WesWorld

Since we seem to be in a bit of a holding pattern, I've been thinking about the possibility of trying to make sense of Peru's situation and bring it up to date. Anyone have a reaction?

Eh, I always prefer a good riva... I mean, neighbor. I guess sure?

Me and Brock have worked up some Brazilian fillers too, have posted a couple of outstanding items.

Quoted from "Hood"

Me and Brock have worked up some Brazilian fillers too, have posted a couple of outstanding items.

Peru was left in something of a state of disarray. Sorting it out will be interesting... :rolleyes:

Trying to size up the situation in Peru has me beginning with some questions.

The last Peruvian sim report appears to be that for the 1st Quarter of 1945. In it, Jefgte made some hard right turns that would leave a successor wondering…

1 – Does the 1,560 tons transferred to Italy in payment for eight Soldati class destroyers represent the entire sum or only a part? I know a bunch of Soldatis were sold to Argentina – perhaps Hood can shed some light on the matter?

2 – Given the state of the Italian Navy (the corrections to its strength never having been settled), we would have to *presume* that there would be enough Soldatis available for sale to Peru and to Argentina. Are we comfortable in this regard?

3 – Jefgte laid down a 13,700-ton super heavy cruiser (i.e. pocket battleship) which I see no reason to proceed with; but it ties up a major piece of infrastructure. Do we have an agreed-upon process for scrapping a vessel still on the stocks (she is on a slipway)? Any suggestions on how to account for it?

4 – He also laid down a 9,800-ton escort carrier which makes very little sense; it, however, is on a dry dock – so using the existing rules I could work out how much tonnage could be recovered and how long it would take; but any suggestions following on from (3) above would be welcome.

5 – Jefgte’s abbreviated reporting style makes some interpretations difficult. If anyone has insight to some of his more cryptic comments please share them.

I will admit that from my perspective starting at 4Q44 would make things far easier for me, but that would require some input from the player-base.

Can you link us to the last report?

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Can you link us to the last report?

This appears to be the last one - or at least the last one I can find.

How many reports did Jef do?

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

How many reports did Jef do?

I can find four that he submitted.

1Q45

4Q44

3Q44

and

2Q44

Your last report Rocky, 1Q44, is here.

Looks like he was sticking closely to the program I'd been working on until 1944 ended.

Even as the Iberian neighbor, I don't object to a do-over for 1/45 or thereabouts. I guess Brock-as-Chile and whoever's doing Italy these days might have a stake in things, though.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

Looks like he was sticking closely to the program I'd been working on until 1944 ended.

Even as the Iberian neighbor, I don't object to a do-over for 1/45 or thereabouts. I guess Brock-as-Chile and whoever's doing Italy these days might have a stake in things, though.

Yeah, things were following your program until the first quarter of 1945. The trouble is, no one, AFAIK, is doing anything with Italy and the problem with Italy's phantom factories was never completely addressed. So there is no one to ask - unless Hood recalls any details from his negotiations with Snip on Argentina's Soldatis.

I'm not sure I have any particular objection to starting off in Q1/1945... the power difference between Chile and Peru isn't likely to be altered by a single quarterly report.

I'm more interested to see what Bruce might have in mind for the Peruvian Army and Air Force... :)

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

I'm not sure I have any particular objection to starting off in Q1/1945... the power difference between Chile and Peru isn't likely to be altered by a single quarterly report.

I'm more interested to see what Bruce might have in mind for the Peruvian Army and Air Force... :)

The status of the other Peruvian services seem to be in disarray similar to the Peruvian Navy; they will have to wait their turn. :D

Should I take this as representing a consensus of the active player-base and proceed?

From the Italian encyclopaedia it seems 17 Soldati were built, 1 was destroyed in 1944 and I brought 8 for Argentina in 1945 and it seems Peru brought the remaining half.
As to prices, I paid 4,560 tons for all eight and completed payments the same year. I suspect Jef's 1,560 ton payment was one instalment. I haven't kept the original PM chain but I suspect Peru would have paid a similar price unless Snip was feeling extra generous.

As to whether Italy could have built 17 given the factory issues I don't know, but we can't do anything at this stage to deny that. I feel the Italian encyclopaedia should remain canon and as Italy is now an NPC, I feel its safe that we should leave the issue alone. The longer Italy remains NPC its not building anything and so its out of balance spending will not be an issue before the sim ends.

Peru has had so many players over the years, most largely inexperienced and with novel ideas, that it will be a tangle but I'm sure you'll sort it to give some kind of balanced fleet.

As to the 13,700 pocket BB, is there anyway you could recast it as something more viable and making use of the materials already used (assuming the hull hasn't been completed)?
There is nothing in the rules regarding scrapping an uncompleted ship, I assume it would have to be launched and then put into a dry dock. Of course the hull might not have to be 40% complete as long as its watertight enough to move it.

Here are the extracts from the rules:

2.2.5 Conversion of Incomplete Vessels

Incomplete hulls may be converted as an expediency measure in cases of emergencies or when treaty restrictions make it desirable to do so. The process is nothing more than a reconstruction of the hull that exists, followed by normal construction of the remainder of the ship in its new form. Possible conversions include aircraft carriers built from capital ships, cruisers, oilers, seaplane tenders, or cruise liners. Battlecruisers might be converted to battleships and vice-versa.

To convert the hull, first reconstruct the incomplete hull as described in 2.2.4. Your end-product will be an incomplete hull of the type of ship you now wish to complete.

To then complete the hull, simply build in materials equal to the light displacement of the completed ship, minus the light displacement of the incomplete hull. The minimum time to complete is equal to the ship’s construction time from scratch, minus the length of time spent building the ship’s hull in its old form.

It is reasonable for a player to spend an extra one to six months just planning the conversion, before undertaking the reconstruction. However, this is left as an option for players with a sense for realism.

Example: An opportunistic signatory of the Treaty has an incomplete battleship hull that will have to be scrapped if not completed as an aircraft carrier. The battleship’s light displacement was to be 31,000 tons, and would have taken 40 months to complete. However, she is currently only 25% complete - 10 months of construction and 7,750 tons of materials so far.

Reconstructing the hull will take 75% of that - 7.5 months, and 5,812.5 tons. The navy now has an incomplete aircraft carrier hull, with 10 months of construction and 7,750 tons of materials put into her.

As a carrier, the ship will have a light displacement of 25,000 tons and would take 34 months to build from scratch. Since the reconstructed hull has seen 10 months of construction and 7,750 tons of construction, she will require just 24 months and 17,250 tons of material to complete.

In total, however, the construction, reconstruction and completion of the ship has taken 41.5 months and 30,812.5 tons of materials.

2.3 Breaking up of completed or incomplete units

Breaking up a ship takes a total of 1/3 of the time necessary to build a vessel of its tonnage (light displacement).

2.3.1 Breaking up ships of 2001ts and over

To scrap a ship of 2001ts and over an appropriate drydock is necessary because 40% of the total time necessary to scrap the ship in question has to be spend in a dry dock. Once the ship is broken up entirely, 15% of its tonnage (light displacement) can be recycled. It will take 2 full quarters to do so.

Rule 1.1 will apply to material gained this way. If unused the material will be carried over into the next quarter and then be lost.

Example: A cruiser of 9000ts (light displacement) is to be scrapped. It would take 18 months to build it so scrapping it takes 6 months. Of those 6 months the ship has to spend 2,4 months in a dock. Afterwards 1350ts can be recycled. If we assume scrapping to start at the beginning of Q1 it will be finished after Q2. The material gained will be recycled (Q3, Q4) and available for new constructions in Q1 the following year.

The question of scrapping incomplete vessels comes in two forms.

1 – Jefgte declared he was scrapping an incomplete destroyer on the stocks – but hadn’t put enough tonnage into it to launch it and properly scrap it. It seems he took this action in 1Q45.

2 – The pocket battleship in question only received 1,200 of its 13,700 tons; in order to launch it I would have to invest a further 4,280 tons (to get it to the minimum 40% completion), and then scrap it – recovering at best 15% of the total investment – a paltry 822 tons.

This, combined with the data gap on the Soldatis (and thank you for sharing your cost price – Snip drove a hard bargain I see), guides my preference on taking 4Q44 as a start point rather than 1Q45 – but I will go with our consensus.

"2.2.5 Conversion of Incomplete Vessels" is a rule from the old rules and no longer appears in the new rules as I mentioned somewhere else and I am not sure if that particular rule would still apply. Also, I now find that the 75% is way too expensive especially in the early stages of construction. If that rule were to be applied, the cost of the conversion should depend on what refit/reconstruction level is required for the changes unless the hull has less than x% of materials in which case it should only require a "Level 3: Major Refit" or lower for the changes...

... but that is my opinion.



Regarding breaking up a ship, to me the people breaking up a ship need a dry area where they can work to break up a vessel. Considering that you can't drag a vessel onto a slip, a drydock would be required to do that or you beach the vessel and break it down there. Considering that a vessel <40% is still on a slip and thus in a dry and easily accessible area for scrappers, I do not see why it can't be scrapped there...

... but again that is my opinion.

True, with only 1,200 tons that's mot much more than the keel and a few bulkheads so the workers could easily break that up.

I'd say the options are:
a) stop building, redesign the ship/ new ship and use the 1,200 tons as a down payment on the ship, but keeping the full building time (time to reconfigure the material etc.).
b) dissemble the materials on the slip but only recover at scrap rates
c) build the ship and try and get someone to buy it!

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Should I take this as representing a consensus of the active player-base and proceed?

That's my understanding...

In attempting to navigate the shoals of the Peruvian sim reports, I find that it is necessary to ask that the player-base allow me to retcon the existing Peruvian 1Q45 sim report to eliminate serious math errors and data gaps.

The report in question can be found here:

The production side of the report states:

Quoted

3/4 Factories to Naval Materials: +3,000 t
1/4 Factories to Infrastructure: +0.2 IP + 0.0 bonus IP
Stockpile: 4674 t
Transfers: -1560 t (to Italia)
Scrap: 0 t
Total Available Tonnage: 6114 t
Total Tonnage Used: 2922 t
Surplus to Next Quarter: 3192 t

The first point – the number of IP produced is incorrect: A single factory would only produce 0.1 IP in the first quarter, not 0.2 IP.

The second point – the production numbers do not add up right

Stockpile from Previous Quarter: 4,674 tons
Tonnage Produced (3 of 4 factories): 3,000 tons
Total Tonnage Available: 7,674 tons

This is compared to the 6,114 tons stated in the current 1Q45 report

The third point – the expenditures do not add up right either

Quoted

…Transfers: -1560 t (to Italia)
… S2.5A: Start 13700t heavy cruiser Ilo, receive 1200t, 12500t to finish
…D3A: Start 9800t CVE Atahualpa, receive 1200t, 8600t to finish
…MS7 - 200t Minesweeper, receive 200t, 0t to finish
…RPB1- 36t River Patrol Boat, receive 36t, 0t to finish
…RPB2- 36t River Patrol Boat, receive 36t, 0t to finish
…1000t Oiler conversion, receive 500t, 500t to finish, com 10/1945

This translates to:

Allocated to CA Ilo: 1,200 tons
Allocated to CVE Atahualpa: 1,200 tons
Transfer to Italy - payment for DD: 1,560 tons
Minesweeper MS-7 (duplicate?): 200 tons
Two River Patrol Boats: 72 tons
Oiler Conversion: 500 tons
Total Expended: 4,732 tons

This is compared with the 2,922 tons cited in the current report. The end-of-quarter stockpiles are off as well – 2,942 tons versus the 3,192 tons cited.

The expenditures contained in the 1Q45 Peruvian report present several issues:

The purchase from Italy is not documented elsewhere, and neither the buyer nor seller is available to explain their financial arrangements. Based upon cost price to Argentina for eight similar destroyers acquired in the same time frame, 4,560 tons, we might presume the cost to Peru was the same – but that is a presumption.

The Minesweeper MS-7 was also paid for in 4Q44 – so the citation in 1Q45 is either a duplicate (in which case the tonnage could be deducted) or it represents a further vessel. But that again would require a presumption.

While there were minor math errors in the 2Q44, 3Q44, and 4Q44 reports they were on the order of 20 tons and tended to net themselves out. I see no great reason to go back and retcon those and would prefer to draw a line at that point and proceed on firm ground.

I note that in the Peru encyclopaedia Jefgte had planned six MS units for 1944 & 1945, MS5 to MS10, so I suspect MS7 is a cut and paste error/typo for MS8. I presume one was planned per Q so the last would complete in Q3/45.
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…9682#post129682

I'm happy with whatever changes you need to make to make things tally up. I would be inclined not to worry about the small 1944 errors of the order of 20 tons.