WesWorld

Sorry, it's hard to keep track of what should be related discussions in two seperate threads.

I've seen references to my having a fit, and although it's tempting, it's too late in the day for me to muster the energy. Plus I can't convey the "bad dog" voice over the internet without looking grammatically challenged.

My thoughts on the current British Empire-related discussions:

Canada:

Canada has no need for a battleship. Its only conceivable enemies are the USA and Nordmark. It is lunacy to try to build up an RCN capable of deterring either nation of actual aggression; it's far more sensible to station RN tripwire squadrons on both coasts: attack Canada, and you attack the Empire. That's why the RN exists.

The RCN should follow generally historical notions: a useful destroyer force to keep trade open with Mother England, perhaps a few light cruisers to deal with surface raiders.

Pakistan

There is no Pakistani navy. That's what the twenty-odd capital ships of the RN are in part supposed to defend, not to mention the scores of cruisers and destroyers.

Australia

I'm not opposed to Gravina joining us in some fashion here. He's done some astonishing work on various boards and I'm sure he would/will here.

My problem is, once again, my environment changes after the fact. India's treaty allocations were based on a world without the Philippines, without Danish-allied Siam, with a different Dutch navy, and with a different Australian navy. All this has changed after the fact, and although it would all have affected my negotiating back in 1920, we aren't also retroactively modifying the treaty.

It is exceedingly difficult to roleplay when the basic facts change every few months.

That said, the majority of folks seem eager to bring Australia back, so I will quasi-gracefully bow to that majority. Welcome, Gravina. I look forward to "working" with you.

Thoughts on Australia ships/infrastructure:

I will support fou capital ships, either the notion of old KGV's and a QE - which is the force mix Australia started with, and thus helped frame my negotiating positions - or a QE and some of the older BCs. It would not be unrealistic to expect that the cruiser and destroyer mix is a bit more diversified than 17inc's, and perhaps not up to the treaty limits.

The High Seas Fleet scuttled itself at Scapa Flow in this timeline; the inclusion of any of those battleships in the Australian OOB is out of the question, in my mind.

I have no issue with a complete revision of Australian infrastructure. Our previous player's infrastructure was, to be blunt, stupid.

Closing thought:

This started out as a "replace Nordmark" discussion, and suddenly we've got Siam, Chile, Mexico, Australia 2.0, Turkey and maybe Nordmark. This is not the first time it's happened, but I sincerely hope it'll be the last. If Nordmark isn't filled this time 'round, it should be condemned to the NPC pile and the moderators should determine the outcome of the South Atlantic conflict of 1921. I'm tired of worrying about it.

Gravina: if I've put you off Australia, I'd consider the possibility of handing off Germany to you. It's an interesting place to run, but I don't know that I have the time to do both it and India justice.

J

Quoted

I will support fou capital ships, either the notion of old KGV's and a QE - which is the force mix Australia started with, and thus helped frame my negotiating positions - or a QE and some of the older BCs.

Agreed. This sounds reasonable.

Quoted

This started out as a "replace Nordmark" discussion, and suddenly we've got Siam, Chile, Mexico, Australia 2.0, Turkey and maybe Nordmark. This is not the first time it's happened, but I sincerely hope it'll be the last.

Seems that Siam is no longer 'in play'. I agree that once this 'round' is over, the plate will be full.

Quoted

If Nordmark isn't filled this time 'round, it should be condemned to the NPC pile and the moderators should determine the outcome of the South Atlantic conflict of 1921. I'm tired of worrying about it.

Again, agreed.

A Queen Elizabeth might work for Australia, but it might make sense not having that sixth ship built (along with the two Chilean ships) as the UK is smaller in this timelime.

I'd propose Australia have the following choices:

2 pre-dreanoughts (Duncan, Queen, or London-classes I guess)
2 Battlecruisers (New Zealand and Australia)
2 Dreadnoughts (Colossus, Orion, or King George-classes I assume, or older even)

or

2 Battlecruisers (New Zealand and Australia)
2-4 Dreadnoughts (Colossus, Orion, or King George-classes I assume, or older even)

or

4-6 Dreadnoughts (Colossus, Orion, or King George-classes I assume, or older even)

or

2 Battlecruisers (New Zealand and Australia)
1-2 older Dreadnoughts (Colossus-class or older)
1 Dreadnought (Sixth Queen Elizabeth-class ship)

Anyone else have an opinion or option? It, like mine, are worth what you pay for it. And remember "Twice nothing is still nothing".

The biggest problem for Britain is that Nordmark has taken over many Battleship projects that it or the U.S. undertook in South America, as such we need to explain why Britain is still a dominant power in the Atlantic given the presence of Atlantis, Nordmark and a unified Iberia.
Atlantis and Iberia themselves have an odd political relationship and because of this I feel Britain would be somewhat carefull in how they position their assets.

IIRC historically Britain planned to build 3 extra R class BB's and justify thier building by claiming they were for Canada's defence, therefore I don't think its unreasonable to think that Britain would transfer an Iron Duke to canada.

The U.S. not being in the great war would not ease Britains consern that the U.S. would be a potential allie, and Nordmark does have aspirations in Canada's northern territory's if I remember correctly.

Come to think of it, the United Kingdom does look a bit cut off from the Empire with all of its old routes taken over by one power or another. Also with Atlantis there, it might get a little tight for the English if Atlantis was hostile.

They still have a large part of there African possessions, new territories in the Middle East, Canada, Newfoundland (or is this Nordmark), Pakistan, what is left of Burma, Malaysia, Gayana, Jamaica, and some Pacific Islands. That is a large area to protect, but the Empire lacks the finances they had from India (the former Jewel of the Crown), South Africa and Australia.

It seems the Crown would not be able to build as much as they did historically...or at least not be able to build the planned ships. Building ships for sale might be one way to keep the fleet up. Hmmm. That might have to be looked into.

How about Australia = 2 old BCs (Australia and New Zealand) and 2 Orions - or whatever the predecessors of the QEs were. or, if that is not deemed enough, how about 2 Rs (inferior to the QEs IMHO).

cheers

Bernhard

And I really hope that we resurrect Nordmark - it's too important a nation. with Hoo and GC standing in the sidelines ready to take it over that shouldn't be too hard.

I agree about resurrecting Nordmark - Before I put the moves on Latvia I e-mailed Peng to see if my treading so obviously on his interests might entice him back. It would have been a much more interesting story if Nordmark had supported Latvia.

I think an Australian fleet with Australia, New Zealand, and Orion, Monarch, Conquerer, Thunderer, would be interesting to have played in the Pacific.

Especially if played with judgement and a sense of proportion...

c'me on now! ever met an Ozzie with judgement and sense of proportion? ;-)

I tend to agree with the Doc. It is really difficult to keep track of the changes currently planned for WesWorld and what influence this would have on our original layout.

To be honest, I think it is too much at a time. If we´re not careful we´ll rush things into completion that may doom the SIM as it is right now. One also gets the impression that many people aren´t reading carefully what is written. For example nobody ever proposed 1BigRich to play Nordmark (no offense meant, if you´re reading) but suddenly Wes lists him as a proposed player.

The last time we took on new players we said the SIM is closed now. I wonder why we´re still starting the discussion again and again. Okay, I understand your wish to solve the problem regarding Nordmark.

But do we really need somebody to play Australia? And if so, shouldn´t we sumstract Australian BBs from GBs? And if so, wouldn´t that make it necessary to change the Cleito Treaty and thus the whole SIM?

Why do we need Siam or Mexico played? And if they get played, why should they be controlled by players already controlling a country? Suddenly everybody seems to be interested in controlling two countries.... AdmK and the Doc were the exception for various reasons when we got started.

Well, I tend to agree it would be nice to have at least one player in South America so Chile might really be an option to choose if we add a completely new power. But this too has some influence on others and should be done carefully.

Again, I think the changes you guys propose are serious and we have to think twice if we really want that.

Also keep in mind this SIM originally was meant to act as a stage for technical discussions and own designs. It has grown since then and has become a roleplay (still lacking way too many rules, though). That´s fine with me but all the political things now happening make drastic changes necessary.

Not being a real roleplay we originally decided the UK and US should be NPCs. Their fleets size would make sure they could act as a world police if necessary. The players, as second and third rate navies, would focus on local things. Since then things have changed and lately the question of just how GB or the US would react to recent events poped up more often.

I therefore propose the following changes for WesWorld.

1.) Let the US and the UK become player nations (Ithekro and Gravina if they want the job).

2.) Both powers are bount to current CT limits.

3.) Canada and Australia remain part of the UK, they don´t get their own capital ships. If a BB is necessaryi n the region Mother England has to detach one.

4.) Nordmark - Peng will post the result of his little war and then Nordmark is rendered NPC but I´ll keep it up to date just for the case it is needed for a story or something.

5.) Chile remains NPC except either Gravina or Ithekro are not interested to take controll of either the US or the UK.

6.) No other countries are added. If Siam, Mexico or whatever small country needs to be played its fleet will not contain anything larger than a CL build prior to 1911 just to make sure the balance of power in various regions is kept (see Indias neighborhood).

The above offers the advantage of not adding powers to WesWorld currently not around and thus changes aren´t that dramatic. The UK and US will "just" become more lively.

Your thoughts?

HoOmAn

that's more seeping than anything propose so far. you want to activate the two big juggernauts that were intentionally left out. this will - literally - change everything. All alliances will have to rethink themselves, the works. I'd rather resurrect nordmakr and add the wee ones. it's less drastic IMHO. Although I can feel the appeal of the big ones.

Mind you I'd rather break them up into yankees and CSA (12 and 9), UK - Oz, ie a 14-ship nation, and add Oz.

Breaking them up is not an option as this would mean to re-write too much of history so far accepted in WesWorld.

I also think activating those too adds less irritation to the SIM as they already were part of it and we all more or less had to take note of them already.

Further more it was mentioned in the past several times that there is a huge gap that needs to be filled because of those two being NPCs. Instead of filling up that gap by creating new powers nobody considered before I think it would be much easier to activate the big two.

Of course, all this is true only if we want to enlarge the SIM at all - and I don´t feel the necessity to do so but bow my head to the majority of course.

Making the UK and USA player countries is indeed tempting, but that is way too big a monkey wrench IMHO...

1. Someone (Gravina?) gets Nordmark.

2. Ithekro gets Chile

3. Canada and Australia remain part of the UK

4. The US and UK remain NPCs.

5. Turkey? Maybe...

This should be acceptable to (nearly) everyone: Nordmark restarted and only one new country (maybe two).

(I got to thinking about Mexico and it would be rather...mundane.)

small and smooth solution

I wanted to address Wes' points last night, but was only half-way through my response when real-life interrupted me...

...so I'll reply now, as the culprit and her eight newborn kittens are safe and secure:

Quoted

The biggest problem for Britain is that Nordmark has taken over many Battleship projects that it or the U.S. undertook in South America, as such we need to explain why Britain is still a dominant power in the Atlantic given the presence of Atlantis, Nordmark and a unified Iberia.

My answer is that the RN is a dominant power because her colonies aren't. She has twenty capital ships because she needs a couple in Canada, a couple in Africa, a couple in the Med, a couple in the Pacific - plus a Home Fleet that is still big enough to scare most of us silly.

Quoted

IIRC historically Britain planned to build 3 extra R class BB's and justify thier building by claiming they were for Canada's defence, therefore I don't think its unreasonable to think that Britain would transfer an Iron Duke to canada.

In which case, I've have insisted that they be counted as British allocations, just as I should have argued was the case with Australia when we started the sim.

If Canada's an independent nation, one or three battleships makes not a bit of difference to the US if things get nasty on the forty-nineth parallel. One or two British battleships, in a trip-wire set-up, does make a difference.

At any rate, Canada's contribution to Britain in WW1 was not from a naval perspective. It was through production of war goods, providing infantry, and training facilities. Against the threat of the time - submarines and armed merchant cruisers - a reasonable force of sloops, destroyers, and a few light cruisers should suffice.

Quoted

and Nordmark does have aspirations in Canada's northern territory's if I remember correctly.

Having lived there, I can't fathom why this would be the case in the 1920s. The Northwest Passage isn't open, navigation in the Eastern Arctic is generally limited to ~July - October by sea ice, and there's nothing to attack or defend: no settlements, no mines, no infrastructure. It would be just as pointless as a war over Antarctica in the 1920's. Let's remember that carefully planned expeditions to the poles in the 1920s were still regularly ending in failure or disaster; opposed military actions won't fare any better.

well, congratulations to the mother then ;-)

I support Swamphen on points 1-4

I'd suggest that Turkey stays NPC as well.

Quoted

the culprit and her eight newborn kittens are safe and secure

The trouble with kittens...is that they grow up into cats!

*looks around for Chinese cookbook...*

Good god some of us are flip floping more than John Kerry here! I'm a little concerned about allowing the UK and the U.S. to be played but I'll go with the majority on this one. We have never had any trouble explaining why the U.S. is somewhat reluctant to get involved in European affairs, but the UK always poses a problem.

Most of the discussion around new "PC's" revolves around existing players taking on a little more in order to spice things up in area's, such as myself with Turkey, Swampy with Mexico, CG with Siam and dare I say Rooijin with Chosen and Formosa. Most of these with the exception of Turkey are tiny players with the ability to bait nations into conflict similar to those of the UK.
The suggestion of Bigrich taking on Nordmark was with all due respect a rough suggestion and not something I thought would happen, Bigrich doesn't frequent these boards.

In reguards to Turkey, Alt has brought up very interesting points, that would make playing Turkey quite interesting and despite my initial distaste at allowing it to become a "PC" I've since become more receptive to the idea. Playing Turkey would stimulate activity in the Med. which honestly is what alot of us want in the sim, (not nessasarily in the Med!)
I'd prefer a player to take Turkey over but if the majority don't want it I'll continue my limited story on it.
Quite honestly interactions with both Alt and RA convince me that it is possible for me to play Turkey without a bias for either Greece, Atlantis or Italy.

Most importantly we need to definatively solve the nordmark delema. Hoo has quite alot of storyline based on nordmark as the Nordish and South Africans have alot in common. If we cannot find a player thats willing to continue this work with Hoo, we need to consider the possibility that Hooman takes over nordmark. chile is also in this mix somewhat as well.

I've always tried to be fair in the SIM even when my own ambishions have screamed for me to do something, and I've always tried to maintain a solid "balance of power" in the SIM. We have three factions, SATSUMA, FAR and AANM. With SAINT and SANTA suffering from the loss of Nordmark this balance of power is somewhat tilted. Chile is also somewhat tied to Nordmarks activity.

Here's what I prepose:

Nordmark: Hooman (providing quarterly reports can be dispenced at an alarming rate)
Chile: Ithekro
UK: Gravina
United states: NPC
Turkey: thesmilingassassin (or current situation)

Quoted

*looks around for Chinese cookbook...*

Don't make me come over there, buddy.

Quoted

With SAINT and SANTA suffering from the loss of Nordmark this balance of power is somewhat tilted

Actually, SAINT has nothing to do with Nordmark; India kinda lumps them in with the "imperialist European crowd".

Quoted

Most of the discussion around new "PC's" revolves around existing players taking on a little more in order to spice things up in area's

That's an excellent point. We need more spice, or shall I say, story development. But we don't need it from new nations; we need it from the ones we already have. How many of us have done a story-arc that actually impacted our warship designs and also our overall building programs?

Adding new cannon-fodder states will not greatly help here; for people with two nations, they'll have yet more of the basic grunt-work here - quarterly reports, designing their ships - at the expense of creative role-playing.

If people want more spice to Wesworld, then here's my challenge to any two of you folks: have a war. Find a reason to have it, find a reason to work around your treaties if you don't want it to escalate. Compare your fleets, see how the battles would play out, script it all out, write a series of stories about it, and entertain the rest of us. Give us things to think about when we go to design our next cruiser or destroyer or collier.