WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Need to add the two civilian carriers. A carrier is a carrier and is included on the OOB

What civilian carriers...? You mean he actually built those things?

Okay, they are there... Goes to show you how aware I am of what the Australians are doing.

Quoted

Plus I wasn't counting the training carrier.

Uhm... I did count it... A carrier is a carrier and it should not matter as the Indian limit is 5 anyway (3 fleet and 2 light).

Quoted

What civilian carriers...? You mean he actually built those things?

Yes. He even "build" them as civilian ships.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

Plus I wasn't counting the training carrier.

Uhm... I did count it... A carrier is a carrier and it should not matter as the Indian limit is 5 anyway (3 fleet and 2 light).

Quoted

What civilian carriers...? You mean he actually built those things?

Yes. He even "build" them as civilian ships.

I'm being fair and not counting my training carrier. I at least give that courtesy.

Yes I built them, and they are in CIVILIAN service...

Quoted

16th-The size of the Indian fleet will be the number of hulls (capital ships, cruiser all lump together, carriers, destroyers and submarines only, other classes free of limits) of the Official Australian Fleet Order of Battle on January 1938 with the Indian Fleet allowed to increase their size if Australia do so but not to reduce size if Australia decides to reduce their size.

With an ammendum, if the RAN reduces their size below that of India, India is not required to get rid of ships, BUT is not allowed to use previous numbers to build additional ships.




Australia's OOB for this purpose:

5 Capital Ships:
Lion, Tiger, Panther, Leopard, Australia (note, if the Leopards are considered capital ships, so do the Hyderbads)

4 Heavy Cruisers:
Bismark, Tasman, Queensland, Hobart

18 Light Cruisers:
2 Sydneys, 6 Aucklands, 3 Port Moresbys, 2 Albury, 1 Launceson, 4 Chatham

Destroyers... who cares?

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Yes I built them, and they are in CIVILIAN service...

Quoted

16th-The size of the Indian fleet will be the number of hulls (capital ships, cruiser all lump together, carriers, destroyers and submarines only, other classes free of limits) of the Official Australian Fleet Order of Battle on January 1938 with the Indian Fleet allowed to increase their size if Australia do so but not to reduce size if Australia decides to reduce their size.

With an ammendum, if the RAN reduces their size below that of India, India is not required to get rid of ships, BUT is not allowed to use previous numbers to build additional ships.




Australia's OOB for this purpose:

5 Capital Ships:
Lion, Tiger, Panther, Leopard, Australia (note, if the Leopards are considered capital ships, so do the Hyderbads)

4 Heavy Cruisers:
Bismark, Tasman, Queensland, Hobart

18 Light Cruisers:
2 Sydneys, 6 Aucklands, 3 Port Moresbys, 2 Albury, 1 Launceson, 4 Chatham

Destroyers... who cares?

No. My offer is final. Hyderads are cruisers. The Leopards are capital ships and no changes to my proposal.

I'm done compromising. Being screw twice.

And this are the numbers were going with (From Jan 1938 OOB for Australia and from Q4 1938 report from India)

Australia vs India
Capital Ships: 5 - 3.
Carriers: 5 - 5.
Cruisers: 24 - 23.
Destroyers: 63 - 42.
Submarines: 50 - 29.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
With an ammendum, if the RAN reduces their size below that of India, India is not required to get rid of ships, BUT is not allowed to use previous numbers to build additional ships.

That's a pretty cheap trick, and I don't think you're going to find much sympathy for that one.

Whether to count the Hyderabads and Leopards as capital ships or not... I can see that both ways.

PS. The Treaty is with Great Britain, not with Australia.

...but it mentions limits vs. Australian ones.....and the Hyderbads seem like cruisers to me. IIRC the Leopards have 13.5" guns?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
...but it mentions limits vs. Australian ones.

I'm done compromising. They even try to screw me three responses ago. Take it or leave it.

I guess my other response will be to delete 16th from the Treaty and go with the 35% limits.

So far as I can tell, Australia can demand a particular interpretation of the treaty, but the treaty is between Britain and India. Australia (and the rest of the Commonwealth) never signed the treaty, and therefore has no rights to add or subtract text, unless Britain gives them that latitude.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
...and the Hyderbads seem like cruisers to me.

Okay, yeah. I can accept that. After all, Chile calls Constitucion a heavy cruiser and she's larger than the Hyderabads.

1) Foxy and I have been discussing Canada aquiring Queenland and Hobart (ex-Hawkins, ex-Vindictive) for several months, because Foxy's plans changed, and he no longer wants 7.5" guns in his inventory. Canada's fine with them, and we've been trying to come to an acceptable agreement, somewhat complicated by Canada's spoken-for budget at the moment. Thusly,

2) The Dominion of Canada vehemently objects to any statements, insinuations, assumptions, or passing mention from a foreign power that attempts to bar, limit, or otherwise affect the Dominion of Canada's ability or intention to aquire or dispose of ships [size=1](1)[/size]. Should any further hint of such concepts again be heard, Canada will excersize it's option to aquire the R class from the Crown, and park it outside Diego Garcia as the Royal Canadian Navy's Indian Ocean Squadron. Savvy?

[SIZE=1](note 1; exception made for the relevant section of the Non-Agression treaty with Nordmark, and any future legally binding treaties)[/SIZE]

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
1) Foxy and I have been discussing Canada aquiring Queenland and Hobart (ex-Hawkins, ex-Vindictive) for several months, because Foxy's plans changed, and he no longer wants 7.5" guns in his inventory. Canada's fine with them, and we've been trying to come to an acceptable agreement, somewhat complicated by Canada's spoken-for budget at the moment. Thusly,

2) The Dominion of Canada vehemently objects to any statements, insinuations, assumptions, or passing mention from a foreign power that attempts to bar, limit, or otherwise affect the Dominion of Canada's ability or intention to aquire or dispose of ships [size=1](1)[/size]. Should any further hint of such concepts again be heard, Canada will excersize it's option to aquire the R class from the Crown, and park it outside Diego Garcia as the Royal Canadian Navy's Indian Ocean Squadron. Savvy?

[SIZE=1](note 1; exception made for the relevant section of the Non-Agression treaty with Nordmark, and any future legally binding treaties)[/SIZE]

Done dealing with you guys.

My offer is on the table. I.m being reasonable and you have tried to cheat your way left and right. And Diego Garcia is Bharati. Check the map and the report.

I know also how the Commonwealth Nations deal with binding treaties. More like toilet paper.

Canada has signed no treaty with India, thusly it is irate at various discussion points involving what Canada can or cannot aquire and operate in this thread.

And I'm aware Diego Garcia is currently Indian territory. But it's such a convenient place to set up a little home-away-from-home.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Canada has signed no treaty with India, thusly it is irate at various discussion points involving what Canada can or cannot aquire and operate in this thread.

And I'm aware Diego Garcia is currently Indian territory. But it's such a convenient place to set up a little home-away-from-home.

Done talking. You can face the R's in Singapore because if you do that I invoke 14th of ABUSE.

Be funny to see Canadians fighting British.

Also read 5.1 of the SAINT Treaty.

Canada (and me) had no part in any of this until you started insinuating that Canada is subordinate to Great Britain, and started laying down edicts and restrictions on Canada's business. So it's hard for you to be 'done dealing' with Canada (and me), when you didn't deal with me at all.

And since I am commenting now, Brock, Wes, Hood, and various other players have all confirmed the intent and wording of the treaty in question limits India. And yet for months, despite this being made abundantly clear, you've made numerous references to your 'plans' and how they would not change, and how Australia was somehow obliged to a building program to accomodate your desires. This was entirely uncalled for, inflamatory, and not the sort of behavior I expect to see here. The fact that Foxy seems to have finally lost patience and responded with his own comments about disposing of ships to spite you is no less welcome, but maybe his reaction is the fault of other people for not stepping in sooner.

And as you've also been shown, any disagreements that arise in your treaty are undisputedly the responsability of the British to mediate, and only the British. There has been absolutely zero need for you and Foxy to spend so much time going back and forth at each other (In this thread, and others), when the very simple solution was for you to wait for Hood to get back to the board and properly arbitrate the issue.

I honestly do not know why you two seem so willing (and even eager) to start sniping at each other, but it stops now.

This is all quite amusing from a player point of veiw, as both India and Australia have been finding ways to cheat, intimidate and force the other to build ships to counter red herrings for some time now.

From a mod standpoint however I'm aware of even more behind the scenes scheming, via pm gossip and NATO threads, and quite frankly I can't really pick a side to back on this other than Canada's point of veiw that India is attempting to limit their building as well.

....and somehow I think ABUSE would crumble before the Commonwealth would. India seems to have totally mis-understood just how the commonwealth deals with their military forces and has SERIOUSLY underestimated the trustworthyness of Australia given the player at its helm, who is known to be tricky.

Yep I think for the first time in Wesworld, I can't really pick a side on a dispute!

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Canada (and me) had no part in any of this until you started insinuating that Canada is subordinate to Great Britain, and started laying down edicts and restrictions on Canada's business. So it's hard for you to be 'done dealing' with Canada (and me), when you didn't deal with me at all.

And since I am commenting now, Brock, Wes, Hood, and various other players have all confirmed the intent and wording of the treaty in question limits India. And yet for months, despite this being made abundantly clear, you've made numerous references to your 'plans' and how they would not change, and how Australia was somehow obliged to a building program to accomodate your desires. This was entirely uncalled for, inflamatory, and not the sort of behavior I expect to see here. The fact that Foxy seems to have finally lost patience and responded with his own comments about disposing of ships to spite you is no less welcome, but maybe his reaction is the fault of other people for not stepping in sooner.

And as you've also been shown, any disagreements that arise in your treaty are undisputedly the responsability of the British to mediate, and only the British. There has been absolutely zero need for you and Foxy to spend so much time going back and forth at each other (In this thread, and others), when the very simple solution was for you to wait for Hood to get back to the board and properly arbitrate the issue.

I honestly do not know why you two seem so willing (and even eager) to start sniping at each other, but it stops now.

I apologize for the Canadian stuff but it seemed convenient that was mentioned inmediatly after a "reducing to screw your plans" comment. And I don't mind the sale of the cruisers to Canada. Brock stated it was not so but still the damage was done. And my proposal is the FINAL ONE.

Admin/moderator hat: Let's hold all further discussion until Hood can return and comment. That seems to be the considerate thing to do, since he's the one who needs to make the call.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
This is all quite amusing from a player point of veiw, as both India and Australia have been finding ways to cheat, intimidate and force the other to build ships to counter red herrings for some time now.

Italy always thought the treaty was a joke, neither country wanted to make a deal that didn't suit them completely. When you consider that India and Australia were the main countries responsible for the ending of the Cleito treaty, it was always quite amusing that those countries would be able to make their own arms limitation treaty stick.

It seems best to tear up Article 16 and just stick to the 35% level. There no way DF and peredor will compromise and both seem willing to enter a flame war. Rather than risk India pulling out of the whole Treaty I think it best to revert to the 35% level.

This means Australia and Canada can do whatever they wish without restriction. As long as Australia doesn't start whining when the Indian fleet outnumbers their's in the future. They had the final chance to limit Indian growth and blew it. Australia seems to have been intent to scupper the deal and India intent on driving them to do so.

I just hope this doesn't affect Anglo-Indian relations too much having gone to a lot of trouble to improve them. OOC I'm not impressed with this whole issue.