You are not logged in.

Treaty Revision

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

1

Monday, January 24th 2005, 1:35am

Treaty Revision

As I said elsewhere, Manila will gladly host any Treaty Revision Conference.

Still need a few countrys to weigh in - Iberia (paging the Commodore!) and England (hopefully Gravina will soon return.) come to mind.


Now we need to decide on when...

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

2

Monday, January 24th 2005, 1:59am

Perhaps another venu would be more adequate, like a nation with the most issues with the treaty.

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

3

Monday, January 24th 2005, 2:06am

Quoted

a nation with the most issues with the treaty


I believe the capital of that nation would be Edo...

^_^

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

4

Monday, January 24th 2005, 2:11am

Hmm. Let the Americans host it in Hawaii. I'm sure the delegates would enjoy themselves when not at the conference.

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

  • Send private message

5

Monday, January 24th 2005, 2:12am

Pardon my ignorance - what exactly are the 'issues' with the treaty?

Personally - I'll grump about parts but I have no desire to change aspects of the CT.

Cheers,

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

6

Monday, January 24th 2005, 2:38am

Perhaps "Treaty Clarification Conferance" is better suited to your needs. Others like India, Atlantis, and the Netherlands have problems with capital ship convertions due to some wording of the treaty. Others like Japan and the Philipines have trouble with the guns sizes. The Americans might have trouble with some tonnage aspects or gun sizes, but that has not been formalized as that section is being altered to suit a player United States. Then finally there is Germany, who wishes to be included...even though there as several subsections about Germany in the text. All or most of those would have to be amended in some way, if Germany would be allowed into the Cleito Treaty.

As for the rest, I don't recall any major complaints, though I imagine there are a few. Some nations might use this oportunity to reduce gun sizes, tonnage, or other such issues as a means of actual naval reduction.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

7

Monday, January 24th 2005, 2:39am

Well for starters we have a few nations who would like to be able to sell off their older units (which I'm sure the Philipines will exploit to the fullest) while others would like to be able to remove turrets from capital ships.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

8

Monday, January 24th 2005, 2:53am

If Germany were accepted into the CT Berlin would be the perfect place to hold treaty talks.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

9

Monday, January 24th 2005, 3:19am

Symbolic anyway.

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

  • Send private message

10

Monday, January 24th 2005, 3:21am

Deep in catch up mode........
Iberia will have to wait until I get Denmark sorted!
Sorry guys!

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

11

Monday, January 24th 2005, 4:31am

Quoted

Others like India, Atlantis, and the Netherlands have problems with capital ship convertions due to some wording of the treaty


Not so, Grasshopper. India may have problems with other people's plans, but not any of its own.

There's a clause that allows new issues to be considered eight years after the treaty - 1928. India would prefer to just wait and address issues (other than Germany) at that time.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

12

Monday, January 24th 2005, 4:41am

I seem to recall the planned reconstruction of an old Indian battleship being questioned not to long ago.

Hmmm perhaps that was just the rest of us giving opinions.

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

13

Monday, January 24th 2005, 4:47am

I was just soliciting input. I didn't actually propose anything quasi-legal. But you're correct that other nations besides the Netherlands have had issues with reconstruction of late.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

14

Monday, January 24th 2005, 9:25am

Guys,

I got the strong impression you´re talking about a new treaty, not a revision (gun size, tonnage allocation etc.).

What you feel now are the limits, but that´s exactly why the CT is there - to set limits in which we all have to operate.

Sure, the SAE also would like to change a sentence here or there but in the end it all comes down to this: If we change all things people don´t like we are no longer in need for a treaty as people wouldn´t be limited anymore and can build whatever they want.

Official position: The SAE doesn´t see the necessity to modify the Cleito Treaty. We will not support such proposals with the only possible exception being the clause permitting to sell old ships. However, even this paragraph could remain as it is as the SAE don´t think there is a large market for old warships anyway.

We too remind all signatories that negotiations resulting in modifications to the Treaty could not come into effect earlier than 1928.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

15

Monday, January 24th 2005, 9:34am

So South Africa dosn't wish to remove a turret from its old BB's in an effort to improve them? Atlantis wouldn't be too concerned if this rule was clairified or not, new builds would be prefered for obvious reasons.

However to some, the CT as its worded, dosn't allow for a decrease in guns on a BB which seems rather odd for a BB limitation treaty. I still have that nasty AC problem to deal with as well. If we have to wait till 28 I'm fine with that.

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

16

Monday, January 24th 2005, 3:57pm

Ah reckon Ah can wait...although Ah will definitly need to know if we can change the "153mm" restrictions to "155mm" before 1931, as that's when Ah plan to lay down my first CLs, and Ah will need to know whether or not to put liners in them there guns.

Yes, Ah'm feeling a bit punchy this morning... :-)



(How about a nice Hawaiian Punch?)

RAM

Professional

Posts: 603

  • Send private message

17

Tuesday, January 25th 2005, 2:17pm

In what respects to Netherlands, there are certain rules concerning ship rebuilds which will probably not be respected because are regarded as "debatable" (diplomatic way to say "stupid") within the treaty context and spirit. You all know what I'm talking about ;).

Sale of ships is something Netherlands is open to talk about. If well written it can be included within the treaty without breaking it's spirit.

the rest of the treaty is not under discussion for us:For instance, netherlands will actively vote against modifications of each nation allowed tonnage or hull numbers.


My nation wishes to make some amendments to the treaty to make it better "tuned" into the spirit of stopping new shipbuilding when possible and maybe some little side modifications, but not to renegotiate a whole new treaty.