First off, could I have like a huge chunk of the south? I can rewrite some of the geography stuff. Seriously, huge chunk. This is Russia we're talking about.

Commodore Robot said
Just to weigh in on the musket rifle thing, am I wrong in assuming our time period here? I've been assuming that breechloading cartridge rifles would be the go-to for modern militaries as opposed to muzzle-loaders of any type. Is this 1870s steampunk or like 1840s steampunk I guess is what I'm asking.

I was going to say the same thing. For their muzzle-loadering rifles (which were standard issue at this point), the British had been using paper cartridges with the ball lubed in (I believe) a mixture of pork and beef grease to lessen the reload time even decades before. Even if we were doing the 1840s you had weapons like the Dreyse needle gun, which, although very rare and expensive, were bolt-action breach-loaders. We're hardly any time away from the widespread advent of bolt-action guns anyway.Hell, I believe the first officially-adopted bolt-action rifle that fired more than one round before a reload was a modification of the existing French bolt-action rifle, the Chassepot, in 1874. It was also standard-issue I believe. They gave it an integrated magazine, which meant there was no reloading in between shots. You just had to work the bolt, which for a very experienced and very rushed soldat could take right around one second.

The Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) demonstrated how obsolete line infantry was at this point, in part because of the advent of bolt-action rifles. Line infantry was becoming obsolete as far back as the Crimean War (1853-1856) and the American Civil War (1861-1865) in which line infantry tactics were used only for the death count to be astounding. The advent of indirect fire artillery also played a huge part in the rapdily-changing face of warfare, which is in part why my nation is going to be focusing a whoooole lot on artillery. Massive guns (at least eventually), and with the Bureau of Chemical Science I mentioned in my description, more reliable and powerful propellants. Erste Weltkrieg wasn't called the chemist's war just because of gas. That's not to say you guys shouldn't play with obsolete tactics, because a lot of people had a very hard time growing out of the Napoleonic mindset in the 19th century. At the same time, we're closer to the Boer Wars than to the Crimean War is all I'm saying.

I think we should have a new map.

gowia: Rifles are fairly widespread (to keep it a little more steam punky) though muskets are just as common. If you got a lot of their farm land in a peace deal then yes. I say peace deal simply because I don;t want anyone actually completely annexed
Doge Duck: So
Doge Duck: People with Professional Army likely have Rifles for most of there soldiers
Doge Duck: But outdated would have muskets
gowia: Yes that is about right...though if someone with outdated wants bows instead thats fine...

I'm also inclined to say new map to make things fresh and what have you. But in the end its new to me so I don't particularly care.

Side note: since I had one trait point left over I didn't know about, I removed Never Been Out of the Village. Thanks, Gowia!

Seems like we might need a bigger map. Lots of nations and this time around a lot more empires, whom should be significantly larger (seeing as though it costs 4 traits).

duck55223 said
Theres still a few other issues thoughFirst bows require a lot of frigging training, where with muskets/rifles you can gather some citizens and give them a few weeks worth of training.And second, with a decent industrial base its relatively easy to produce muskets/rifles.

You're forgetting crossbows. In a woodland, it may be cheaper just to make crossbows with the smaller bolts, than a bow and arrows, or a gun and gunpowder/blackpowder and a ball.

gowia said
@KabenSaal, your traits include both Professional Army and Outdated Army. This does not work as Professional states new well equipped soldiers whilst Outdated says that they carry old weapons from times gone by.@Mantido, your traits are fine but you end up with +1, not 0...just as a note.@WilsonTurner, you do not get to pick your population. That too is rolled. Apologies if I did not make that clear. Further more this poisonous grass...it's not happening. It may be real and thats fine, but a US plant will not exist in a continent that is supposed to be Europe-esque. As well as that I just don't want people setting up natural defences that are going to kill off invaders live stock etc. just gives me a lot more to do. Having colder climate or more mountainous terrain is fine because I can account for that in population in each sector AND terrain for battles but grass that can kill people or their food supplies means a lot of numbers that will keep changing as people come and go. That was as much as I could see that was wrong...rolls will be coming shortly after I finish my trip to the hospital, luckily they allowed my laptop in my room. (Damn sports injuries.)

The US plant was an imported crop from England. Originally, it was supposed to be another crop, like corn or something. Then Colonel Johnson, the guy who really started importing it, planted it everywhere... and it just spread. Everywhere.

WilsonTurner said
The US plant was an imported crop from England. Originally, it was supposed to be another crop, like corn or something. Then Colonel Johnson, the guy who really started importing it, planted it everywhere... and it just spread. Everywhere.

I don't think anyone cares. The verdict has been handed down. Drop the grass subject, I doubt it will do you any favors to keep talking about it.

No one cares about the grass. Drop it.

Mantido said
I don't think anyone cares. The verdict has been handed down. Drop the grass subject, I doubt it will do you any favors to keep talking about it.

Grassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrassgrass

And nothing will do me any favors, regardless of what I do. I make a character that trained well over two decades in anything that has a blade, and suddenly I can't beat a 15-year-old with a bladed stick. What I say doesn't do crap. I just keep saying because eventually, someone will listen to me about SOMETHING. Almost everything I say goes into the 'denied,' 'ignored,' or 'absolutely rejected' categories. I'm just stubborn enough to hope that maybe someday, I'll say something that'll please somebody.

---

And concerning the handheld weaponry of the roleplay era, is it too much to ask about air rifles? I mean, I think it would be fitting, since airships would require hydrogen or some other gas, so why wouldn't someone think of making a weapon using gas as a propellant? Maybe not as powerful, but it may very well be lighter and quieter. Ideal for a sneak attack or something. Not a big boom and a flash of light like with a musket, or slightly less with a rifle, but not quite as unpredictable as a bow or crossbow, nor needing as much training.

WilsonTurner said
.And concerning the handheld weaponry of the roleplay era, is it too much to ask about air rifles? I mean, I think it would be fitting, since airships would require hydrogen or some other gas, so why wouldn't someone think of making a weapon using gas as a propellant? Maybe not as powerful, but it may very well be lighter and quieter. Ideal for a sneak attack or something. Not a big boom and a flash of light like with a musket, or slightly less with a rifle, but not quite as unpredictable as a bow or crossbow, nor needing as much training.

Well such weapons did exist since at least the late 18th century and were actually some of the first "firearms" capable of rapid fire. Having said that they were also stupid expensive, broke with even slight damage, and had absolutely insane maintenance requirements (like pumping over 1500 times to be able to fire a few rounds). But they were in use to a small degree by the Austrian Military and even Lewis and Clark carried one to impress natives with on their expeditions. With all that in mind I wouldn't mind such things so long as they handled somewhat close to reality.

Suppose I should have also mentioned that their range was relative poop and got worse as the air reservoir depleted from firing

WilsonTurner said
And nothing will do me any favors, regardless of what I do. I make a character that trained well over two decades in anything that has a blade, and suddenly I can't beat a 15-year-old with a bladed stick. What I say doesn't do crap. I just keep saying because eventually, someone will listen to me about SOMETHING. Almost everything I say goes into the 'denied,' 'ignored,' or 'absolutely rejected' categories. I'm just stubborn enough to hope that maybe someday, I'll say something that'll please somebody.

I don't feel that this is relevant in any way. You made a bad suggestion that did not fit the setting or what the other players were doing, and it was treated as what it was. This is not tied into a roleplay with other players and GMed by someone else. Do not make a mass of bad suggestions, concentrate on making a few of your suggestions good. You will not get far with me, or many others, by living by the phrase ,,A broken clock is right twice a day’’. I think you'll find it will help your case immeasurably if you change this attitude.

I have to agree with Mantido. Up until this point, I feel everyone has been pretty reasonable in dismissing your ideas. From what I've seen, no one has been rude or anything like that. I feel everyone has given pretty sound reasoning for why extremely deadly poison grass is absurd and, earlier than that, why we should avoid putting in things from Leviathan and what not. It's really only these two things that people have ever objected to, and your nation concept is otherwise completely acceptable. Is losing the grass really such a big deal?

Azimuth said
I have to agree with Mantido. Up until this point, I feel everyone has been pretty reasonable in dismissing your ideas. From what I've seen, no one has been rude or anything like that. I feel everyone has given pretty sound reasoning for why extremely deadly poison grass is absurd and, earlier than that, why we should avoid putting in things from Leviathan and what not. It's really only these two things that people have ever objected to, and your nation concept is otherwise completely acceptable. Is losing the grass really such a big deal?

This, a million times this.

Hell I agree with you that leviathan would be cool.

So let's not make a big deal out of nothing.

Azimuth said
I have to agree with Mantido. Up until this point, I feel everyone has been pretty reasonable in dismissing your ideas. From what I've seen, no one has been rude or anything like that. I feel everyone has given pretty sound reasoning for why extremely deadly poison grass is absurd and, earlier than that, why we should avoid putting in things from Leviathan and what not. It's really only these two things that people have ever objected to, and your nation concept is otherwise completely acceptable. Is losing the grass really such a big deal?

Exactly. I start off with one thing, and even when I repeat how I was wrong, and it's much, much less deadly, and only during a late season, and is actually very nutritious, more nutritious than anything else, you completely ignore it and go on about how much I wanted there to be superdeadly killoncontact plants. Ask duck how often I've apologized. But who cares? I say sorry, and try to amend, and it is ignored, while anything I say continuing about the grass is treated as if I were shoving foul, smelly soup under your noses.

Commodore Robot said
Well such weapons did exist since at least the late 18th century and were actually some of the first "firearms" capable of rapid fire. Having said that they were also stupid expensive, broke with even slight damage, and had absolutely insane maintenance requirements (like pumping over 1500 times to be able to fire a few rounds). But they were in use to a small degree by the Austrian Military and even Lewis and Clark carried one to impress natives with on their expeditions. With all that in mind I wouldn't mind such things so long as they handled somewhat close to reality.Suppose I should have also mentioned that their range was relative poop and got worse as the air reservoir depleted from firing

We've got flying dreadnaughts. I think the containment of gases would be much more advanced, especially with the trait that allows for more quality ship-works.

It doesn't matter whether the grass is lethal, slightly lethal, a nuisance or anything. Why is the grass so important?

We're not berating you about the grass, we just want to stop talking about grass.

Grass discussion demarcation line below. No further discussion of grass may occur beyond here.
______________________________________________________________________________

The problems is we wanted the grass completely gone.

And to be honest I don't really see you apologize that often.