WesWorld

Rocky suggested here that he was interested in broadening or eliminating the clause in the rules that discusses stockpiles of materials. I would like to follow that up with a discussion about this rule.

Currently, this is our wording.

Quoted

1.1 - If a portion of a factory’s warship materials go unused, they may be carried over and used in the next quarter; otherwise, they are lost to non-military uses.

In my personal opinion, I agree that allowing higher material stockpiles could be useful, but I don't want to see the rule abolished altogether; I'd suggest to change it to four quarters instead of one, if there is interest in this alteration.

What do other people think?

I'm easy for a change. Makes sense to have a 4Q rule, that way everything must be used within a year timeframe. It allows flexibility without the spectre of someone stockpiling immense amounts to spend all at once (though there are physical limits as to how much any nation can spend dictated by build rules and slip availability and even the availability of excess hulls on the export market).
Also it allows some strategic reserve in times of tension within a year. Most WW crises don't tend to last more than a few months, most wars less than a year.

I do think that our rule here needs modification but from an accounting standpoint, I can see potential issues with this approach to the problem.

It is a reasonable assumption that the last batch of materials produced in any one quarter are the first batch of materials used in the subsequent quarter - unless designated otherwise (and under the current rule that makes no sense). Thus the un-used materials constantly roll forward. Last-in = first out.

This only allows a nation to build a relatively small or short-term stockpile. If we want to give greater flexibility, I would rather see a rule such as -

"A nation may stockpile unused shipbuilding material to a maximum of one-quarter's total factory output."

This would limit a nation with thirty factories to a maximum stockpile of 30,000 tons at any point in time. I realize that it would also limit a nation with two factories to a maximum stockpile of 2,000 tons.

If this were to seen to be a serious burden for smaller nations, then a compromise might be written as:

"Nations with fifteen or fewer factories may stockpile unused shipbuilding material to a maximum of two-quarters total factory output; nations with more than fifteen factories may stockpile unused shipbuilding material to a maximum of one-quarter's factory output."

The other alternative might be to specify a numerical upper limit for all nations at some mutually agreed upon number.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
"A nation may stockpile unused shipbuilding material to a maximum of one-quarter's total factory output."

Eh? That doesn't really raise the bar that much. Perhaps saying "to a maximum of one year's output" might be better.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
"A nation may stockpile unused shipbuilding material to a maximum of one-quarter's total factory output."

Eh? That doesn't really raise the bar that much. Perhaps saying "to a maximum of one year's output" might be better.

Personally, four-quarter's factory output for a nation with thirty factories - 120,000 tons, is a far larger stockpile than any nation should be allowed to accrue. I'm suggesting some limit that is tied to rate of production to avoid excessive book-keeping.

Why not combine the two, a four-quarter timeline with a total tonnage ceiling?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Why not combine the two, a four-quarter timeline with a total tonnage ceiling?

With a total tonnage ceiling, there is no need for a timeline.

I disagree, in the case of Colombia I won't stockpile 30,000 tons in 1 full year, just 16,000. A nation with 10 factory's will only be able to stockpile 75 percent if its yearly output of 40,000 tons and the stockpile limit is 30,000 tons or 4 quarters.

Any nation above that level of factory's really only needs a stockpile to make up any small shortcomings between quarters. As Atlantis I don't think I've had a surplus of more than 6,000 tons in any quarter.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I disagree, in the case of Colombia I won't stockpile 30,000 tons in 1 full year, just 16,000. A nation with 10 factory's will only be able to stockpile 75 percent if its yearly output of 40,000 tons and the stockpile limit is 30,000 tons or 4 quarters.

Any nation above that level of factory's really only needs a stockpile to make up any small shortcomings between quarters. As Atlantis I don't think I've had a surplus of more than 6,000 tons in any quarter.

In framing a rules change proposal, we need to consider not just one specific circumstance, but how that rule could be used by any nation in any circumstance.

Hence my preference for some total stockpile limit - either expressed in absolute tons or as some fraction of the nation's annual production capacity. I agree with you that under normal circumstances a stockpile probably would not be more than 5-10% of the quarterly production, but it could be... and that is why I am concerned with something open-ended.

There's a practical question of what the factories are producing, and how it's useful in naval construction. If they're producing X tons of finished warship material, it's hard to argue that's useful for anything other than specific projects. Stockpiling structural components for one kind of ship isn't really useful when you build something else.

I don't see why there's a need for vast amounts of stockpiling. If you're consistently producing more material than you can use, invest in infrastructure to support larger building programs. Or buy foreign.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I don't see why there's a need for vast amounts of stockpiling. If you're consistently producing more material than you can use, invest in infrastructure to support larger building programs. Or buy foreign.

I would agree with that position. However, the question has been raised regarding a change to our current rules. Therefore, *if* we wish to change the rules at this point, we should change them in a way to preclude future power gaming on anyone's part.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

In framing a rules change proposal, we need to consider not just one specific circumstance, but how that rule could be used by any nation in any circumstance.

Hence my preference for some total stockpile limit - either expressed in absolute tons or as some fraction of the nation's annual production capacity. I agree with you that under normal circumstances a stockpile probably would not be more than 5-10% of the quarterly production, but it could be... and that is why I am concerned with something open-ended.

I don't see how I was only considering one instance, merely using one instance as an example. In fact I gave several.....

I'm not convinced that vast stockpiles will hurt the game, you still can only build at a certain rate anyway and to build a large group of ships at once you'd have to wait for as long a period as you would just building them when you have the materials.

Materials have a cost, as do refits, rebuilds ect. I frankly don't see how stockpiling anything longer than 1 or 4 quarters to pay for such things done in foreign yards up front is nessassarily a bad thing.

Another option, a nation can only stockpile materials equivilent to 1/3rd output over 4 quarters or x ammount of materials?

"Nations can stockpile the greater of X tons of material, or Y quarters' worth of production. Material is stockpiled as warship material unless explicitly identified as IP."

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
"Nations can stockpile the greater of X tons of material, or Y quarters' worth of production. Material is stockpiled as warship material unless explicitly identified as IP."

That proposal is framed in a manner that is clear and concise; depending on the values specified for X and for Y, I could support it.

So, for giggles:

X = 40,000 t (one year for our basic 10 factory nation).

Y = 4 quarters.

Not that I anticipate ever stockpiling to that kind of level...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
X = 40,000 t (one year for our basic 10 factory nation).

This'd be my preferred method. Simple and expedient, and it'd eliminate some of the "use it or lose it" projects I've occasionally had to take on.

Just to clairify, this new rule means a ten factory nation can stockpile 40,000 tons, a 30 factory nation can stockpile a maxium of 40,000 tons and a 4 factory nation can stockpile a maxium of 16,000 tons?

No - it's "greater of":

4 factories: 16,000 or 40,000 = 40,000
10 factories: 40,000 or 40,000 = 40,000
30 factories: 120,000 or 40,000 = 120,000

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Just to clairify, this new rule means a ten factory nation can stockpile 40,000 tons, a 30 factory nation can stockpile a maxium of 40,000 tons and a 4 factory nation can stockpile a maxium of 16,000 tons?

Rocky proposed:

Quoted

"Nations can stockpile the greater of X tons of material, or Y quarters' worth of production. Material is stockpiled as warship material unless explicitly identified as IP."

If we take X=40,000 tons and Y=4, which he proposed

A ten factory nation would have an upper limit of 40,000 tons.

A thirty factory nation would have an upper limit of 120,000 tons - which is four quarters production - the higher of the two options.

A four factory nation would have an upper limit of 40,000 tons - which is the higher of the two options.

Which, unfortunately, could be abused in a complex shell game between nations.

But the rule, as Rocky proposed, is a reasonable framework in which to set variable X and Y.