WesWorld

In lite of some suggestion (mostly on my part I think) I'd like to get everyones opinion on letting more players in and the reasons for thier vote.
First of all I would vote yes as we already have some limitations in place for the Netherlands and I beleave the Phillipines in addition to us all being loosly in favour of some sort of Versialles type treaty for Turkey which would make possible to add to the treaty without alot of discussion. The second reason I would vote yes is because with a few more small players in the SIM it would not only add some interest but provide some redundancy in the event some SIM players are absent for a time.

I'm fine either way, I don't mind having more players and i don't mind sticking to how it is.

There are 2 players who seem willing to step in, and lots of possibilities for countires; Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Philipines..

On the Phillipines:

Since our initial player for this state dropped out well before the final treaty negotiations were concluded, I will require a few things before voting yes:

-A back story which is quasi-historical to 1920, and then transitions the Phillipines to an independent state in 1921 or 1922.

-A navy of limited size and appropriate to the history (I'd be thinking a handful of surplus US ships)

-Modest infrastructure - probably a fair bit less than Greece or India.

-No formal ties to the United States or United Kingdom

On the Netherlands

As the Netherlands does have treaty status, I can accept an ahistorical navy - though I do consider the Dutch force levels excessive.

However, Indian history posted in the early sim days should not have to be re-written again. I would therefore ask a prospective player not to have any ahistoric ships available to him during 1916-17, when India was supposed to be fighting the historical coastal defence battleships.

Similarly, the Netherlands must not be involved in WW1, as it changes the implications of the Dutch-Indian War.

Dutch colonial possessions will have to be redefined, as will Dutch infrastructure. I would expect a modest increase over Indian and Greek starting levels.

Existing diplomatic ties will have to be honored.

Assuming these conditions are accepted, I will vote "Yes"

On Turkey

I've already laid out in other threads what I consider to be a reasonable force level.

We will have to have a clear idea of what territory is under Turkish control.

We will have to establish what infrastructure is in place. As Turkey buys ships, rather than building them, I believe it should have minimal starting infrastructure - perhaps half of starting levels for Greece and India.

We will have to have a clear idea of what legal and diplomatic constraints Turkey is under. I can accept a Versailles-like treaty for Turkey, but the more generous it is, the less happy Germany will be.

When I'm satisfied with these details, I will vote "yes" to a suitable candidate.

General Note

We're currently in 1922, with Q2 stuff likely being posted in the next few days.

I would not want to see any new players introduced in a haphazard manner. I'd suggest that their reporting not begin until Q1/23. Until then, they can concentrate on building their history, forces, infrastructure, and perhaps a few generic storylines or news items.

let me put my noses into this thread for a second .

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor


On the Netherlands

As the Netherlands does have treaty status, I can accept an ahistorical navy - though I do consider the Dutch force levels excessive.

However, Indian history posted in the early sim days should not have to be re-written again. I would therefore ask a prospective player not to have any ahistoric ships available to him during 1916-17, when India was supposed to be fighting the historical coastal defence battleships.

Similarly, the Netherlands must not be involved in WW1, as it changes the implications of the Dutch-Indian War.

Dutch colonial possessions will have to be redefined, as will Dutch infrastructure. I would expect a modest increase over Indian and Greek starting levels.

Existing diplomatic ties will have to be honored.

Assuming these conditions are accepted, I will vote "Yes"

I agree, no already written history should be changed, and I'm willing to let it as it is. However that doesn't neccesarily mean there can't be other ships in existance than those which were involved in the already written histories. They could've existed, just not taken part in that war.


For instance, the navy I had drawed for the netherlands would've had 2 22000 ton battlecruisers by 1916 and another 2 nearly completed for mid 1917. The 2 first have too little range to reach the indian ocean effectively, the 2 others would've have arrived too late for any war being fought at that moment.

The alternate netherlands navy plan drawed in 1914 for 1922 calls for 6 capital ships with light BB weapons, long range,and decent speed and armor. 4 of those would've been already in service for 1918...

Making me unable to modify the historical navy only after 1917 closes many doors...and anyway for a battle fought at that date the forces involved wouldn't change because as I already said the only big ships available then wouldn't have been able to reach the area of operations.


Anyway, would you please send me the 1916 war history to my email? - ramjb(ERASETHIs)@hotmail.com -. I'll see what I can do to best accomodate what I have on my mind to what is already written. But as I said, I agree: already written history shouldn't be changed. Battles already fought shouldn't be changed.

but that doesn't neccesarily mean that the dutch fleet should be exactly like it was IRL .

Before adding new players it has to be assured that they (whoever _they_ are) have read all old - and I mean old - threads. That´s quite a bit but one has to fully understand the motives that drive us and what kind of relations have to be considered. The Netherlands relations to India or the SAE (SANTA) are just one example.

More on this subject later, I´m somewhat in a hurry...

HoOmAn

PS: I guess it´s not necessary to mention a new player has to fully understand and accept all our rules.

I think HoOmAn makes excellent points. Its taken us a while to get where we are, and so new players would be well-advised to do a bit of studying. But just to avoid confusion, I'll lay explain a bit of Russo-French diplomacy so that new players won't misunderstand it.

The original Russo-French alliance was directed against a player who was running a soon-to-be-combined Germany and Italy. There were indications, like his alternative history naval website, and a few others, that he was going to be a bit aggressive. It was my firm intention to be *extremely* un-accomodating with him. The alliance with Atlantis was to make the containment of Germany-Italy even more firm.

But he's gone, and our present German and Italian players are models of moderation. Hence the FAR Alliance, while firm in the defensive sense, is open to peaceful adjutments of the status quo, especially with regards to Germany.

Hi RAM

Go into the Archive area, and check the middle thread - "All you ever wanted to know about India". A history of the war is at the bottom of the thread (twice, in fact).

Note I originally wrote it before we had our first Dutch player, so the Indians were tackling historical coastal defense battleships at the time. I made minor edits to have them deal with early dreadnoughts when the player joined up, though I thought the outcome was perhaps somewhat less likely if this were the case.

By "available", I meant "able to fight in the war". If there were Dutch battlecruisers stuck (for whatever reason) in Europe, that's fine. If anything, it might've been additional incentive for India to attack when it did.

J

I have no problems with new players but...

Quoted

I think HoOmAn makes excellent points.

I totally agree with you, Admiral K.
While it is (as HoOmAn pointed out) a lot to read and absorb, I think that what the Rock Doctor said about new players start with their reports in Q1/23 might give them time enough to do it.

Quoted

The original Russo-French alliance was directed against a player who was running a soon-to-be-combined Germany and Italy. There were indications, like his alternative history naval website, and a few others, that he was going to be a bit aggressive. It was my firm intention to be *extremely* un-accomodating with him. The alliance with Atlantis was to make the containment of Germany-Italy even more firm.

Well, I would have loved to see where that approach would have led the F.A.R.T. as well as how they would have countered the stuff Aowwt and I had planned.
If you like to know, plans to recreate the original Axis started on Monday April 21, 2003 with me sending an e-mail to Aowwt. Originally, the Kobe Protocol was where it all would start between Germany and Japan and Italy would join later.
Funny thing is that Admiral K. posted the anouncement of the F.A.R.T. on May 8, 2003 so I wouldn't be surprised if he and Wes were having secret communications for the F.A.R.T before Aowwt and I started about joining forces..

Walter

Quoted

our present German and Italian players are models of moderation.

Italy has right-wing fanatic in it's gouvernnement et it is about, or wants to, destroy the Hellenic navy and conquer Greece. Of course after that there is a straight line from Greece to Moscow

I'm assuming the T in FART stands for Turkey and is not there for jocularity.



RAM, i've sent you some emails.

Well the discussions on the F.A.R. treaty started fairly early and we did discuss several designs that could counter "probable" designs that would come from Aowwt's "I like to build HUGE ships" RRE.
To be honest at the time our only consern was the RRE, anyone Crazy enough to join them in an alliance (we thought) would likely face the FAR alliance and the SAE/Nordmark alliance. Russia's army would have been a heavy burden for the RRE, and later when we considered the fact that we may have the same historical alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan we really didn't plan to alter our plans.
In reguards to new players they would get the very minimum infrastucture, factory's rules would still be the same. Turkey seeing as despite haveing several Pre-dreads, a BB and BC would not gain any extra factory's seeing as they did not lay any capital ships down.

"Italy has right-wing fanatic in it's gouvernnement et it is about, or wants to, destroy the Hellenic navy and conquer Greece. Of course after that there is a straight line from Greece to Moscow "

Well you've got the fanatic part right...If Italy thinks Russia would be a cake walk it must be run by a Fanatic!

Quoted

I'm assuming the T in FART stands for Turkey and is not there for jocularity

In the beginning I thought about that, but now it stands for France-Atlantis-Russia Treaty. :-)

Walter

Quoted

Italy has right-wing fanatic in it's gouvernnement et it is about, or wants to, destroy the Hellenic navy and conquer Greece. Of course after that there is a straight line from Greece to Moscow

Oh, you're way behind schedule

If you were up to Aowwt standards, you'd have 8 1000-meter slips constructed secretly by now, with 250,000 ton battleships being built on each, financed by a slush fund set up by some shipping magnate so that you aren't limited by the production of your factories, which are committed to building a set of Treaty-compatible battlecruisers and carriers.

Plus, you'd have a couple of conquests by now.

So, by comparison, you are the very model of a moderate Red Admiral!

Quoted

If you were up to Aowwt standards, you'd have 8 1000-meter slips constructed secretly by now, with 250,000 ton battleships being built on each, financed by a slush fund set up by some shipping magnate so that you aren't limited by the production of your factories, which are committed to building a set of Treaty-compatible battlecruisers and carriers.

Hmmm... better make a note: "make sure to seriously increase security in the areas around the secret base at Antarctica and the secret base at Sakura-jima."

I designed some big ships... Guess I got infected with Aowwt-ritus.
:-)

Walter

those big ships with 21" torpedo guns that you've mentioned before?

No, the biggest one I designed so far is the Battleship/Carrier KMS Hindenburg (H-45). If you are familiar with Ted Nomura's Luftwaffe 1946 miniseries, you'll probably know that ship.
The other one with the 21 inch 'torpedo' guns is actually lighter (due to the use of different materials).

Walter

no i haven't seen Ted's H-45. I have seen another H-45 with 8x31.5" guns and 9.45" secondary guns though

Could you give me a link to Ted's design?

I include this for Luft'46 http://www.luft46.com/

Unfortunately, I have no idea where to find a picture of that ship on the internet. I can scan the picture from the comic and send it to you by e-mail, but that ship covers two pages so it might be a bit tricky to get it correctly...

Walter