• 📅 February and March 2022 are YE 45.2 in the RP.

Approved Submission Military Buildup Limitations Update

For Reviewers:
  • Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? No.
  • Contains Links to Unapproved Articles? No.
  • Contains New Art? No.
  • Previously Submitted? Yes; rejected by Wes for being too controversial.
  • Changelog: Link
  • Checklist Requested? Yes.

Same as before, except that the corporate limitations are now based directly upon what Wes said here.
Last edited:
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.


Well-Known Member
Well, maybe the idea can still have merit, I'm just a bit brain-melty right now and have no idea how this would be codified/practically employed. Doesn't mean it can't be.


Retired Staff
This is the exact kind of double-speak that is the problem. The DRv3 system is already based on Tier Equivalency. Shouldn’t this complaint have been brought up then? It is something we’re already using for the NTSE so why not use it again here instead of rolling out a new system? Is it really any different to have to count up each type of ship you have and put those numbers into a spreadsheet? You’re going to have to count up your totals either way unless you throw out the MBL entirely.

The side effects of this is that you can throw out nearly all the extra MBL rules about fighters, ships vs capital ships, etc and replace it with two guidelines. What makes a military ship, and how many Tier equivalent levels you can have per system.

The guidelines should be ‘if it has weapons it is a military ship’ and 700 tier 10 equivalent levels per star system to match what we have now.

To add to that, if you want to reduce ship levels, you can’t just make an arbitrary change again like last time and expect to get anywhere. You’d need to figure out what everyone wants from the setting and then make the rules to match that. Without that first step you’ve got no way to gauge how effective your change was, and no real way to tweak that change later to get the desired results. Worse yet if you try and roll all of these different changes into one discussion you’re never going to be able to roll out gradual changes then see how they affect the site. To tie this into earlier we can ask how the new faction ban is going? Has it improved things? Is there any process wrapped around that to determine if things have changed because of the ban? This is the real substance here: evaluation of previous efforts and learning from them.
@Zack Firstly, 'Tier equivilency' for weapons is a -whole- lot easier than tier equivalency when we're talking fleets and star system resources. Second stop bringing up DRV3, it has nothing to do with this discussion, you're just derailing stuff.

Using NTSE would work, if you guys could trust the entire NTSE and leave it at that, but that seems to be a problem, so no we can't just leave it up to the NTSE to keep everything perfectly in line with no rules to check them by. You're partly responsible for that too. So either way we need rules, so why not some simple ones that don't involve massive number crunching?

Also counting everything with a weapon as a military ship is just plain dumb. Because that means there's no such thing as civilian self defense, which means in any faction that's not got Yamatai level security, civilian travel is totally screwed if from pirates. Also you wouldn't really be able to explore frontire's as a civilian. You're essentially saying "If you have a gun, you're military." I don't think I need to explain how flawed that logic is.

Wow. So all of this math is really annoying. Can't we just assume that weapons are intelligently designed to achieve their desired purpose and have fun with explosions and stuff? I mean, when does PvP even happen anymore?
@Rizzo we're not really talking much about weapons. The only part of this article relating to weapons is the "What is a warship?" Sections. Zack keeps brings up DRV3 cause he's trying to derail things.


Inactive Member
EDIT: there is no point in us trying to debate what qualifies as a warship unless we have a better idea of what to propose. @Zack, this is the system we are moving into, please help us try to improve it if you see an issue.
Last edited:

Alex Hart

🎖️ Game Master
Tier equivalent systems is something that would be best calculated in a computer simulation, it's a pain in the ass to calculate manually. The same way DPS is. It works in MMOs but SARP isn't an MMO or a simulation, it's text-based RP where GMs are encouraged and empowered to go with what feels cool rather than running numbers through a spreadsheet.

So one question I have is this, does @Wes, and does the community want to go in the direction of determining ship allowance per system by tier conversions as @Fred suggested, or do we want to stick with the rules that @FrostJaeger ready set in place in his submission, which we all seem to agree are OK.

I like the idea of how we could sort of represent how much effort and resources goes into making a ship (which would change how we view them entirely) via this system;
Also, there's no choice. There's nothing in the allotment we have that defines a faction war doctrine regarding unit preference. Do you build small and fast, or do you prefer to focus on fewer but hardier units?

So, thought experiment. Less say that a resource-plentiful starsystem can enable a faction to produce and maintain a total of Eight of their best capital vessels.

Since I'm lazy and unimaginative, I think I can actual draw from the way DRv3 deals with units and how tier-equivalent weapons can be broken down into weaker weapons. The best uit would start with the (tier 15) flagship and then downward. So, for 1 flagship, you could have...

1 Flagship
2 Battleships
4 Heavy Cruisers
8 Light Cruisers
16 Destroyers
32 Frigates
* and support crafts below, you get the idea

(32 x 8 = 256; which is close to our current 250 number - seems like a good departure point)

But I'm worried it would spawn a whole new debate about what constitutes a resource-rich star system, and cause people to only create resource-rich systems, rather than unique systems with varying numbers of useful planets, and that it may rock the boat too much at this point in time at which we already had a more or less agreed upon set of rules.


Retired Staff
I have no problem shelving this if there's too many misgivings about it.

DRv3 didn't happen overnight. It was brainstormed, in much a similar fashion... and then left on the ice for some time until a substancial number of people pined for it and asked me to finish creating it.

This can be the seeds for the same thing. Or not. Either way, you're right Alex: we already have something quite serviceable thanks to Frostjaeger's approved submission. So maybe we should just leave it at that.


Founder & Admin
Staff Member
🌸 FM of Yamatai
🎖️ Game Master
🎨 Media Gallery
Frost has something concrete that I can approve now, which is not just a cool idea but a workable wiki article.

So I think I should probably approve the submission and we can take as long as we need to let people work on trying to make a better system.

That's how SARP works. We get better all the time...in deliberate increments.

Alex Hart

🎖️ Game Master
I'm very much in favor of getting a workable article out now and figuring out how to make ships seem more valuable later on.


Convention Veteran
Same, the article is workable as is. The rest of the discussion seems to be more centered along the long-term direction of SARP. Good discussion, we should continue it, but perhaps continue it elsewhere.
I made some minor changes to the Military Buildup Limitations article, most of which are based on what @Soban said here:
  • In the Military Object Types section, I removed the mention of size from the "Other Warships" definition, as some escorts and gunshups in the setting are shorter than 200 meters in length.
  • I removed mentions of DRv2 from the article, as, well, it's no longer being utilized in submissions and could potentially cause confusion.
  • I removed the mention of "Mobile Shipyards" from the Building Times section, as it was redundant.
@Wes - may I add the following bolded text to the first sentence in the Factions section...

For each [[:system|star system]] controlled, which also has a sizeable population and an established industrial base, a [[:faction|faction]] can support up to the following:

...and the following bullet point to the Notes section?

* An "established industrial base" refers to things such as (and on the scale of) [[:system|system]]-wide resource-claiming operations.

The first is based on common sense - in my opinion, one shouldn't be able to increase the size of their faction's armed forces by putting a bunch of resource-rich (but uninhabitable) systems down on the map and strip-mining them - and the second is based upon what you said here.


Inactive Member
My question would be what we define as a 'sizable population'. If we can put a general number to that it would help. With the automation of many industrial processes about 100,000 people with high-tech equipment could do the work of 1,000,000 so technology level might make a difference too.


Founder & Admin
Staff Member
🌸 FM of Yamatai
🎖️ Game Master
🎨 Media Gallery
I mean, in theory, you could have a bunch of junkers or robots instead of people working in a system to produce resources, so I'm not sure the change is necessary.