What is building/selling for Byzantium?
Nothing at the moment, in the future however there will be ship transfers, most likely the Torto class escort cruisers, a couple of destroyers and some smaller craft, perhaps even some home grown designs.
I noticed similar transfers in 1941 and 1940, without mention of Byzantium receiving anything. Did I overlook something?
I'm not sure what your getting at but I'll try to explain the situation. Byzantium is transferring its tonnage to Atlantis basically because it has nothing to build and currently no clear vision for a future navy. The tonnage is also basically a way for paying for Atlantean efforts to expand civil infrastructure and army/air force equipment and I'll admit a convenient additional source of tonnage. In the future Atlantis will transfer several ships to give the Byzantean's a small navy (IC I'm sure the Byzantean's what something transferred) but I fear it won't be very large as they really only need to be able to defend a small portion of coastline while the Turks basically control access to the sea of Marmara. They also won't likely have a huge manpower pool to work with to man a navy so that's where the Atlantean navy comes in. As newer ships come on line for Atlantis older vessels will be assigned to Byzantean waters, in fact several already are.
I'm dreadfully behind in quarterly reports so posting news on what's going on is practically impossible right now without slowing down progress, perhaps once I'm close to caught up I can start posting news summary's to explain in more detail. You'll also notice Atlantean deployments are not up to date, with 41 being the last update.
Thanks for your explanation.
From my perspective, this is a one-sided deal and shouldn't be happening. We frowned on Gavin doing this with Italy and the EAS, after all
I'm unaware of any rules that prevent tonnage transfers as payments, if there are I'm unaware of them. I've already mentioned the other factors as to why no transfers have occurred for the last 3 sim years (1940 through 1942) from a role playing perspective and a player perspective so if there is some other factor you feel I need to present to justify such a transfer please feel free to present it. I'd like to clarify that I haven't adjusted ship deployment lists since 1941.
I'm sure there are no rigid rules against this. It's why Gavin was able to do this for so long without consequences. It still does not, from my perspective, make it right.
If you'd like, I will spend some time going through Atlantean sim reports since 1921 and will tally up what Atlantis and Byzantium have gained from this transaction to date.
I'm sure there are no rigid rules against this. It's why Gavin was able to do this for so long without consequences. It still does not, from my perspective, make it right.
If you'd like, I will spend some time going through Atlantean sim reports since 1921 and will tally up what Atlantis and Byzantium have gained from this transaction to date.
While agree that some of us frowned upon Gavin's action in transferring tonnage from the EAS to Italy, there was no rule against it, and we permitted him to do it without significant disagreement, at least while I was playing. Gavin was guilty of far more serious infractions that we did not catch at the time.
That said, I understand that tonnage transfers of this sort skirt the spirit of our rules. I think that rather than ask Wes to attempt to back out any such transfers back to 1921 (a process which has cost us active Italian players) let us agree to a cut off of say 1942, or perhaps 1943, and go forward with Byzantium engaging in naval construction, rather than just piling up tonnage in a nominal account.
If we are going to look all the way back to game start, I think there would be more than enough anomalies for us to find.
At this point, I'm raising an issue. I'm certainly not asking for any ret-conning.
I've long done the same regarding Paraguay's tonnage, but then officially the Paraguayan Navy was merged with the Argentine river fleet as a joint force against RSAN river forces. In return several large units have been built and refits of all vessels undertaken. I also assume the tonnage (1,000 tons per quarter) covers running costs and keeping the sole Paraguayan yard occupied and staffed.
I will probably cease this practice though in future and go for payment when specific work is undertaken.
In the case of Gavin, as I recall things, he had the EAS as a territory with factory's and all and used the tonnage produced from those factory's as anyone else would. What I took issue with was how, while bound by treaty, he was using the EAS as an excuse to build treaty limited ships outside his own and counted their tonnage outside of his own limits, basically increasing his tonnage over and above what Italy was allowing. In addition, IC he was using that fleet to basically control a vital seaway. Byzantium does by geography have a certain level of control over both entrances to the sea of Marmara but their fleet certainly doesn't nor has it ever possessed any treaty restricted ships unless you include the ten destroyer escorts of 435 tons. I've seen similar things in others sim reports, more recently the Hedjaz in 1942 for example had 260 tons being held on their behalf by India to be spent at a later date. Persia has also made an agreement with India in 1946 that gives them full access to Indian infrastructure in exchange for contributing to infrastructure for India. I fail to see how that is any different than Byzantium transferring tonnage (that would otherwise be in sim terms wasted) in exchange for future transfers as well as aircraft and land equipment while still having full and primary use of their slips/drydocks. If there is an issue with this type of practice then it seems odd that one would do something similar while protesting against it.
I'm going to wait for further discussion on the matter before retconning any reports already posted or in the pipeline as well as holding off on posting further reports past 1942, but I'm going to proceed as if that tonnage is not available to me as I continue to work on reports. I'd also request that we discuss this in the proper forum rather than in the reports thread.
Quoted
I've seen similar things in others sim reports, more recently the Hedjaz in 1942 for example had 260 tons being held on their behalf by India to be spent at a later date. Persia has also made an agreement with India in 1946 that gives them full access to Indian infrastructure in exchange for contributing to infrastructure for India. I fail to see how that is any different than Byzantium transferring tonnage (that would otherwise be in sim terms wasted) in exchange for future transfers as well as aircraft and land equipment while still having full and primary use of their slips/drydocks. If there is an issue with this type of practice then it seems odd that one would do something similar while protesting against it.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH