WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
"Scrapping" is probably the wrong idea, you're not really scrapping it as much as you're selling it to the civilian economy for use in shipbuilding or repair. After all, a new slip or dock might just as well be an existing slip or dock purchased by the government as one that's newly built from the ground up (or down, as the case may be).

That brings up my other point of it being impractical to sell a slip or two from a major base installation to a civilian concern, assuming there's one ready and willing to pony out the cash for it.

If that happened at, for instance, the Philadelphia Naval Yards, I could see that being a legitimate concern. But is such a situation the norm?

Historically, looking at US production of battleships and cruisers from the end of WWI to the end of WWII, it doesn't really seem to be. There appear to be 3 main NAVY yards (New York, Philadelphia, and Puget Sound) that produced the North Carolinas, the Iowas, and some of the cruisers. The remaining ships (the South Dakotas, some of the between-the-wars cruisers, and most of the wartime cruisers) were produced by Bethlehem Fore River/Quincy, Bethlehem San Francisco, New York Shipbuilding, Cramp, & Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock (source: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/)).

In other words I would presume it's simply a matter of one shipbuilder selling another a portion of its facilities, then.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
In other words I would presume it's simply a matter of one shipbuilder selling another a portion of its facilities, then.

Effectively. Or the Navy selling a shipbuilder some of it's facilities that it doesn't need.

So here I see a two-part issue that we'd need to answer:

1. Can we sell existing infrastructure?
2. How would we be reimbursed for selling infrastructure?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
So here I see a two-part issue that we'd need to answer:

1. Can we sell existing infrastructure?
2. How would we be reimbursed for selling infrastructure?

To #2, I would propose that sales return about par, since that's the price you'll pay to buy them from the commercial side of the world when expanding your yards.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As for selling off infrastructure...I'm not sure about it. It's one thing to sell a dock or slipway to a civilian yard, but that presumes there's a civilian concern capable of taking it up and using it. There's also the matter of what gets sold; I don't see the Navy selling off a handful of slips at Norfolk or Mare Island.

Even more so, I can't see slips or docks being dismantled for usable warship (or even industrial) material, certaintly not enough to be economic.

I agree on this.

Most infrastructure came out of the blue when the nation started. For the big ones that was 1920 and IPs were based on number of capital ship. Selling this infrastructure now would offer a gain without costs.

Now, I can see people say "But so we did with the early ships we had." Well, yes. Those ships also popped in out of the blue. However, they could only be sold if there was an IC interest. This is not the case for infrastructure. As has been stated early, and I fully agree, existing infrastructure cannot be sold other than to civilian customers. But the civilian sector is NPC and there is no way to define a valid and reasonable market price. Same for purchasing infrastructure from the civilian sector - in case one wants its stuff back in case of war.

In summary, it´s a no from me on SELLING infrastructure.

However, there might be a chance for a compromise if we are SCRAPPING of infrastructure. There hardly is anything on a slip or dock that can be immediately used on a ship but scrapping and melting the metal might offer some gains, probably 5%. So a slip worth 1IP (or an equivalent of 10000 tons) would gain a player 500 tons of usable material two quarters later.

My own "out of the blue" argument applies here as well but at least we would have the assurance that infrastructure turned into profit that way will never return - and the gains are relatively little, what might partitially compensate the fact that most likely only the big powers can benefit from the whole rule.

Thoughts?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As for selling off infrastructure...I'm not sure about it. It's one thing to sell a dock or slipway to a civilian yard, but that presumes there's a civilian concern capable of taking it up and using it. There's also the matter of what gets sold; I don't see the Navy selling off a handful of slips at Norfolk or Mare Island.

Even more so, I can't see slips or docks being dismantled for usable warship (or even industrial) material, certaintly not enough to be economic.

I agree on this.

Most infrastructure came out of the blue when the nation started. For the big ones that was 1920 and IPs were based on number of capital ship. Selling this infrastructure now would offer a gain without costs.

Now, I can see people say "But so we did with the early ships we had." Well, yes. Those ships also popped in out of the blue. However, they could only be sold if there was an IC interest. This is not the case for infrastructure. As has been stated early, and I fully agree, existing infrastructure cannot be sold other than to civilian customers. But the civilian sector is NPC and there is no way to define a valid and reasonable market price. Same for purchasing infrastructure from the civilian sector - in case one wants its stuff back in case of war.

In summary, it´s a no from me on SELLING infrastructure.

Thoughts?

Uhm, what? Your argument makes no sense: you can already buy shipyards from the civilian sector, the costs are defined in the infrastructure rules. A new slip/dock might be built from scratch or bought from a commercial concern, the rules don't state which and it really doesn't matter anyway (since the costs are the same either way). If there was something TRULY special about military shipyards at this time period, then it would be impossible for civilian shipyards to build warships. As I showed above, it was possible for even WWII BBs to be built in civilian yards, just like most of the US cruisers and almost all of the US fleet carriers. Even today, USN cruisers, destroyers and submarines are built in civilian yards (Bath Ironworks, Ingalls Shipyard, Electric Boat).

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As for selling off infrastructure...I'm not sure about it. It's one thing to sell a dock or slipway to a civilian yard, but that presumes there's a civilian concern capable of taking it up and using it. There's also the matter of what gets sold; I don't see the Navy selling off a handful of slips at Norfolk or Mare Island.

Even more so, I can't see slips or docks being dismantled for usable warship (or even industrial) material, certaintly not enough to be economic.

I agree on this.

Most infrastructure came out of the blue when the nation started. For the big ones that was 1920 and IPs were based on number of capital ship. Selling this infrastructure now would offer a gain without costs.

Now, I can see people say "But so we did with the early ships we had." Well, yes. Those ships also popped in out of the blue. However, they could only be sold if there was an IC interest. This is not the case for infrastructure. As has been stated early, and I fully agree, existing infrastructure cannot be sold other than to civilian customers. But the civilian sector is NPC and there is no way to define a valid and reasonable market price. Same for purchasing infrastructure from the civilian sector - in case one wants its stuff back in case of war.

In summary, it´s a no from me on SELLING infrastructure.

However, there might be a chance for a compromise if we are SCRAPPING of infrastructure. There hardly is anything on a slip or dock that can be immediately used on a ship but scrapping and melting the metal might offer some gains, probably 5%. So a slip worth 1IP (or an equivalent of 10000 tons) would gain a player 500 tons of usable material two quarters later.

My own "out of the blue" argument applies here as well but at least we would have the assurance that infrastructure turned into profit that way will never return - and the gains are relatively little, what might partitially compensate the fact that most likely only the big powers can benefit from the whole rule.

Thoughts?

When it comes to the disposal of infrastructure, I agree with this view. Getting a 100% recovery from sale or scrap would be too unbalancing for the game.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As for selling off infrastructure...I'm not sure about it. It's one thing to sell a dock or slipway to a civilian yard, but that presumes there's a civilian concern capable of taking it up and using it. There's also the matter of what gets sold; I don't see the Navy selling off a handful of slips at Norfolk or Mare Island.

Even more so, I can't see slips or docks being dismantled for usable warship (or even industrial) material, certaintly not enough to be economic.

I agree on this.

Most infrastructure came out of the blue when the nation started. For the big ones that was 1920 and IPs were based on number of capital ship. Selling this infrastructure now would offer a gain without costs.

Now, I can see people say "But so we did with the early ships we had." Well, yes. Those ships also popped in out of the blue. However, they could only be sold if there was an IC interest. This is not the case for infrastructure. As has been stated early, and I fully agree, existing infrastructure cannot be sold other than to civilian customers. But the civilian sector is NPC and there is no way to define a valid and reasonable market price. Same for purchasing infrastructure from the civilian sector - in case one wants its stuff back in case of war.

In summary, it´s a no from me on SELLING infrastructure.

However, there might be a chance for a compromise if we are SCRAPPING of infrastructure. There hardly is anything on a slip or dock that can be immediately used on a ship but scrapping and melting the metal might offer some gains, probably 5%. So a slip worth 1IP (or an equivalent of 10000 tons) would gain a player 500 tons of usable material two quarters later.

My own "out of the blue" argument applies here as well but at least we would have the assurance that infrastructure turned into profit that way will never return - and the gains are relatively little, what might partitially compensate the fact that most likely only the big powers can benefit from the whole rule.

Thoughts?

When it comes to the disposal of infrastructure, I agree with this view. Getting a 100% recovery from sale or scrap would be too unbalancing for the game.

Why?

As I've stated in IRC, I think we should be able to dismantle/sell slips/drydocks. IMO however we should get more than a measly 5%, say 30%, similar to our scrapping rules. Cranes/lock doors can be reused at other sites and if your selling a slip to a civilian yard your not dismantling at all, simply changing ownership.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

When it comes to the disposal of infrastructure, I agree with this view. Getting a 100% recovery from sale or scrap would be too unbalancing for the game.

Why?

Those nations which have large amounts of unused infrastructure - whether by inheritance - as Hoo has described - or through choice of investment - will suddenly be able to recover huge amounts of tonnage at a time of their choosing. Recovery in line with the current scrapping rules - as Wes has suggested - would be far more realistic and, IMHO, less disruptive to the game.

Smaller nations will be able to recoup as well. With my Turkish hat on I can benifit from this rule. Size has absolutely nothing to do with it really.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Smaller nations will be able to recoup as well. With my Turkish hat on I can benifit from this rule. Size has absolutely nothing to do with it really.

From my point of view, smaller nations do not have extra infrastructure lying around that can be liquidated. Certainly they can use the same rule if they do; however, the proposed rule change seems aimed to benefit those large nations who have large amounts of infrastructure that they are not necessarily using.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Smaller nations will be able to recoup as well. With my Turkish hat on I can benifit from this rule. Size has absolutely nothing to do with it really.

From my point of view, smaller nations do not have extra infrastructure lying around that can be liquidated. Certainly they can use the same rule if they do; however, the proposed rule change seems aimed to benefit those large nations who have large amounts of infrastructure that they are not necessarily using.

It benefits anyone who has over-built infrastructure. That may be a big country, it may be a small country, it's not biased in any particular way. Now, it may be true that any one country won't benefit from this (Germany won't, for instance, since Germany feels it needs MORE slips/docks, not less), but that doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly reasonable thing to do and to have in the game. Yes, a big country that is badly over-built in slips/docks would have a larger surplus, in direct terms, than a smaller country, but in terms of the ratio of their sizes it may not be true.

For example, say sometime in the future Peru (I'm picking Peru because I ranit for a bit), content with it's alliance with Iberia and AEGIS, and getting good prices from India, Germany, and IBeria (it's current arms suppliers), decided that it really didn't need it's construction capacity (but that it would keep it's repair capacity). It would have 10 IPs worth of slips it could sell off, which is a LOT when you're a country with only 4 factories.

Well, as Turkey with just 6 factorys I can safely say that I do have some infrastructure that can be liquidated and the funds used for other things. I have two small ports in the black sea that really are of little use at this current time.

Really it comes down to each individual nation, some do, some don't, size really isn't an issue with this.

Now if you want to limit how much infrastructure can be liquidated, I'm more than willing to discuss that but I honestly don't know what that limit should be, as infrastructure changes vastly from nation to nation.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
For example, say sometime in the future Peru (I'm picking Peru because I ranit for a bit), content with it's alliance with Iberia and AEGIS, and getting good prices from India, Germany, and IBeria (it's current arms suppliers), decided that it really didn't need it's construction capacity (but that it would keep it's repair capacity). It would have 10 IPs worth of slips it could sell off, which is a LOT when you're a country with only 4 factories.

That'd scare the hell out of Chile... But I think it's a legitimate proposal.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
For example, say sometime in the future Peru (I'm picking Peru because I ranit for a bit), content with it's alliance with Iberia and AEGIS, and getting good prices from India, Germany, and IBeria (it's current arms suppliers), decided that it really didn't need it's construction capacity (but that it would keep it's repair capacity). It would have 10 IPs worth of slips it could sell off, which is a LOT when you're a country with only 4 factories.

That'd scare the hell out of Chile... But I think it's a legitimate proposal.

It's a decision that has it's own risks: if Peru finds itself in the future with only 1 supplier, that supplier can jack the prices on it. And Peru might find itself unable to find a partner when it has money to spend, if it's suppliers are busy at the time. But it's a choice that isn't unreasonable (most countries at the time didn't have much construction capability, and many still don't). That's why I think it should be allowed: it doesn't, in particular, hurt or help any SIZE of country (Germany, in WW, is the same size as the US, and has NO interest in selling infrastructure, while the US is interested in doing so), and no one is forced to make any changes that they don't want to.

My big issue which I'd like to address is a case of realism. As I've noted previously, whoever set up the infrastructure for Chile stuck a D0 and two S0s in the town of Mejillones, which is a very small town with no harbor, no real access to the outside world, and no history of building ships larger than fishing boats. It's a completely isolated town and realistically worthless for military shipbuilding. If this option is accepted, I'd like to "sell" the Mejillones yards and place an identical facility at Valdivia or Punta Arenas, both of which actually *had* military shipyards as early as the 1890s.

If this scrapping of infrastructure is allowed would you get tonnage or IP scrapping it?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
If this scrapping of infrastructure is allowed would you get tonnage or IP scrapping it?

I'd prefer to keep it to IP only. 1 IP for 1 IP.