WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
If this scrapping of infrastructure is allowed would you get tonnage or IP scrapping it?

My inclination would be either, to allow what Brock's talking about (consolidation of facilities) and something like my Peruvian example. In reality, of course, the terms would be money, which could then be spent by the seller on whatever, so that's why my inclination would be that 1 IP sold is worth 1 IP or 8,000 tons.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
My big issue which I'd like to address is a case of realism. As I've noted previously, whoever set up the infrastructure for Chile stuck a D0 and two S0s in the town of Mejillones, which is a very small town with no harbor, no real access to the outside world, and no history of building ships larger than fishing boats. It's a completely isolated town and realistically worthless for military shipbuilding. If this option is accepted, I'd like to "sell" the Mejillones yards and place an identical facility at Valdivia or Punta Arenas, both of which actually *had* military shipyards as early as the 1890s.

This is probably a matter dealt with completely different.

If you take over a country from a former player and you want something like the above changed, for realism reasons for example, you should raise this to the admins and in case it has no negative affect on the sim in general, I´m sure the admins will allow you to simple "move" that harbor/facility. We should not take rules too important in such case. We have allowed other players to re-write reports and the like in the past. The above belongs to the same category of problems.

Getting out the same IP from an investment as spended is a definitive "no" from my side.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Getting out the same IP from an investment as spended is a definitive "no" from my side.

Again, why? If a commercial shipbuilder is looking to buy a Slip 2, which is he going to pay more for? The one he can buy today and have work start on a hull in it as soon as he can get his people and material there? Or the one that will take months to build, meanwhile he has nothing other than a bunch of parts being assembled?

And here's something else to consider: we're ALREADY buying slips and docks from the commercial side in the sim, and have been since the start. Why do I say that? Because if you have enough IPs to purchase a slip or dock in 1 quarter, you can use that slip or dock the next quarter, there are no building times defined for slips or docks. So, you're clearly buying one that's already completed, NOT building it from scratch. And, there's no extra cost to do this over building it over several quarters.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
And here's something else to consider: we're ALREADY buying slips and docks from the commercial side in the sim, and have been since the start. Why do I say that? Because if you have enough IPs to purchase a slip or dock in 1 quarter, you can use that slip or dock the next quarter, there are no building times defined for slips or docks. So, you're clearly buying one that's already completed, NOT building it from scratch. And, there's no extra cost to do this over building it over several quarters.

Well. Aside from the fact that we have a cap on how much IP can be spent on a project per quarter.

(Speaking of which, who *raised* the cap? It used to be .5 IP per quarter, and now it's 1.5 IP per quarter.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
And here's something else to consider: we're ALREADY buying slips and docks from the commercial side in the sim, and have been since the start. Why do I say that? Because if you have enough IPs to purchase a slip or dock in 1 quarter, you can use that slip or dock the next quarter, there are no building times defined for slips or docks. So, you're clearly buying one that's already completed, NOT building it from scratch. And, there's no extra cost to do this over building it over several quarters.

Well. Aside from the fact that we have a cap on how much IP can be spent on a project per quarter.

(Speaking of which, who *raised* the cap? It used to be .5 IP per quarter, and now it's 1.5 IP per quarter.)

It's always been 1.5 IP per quarter, at least as long as I've been here. Building factories in the late 1920s as Germany would have been UGLY at .5 IP per quarter.

Hm, maybe I'm just mistaken, then...

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Hm, maybe I'm just mistaken, then...

Yep. And, while you're limited during Q1-3 by the "no more than 1.5 IP per quarter" rule, it doesn't apply to "bonus" IPs from dedicated factories in Q4, even if the project didn't start until Q4.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Yep. And, while you're limited during Q1-3 by the "no more than 1.5 IP per quarter" rule, it doesn't apply to "bonus" IPs from dedicated factories in Q4, even if the project didn't start until Q4.

The Bonus IPs are thought to be spread over the entire year, but only appear in Q4.

I've always thought of slips and docks as places where the IP warship material production (whatever that really means in real-world economic terms) of the nation is spent.

Of course they retain IP value when completed, all docks and slips are valuable commodites due to their expense to build. The remain static assets to the nation to build ships. I've no problem with selling them to the private sector (assuming a commerical need for multiple extra slips). In theory the State would have free access in wartime, State Planned ecominies and complusory purchase would force the civilian yards to produce vessels (civil or military) in wartime the state needs.

Since all docks and slips have economic value they have a cost value. Whether an cvil firm is going to spend 5 IP on a Type 5 dock is another matter. I think making a profit is impossible.

Another basic matter, a nation's factories produce IP. How do civilian firms get hold of IPs to spend?

Any sell off should have an impact on the nations infrastructure points. Since we don't declare civil facilities under the infrastructure points total it shouldn't pose an issue. Overall I'm not sure why a nation would want to do this but some players might want to.

Hrolfs arguement "Because if you have enough IPs to purchase a slip or dock in 1 quarter, you can use that slip or dock the next quarter, there are no building times defined for slips or docks. So, you're clearly buying one that's already completed, NOT building it from scratch" is very dodgy. Sounds too much like expoliting a loop-hole in rules for gain. Just because dock build times was missed when the rules were written doesn't mean this is the case.

We have precedent for a portion of the idea, I recall....I think that Rocky scrapped some older vessels for IP.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
My big issue which I'd like to address is a case of realism. As I've noted previously, whoever set up the infrastructure for Chile stuck a D0 and two S0s in the town of Mejillones, which is a very small town with no harbor, no real access to the outside world, and no history of building ships larger than fishing boats. It's a completely isolated town and realistically worthless for military shipbuilding. If this option is accepted, I'd like to "sell" the Mejillones yards and place an identical facility at Valdivia or Punta Arenas, both of which actually *had* military shipyards as early as the 1890s.

Quite some time ago now, I transferred Dutch infrastructure from a near-non port to Rotterdam-which historically was a major ship building area yet had nothing. Gamewise it changed nothing and no one evidenced qualms about it. So I certainly don't see why an a-historical allocation like Mejillones can't simply be rebranded Punta Arenas.

So any further comments?

Regardless of how the overall issue turns out, I'm not opposed to Brock being able to sensibly relocate his yard facilities to a historically developed location.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Regardless of how the overall issue turns out, I'm not opposed to Brock being able to sensibly relocate his yard facilities to a historically developed location.

In that case, I'd like to take this:

Quoted

ASMAR - Astillero de Mejillones:
S0: Idle.
S0: Idle.
D0: Idle.

And turn them into this:

Quoted

ASMAR - Astillero de Magallanes (Punta Arenas):
D0: Idle.

ASENAV - Astillero de Valdivia:
S0: Idle.
S0: Idle.

Historically, this covers the two historcal but unrepresented shipyards in Chile (aside from Talcahuano and Valparaiso).

Valdivia has shipyards which have been engaged in building patrol boats, tugs, small cruise ships, fishing vessels, etc, up to 110m x 23m. In recent years they've built larger craft in two pieces, which were then towed for assembly in larger docks (probably ASMAR's Astillero de Talcahuano). Valdivia has a protected harbour and a population suitable to host appropriate shipbuilding work. Valdivia's been a shipbuilding town since the 1800s, and had the first steel mill in South America (or so it seems).

ASMAR's facility in Puntas Arenas was founded in the late 1890s and is the southernmost shipyard in the world; today it has a marine railway capable of lifting 3,500 ton ships and is primarily engaged in ship repair (Cape Horn being right next door and all).

I split the facilities as I did because Valdivia traditionally doesn't conduct naval repairs, but they do shipbuilding; ASMAR de Magallanes doesn't do shipbuilding but they are quite well equipped for repairs.

This seems a reasonable solution to the situation where infrastructure was assigned to a location that has (in our time line) no real port and to place it in locations that have the basic infrastructure (ports, industries, population) to support it.