WesWorld

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 29
(4/12/03 11:47:20 am)
Treaty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTF ?!?!
Hey when did Part 3, Section H, article 2b change ?!?!
It used to be:

==============================================
(b) Naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric
tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard
displacement, provided they have none of the following
characteristics:
(1) Mount a gun above 5.9 inch (150 mm) calibre;
(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;
(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes;
(4) Are designed for a speed greater than 24 knots.
==============================================

And now all of a sudden it is:

==============================================
(b) Naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric
tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard
displacement, provided they have none of the following
characteristics:
(1) Mount a gun above 6 inch (153 mm) calibre;
(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;
(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes;
(4) Are designed for a speed greater than 20 knots.
(5) Are protected by armour plate;
(6) Are fitted with any means of launching aircraft into the air;
(7) Are fitted to receive aircraft on board from the air.
==============================================


Tokugawa Kaetuza: “NANI !?!?! Blah, blah, blah…”
“Oni” Goto Sachio (temporarily replacing Lady Maeko as translator): “My lord has been angered greatly with this sudden change in the treaty which has not been discussed ! Point (4 ) will be changed back immediately to 24 knots, and points (5), (6) and (7) removed immediately ! If this does not happen, Japan will refuse to sign !”

Walter

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 23
(4/12/03 3:07:08 pm)
Re: Treaty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
can the empire of japan please meet me, italy in the chatroom. thank-you. I will be able to discuss this in depth in the next hour.
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

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 24
(4/12/03 3:44:24 pm)
Re: Treaty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
okay well italy and japan discussed this and we decided that the treaty was written flawed and as such we plan on elimating point 5 since we see no need to restrict belt on a ship of that size and we also think that the speed should be 24 knots instead of 20 knots. if nobody disagrees then we can go with the change.
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

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 8
(4/13/03 11:28:19 am)
I (strongly) disagree!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roleplaying on

"Japan and Italy may have discussed things but their decision to alter the latest draft will not be supported. In fact, we raise our voice to argue against the proposed changes.

The paragraph in question is about _non-combatants_. For what does a non-combatant needs to be protected by armor-plate? Especially in a combination with a high and non-economic speed of 24kn?

As it seems the proposed changes will allow to build a full sized warship with 4x 15cm guns plus smaller guns, 24kn speed and well protected.

What kind of non-combatant needs such an equipement - except it is build to act as a raider during wartimes? This must not be allowed!"

roleplaying off


You´re right. The treaty was written flawed. Your comment just focuses on the wrong draft. The _old_ version was heavily (!) flawed. It included several loopholes and several impresicions, especially in the definitions for the different classes. It was _necessary_ to go trough it time and again to fix these things. So Pengolodh and I spend a nights work to test the treaty against all kind of crazy ideas. During this process we changed/fixed some things. We did not discuss these things with the board because it would have cost us month if not years (real time!) to settle things down that way!

There are still some small things like typos and the line "(1) Mount a gun above 6 inch (153 mm) calibre" in the paragraph in question should be read as "(1) Mount a gun above 5.1 inch (150 mm) calibre". The whole treaty is based on 150mm and not 6" guns.

So you have three alternatives:

1.) You can go with the old treaty draft. This will not only render our work useless, it will also allow for some interesting surprises if one fully understands all parts of the treaty.

Before you choose to go with this alternative, please not that it will be _your_ problem if you get surprised. It will not be possible to alter things once the treaty is in effect.

2.) You can go with the new draft. This means you have to trust Pengolodh and me that we fixed all (known) loopholes and imprecisions (like a ship belonging to two classes etc.).

The easiest way to keep things easy with the class-definitions was to change those for the (less interesting) non-combatants. Up to that night most people had set up their fleets (combatants) but not their supporting vessels.

The changes were not made to grant us (Pengolodh and myself) a personal advantage.

Further note: Purpose-build icebreakers are not effected by this paragraph. They can still be armored to reflect the ships capabilities to withstand heavy ice. If you build an icebreaker, present the full (!) design to the board and the community will decide if it is realistic to represent an icebreaker or if it is unrealistic or should be rated as a warship.

Note also, that (navy) icebreakers too will _not_ be allowed to exceed 24kn.

3.) You can go with your changes. This will render our work useless and generate loopholes and imprecisions again (besides the fact that your proposed changes are simply not realitic for _non-combatants_). Thus it will be necessary to do all the work again and alter many other paragraphs and definitions. This also means to change a few definitions with the result that you maybe have to redesign several of your designs or you will face problems with treaty limitations otherwise (tonnage per class for example).

So think of it. Is it easier to change one or two of one or two players non-combatant designs or to alter the whole treaty?

Finally:

The decision is up to you but _I_ will not support any changes of the treaty (except for some minor things already discussed but not changed due to Pengolodhs pc problems). Both as a player and a potential signatory.

Edited by: King of Riva at: 4/13/03 11:36:21 am

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 37
(4/13/03 11:49:39 am)
Re: You do ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the old part:

==============================================
(b) Naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric
tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard
displacement, provided they have none of the following
characteristics:
(1) Mount a gun above 5.9 inch (150 mm) calibre;
(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;
(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes;
(4) Are designed for a speed greater than 24 knots.
==============================================

... and here is the new part:

==============================================
(b) Naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric
tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard
displacement, provided they have none of the following
characteristics:
(1) Mount a gun above 6 inch (153 mm) calibre;
(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;
(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes;
(4) Are designed for a speed greater than 20 knots.
(5) Are protected by armour plate;
(6) Are fitted with any means of launching aircraft into the air;
(7) Are fitted to receive aircraft on board from the air.
==============================================

In both the new and the previous version, this part is not about non-combatants.

The ships over 2,000 tons excluded from the treaty are non-combatants and are discussed in point "C", but the ships mentioned in point "B" are about combatants.

Guess the Treaty has to be slightly changed again.

Walter
PS: How's Pengolodh doing ? Is his PC still "Alive" ?

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 9
(4/13/03 11:55:27 am)
An example:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Your proposed changes make ships collide with the definitions of the coastal-defence vessel for example.

The design below would be allowed in unlimited numbers if your changes come into effect and the ship is rated against said paragraph.

On the other hand it also fits into the category of coastal defence vessels and therefore it has to be limited in number.

This is just one example.....

test, laid down 1926

Length, 120.0 m x Beam, 12.0 m x Depth, 3.8 m
2207 tonnes normal displacement (1990 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 4 x 15.0-cm (2 x 2)
Secondary battery: 8 x 7.5-cm
AA battery: 12 x 4.0-cm
Light battery: 12 x 2.0-cm

Weight of broadside: 246 kg

Main belt, 10.0 cm; ends unarmored
Armor deck, average 4.0 cm
Conning tower, 10.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 10.0 cm / secondary, 2.5 cm shields
AA, 1.5 cm shields

Maximum speed for 8864 shaft kw = 24.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 6500 nm / 12 knots

Typical complement: 161-209


Estimated cost, $2.440 million (£610,000)

Remarks:

Caution: Hull structure is subject to strain in open-sea
conditions.

Relative extent of belt armor, 84 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Magazines and engineering spaces are roomy, with superior
watertight subdivision.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 68 tonnes = 3 pct
Armor, total ..................... 640 tonnes = 29 pct

Belt 261 tonnes = 12 pct
Deck 244 tonnes = 11 pct
C.T. 14 tonnes = 1 pct
Armament 121 tonnes = 5 pct

Machinery ........................ 380 tonnes = 17 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 763 tonnes = 35 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 306 tonnes = 14 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 50 tonnes = 2 pct
-----
2207 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 0.5 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 1901 tonnes
Standard displacement: 1990 tonnes
Normal service: 2207 tonnes
Full load: 2371 tonnes

Loading submergence 786 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.14

Shellfire needed to sink: 1085 kg = 23.2 x 15.0-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.0
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 71 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.49

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.29

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.40
Sharpness coefficient: 0.30
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 9.24
'Natural speed' for length = 19.8 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 46 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 83 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 109 percent


Displacement factor: 110 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.75
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 265 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.91
(for 3.35 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment -0.06 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 0.76

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

393.60 x 39.36 x 12.46; 10.99 -- Dimensions
0.40 -- Block coefficient
1926 -- Year laid down
24.00 / 6500 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
50 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
4 x 5.91; 2; 0 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
8 x 2.95; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
12 x 1.57 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.79 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
3.94 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00; 84 -- Belt armor; relative extent
1.57 / 3.94 -- Deck / CT
3.94 / 0.98 / 0.59 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 10
(4/13/03 11:59:58 am)
Argh!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are so many drafts around, I choosed one to quote from which reads "naval surface vessels"!

But still, there´s the problem that ships may fall into two categories due to your changes.

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 38
(4/13/03 12:19:38 pm)
Re: Argh!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Edit: Argh! Feet, inches, centimeters, tons, kilograms, pounds... Made an error with the sizes !]


In the 1,000 to 1,500 range, if a ships has more than 4 guns over 3”, it’s a Sloop.
In the 1,500 to 2,000 range, if a ship has more than 4 guns over 3”, it’s a CDS.
If they have 4 guns or less over 3”, then it is neither a Sloop, nor a CDS. It’ll fall outside the limitation.
If you look at my list of non-limited ships, you’ll notice the “Gun Boat” and the “Corvette” both have four 5 inch guns. If they were to carry more +3” guns, “Gun Boat” would fall into the Sloop Category and “Corvette” would fall in the CDS Category.
The ship falls either in the "Non-limited" Category or in the "Sloop"/CDS Category. I do not see how a ship can fall into two categrories this way.

In the example you gave, the ship has 4 main guns over 3" and under 5.1". The secondaries are under 3" so this ship would not be a CDS. If the secondaries were over 3", it would be a CDS.



It is all a question of guns...

Walter

Edited by: Rooijen10 at: 4/13/03 12:28:51 pm

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 11
(4/13/03 12:38:49 pm)
No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between CDS and non-limited units was armor in the latest draft. There is no maximum or minimum for a CDS´ _number_ of guns.

So if a ship has guns larger than 130mm (thus not a sloop or destroyer) size and/or armor matters if it is rated as a cruiser, a CDS or not at all (unlimited). Finally speed has its influence, as have torpedos and the capability to land a plane on the vessel.

The number of guns is important for non-combatants and naval vessels not build as fighting units only.

If you now allow the ships in said paragraph to be armored they will most likely fall in one of the combatant-categories as well.

Edited by: King of Riva at: 4/13/03 12:49:03 pm

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 39
(4/13/03 2:30:00 pm)
In the latest version, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in the version prior to this one, guns was the limiting factor regarding non-limited ships, not armor or speed.

Now look what we have done ! We have dragged the cruisers into this as well. If we go on like this, I might end up demanding to reinstall the 16 inch guns of the Nagato and Mutsu.

...

(My mind is empty now...)


...

... but even if you remove armor and reduce speed to 20 knots, a ship with guns larger than 130mm can still be considered a CDS and/or a non-limited in the 1,500 to 2,000 ton range.

Why ?

==============================================
IV. COAST-DEFENCE ARMOURCLAD
Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships, aircraft-
carriers or cruisers, the standard displacement of which exceeds
1,500 (1,524 metric tons) tons and does not exceed 8,000 tons
(8,128 metric tons), whose largest guns do not exceed the calibre
of 12 inches (305 millimetres) in calibre, and which is no so
constructed or reconstructed that aircraft can land thereon, and
which is not designed or rebuilt for a maximum speed in excess of
24 knots.
==============================================
==============================================
(b) Naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric
tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard
displacement, provided they have none of the following
characteristics:
(1) Mount a gun above 6 inch (153 mm) calibre;
(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;
(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes;
(4) Are designed for a speed greater than 20 knots.
(5) Are protected by armour plate;
(6) Are fitted with any means of launching aircraft into the air;
(7) Are fitted to receive aircraft on board from the air.
==============================================

CDS 1,500 - 8,000 tons, v<24
Non-limited (b) <2,000 tons, v<20
It doesn't say that the CDS must be armored. So if I have a 1,900 ton, 4x5", v<20 ship, I still falls in both categories.

I think these two categories shoul not overlap so it might be best if either non-limited should be decreased to 1,500 (like sloop) or CDS should be increased to 2,000 (like cruiser).


Walter

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 12
(4/13/03 5:28:10 pm)
Re: In the latest version, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, a CDS is allowed to carry a catapult and torpedos so there is quite some difference between those classes. Add armor to the equation and you get two completely different classes.

But you´re right. It doesn´t say a CDS has to have these features. And it would be nonsense to make it a "must have".

So if you build a ship 1500-2000ts, _could_ be rated as both but due to the limitation of CDS tonnage it wouldn´t make sense to rate such a weak ship as a CDS. And that´s exactly the point here: One should only be allowed to build weak units in unlimited numbers (combatant or non-combatant). But a unit with 24kn and (heavy) armor can hardly be called "weak".

You can also find a design that fits both the unlimited and the sloop definition. The problem here is your question. )

It should be "What is the maximum allowed per class?" and not "What is the minimum allowed per class?".

So I still think we should not meddle with the latest draft. We really have gone through this for hours and it worked very well (except for the typos, 6" instead of 150mm and a few other things that have to be changed - the date for the treaty is still August 1920 for example!)

Btw, at the beginning of this all I asked why you two guys need those 24kn and armor. I still haven´t seen an answer....

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 25
(4/14/03 12:12:20 am)
Re: In the latest version, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say King who are you? I saw you here and i havent seen you over at Warships1.com and then you posted a thing about know a peng who hasnt been here at all. it is kinda cunfusing. Anyhow until i get peng in here and ready to talk i wont change the treaty. I am still wondering if he will ever get in here but I did notice that HoOman did stop in here but didnt post anything. BTW did anybody have problems with warships1.com being down for a day or two. I noticed i couldnt get in until just recently. I know that all of ezboard will be shut down on midnight of Tuesday.
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

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 13
(4/14/03 3:45:41 am)
Rooijen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:

"If you look at my list of non-limited ships, you’ll notice the “Gun Boat” and the “Corvette” both have four 5 inch guns. If they were to carry more +3” guns, “Gun Boat” would fall into the Sloop Category and “Corvette” would fall in the CDS Category.
The ship falls either in the "Non-limited" Category or in the "Sloop"/CDS Category."

I´m not sure what you mean.

Your Go-Ichi-class gunboats have to be rated as sloops anyway.

Ri-Ichi-class is unlimited due to size (below 600ts). Same for the Mu-Ichi-class and the submarine chasers, the Ki-Ichis as well.

The Fu-Ichis (if unarmored) would have been unlimited if the speed limit would be 24kn. So yes, now you´ve to rate these ships as CDS (but they weight approx. 60,000ts and you only have 40,000ts for CDS) - or redesign them with 20kn to get them for free. Same for the Ao Ichi-class.

The rest of your designs - oilers, cargo ships etc. - don´t have to be rated because they were not build as fighting units.

So you´re only in trouble with the Fu-Ichis and Ao-Ichis - because they are all 1kn too fast (and maybe armored but this I cannot see from the stats you posted).



Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 40
(4/14/03 10:55:59 am)
Where must I start...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm....

to King of Riva (1st post):

Quoted

It should be "What is the maximum allowed per class?" and not "What is the minimum allowed per class?".

Exactly. When you look at a class it has certain maximums. Even if only one single aspect crosses the maximum of one class, it'll fall in another class.

Quoted

The date for the treaty is still August 1920 for example!)

The only thing I see with August 1920 is "August 12 1920-December 6, 1920" so there is no need to change it yet. Perhaps the end date when we finally sign the treaty. HoOmAn set the current alternate world date with one of his news reports (probably by looking at the treaty date) so that when I or any of the other Simmers post something like AWNR, the date would at this moment be November 14, 1920. So when looking at all posts, this stuff truly started in August 1920. When looking at the old posts back then, I do believe that it was around the 12th of January that the treaty talks began between the players.

Quoted

So I still think we should not meddle with the latest draft. We really have gone through this for hours and it worked very well

Then, I guess we'll leave it at that. I just didn't like this sudden change in the treaty. I need to adjust a few things now.

Quoted

Btw, at the beginning of this all I asked why you two guys need those 24kn and armor. I still haven´t seen an answer....

Speed...
Perhaps to be able to intercept submarines faster ?

Armor...
Protection against the AAA fire maybe ?

Actually, I use it to get rid of the excessive hull strength. Otherwise I would end up with this small ship and a 25,000 NM radius.


to Aowwt:

Quoted

I did notice that HoOman did stop in here but didnt post anything.

Well, he did make it clear that he didn't really like the idea to move the sim... but I guess that he probably got curious.

Quoted

BTW did anybody have problems with warships1.com being down for a day or two.

If you are talking about the discussion board then you are not the only one. I believe that it was the entire weekend that I was unable to axcess it.


to King of Riva (2nd post):

Quoted

Your Go-Ichi-class gunboats have to be rated as sloops anyway.

Why ? On none of the points does it cross the maximum of the non-limited ships (at least after I remove the armor from the sim in a few moments).

==============================================
Subject to any special agreements which may submit them to
limitation, the following vessels are exempt from limitation:

(b) Naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric
tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard
displacement, provided they have none of the following
characteristics:
(1) Mount a gun above 6 inch (153 mm) calibre;
(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;
(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes;
(4) Are designed for a speed greater than 20 knots.
(5) Are protected by armour plate;
(6) Are fitted with any means of launching aircraft into the air;
(7) Are fitted to receive aircraft on board from the air."

==============================================

(b) itself. The ship, at 637 tons falls between 600 and 2,000 tons.
(1) Main gun caliber is 5" so below the 6" maximum.
(2) Mounts four 5" guns. That is not more than 4 guns over 3".
(3) Does not carry torpedoes.
(4) Speed is 18.2 knots. even with the latest version of the treaty, the speed is under the maximum 20 knots.
(5) No armor (will be removed from the sim)
(6) Not fitted to launch aircraft into the air, or...
(7) ... fitted to receive aircraft on board from the air.

Only at this moment when I am typing the post does the gunboat fall into the sloop category because the little bit of armor it has. It was simmed with the previous version of the treaty in mind. But once removed, the ship no longer falls in the sloop category since it does not cross any of the maximums as given above.
So tell me: why is this ship supposed to be rated as a sloop anyway ?

Quoted

The Fu-Ichis (if unarmored) would have been unlimited if the speed limit would be 24kn. So yes, now you´ve to rate these ships as CDS (but they weight approx. 60,000ts and you only have 40,000ts for CDS) - or redesign them with 20kn to get them for free. Same for the Ao Ichi-class.

Both versions are armored (but not for long) and would have been unlimited with the previous version of the treaty even with the armor. Now I have to remove both armor and reduce speed.

Walter

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 14
(4/14/03 12:09:24 pm)
Hui....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"HoOmAn set the current alternate world date with one of his news reports"

Btw, this board here lacks many newspaper reports. There were 5 from the SAE for example but here you can find only one of them...

One of those things that happen when you move such a complex thing like this SIM.

"Then, I guess we'll leave it at that. I just didn't like this sudden change in the treaty."

That´s a good decision.

"Well, he did make it clear that he didn't really like the idea to move the sim... but I guess that he probably got curious."

He´s not curious and he really hates this board overhere. But with those many problems to connect to warships1.com during the last week and the Design Board down for the last two days there was little opportunity where to go.

He surely sinks the first boat of that guy who had the stupid idea to move the SIM....at first opportunity!

He also hates ezBoards. For several reasons. One being that it did not accept his well known name for a global account. *grrrr*

Thus he will also sink ezBoard if he ever gets the chance to do so. Most likely a difficult task, compared to his wish to sink some stinkin´ foreign warships...

"Both versions are armored (but not for long) and would have been unlimited with the previous version of the treaty even with the armor. Now I have to remove both armor and reduce speed."

Why not devide them into two subcategories? One with armor and speed, one without (more misc weight maybe for transporting command troops, special cargo, fleet supply, staff of the flotilla etc.)? This way you can make good use of the CDS-tonnage....

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 15
(4/14/03 12:30:06 pm)
I forgot...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why ? On none of the points does it cross the maximum of the non-limited ships"

Again a problem of the paragraph in question. In my version it reads as if it only covers non-combatants. Those gunboars are combatants.

Only small combatants (600ts and under) and vessels not especially build for combat should be allowed in unlimited numbers. At least this was/is the original intention.

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 42
(4/14/03 12:35:18 pm)
Re: Hui....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sink them with what ? Torpedoes, shells, bombs, missiles ? (perhaps a nuke )

This is the way I built up my fleet:
1) Sim all current treaty ships.
2) Sim all future additions limited to treaty.
3) Sim non-treaty ships.
4) Sim non-limited ships.

I already planned some CDS in step 2, so I don't see why I should spend CDS tonnage right now. Same with the Sloops.

For transporting command troops I use the transport ships (and a secret not yet posted type of ship for the elite troops), special cargo (are we talking nuke again ? ) and fleet supply I use the cargo ships and staff of the flotilla... who knows...

As for the treaty... It looks like the version you have is a newer version than the one posted here then...

Walter
Walter

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 27
(4/14/03 2:06:55 pm)
Re: Hui....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well it would be nice if we could get the latest version posted. I can move the current i one i posted then sticky the newest version. Anyhow i still dont know who you are King. Its kinda funny that hoOman wants to sink a boat of several people who arent taking part in the sim. the only reason i made this new forum for the sim is that two members of warships1 posted a rant topic about how the SIM took over that board. So I thought before the moderators shut down our SIM and delete all of the topics regarding it I better start up a new forum. BTW if you have the news reports from the beginning please post them. I thought i grabbed them all but I could have missed some. there were a ton of topics to look through. Anyhow Thanks for commenting.
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: 45
(4/14/03 2:28:06 pm)
Re: Hui....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted

Btw, this board here lacks many newspaper reports. There were 5 from the SAE for example but here you can find only one of them...

I looked though my files and found a number that were not posted. Though I am not sure, I think we got most of them now.

Walter

Pengolodh
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 1
(4/17/03 4:54:46 pm)
Re: In the latest version, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted

Say King who are you? I saw you here and i havent seen you over at Warships1.com and then you posted a thing about know a peng who hasnt been here at all. it is kinda cunfusing. Anyhow until i get peng in here and ready to talk i wont change the treaty. I am still wondering if he will ever get in here but I did notice that HoOman did stop in here but didnt post anything. BTW did anybody have problems with warships1.com being down for a day or two. I noticed i couldnt get in until just recently. I know that all of ezboard will be shut down on midnight of Tuesday.

Greetings - I have finally found the way here; it seems I managed to miss the announcement on the other board. My computer-woes are still not sorted, but I will be getting there eventually.

A specific reason for the change in the 600-200ton unlimited category was to make it a less desirable type of ship than sloops. A cencession on letting the 1500-2000-ton class be allowed to have catapults can be agreed on, or possibly lumping all unlimited ships above 600 tons into one category.

The computer has let me get at files again, so I have revised the treaty-draft, allowing for India's admission to the treaty, removing the Phillippines from all mention, changed the clauses on carrier-conversions to agree with what was agreed upon earlier, and made specific allowance for ten icebreakers of the Russian Federation - I sent it to Ho0man so he can proofread it, and find any problems.
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

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 40
(4/17/03 10:30:12 pm)
Re: In the latest version, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the board Peng. Its so nice to see you here. Well I hope you can help me out with some stuff. Could you post your infrastructure over at the infrastructure forum and you or King post the 'new' treaty in this forum as soon as you guys get it set. Anyhow i doubt we will have a debate on it since we talked about every other change but lets give it a few days to discuss the new treaty to make sure its what we want, we dont want anybody to leave the treaty now do we.

BTW on occasion you may see somebody is in the chat room. It is probally me sitting in there so feel free to stop by and say a few words. i do like the ezboard chat so you will see me in there almost anytime during normal hours for me, around 2pm - 10pm EST.
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: 67
(4/18/03 4:52:54 am)
Re: In the latest version, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice you could make it, Pengolodh. I hope you can sort out the problems with your computer.

That leaves only Harry the Red...


Walter


aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 41
(4/18/03 7:24:53 am)
Re: In the latest version, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and i have emailed him last week about the site. So he cant say he doesnt know about the new board. BTW i also havent seen him at warships1 so i dont know where he is at.
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