the setting). If you attempt an Impossible design, you risk wasting your turn. Examples might include a tank which is much bigger than your previously largest tank, but also uses less resources. Other examples would include being the first country to put a satellite into orbit, creating a working powered exoskeleton, or building effective laser weapons, all before World War II.
1-4: The design fails, probably with nothing to show for it. You might gain some small understanding of the technology with which you were attempting to pervert nature or flaunt physics.
5: You don't build a working example of your design, but your understanding in this field grows like succeeding on a normal design.
6: Depending on just out-there your design is, you make a significant breakthrough which will later allow you to attempt it again at Very Hard difficulty, or get a severely buggy working example. Depending on how badly you ignored the laws of physics, your working example might or not look like what you actually intended: For example, you might make a laser powerful enough to use as a weapon, but it requires a power source the size of a semi truck trailer.

(Now that we are through with the Design stuff, I'll be detailing factors of how battles work.)

>>53209506

(How battles are actually fought will be getting their own section. It's a large one.)

Battle Factors, Part 1

Landing Strips:
Landing Strips for aircraft are either Long, or Short. Small aircraft can use a short airstrip, while larger ones, such as bombers, may require a long airstrip. Landmasses will generally offer a long air strip, while some locations as well as aircraft carriers will only offer short landing strips. Sea planes can also land at harbors you control. Unless aircraft are explicitly capable of long-range travel, they normally need to land a refuel at each region they pass through. Depending on the circumstances, having a landing strip close to the region in which combat is occurring may grant a bonus to air combat, especially in the case of aircraft carriers.

Naval Advantage:
The fights which take place on the sea don't represent a distinct territory; only land is gained and lost. However, each turn the effects of your naval efforts are calculated and can change your performance on land. Depending on how well you perform, one of the following traits is assigned: If your naval strength is Equal to the enemy, nobody has an advantage. If you are doing noticeably better, you have an Advantage, and have the benefit of outnumbering the enemy when fighting for islands. If you are doing better than the enemy in multiple aspects, you will have a Large Advantage, which confers the previous benefit as well as reducing enemy transport capacity at sea by half, rounded up. Naval advantage can also determine whether you have opportunities to use tactics like shore bombardment effectively, provided you are equipped to do so at all.

>>53209591

Battle Factors, Part 2

Vehicle Armor:
(OP's Note: This is largely applicable to settings roughly equivalent to Earth's relatively recent past one-two hundred years or near future. Bringing in magic, going far enough back, or going far future may reduce the value of this section.)
The following rules apply to armored land vehicles, with thickness for reference being Rolled Homogenous Armor, steel armor standard throughout WWII.
Weapons capable of penetrating armor have "Armor Penetration" values, which are hidden (OP note: Means I cannot give a value for you). A round striking armor has a penetration value at medium range, with a +1 bonus for close range and a -1 penalty for long range. Armor values are as follows:
1) Thin, <10 mm (all measures approximate and used for historical reference)
2) Light, 10-24 mm
3) Medium, 25-50 mm
4) Heavy, 51-100 mm
5) Extra Heavy, 101-150 mm
6) Super Heavy, 150-200 mm. Only historical example I can find is the Maus tank and ironclad ships.
7) Extreme, 200+ mm, or composite equivalent.
8 ) Composite only, we might never get this high in this game.

Materials give a bonus to that value. Cheap, mild steel is -1, RHA is 0. Aluminum is -1 but lighter, Titanium is lighter with no such penalty, and alloys like manganese steel, composites or more exotic armors may be +1 or higher with various effects on the weight and cost. Good spacing and angling can give a further bonus (which might be wholly or partially negated by APBC rounds or an opponent's good marksmanship).

When building armor, you can specify the thickness and material of the armor in different areas, as well as attempt to research new materials and techniques. Thicker armor also presents an engineering challenge in general; making thick armor is a technology on its own.

Keep in mind that 0 armor is still armor and can stop stuff like 9mm pistol rounds, or small shell fragments.

(Battle Mechanics are next. Will be creator's commentary, so it may be a few posts.)

>>53209639

Creator's Commentary How Battle Phases are Run:
I look at the theater you're in, and try to decide which weapons matter the most. For example, if you're in the mountains, you would be engaging with long-range rifles, tanks would mostly not be an important factor, and only light weight artillery would be available. So I might say: Faction A has better sniper rifles, that's one discreet "advantage" for faction A. Then faction B has portable mortars, but faction A only has large artillery pieces
So that's one discreet "advantage" for faction B. In my head, they're roughly equal now.

Faction A has better fighter aircraft than faction B, so add air superiority to the mix. Does faction A have ground-attack aircraft capable of targeting small groups in the mountains? If so, add another advantage to faction A. If not, it's mostly a moot point. Let's say faction A doesn't, I'm left with faction A has better sniper rifles than faction B, and faction B has portable mortars whereas faction A doesn't have any explosives that are useful here. Faction B also has sniper rifles that aren't as good I'd probably tie-break it by saying that the difference in the artillery section for faction B is bigger than the difference in the sniper section for faction A, and say faction B gains ground. There might be more factors but that's the rough process. I don't use dice rolls to determine the outcome of battles, so this will keep getting the exact same results until something changes

Normally a faction with a large enough advantage gains one section of ground. If a faction has an enormous advantage, I might give them two sections at once but this doesn't happen very often.

---------------------------------------------------------------

There are variants that use dice and someone made a tool (that only they really understand), but that is the creator's commentary on the topic.

Now I must ask, is there anything of this clarification is needed upon? All this IS a lot of info.

Very interesting. Might be worthwhile for us to kludge up a magic expansion.

>>53209772

It shouldn't be too hard to do so. Presuming you work on the basis of all warriors having the potential to use magic (ex. Cheap is low level spells, Expensive is mid-level, Very Expensive is high-level, and National Effort is 'only the best wizard can cast') and you use designs for the creation of new spells, it is really just a matter of figuring out how you would assign cost to the magic (maybe have it use a 'Mana' resource?), and maybe a basic chart of how different types interact with each other (ex. Water beats Fire beats Earth beats Water).

Admittedly, the Vehicle Armor and Landing Strip sections would have only limited use due to the typical setting of High Fantasy being the Middle Ages.

Good luck with a magic expansion, likewise future tech. Theres enough yelling even when set in the 1920s about people doing things the other side thought couldn't be done.

Eh, to be fair half the fun is the way the dice land. Heck, in one Arms Race a group managed to convert a cargo-ship design into a massive Landing Ship which use clamshell doors that depend on "the world's biggest rubber gasket to seal shut, made of quality imported Tropican rubber."

So, ya with the luck of the roll you'd be amazed at what's possible.

But it can get tiring for the gm to argue with the player base over design results or how effective they should be. Though yes part of the fun is to seeing where the dice roll.

>>53209756

Forgot to mention something. It's a bit up to the GM whether to include them, but to draw players in, many who try to run the game create contests where the factions send in designs with certain criteria, create propaganda for a goal, or create a design for a competition, and the winning side is rewarded.

These rewards can range from an Espionage Credit where they can screw up or steal an enemy design (a second time, if the Espionage Phase is included), a Research Credit where they get a second roll on a design and the higher of the two is taken, an Expense Credit to reduce the cost of an item for one turn (again, if there's a similar phase, this credit would provide a second chance), or a similar reward. The second of these two help bring a bit of character to the factions and do help to draw players in. In fact, for one contest in the most recent game by the original creator, people have written over two thousand word speeches and articles/papers trying to win one of these contests.


>>53210043

I think that was before the creation of the charts, but still, a 1 or a 6 can make or break a turn for a faction.

If you folks are wondering a lot of these games took place on Bay12Forums.com

One thing critical about game like this is to make sure that players don't feel like one side is being favored over other. Feeling that nothing you do matters or that other side has better options presented to them can lead players just flat out dropping out.

>>53210175
>>53211704

Yeah, while players getting salty occurs often enough that it could effectively be considered part of the game, it can admittedly grow a bit annoying to work with.