WesWorld

Quoted

But there isn't much other tension, for sure. I think it's a result of some players being less interested in the role-playing aspect of this sim than others. Those who are most in to the roleplaying are creating the tension by virtue of their story-telling. Those who are focussing on ship design will only create tension if their designs are controversial, which they aren't. And I don't mean to be a critic here, it's meant as an observation.

You mean, building that memorial over the hulk of PRS Palawan didn't turn the heat up even a little??

And I guess Russia needs to "gently encourage" another small bordering country into signing a "Mutual Defense Treaty".

;-)

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
O_O
Isn't that part of the official part of the treaty??
(At least I always thought that way about SAE using NEI oil)
*goes off to re-read SANTA*

To deliver the oil as well as to protect those transports with military force is part of SANTA (Art. 10)....but there is no line if one nation could ask the other to help should there be a third party aggressor.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Oh there was a great war, the problem is the history was a bit different, some country's were involved, some were not and most players haven't given any major thought as to how all the powers were involved in detail.

Some players have given little explanation for even why they have the territory's they do other than "because I can". Others build to CT limits simply because they can

Without a timeline for the great war, its tough to figure out the national sentement of each and every nation following WW1.

Yeah, without a solid history it is difficult to move forward.

From what I've seen of British and other imperial societies in the beginning of the 20th century "because I can" was a fairly dominant mindset!

It's clear from the history of Europe that most nations were fairly solidly sure that there wouldn't be another war because of the scars, were willing to ignore the signs until the last minute and were sure that they wouldn't need to work up to a major re-arming.

Which begs another question, why are people re-arming so heavily? What's the motivation? Excepting the whee-diggie big toy aspect, heavy re-arming would probably be looked upon with serious suspicion by both the government and the people. Don't forget issues like the stock market crash! There were reasons that happened and some of them were to do with the war. Some were to do with a sense of futility that people had as well.

Deirdre

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov

Quoted

You mean, building that memorial over the hulk of PRS Palawan didn't turn the heat up even a little??

see there are reasons why Ireland has so many problems with that stupidity ooop north.

Lessee:
issues with Language - how to encourage learning the national language without sounding like you're encouraging the IRA. Especially when IRA & Sinn Fein use Irish a lot.

How to encourage national pride without encouraging the idiots

How to balance war memorials with 1916 stuff. Aren't they still Irish when they fought for the British Army? Particularly before the Independence thing.

Are people like George Bernard Shaw Irish? We claim them, so do the English on a regular basis, even today.

Should we claim people like Wellington where he said something to the effect that just because someone is born in a stable that doesn't make him a horse.

sometimes outward stability can be inward instability

Remember that in 1916 the leaders were villified until they were made into martyrs!

Deirdre (just thinking out loud with her fingers)

Valid points.

As for the memorial, it is not hard to get a reaction of some kind out of the Philappines, its getting tensions up in Europe that seems to be the trouble. Part of that might be the relationship between France and Russia and the lack of a regular player for the U.K. (or a GM that can play that and the other NPC nations). The British Empire is probably the trickiest to play here as it is huge, powerful, and probably was involved in most situations around the world in one fashion or another at least until the Great War.

Germany is not quite to the point of antagonist yet, but in our world would be approaching that point soon.

However, focus has shifted largely to the Pacific in terms of the potental power struggle. And the other hot issue seems to be the number of 380mm guns currently held by the South African Empire verses any other treaty member save the U.K. The last hot spot seems to be more of a side issue: South America.

Well...Germany might be approaching that point soon. While I was playing it, I was actually steering it gently towards a post WW2 Japan-style pacifist state with "self defence" forces. Hard to say where a new player would take it...but knowing how the rest of Europe is, he'd probably order, "Hard to starboard!", politically speaking.

We have lots of European states; they just don't antagonize each other much.

To answer Lady Green's question on re-armament: India's arming up so heavily (relatively speaking) because she wasn't armed before, and it works for her foreign policy objective of ejecting European nations from Asia.

Why's the rest of the world arming up? Dunno. They like to design their ships, I suppose. I don't see a clear in-game reason for it.

The main thing the US is building and plans to build are cruisers, something that I'm quite deficient in. As of Q1/29 I'm at 24 hulls, 4 heavy, 20 light. While I've almost twice as many lights as historically, I'm right on schedule with heavies. To be "balanced" with 16 capital ships, I should have 48 cruisers. That's probably not going to happen any time soon. Compared to other countries I'm short on factories (Japan has more than I do right now) so the 1930's will see considerable infrastructure improvement. The only new ships planned are a couple carriers and replacement destroyers for my oldest hulls. My battleships will be getting refits, with no plans right now to replace any till late in the decade. My main deviation from historical building has been my coast defense ships, a holdover of post-Iberian war paranoia about coast defense.

Quoted

Originally posted by Lady Green
Don't forget issues like the stock market crash!

I know it's been rolling around a bit with Canis, Walter, and others, but has there been a final decision on what's going on with the Stock Market in the coming year?

Quoted

As for the memorial, it is not hard to get a reaction of some kind out of the Philipines

*smirks*

Are you suggesting that, perhaps, Philippines may be the cause of some of the European arming...?
^_^

The Philippines is arming for the same reason India is: because we weren't before. There is also the possibility of Imperial Ambitions™ among certain...now deceased...political figures; and also a certain sense of "us against the world" paranoia as well.

Rough Filipino plans for the coming decade include:
(not including ships currently building...)
2 battleships
3 carriers
21-23 cruisers
32-35 destroyers
12 submarines
12 gunboats
11 auxilaries

Quoted

2 battleships
3 carriers
21-23 cruisers
32-35 destroyers
12 submarines
12 gunboats
11 auxilaries

Sounds just a tad too optimistic to me, particularily in the Cruiser department considering Atlantis has built 14 cruisers (6 CA, 8 CL) in 8 years.

Agreed. Indian plans are much more modest at this point, particularly as about 4 of my 11 factories will be working strictly on infrastructure.

Realistically, the stock market situation is up to Canis, as it'll be his country that has it happen or not. I'll just go with the flow.

Quoted

Realistically, the stock market situation is up to Canis, as it'll be his country that has it happen or not. I'll just go with the flow.

I was afraid you'd say that...

Arms limitation doesn't equal security. The LoN was to stop the very blocs we have here. The WT was done by politicians, if it had been up to naval experts then there would have been no treaty. When you let naval experts have their say you get the 1927 Geneva conference. The CT just sets a cap. The most important part of the WT was the China agreements to diffuse problems in the Pacific. This was the 'security' part of the WT - not the fixed naval ratios. This just removed the arms race component and did nothing for the problems as to why they needed all the ships in the first place.

Cheers,

If I read that assessment correctly, then unless something drastic happens in terms of internationals relations, the CT or LoN, then the world WILL see war within ten year of 1929. Not quite the war we know, but more likely several smaller wars, spread across the globe. Possibly not having anything particular connecting them to each other. (Turkey vs. Greece. SATSUMA vs. FAR. Chile vs. Bolivia and Peru. Nordmark vs Gemany. Iberia and Italy vs. Atlantis. Things like that.)

I still think some of those will spill over to other nations as their self interests are threatened by the possible outcome.

Quoted

then the world WILL see war within ten year of 1929

I think a SATSUMA / AANM is less unlikely than SATSUMA / FAR. A war would derail progress on French de-colonization, and that's more important to some SATSUMA members than chest-thumping over an accident.

Somebody got a link for this China agreement? I've never heard of it. I'd like to check it out.

I realize that blocs can be a problem for peace - but are six relatively exclusive blocs better than two?

That list is the "Most Optimistic No-Ships-Needing-Repairs Wish List". ;-)

I would say that six is better than two. Six blocs can jostle around among each other without necessarily rocking the boat, and if one does get too big for its britches the others can, perhaps, gang up on it. But with two, any actions by one have to be considered by the other, for better or for worse.

My opinion is that all the blocks concerned are always trying to influence others, trying to form a loose alliance by slowly improving relations.

Eventually those efforts will either bear fruit or frustration will turn to confrontation and eventually conflict.

Ah...I found the Nine Power Treaty, which as Roger noted was linked to the WNC along with a few other things. On paper, the set of treaties ought to have been a pretty significant deterrant to aggression; but in the long term, they obviously weren't.

It'd be an interesting set of negotiations to have in Wesworld. One could expand the scope to include other "non-powers" besides China - Burma, Siam, etc.

Hmm...