You are not logged in.


Sunday, December 18th 2005, 1:39am

The Japanese reporter would work better against Mr. Wilson....

Well that leaves us with Iberia and the Neatherlands.

Chile's observer and his aide have a train to catch while the diplomatic representative will likely either find another way home, or will be attached to another nation's embassy.


Sunday, December 18th 2005, 10:35am

[qoute]I see the cracks already forming in the Commonwealth. :-)

... time for some 'fast leg theory'?



Sunday, December 18th 2005, 11:10am


Well that leaves us with Iberia and the Neatherlands.

I'm working on it.


Thursday, December 22nd 2005, 4:40pm

Bit of a delay from Javi due to various problems again.


Monday, December 26th 2005, 8:27pm

Iberia votes

and no, I did not check this with GC, the man is kinda preoccupied ...

Germany limits ---------------------- Yes

Australia/UK limits ----------------- Yes

Museum Ships ------------------------ Yes

Rebuilding/reconstruction ----------- Yes

Training Ships ---------------------- Yes

Experimental Submarines ------------- Yes

Unrestricted vessels ---------------- No

Filipino limits --------------------- Yes

6 inch guns ------------------------- No

Cruiser tonnage --------------------- No

Capital Ship Definition ------------- No

General Ship Definition ------------- No

Hull limits vs tonnage -------------- No

Minor Power Limits ------------------ No

Sales of warships (new + old) A ----- No

Sales of warships (new + old) B ----- No

Sales of warships (new + old) C ----- No

Sales of warships (Indian Proposal) - Yes

Capital ship limits ----------------- No

Compliance -------------------------- No

Sub Hull/Displacement --------------- Yes

Hybrid ships ------------------------ Yes

OOC I'll comment that IMO the Indian ship sales proposal is a total abortion because it mixes OOC rules and IC treaty stuff (sorry Rocky). RA convinced me to not make an issue of it.




Tuesday, December 27th 2005, 12:54am


the Indian ship sales proposal is a total abortion because it mixes OOC rules and IC treaty stuff

Oh, absolutely; but that's how complex the discussion got.

Thanks for chipping in the Iberian perspective.


Friday, December 30th 2005, 10:24pm

I talked to GC since and he is aware of the vote and my reasoning.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Wednesday, January 11th 2006, 12:28am

So, what we need now is somebody to modify the original text in such a manner that all new decisions are included. We then need to "replace" the old treaty...

Any volunteer(s)?


Thursday, January 12th 2006, 3:04pm

I'm working on it. Germany has been added, as have the Australian and revised UK limits.

And now museum ships and memorials have been added, along with unlimited ships.

Bah, just noticed that Iberia vetoed the unrestricted ships clause, now I have to back that change out. Could someone please update the big votes list with all the latest votes, at least as far as passed/failed? Doesn't matter how many votes were for it, one vote against it and it fails.....

Also, could someone please post the current US limits? I'm not sure what they are exactly, I keep seeing different numbers and my head's spinning....

And now the rebuild changes and training ship additions have been added.

The sales changes have now been incorporated. I think that's everything, except for the revised US limits, that made it through the voting guantlet. Am I correct?


Thursday, January 12th 2006, 7:28pm

My tally is:

German limits
Australian/UK limits
US limits (housekeeping, not a voted change)
Filipino limits (to India's numbers)
Museums and memorials
Rebuild and reconstruction
Training ships
Sales (Indian proposal)

Everything else had at least one vote against.

Not sure where the US stuff has been compiled, but I'll have a look 'round.


Thursday, January 12th 2006, 7:32pm

I've put in US limits as 500,000/16 ships for the capital ships, which flows fine through the surface ships. Right now I've left the submarine allocations alone, those do not seem to be directly tied to capital ship tonnage.

The Filipino limits change didn't get into the Treaty per se, since they're just flipping from one "base" to another. The rest I think I've gotten in place now.


Thursday, January 12th 2006, 7:45pm

500,000 looks good to me. That would make:

CV: 125,000 t
CA+CL: 500,000 (150,000 max Type A)
DD: 200,000 t (max 40,000 as Type A)
SS...yeah, leave it as they are, I suppose.

The Filipinos do need to have their revised allocations reflected in the treaty tables.


Thursday, January 12th 2006, 7:55pm

I got the 500,000/16 from CanisD's post on page 6 of this discussion.

The Republic of the Philippines has been added to the allocation lists.


Thursday, January 12th 2006, 8:03pm

I extrapolated it as 31,500 t * 16 (504,000), rounded down.


Thursday, January 12th 2006, 10:33pm

500K/16 is the correct number, and the other numbers look correct as well.