harry the red
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 3
(4/25/03 10:19:56 pm)
Some thoughts on the game structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off apologies for my absents, I have been caught up with some business that I had to take care of.
So, what has been happening?
I have noticed that the treaty has been changed slightly, and some players are talking about changing the section on sloops and unlimited ships in the below 600 ton class.
Has their been any other changes that I may have missed since the end of last month?
I have also noticed that some players are racing ahead of them selves and posting ship designs that are to be built in the late 20’s and 30’s. My head of intelligents truly appreciates you making his work easy. I also found the privies post on cheating interesting but how do you simulate it with out making the game too complex?
This has brought me to start thinking about game structure and to wonder if the following is possible.
Why don’t we reveal our ships stats on a 5-year time delay? This I believe will help introduce a level of secrecy and make the design proses more challenging by forcing us all to second-guess what our neighbour is up to. For example we can reveal the in formation in the following order
The respective government makes an announcement of the laying down of a new vessel it also states the vessels light ship displacement and the category it belongs to (destroyer, light cruiser and so on)
The light ship displacement is to verify construction time required.
As the time line moves along and the ships commissioning arrives the player must reveal the following information, some of it compulsory other information optional.
Waterline, beam and draft are compulsory. The number of main guns and the ships other deck armament is also compulsory and must be revealed.
If you have torpedo launchers below the waterline you don’t need to declare them.
The optional information to be supplied is one of the following two choices.
The calibre of the ships armaments or the ships weight at standard displacement, one of the two must be supplied. All other information like speed cruising range armour remain secret
This will allow some cheating to occur if an individual wishes to go there, while providing some information to allow other players to call his bluff and catch him out.
The player caught out can face a fin and or affected nations can use the escalation clause.
To make things interesting and to prevent every one making claims against their perceived opponents on the slightest pretext, we can also include a fine for those making a claim against some one if proven wrong.
For example South African Empire claims that Italy has violated the treaty with their new cruiser. Italy provides spring style stats on their new ship and proves that the ship confirms to the treaty requirements. Africa pays compensation to Italy in the form of one factory’s production for a year.
At the end of the five-year period all the ships details must be revealed.
If a player has successfully hid his treaty violation, the other players can only use the escalation clause. If the treaty has been renegotiated since the ships laying down in the following five years and the ship has become legal its owner wins a head start and the other players loose out.
The above is a guideline only. I believe that this should bring in some realism to the game by providing uncertainty while keeping it playable by providing incentives for nations to stick to the treaty.
For this to work, it will also require a referee who is neutral to collect the spring style stats from all players and keep them confidential until the time to make them public arrives.
This is to insure that no one changes the details at the last moment to avoid being caught or beefs up his ship if war brakes out.
It will also require us to introduce a date keeping structure at some point for example the 1st of January 1921 the commencement of the Sim proper will be on the 1st of May and every week after that represents 1or 2 months in Sim time.
Just some thoughts, what do you guys think is it feasible.
harry the red
aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 59
(4/25/03 10:27:45 pm)
Re: Some thoughts on the game structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i like it .
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"
Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board
Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 86
(4/26/03 4:56:55 am)
Re: Some thoughts on the game structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice ideas you got there Harry.
(You know you're , but can you match my -ness ?)
The optional information to be supplied is one of the following two choices.
The calibre of the ships armaments or the ships weight at standard displacement, one of the two must be supplied.
Wouldn't it be better if you gave the normal displacement rather than the standard displacement ? Limitation of the weight of ships is based on the standard displacement... but how much is it ? If you gave normal displacement in stead of the standard displacement, the latter would be purely based of guesses and could be over the limit or not.
Example:
Battleship maximum standard displacement is 40,000 tons
Springstyle sim of my Nagato gives the following data:
Light ship: 37247 tons
Standard displacement: 39624 tons
Normal service: 44640 tons
Full load: 48474 tons
As you can see, standard displacement is a mere 376 tons off the limit. For building purpose, I round up the light ship tonnage to 38,000 tons. But with a given normal displacement of 44,640 tons, how can you be sure that the standard displacement is still under 40,000 tons ?
Walter
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 67
(4/26/03 5:22:30 am)
Nice ideas but...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...take a look into the treaty. It says which informations have to be revealed when laying down a ship.
Then there is the question: What do you want? What is the goal of this so called SIM?
If you want a real game you need a full set of rules first. So far we have only some building rules but no full scale economy rules. We have no rules for warfare, we have no independant judges, no rules for espionage, no rules for international trade (no money system for example), no constant timeline etc.
All this has to be settled down _before_ you really start the SIM if you want it to be a game.
If you want all this only to provide some serious background for your attampts to get the best out of springstyle and compare them to others, then things are much easier. We don´t need more rules than we have so far and we could start immediatly.
For me, the latter is okay. That´s why we started this "SIM". I therefor don´t see the necessity to settle down a rule to keep things secret. I´m here to post my designs and drawings hoping to get some feetback and good input that helps me with my next project.
Of course I would also play a full scaled simulation game but I don´t want to wait another year (real time, and it surely would take so much time!) until someone has sorted things out with the rules. It would be much easier to leave and join one of the SIMs already running in the Net.
Just my thoughts...
Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 88
(4/26/03 5:48:51 am)
Re: Nice ideas but...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...take a look into the treaty. It says which informations have to be revealed when laying down a ship.
The only points I can find in the treaty (as posted here) where we have to give information is when we construct vessels for non-contracting powers (Part 3, Section K, article II) and for building replacement ships (Part 3, Section L, Article III). Unless I missed it somewhere, a nation does not have to give any information to other nations regarding a brand new ship (as long as it is not a replacement or for a non-contracting power).
If it is actually there somewhere, could you point out exactly where it is written ?
Walter
AdmKuznetsov
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 26
(4/26/03 7:06:11 am)
Re: Nice ideas but...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've gotta agree with this. We're not set up to do a full RPG/naval/economic wargame. We should post the full designs, and talk about them. In the event of war, we should talk over what the course and outcome should be. This last may well not work, but I don't see any firmer basis for proceeding from what we've got, and I've had a lot of fun with it so far!
Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
admkuznetsov.tripod.com/
Pengolodh
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 5
(4/26/03 10:07:32 am)
Re: Nice ideas but...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wroding is taken almost verbatim from the historical Washington Treaty, where the term replacement referred to the replacement of old ships with new ships, fitting to a situation where all the fleets were primarily downsizing on capital ships - essentially, most navies in our treaty will also be downsizing on capitals, if one (as one should) includes pre-dreads. At any rate, it was the intention (and this is only logical) that the requirement should extend to all new construction.
This can be clarified with an addition to the clauses on Replacement - it might be prudent also to mention something regarding those navies that are not built out to their treaty-limits, and how one views replacement contra new construction (my opinion being that it is encompassed by the same builder's holiday, but one has free choice whether one wants to build new ships to boost numbers before replacements , or replace old ships before one boosts numbers).
(Say, why did the fonts on the boards here change? With these new fonts each topic looks the way it would when my web-browser is about to crash and pull the computer down with it - slightly unnerving).
Best regards
Pengolodh
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities."
- Mohsen Khalil, Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League
Edited by: Pengolodh at: 4/26/03 10:24:36 am
Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 92
(4/26/03 10:39:48 am)
How about...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... adding the requirement to give the ship data to the other nations in Part 1, Article I "Consequence of Signature" ?
I have been looking at the Treaty a few times and I think that would be a good place to put it without having to create an additional article somewhere else.
It would be something like:
==============================================
PART 1 - DEFINITON OF DURATION AND EFFECTS OF THE TREATY
I. CONSEQUENCE OF SIGNATURE
The Contracting Powers agree to limit their respective naval armament
as provided in the present Treaty. All Contracting Powers shall also
agree to share the data of all their naval vessels (whether already
part of the fleet, under construction, or planned) with the other
Contracting Powers.
==============================================
Just an idea...
Walter
Pengolodh
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 7
(4/26/03 10:55:06 am)
Re: How about...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad idea. I was thinking more along the lines of:
|
Source code
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
|
K. RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENTS OF VESSELS OF WAR
I.
No new capital ships not intended to replace existing capital ships
shall be laid down until 10 years after the coming into effect of the
treaty.
II.
The replacement of vessels of war shall take place according to the
below rules:
(a) Capital ships and aircraft carriers twenty years after the date
of their completion may, except as otherwise provided in Part
3, Chapter B, Article V above, be replaced by new construction,
but within the limits prescribed in Part 3, Chapter A, Article IV
above, and Part 3, Chapter B, Article I above. The keels of such
new construction may, except as otherwise provided in Part 3,
Chapter B, Article V above, be laid down not earlier than
seventeen years from the date of completion of the tonnage to be
replaced, provided, however, that no capital ship tonnage, with
the exception of the ships referred to in Part 3, Chapter A,
Article VI above, shall be laid down until ten years from the
coming into effect of the present Treaty.
Surface-vessels other than Capital ships and aircraft-carriers may be
replaced by new construction as follows:
(b) Surface vessels exceeding 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) but
not exceeding 13,000 tons (13,280 metric tons) standard
displacement may:
(i) If laid down before 1 January 1921: 16 years after the date
of their completion be replaced by new construction, but
within the limits prescribed in Part 3, Chapter C, Articles
I, II, V, VI above, Chapter D, Articles I, II above, Chapter
E, Articles I, II above, and Chapter F, Article I above. The
keels of such new construction may be laid down not earlier
than thirteen years from the date of completion of the
tonnage to be replaced.
(ii) If laid down after 31 December 1920: 20 years after the date
of their completion be replaced by new construction, but
within the limits prescribed in Part 3, Chapter C, Articles
I, II, V, VI above, Chapter D, Articles I, II above, Chapter
E, Articles I, II above, and Chapter F, Article I above. The
keels of such new construction may be laid down not earlier
than seventeen years from the date of completion of the
tonnage to be replaced.
(c) Surface vessels not exceeding 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons)
standard displacement may:
(i) If laid down before 1 January 1921: 12 years after the date
of their completion be replaced by new construction, but
within the limits prescribed in Part 3, Chapter C, Articles
I, II, V, VI above, Chapter D, Articles I, II above, Chapter
E, Articles I, II above, and Chapter F, Article I above. The
keels of such new construction may be laid down not earlier
than ten years from the date of completion of the tonnage to
be replaced.
(ii) If laid down after 31 December 1920: 16 years after the date
of their completion be replaced by new construction, but
within the limits prescribed in Part 3, Chapter C, Articles
I, II, V, VI above, Chapter D, Articles I, II above, Chapter
E, Articles I, II above, and Chapter F, Article I above. The
keels of such new construction may be laid down not earlier
than fourteen years from the date of completion of the
tonnage to be replaced.
(d) Submarines may 20 years after the date of their completion be
replaced by new construction, but within the limits prescribed in
Part 3, Chapter G above. The keels of such new construction may
be laid down not earlier than seventeen years from the date of
completion of the tonnage to be replaced.
III.
The keels of replacement tonnage shall not be laid down more than
three years before the year in which the vessel to be replaced may be
replaced; but this period is reduced to two years in the case of any
replacement surface vessel not exceeding 3,000 tons (3,048 metric
tons) standards displacement.
IV.
When constructing new vessels of war not intended to replace existing
vessels of war, each of the Contracting Powers shall communicate
promptly to each of the other Contracting Powers the following
information:
(1) The names and categorisation of the vessels of war to be replaced
by new construction;
(2) The date of governmental authorization of replacement tonnage;
(3) The date of laying the keels of replacement tonnage;
(4) The standard displacement in tons and metric tons of each new
ship to be laid down, and the principal dimensions, namely,
length at waterline, extreme beam at or below waterline, mean
draft at standard displacement;
(5) The date of completion of each new ship and its standard
displacement in tons and metric tons, and the principal
dimensions, namely, length at waterline, extreme beam at or below
waterline, mean draft at standard displacement, at time of
completion
V.
When replacing vessels of war, each of the Contracting Powers shall
communicate promptly to each of the other Contracting Powers the
following information:
(1) The names and categorisation of the vessels of war to be replaced
by new construction;
(2) The date of governmental authorization of replacement tonnage;
(3) The date of laying the keels of replacement tonnage;
(4) The standard displacement in tons and metric tons of each new
ship to be laid down, and the principal dimensions, namely,
length at waterline, extreme beam at or below waterline, mean
draft at standard displacement;
(5) The date of completion of each new ship and its standard
displacement in tons and metric tons, and the principal
dimensions, namely, length at waterline, extreme beam at or below
waterline, mean draft at standard displacement, at time of
completion
VI.
In case of loss or accidental destruction of vessels of war, they may
immediately be replaced by new construction subject to the tonnage
limits prescribed in the present Treaty and in conformity with the
other provisions of the present Treaty, the regular replacement
program being deemed to be advanced to that extent.
VII.
No retained capital ships or aircraft carriers shall be reconstructed
except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and
submarine attack, and subject to the following rules: The Contracting
Powers may, for that purpose, equip existing tonnage with bulge or
blister or anti-air attack deck protection, providing the increase of
displacement thus effected does not exceed 5,000 tons (5,080 metric
tons) displacement for each ship. No alterations in side armor, in
calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be
permitted.
VIII.
The right of replacement is not lost by delay in laying down
replacement tonnage, and the old vessel may be retained until
replaced even though due for scrapping under Part 3, Chapter L,
Article I above, except as noted in Part 3, Chapter B, Article III
above.
|
Best regards
Pengolodh
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities."
- Mohsen Khalil, Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League
Pengolodh
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 8
(4/26/03 11:12:53 am)
Re: How about...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the above: Article I echoes the provision further down which creates a building-holiday for the navies, which forces us to concentrate on cruisers and carriers, more than anything else. Otherwise, what few navies exist which haven't already filled their quota would get something of an advantage with regards to building their navies. Article IV states explicitly that the information has to be given also for new construction. But remember, that just about all construction we will be laying down in this sim, will be replacing older construction, with the possible exception of India, and the wholesale exception of carriers. And I already now spot an obvious error in Article IV as given above.... The Nordmark Secretaries' Union is really growing quite upset with the delegation....
Best regards
Pengolodh
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities."
- Mohsen Khalil, Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League
Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 94
(4/26/03 11:17:15 am)
Re: How about...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks good but I don't like article I. If I read that correctly it means that I am not allowed to construct the 4 additional battleships of the Kii class under normal conditions for another 10 years !
Guess I'll have them replace the lost Kongo class then...
Walter
Pengolodh
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 9
(4/26/03 11:21:12 am)
Re: How about...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hwo many vessels do you have out of the 12 slots? Don't you have pre-dreads classified as capital ships that you have to replace anyway? When are they to be laid down? The building-holiday applies to replacement as well as number-build-up.
Best regards
Pengolodh
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities."
- Mohsen Khalil, Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 72
(4/26/03 11:52:21 am)
Re: How about...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does all this have any influence on
VI.
Each Contracting Power that under Part 3, Chapter A, Article V above,
retains capital ships laid down prior to January 1st 1911, and has
not given up capital ships laid down after January 1st 1911, shall be
permitted to lay down two capital ships in replacement of two
existing capital ships that would otherwise be retained under the
treaty, which are to be disposed of as per Part 3, Chapter J,
Articles I-VIII below.
Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 95
(4/26/03 11:55:41 am)
Re: How about...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since some players apparently were worried about a player controlled Japan having a too powerful Navy like that (at least that was what I was told by Wes; I wasn't sure if that meant the size of the fleet itself or the fact that the Nagato and Mutsu had 16 inch guns), I pretty much sank all capital ship classes built prior to the Fuso class (with exception of the Asashi which was damaged beyond repair and scrapped, and all ships of the Kongo class which vanished into the Twilight Zone, never to be found again... well maybe somewhere in the 1990s by Bob Ballard)
Currently Japan has 5 ships operational with a sixth being finished in 1921.
What do I have left of the Pre-dreads ? Well I have the Mikasa, Kawachi, Katori and Shikishima lying in 100 feet of water near the Japanese coast (and it has already been decided by the Bakufu that the ships will not be raised). The rest of the ships (read: wrecks) are pretty much out of range.
Walter
The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 54
(4/27/03 12:47:11 am)
Building up to quota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realistically, somebody has an advantage, whether building up to capital ship quotas is allowed or not. To compare India and Australia:
If building up to quota is not possible due to the building holiday, India can not make any use of its unused capital ship tonnage until 1930. Meanwhile, Australia is operating Queen Elizabeth-type units and will have the option to replace her older KGV-type units about the same time as the building holiday ends. Advantage: Australia.
If building up to quota is possible, India can build her battleships, and for a few years they'll be first-class units. However, the rules for replacing ships still hold - so Australia will get to replace her old dreadnoughts before India can replace hers. Eventually the advantage will lean back to Australia.
From my own (obviously biased) position, I'd rather see that navies under quota be able to build up to their limits when they see fit to do so. Otherwise, they are effectively prevented from using their capital ship tonnage until about 1933, when ships started after the building holiday will be commissioning.
Unless, of course, one goes out and buys old pre-dreads before the treaty comes into effect...
J
Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 96
(4/27/03 4:22:50 am)
Re: Building up to quota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I have scanned the treaty (the one posted here that is) for both "building" and "holiday" but there is nothing in it regarding a building holiday that I can find !
In the version I have (the one before the version on this board and is the whole post made by Pengolodh) this was above the treaty:
- Provision is made for all powers which have old ships that would normally be retained, to be allowed to build two new capital ships, building-holiday notwithstanding.
I know it was mentioned before but this is the only thing I can find in my files (and I have quite a lot of sim-related files) regarding the building holiday. There is nothing I can find about how long the building holiday will be in effect and for which vessels this is valid.
As far as I am concerned, it is pretty much as The Rock Docter wants it: Navies under quota will be able to build up to their limits whenever they see fit to do so.
Walter
thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 46
(4/27/03 5:01:10 am)
well
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the most part the treaty limits reflect existing capital ships in the fleet. Greece and India are actually granted more than what they currently posess so they are in a situation that they can build ships, but only up to the number of hulls and or tonnage alloted to them.
Atlantis is allowed 440,000 tons or 14 ships, the total capital ship tonnage is lower than that. and after my oversize carriers are completed i will only have 11 capital ships and even less tonnage, but because i gave up 2 ships to scrap or sale and a third to gunnery training i cannot replace them with new ships untill they would be 20 years old, which is what i would do any way if they were still in the fleet.
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 74
(4/27/03 5:26:30 am)
Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When speaking of building holidays Pengolodh is refering to the below, I think. Due to this paragraph no capital units may be laid down within 10 years after coming into effect of the treaty except for the replacements of experimental carriers and capital ships laid down prior to 1-1-1911. Thus: no replacements for units build post 1-1-1911 until 1-1-1931! (but that´s quite logical anyway, because you have to keep your capital units for 20 years - from 1-1-11 to 1-1-31 minimum)
However, this paragraph has no influence of building completely new vessels if a power has not build up to its limits yet. So a power that has not build up to its limits is in advantage because it can build brand new 40kts BBs while all others have to wait until they are allowed to replace their stuff.
Just my two eurocents...
L. RULES FOR REPLACEMENTS OF VESSELS OF WAR
I.
The replacement of vessels of war shall take place according to the
below rules:
(a) Capital ships and aircraft carriers twenty years after the date
of their completion may, except as otherwise provided in Part
3, Chapter B, Article V above, be replaced by new construction,
but within the limits prescribed in Part 3, Chapter A, Article IV
above, and Part 3, Chapter B, Article I above. The keels of such
new construction may, except as otherwise provided in Part 3,
Chapter B, Article V above, be laid down not earlier than
seventeen years from the date of completion of the tonnage to be
replaced, provided, however, that no capital ship tonnage, with
the exception of the ships referred to in Part 3, Chapter A,
Article VI above, shall be laid down until ten years from the
coming into effect of the present Treaty.
Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 98
(4/27/03 5:34:57 am)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way I read that is this:
I can build capital ships in those ten years, however, if I were to do that, I am not allowed to lay down the keels of replacements 17 years after the older ships were completed. If I did do that, I would be in violation of the treaty.
Walter
PS: regarding the eurocents, the 1, 2, and 5 eurocent coins of some nations are pretty hard to find, aren't they ?
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 75
(4/27/03 5:56:18 am)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes, if you lay down new vessels (only possible due to the exception of 3 I VI or if you haven´t build up to the limits from the start) you can still replace old units after 20 years but you´re not allowed to lay down their keels three years earlier.
In fact, you will not be able to have a replacement at hand when the old vessel reaches an age of 20 because you can only lay down such replacement after 20 instead of 17 years. So you´ll have to add the time until the replacement is build -> ~4 years for a 40kts BB. That´s the price you have to pay for new vessels within those 10 years.
At least that´s how I read it...
Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 100
(4/27/03 6:13:25 am)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's pretty much up to a nation what to do.
Will I build ships to the limit of what I am allowed and forfeit those 3 years for the replacements, or will I wait ten years and face a hectic building program by replacing old ships and building additional battleships to the treaty limit ?
If you can still build 6 ships and can start laying down replacements for 6 older ships in 1931, you'll have a lot to build at that moment.
Walter
Pengolodh
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 10
(4/27/03 7:31:00 am)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wording of the paragraph is taken verbatim from the historical Washington Treaty, and I certainly never have heard that interpretation of the Washington Treaty before. The intended interpretation is that anyr eplacement tonnage may be laid down at earliest seventeen years after completion of the tonnage to be completed, and that no capital ships may be laid down in the 10 years following the entry into effect of the treaty, except as noted with regards to up to to ships replacing ships laid down before 01.01.1911.
Best regards
Pengolodh
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities."
- Mohsen Khalil, Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 76
(4/27/03 7:54:41 am)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how should _we_ read it then? Like intended (no capitals for 10 years except ships prior 1-1-11) or like we´ve interpreted it?
Both would work for me because I´m already up to the maximum hull number allowed to the SAE and thus can build replacements only (including ships due to the exception rule). The problem of new hulls, if there is a problem, doesn´t bother me.
Rooijen10
So you want to be a spammer
Posts: 101
(4/27/03 8:00:02 am)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=== (Edit: So I want to be a spammer)
(verbatim ??? You mean as in verbal ?)
The intended interpretation might be that no capital ships are to be laid down in the next 10 years. The problem is that that is not what is written here.
Filtering out all the article stuff, this is what the line says:
The keels of such new construction maybe laid down not earlier than seventeen years from the date of completion of the tonnage to be replaced, provided, however, that no capital ship tonnage shall be laid down until ten years from the coming into effect of the present Treaty
It clearly states that keels can be laid down 17 years after the ship to be replaced is completed, but only if no capital ships are laid down in the ten years after the treaty comes into effect.
My question is: How do you read this ?
If it is the actual intention that none of the nations are to build ships in the next 10 years, it'll be necessary to rephrase that bit so that it will be much clearer that no one is allowed to build capital ships in the 10 year period (with the exception of those older ships).
Walter
Edited by: Rooijen10 at: 4/27/03 8:15:33 am
Pengolodh
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 12
(4/27/03 8:05:59 am)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is the actual intention that none of the nations are to build ships in the next 10 years, it'll be necessary to rephrase that bit so that it will be much clearer that no one is allowed to build capital ships in the 10 year period (with the exception of those older ships).
That is the intended interpretation, and that is as far as I can tell the interpretation which was applied to thw Washington Treaty, with that same wording of the treaty.
Best regards
Pengolodh
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities."
- Mohsen Khalil, Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League
Rooijen10
So you want to be a spammer
Posts: 104
(4/27/03 8:56:46 am)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be a good thing to slightly alter that part then. It is clearly that it can be interpreted in the way the King and I interpret it.
Walter
The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 58
(4/27/03 8:10:02 pm)
Re: Building holidays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't the treaty in part intended to rein in some of the smaller, ambitious navies out there (India, Greece, etc)? Telling them they can't use their capital ship tonnage for a decade isn't the way to get them on board.
thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 58
(4/28/03 3:50:43 am)
ships disposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current treaty says nothing of the disposal of ships by sale, which is the principle way Atlantis intents to penalize itself for haveing over-sized carrier convertions. I assume that this must be done before the treaty takes effect and not after?
Rooijen10
So you want to be a spammer
Posts: 108
(4/28/03 12:33:29 pm)
Re: ships disposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is in the treaty I believe. If I am correct you cannot sell ships you want to dispose once the treaty starts on 1/1/1921. If you want to do it, it must be done before that date. It's in Part 3, Chapter J, article I:
The present Treaty does not provide for disposal by way of sale to another Contracting Power or to a non-Contracting Power.
Walter
Pengolodh
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 21
(5/4/03 8:37:35 am)
Re: ships disposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct, Walter and Wes. The ABC-powers and Siam/Thailand might well be interested in capital ships at bargain-prices - but if you land any one of them with overly many capitals, the other treaty-powers might be a touch annoyed. It would give India reason to press ahead with the Indian naval programmes if Thailand suddenly has four capitals equal or superior to Queen Fallatia, at any rate.
Best regards
Pengolodh
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities."
- Mohsen Khalil, Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League
Rooijen10
So you want to be a spammer
Posts: 124
(5/4/03 9:24:30 am)
Re: ships disposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would give India reason to press ahead with the Indian naval programmes if Thailand suddenly has four capitals equal or superior to Queen Fallatia, at any rate.
Who says it might stop at four ? While financially Thailand couldn't make it in sim reality, in sim theory Thailand has no limits on capital ships and could have many more capital ships. But as I said, financially this would be impossible for Thailand (... or is it ? Maybe someone could give them secret funds)
Walter
thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 83
(5/5/03 1:32:42 am)
sale of ships
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Greece was interested in buying the ships and useing them untill they could be replaced, would that be a bad thing?
WesWorld »
The SIM »
The Meeting Place »
Quoted
The optional information to be supplied is one of the following two choices.
Monday, May 13th 2024, 5:16pm
Go to the top of the page
