[quote=@ZB1996] [@Gaebrael] So is the timeline 1925 or 1940? [/quote] 1940, I will explain a bit more about the lore soon. [quote=@Winston Smith] An Idea I've used before to go beyond numbers when countries get involve in conflict is for the GM to provide them with a situation in which their troops encounter one another and they both prepare and present their interpretations/reactions of/to the situation and the GM can either choose one over the other ( if one faction decides they have Rambo who bites through Maus Tanks and needs 'nerfing') or attempts to blend both proposed interpretations into one 'official' conclusion with favour/victory leaning towards, whoever had the initial starting advantages of course, but also the person who showed the most realistic, detailed,tactically and strategically-savvy,convincing version of the scenario they were given. [/quote] Whilst the written component sounds all well and good, my problem is that I want it to [i]matter[/i] what you choose you spend your credits on. Do you invest in better Pocket Battleships because you need to halt the advanced fleet of enemy heavy cruisers? Or are you a small navy that needs to manufacture and acquire through whatever means necessary more torpedoboats? Whilst writing out the battles works on the micro level of whose strategies win, it is also utterly arbitrary and doesn't really work on the macro level that well. It is hard to judge between certain macro strategies, as well. [hider=Example] Player I: Fan out the ships and surround the gulf. They won't be able to exit. Player II: (10 paragraph admiral POV response on how the torpedo boat managed to silently take out the battlecruiser and allow the Albanians to narrowly escape) GM: Well, I have to give it to II. He had a very thought-out strategy. Player I: That's not fair! I never authorized my battlecruiser to just get taken down randomly by a random torpedo boat! How am I supposed to know which out of 26 battlecruisers I need to make sure has a good officer so II can't just hope that my ship is ignorant! GM Alternate Persona: Well, he has a point. Player I: I should be able to write out my battlecruiser's response to the boat! GM: But you are supposed to only be able to manage orders from the perspective of an admiral! Player I: But I didn't know that suddenly admirals could just be on torpedo boats whenever! Player II: To be fair, it isn't ahistorical. This singular Irish admiral once did this one thing where he toured on a toroedoboat! [color=00aeef]www.wikipedia.com/thatonetimeinallofhistory[/color] Player I: But that wasn't even in combat! GM Alternate Persona: Player II does have a point, no reason it wouldn't happen. Player I: So who wins? GM: This is why stats work better. [/hider] So I was hoping for more number-centric mechanics. Literally accompaniments are wonderful, but without numbers, there can never be a clear victor. Casualty counts are also impossible with this method, as are reliable budgeting schemes for armies and navies and such. A few POV paragraphs, however brilliantly they describe a strategy, are still going to feel forced when you mention exactly how many P-53s and F-52s were lost in the Battle of Edinburgh versus the Battle of Glasgow. Do you kinda get my point? ALSO: EDIT: You are a Superpower, being that you still control a double digit percentage of the world.