WesWorld

Perdy's apparent departure leaves the Philippines without a player/caretaker. I would like to put my name forward for that role.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Perdy's apparent departure leaves the Philippines without a player/caretaker. I would like to put my name forward for that role.

I don't see any issues with that. It would be nice to see the Philippines staying in competent hands to fix up the losses from the war.

Thumbs up from me.

I, as direct neighbour and enemy in the war has nothing against

So Bruce and i have to PM about the next steps of the Peace-Treaty ???

I do have an issue with this particular case, I would prefer someone else takes over the Philippines or Bruce takes over a different country.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I do have an issue with this particular case, I would prefer someone else takes over the Philippines or Bruce takes over a different country.

Do you have any good or valid reasons you'd care to explain?

Mexico and the Philippines have been friends for a while now, and both countries Bruce has taken over where good friends with Mexico. But as soon as he took them over, there was a 180 reversal in relations. It makes things complicated and I don't want it happening again. Another country I'm fine with because he does a good job with detail.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Mexico and the Philippines have been friends for a while now, and both countries Bruce has taken over where good friends with Mexico. But as soon as he took them over, there was a 180 reversal in relations. It makes things complicated and I don't want it happening again. Another country I'm fine with because he does a good job with detail.

Other than liberally selling arms, and letting Mexican companies knockoff some of their products, I'm not really aware of any strong ties between Germany and Mexico under Hrolf or Rocky's administrations.

I also don't recall any specific mention of relations between Mexico and the Phillipines, (it has admittedly been quite some time since Swamphen was running things, and no one's really 'stuck it out' since), but it would make good sense for both parties to have good relations.

If you have specific concerns about Bruce running the Phillipines, I'd suggest dropping by the IRC and discussing it with him before making your opposition final.

I admit to being somewhat reluctant myself, but I can't really put any words behind what's bothering me about it, so I'll resume quiet contemplation for the time being.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I also don't recall any specific mention of relations between Mexico and the Phillipines, (it has admittedly been quite some time since Swamphen was running things, and no one's really 'stuck it out' since), but it would make good sense for both parties to have good relations.

The only example I can think of was that the Philippines built the Pancho Villas back in the mid thirties. Since then, there haven't been any stated ties that I remember. Really, Chile and the Philippines probably have better relations than Mexico and the Philippines.

I really have no objection to Bruce running the Philippines per say, though perhaps I would counsel that if Bruce can bring the Philippines up to speed on a variety of areas, then if/when we have a suitable player that could fill that spot it would make it easier on said new player.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I really have no objection to Bruce running the Philippines per say, though perhaps I would counsel that if Bruce can bring the Philippines up to speed on a variety of areas, then if/when we have a suitable player that could fill that spot it would make it easier on said new player.

That would make sense to me.

Only if Bruce promises to have an exploding Phillipino in every pot.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
Only if Bruce promises to have an exploding Phillipino in every pot.

Those of us who remember what you're referencing are confused as to why you're referencing it; such things are far before your time.

Those who don't remember, are just confused.

I've no objections.
The Philippines has had many players over the years and not the most stable of backgrounds. I'm sure Bruce's organisation would work wonders to keep things on an even keel.

I agree...

No problems here. I'm sure Bruce will do a fine job.

I have no particular problem with Bruce taking on the "Land O Boom" as he's done a bang up job elsewhere.

however, I do think Desertfox should be given a chance to post what his impressions of Mexican-Filipino relations are, and why that is, so that Bruce can keep that path.

That sounds like an excellent suggestion, particularly since the rest of the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. Unless there's any further commentary, I think we can call this one a wrap.

Sounds like i have a new neighbour

I thank you for the general vote of confidence on my request. I will endeavor to bring the Philippines up to speed as quickly as possible.

Towards that end, I must ask the opinion of the player-base on two matters:

1. I have attempted to audit the existing Philippine sim reports to establish what exactly the status of the vessels under construction, and the state of Philippine tonnage. This has proved extremely difficult. The expenditures cited in individual sim reports do not add properly, and values shift from report to report. For example, the 3Q40 sim reports ends with a stockpile of 1,329 tons; the 4Q40 sim report begins with a stockpile of 2,444 tons. I have gone back as far as 1939 and there appears to me little likelihood of resolving the inconsistencies.

I would propose to the player-base the following: My best effort has reduced the error in the 4Q40 sim report to a deficit of 17 tons, which could be counter-balanced by deducting that from the tonnage specified as being used to repair ships subsequently scrapped. Rather than do that, I would propose that a line be drawn at the close of 1940 and that for 1Q41 the Philippines begin with a zero stockpile.


2. In reviewing the Philippine order of battle and sim reports back to the 1930s I find that there are four cruisers cited as being in existence which do not appear in the encyclopedia – at least not directly.

There are references to the heavy cruisers Cebu and Luzon, built circa 1934-35. The fragmentary tonnages cited in the existing sim reports imply that these are two vessels of the Basilan class, which would explain why they have no separate encyclopedia entry of their own. Unfortunately the 4Q34, 1Q35 and 2Q35 sim reports are not on file, and the completion of the vessels in question comes in those months. I would ask the concurrence of the player-base to treating the Cebu and Luzon as the third and fourth units of the Basilan class.

(Of course, if anyone has definite information to the contrary, please bring it to my attention so that the mystery can be dealt with.)

There are also references to two small cruisers, the Masbate and Mindoro, in the 3Q34 sim report but in no surviving sim report thereafter. I have no information what these vessels ought to represent. Therefore, in the absence of information from any other players who may know of these vessels, I propose to presume that they do not in fact exist.


Further, if any players have ongoing or outstanding deals or agreements with the Philippines, please bring them to my immediate attention.

Thank you,

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I thank you for the general vote of confidence on my request. I will endeavor to bring the Philippines up to speed as quickly as possible.

Towards that end, I must ask the opinion of the player-base on two matters:

1. I have attempted to audit the existing Philippine sim reports to establish what exactly the status of the vessels under construction, and the state of Philippine tonnage. This has proved extremely difficult. The expenditures cited in individual sim reports do not add properly, and values shift from report to report. For example, the 3Q40 sim reports ends with a stockpile of 1,329 tons; the 4Q40 sim report begins with a stockpile of 2,444 tons. I have gone back as far as 1939 and there appears to me little likelihood of resolving the inconsistencies.

I would propose to the player-base the following: My best effort has reduced the error in the 4Q40 sim report to a deficit of 17 tons, which could be counter-balanced by deducting that from the tonnage specified as being used to repair ships subsequently scrapped. Rather than do that, I would propose that a line be drawn at the close of 1940 and that for 1Q41 the Philippines begin with a zero stockpile.

I've checked back through the reports myself, and I see what you mean about the inconsistencies. It's kinda irritating that we've not caught on to that until now - some of those errors probably should have been noticed earlier...

Given what you've said of the situation, and looking over it myself, it looks like trying to get correct numbers out of past reports might be... difficult. It doesn't appear to me that the Philippines would get any massive penalty or advantage from zeroing the stockpile - is that correct?

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
2. In reviewing the Philippine order of battle and sim reports back to the 1930s I find that there are four cruisers cited as being in existence which do not appear in the encyclopedia – at least not directly.

There are references to the heavy cruisers Cebu and Luzon, built circa 1934-35. The fragmentary tonnages cited in the existing sim reports imply that these are two vessels of the Basilan class, which would explain why they have no separate encyclopedia entry of their own. Unfortunately the 4Q34, 1Q35 and 2Q35 sim reports are not on file, and the completion of the vessels in question comes in those months. I would ask the concurrence of the player-base to treating the Cebu and Luzon as the third and fourth units of the Basilan class.

(Of course, if anyone has definite information to the contrary, please bring it to my attention so that the mystery can be dealt with.)

There are also references to two small cruisers, the Masbate and Mindoro, in the 3Q34 sim report but in no surviving sim report thereafter. I have no information what these vessels ought to represent. Therefore, in the absence of information from any other players who may know of these vessels, I propose to presume that they do not in fact exist.

I know that, at some point in the past, I worked up something like the Polish Reports and ended up presuming in it that the Filipinos had four Basilans - as you suggested. Without the information that would've been in the missing reports, it'd be hard to tell for certain, but there's at least the probability that the two extra ships would be paid for in the time period covered by the missing reports. I'd also agree with your presumption regarding the small cruisers.

General comment: see, folks - this is why it's important to keep the encyclopedias up-to-date. If you lay down a new ship, put it in the encyclopedia at once before forget it's there!