WesWorld

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Either would be amusing!

Then let japan enter the war it would be more ... "fun"

I see no reason to be fussy either.

Go bomb the carrier China you know you want too!

*offers 10t if China bombs the carrier*

OMG this is going to get worse before it gets better BUT

I still don't understand how it all went to hell ... like really I just don't

can someone explain it?

Quoted from "doorcf"

OMG this is going to get worse before it gets better BUT

I still don't understand how it all went to hell ... like really I just don't

can someone explain it?

I'm sorry, could you clarify the question. What "it" - that went to hell - are you referring to?

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Quoted from "doorcf"

OMG this is going to get worse before it gets better BUT

I still don't understand how it all went to hell ... like really I just don't

can someone explain it?

I'm sorry, could you clarify the question. What "it" - that went to hell - are you referring to?

I don't understand how it went all to hell. Why the Chosen attacked China? It was only and exercise ... or am I wrong in that one?

No, the current conflict between China and Chosen is real enough - it is no exercise, unfortunately.

As to why, Daidalos, who plays Chosen, or Parador, who plays China, could give the best answer. And in some of the posts earlier in this thread Daidalos does a good job of addressing that question.

For the rest of us, in character, it appears as if both nations wanted this conflict but China, which has a reputation for expansionism, allegedly attacked first (in fact it was a border incident manufactured by Chosen).

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Given the way the conflict is going, and how it's slowly starting to suck in Japan, I'm going have to issue some retroactive French responses to what's happening here. I'd hoped not to have to issue retroactive news, but things are getting a bit too wild and wooly for me to pretend to ignore it.

• NOTICE: If the war has not ended by March 31st 1944 and the Chinese war production declaration of Q1/44 canceled, then in Q2/44, Indochina declares war production for their factories to represent their response to the greater tensions. This will result in war production for the two Indochina factories becoming available in Q4/44.

I have taken a closer look to our rules .....

Quoted

1.1.2 War-time production

A nation which is engaged in a war may go to war-economy, putting its industry on war-footing.......

With this words, Indochina couldn't go on war-time production, because it isn't involved in the war and this is valid for all other countries (Iberia, Japan, France, GB ...... ) except Choosen and China. Or am i wrong ?!?!?!?!

But may be Indochina will expand the war

Yes, the rules do indicate that. Still you should rememeber that both Mexico and Japan are kind of involved in this war and could be consideres 'engaged' eventhough their participations is limited.

On the other hand, it does seem a bit unrealistic when nearby nations who are/feel threatened by the war but not engaged in it cannot take measures against it because of the rules while in the real world something like that would most definitely be happening. It was probably not thought of when the rules were created.

I think the rule should apply to nations not at war, but probably with slightly different penalties.

First i have to say, i don't have problems if other nations will go on war-production.

You are right, it looks very unrealistic that a neighbour country couldn't go on war-production to prevent the threat. So may be we should modify the rule ...

Well, you would want something in place to avoid abuse. Like I said with slightly different penalties. Something like a civil distrust penalty which will see your boosted war production take a hit after a while when you're not involved in a war. There is the " if the industry is placed on war-footing several times successive without interval between each instance of at least twice the length of the instance of war-economy preceding each interval" bit. Perhaps something similar as a 'regain trust' period that is a bit longer than that and if you go back to war production within that period when you're not involved in a war as before, you only get 125% output or something like that.

Quoted from "parador"

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Given the way the conflict is going, and how it's slowly starting to suck in Japan, I'm going have to issue some retroactive French responses to what's happening here. I'd hoped not to have to issue retroactive news, but things are getting a bit too wild and wooly for me to pretend to ignore it.

• NOTICE: If the war has not ended by March 31st 1944 and the Chinese war production declaration of Q1/44 canceled, then in Q2/44, Indochina declares war production for their factories to represent their response to the greater tensions. This will result in war production for the two Indochina factories becoming available in Q4/44.

I have taken a closer look to our rules .....

Quoted

1.1.2 War-time production

A nation which is engaged in a war may go to war-economy, putting its industry on war-footing.......

With this words, Indochina couldn't go on war-time production, because it isn't involved in the war and this is valid for all other countries (Iberia, Japan, France, GB ...... ) except Choosen and China. Or am i wrong ?!?!?!?!

But may be Indochina will expand the war :D :D :D

Define "War".

For instance, throughout much of its history, the Soviet Union maintained its economy at an advanced war-like state. In Wesworld terms, they were in a war (albeit a cold war) at wartime production. In Wesworld, France had a regional rebellion in Morocco in 1937-1939; it could have declared "war" and wartime production. There's currently a low-level civil disturbance France is preparing to deal with in Mali. Is that a "war"? And if Indochina and the Philippines fear they're about to be attacked... well, it's only logical to take certain steps.

"War" is not "We think we might be attacked at some point". If it were, I'd have milked that cow years ago.

From my perspective, Chosen and China are the only valid claimants to "War economy" rules as they have functioned in the sim to date. Volunteering stuff like Japan and Mexico isn't enough to warrant it. Fearing an attack like Philippines or Indochina isn't enought to warrant it.

There are enough examples from OTL though to disprove that theory though Jason, and therefore it is unrealistic. Consider for instance the Two Oceans Bill in the United States in 1940, a full year before the US entered the war. Using WW rules the OTL US would not have been able to pass that bill as it was clearly putting the US on a wartime footing without being at war with anyone.

That perhaps is one of the flaws of WW economics. Military spending in peacetime isn't based on immediate need as much as on perceived need especially on long lead items. There is no economic mechanism to reflict heightened diplomatic tensions and threats to a nations security over a prolonged period. At least in the naval sphere. Non-naval, so far as the US is concerned Indochina and the Philippines have a blank cheque on American non-naval kit.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

No, the current conflict between China and Chosen is real enough - it is no exercise, unfortunately.

As to why, Daidalos, who plays Chosen, or Parador, who plays China, could give the best answer. And in some of the posts earlier in this thread Daidalos does a good job of addressing that question.

For the rest of us, in character, it appears as if both nations wanted this conflict but China, which has a reputation for expansionism, allegedly attacked first (in fact it was a border incident manufactured by Chosen).

So basically Chosen decided to stop China from annexing them but needed a good reason to go to war so manufactured an incident to get their war before China was ready to attack?
WOW

I cannot see how you would draw that conclusion...

Out of character, I do not think China had any designs on Chosen; why Chosen decided to manufacture a crisis is unknown to me. In character, I don't think anyone outside of the combatants knows for certain. Ask them.

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

There are enough examples from OTL though to disprove that theory though Jason, and therefore it is unrealistic. Consider for instance the Two Oceans Bill in the United States in 1940, a full year before the US entered the war. Using WW rules the OTL US would not have been able to pass that bill as it was clearly putting the US on a wartime footing without being at war with anyone.

That perhaps is one of the flaws of WW economics. Military spending in peacetime isn't based on immediate need as much as on perceived need especially on long lead items. There is no economic mechanism to reflict heightened diplomatic tensions and threats to a nations security over a prolonged period. At least in the naval sphere. Non-naval, so far as the US is concerned Indochina and the Philippines have a blank cheque on American non-naval kit.

I agree with you - it is unrealistic. The sim's economic underpinnings have never been particularly realistic. We pegged capacity to pre-1921 capital ship construction, with no critical analysis of who claimed what construction in that period, and we're still bound by that twenty-plus sim-years later.

I'm open to having a larger discussion about sim economics, but we've never reached a consensus on it before.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

There are enough examples from OTL though to disprove that theory though Jason, and therefore it is unrealistic. Consider for instance the Two Oceans Bill in the United States in 1940, a full year before the US entered the war. Using WW rules the OTL US would not have been able to pass that bill as it was clearly putting the US on a wartime footing without being at war with anyone.

That perhaps is one of the flaws of WW economics. Military spending in peacetime isn't based on immediate need as much as on perceived need especially on long lead items. There is no economic mechanism to reflict heightened diplomatic tensions and threats to a nations security over a prolonged period. At least in the naval sphere. Non-naval, so far as the US is concerned Indochina and the Philippines have a blank cheque on American non-naval kit.

I agree with you - it is unrealistic. The sim's economic underpinnings have never been particularly realistic. We pegged capacity to pre-1921 capital ship construction, with no critical analysis of who claimed what construction in that period, and we're still bound by that twenty-plus sim-years later.

I'm open to having a larger discussion about sim economics, but we've never reached a consensus on it before.

Two things: First, I think we should split this off so as to not clog the thread. Second, I think the changes that would need to be made would necessitate a total revamp of the ecomonic system and therefor likely require a reboot.

Quoted from "snip"

Two things: First, I think we should split this off so as to not clog the thread. Second, I think the changes that would need to be made would necessitate a total revamp of the ecomonic system and therefor likely require a reboot.

Yes. Let's move this to another thread.

But I don't think this would require a reboot. We're Wesworld, not Navalism. :rolleyes:

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "snip"

Two things: First, I think we should split this off so as to not clog the thread. Second, I think the changes that would need to be made would necessitate a total revamp of the ecomonic system and therefor likely require a reboot.

Yes. Let's move this to another thread.

But I don't think this would require a reboot. We're Wesworld, not Navalism.

Depends on whether "this" just covers war economy or the system at large as hinted at by Rocky.