WesWorld

[SIZE=2]normal[/SIZE] tahoma green

Quoted

"Without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious."

Greetings and Salutations!!
I'm new around here and you can blame Lord Arpad for introducing SpringSharp and this forum to me.

I have been looking through the posts and have a few questions that I would like to ask.
So if I may.......
1/ How does one get to play?
2/ At what stage in the time line is the SIM currently?
3/ Does to SIM follow the history of the real world to any large degree?
4/ Depending on the answer to Q3, what is the position on new countries coming into existance, and wishing to sign The Cleito Treaty?

Quoted

1/ How does one get to play?

The players are set, but all are welcome to join in discussion, make suggestions, and post designs.

Quoted

2/ At what stage in the time line is the SIM currently?

Its a bit disorienting, really. There's a war between Nordmark and a South American alliance, which jas gotten to July 1921. For posting reports and designs, its the first quarter of 1922.

Quoted

3/ Does to SIM follow the history of the real world to any large degree?

Partially. There's a fictional country, Atlantis, and they are true and faithful in alliance.

There are a few countries that combine historical countries, like Nordmark, the South African Empire and Iberia.

India and Australia have rather more than their historical independence. And Greece is rather interested in big ships too.

And the Russian Federation made a separate peace in March 1917, and once a few internal issues were sorted out, embarked on a major program of heavy industry development, with substantial investments in a navy.

But there's a good deal of similarity with the Real World of 1920 to begin with.

But expect substantial divergence.

Well for starters so far no new players are allowed to join as the SIM is underway, however this would be up to the group as a whole and I have given some thought as to how new players could join. In any event those that did join would be very severely limited as they would be nations just starting to get into BB building. Keep watching the sim unfold and perhaps this question will be answered difinitavly in the future!
The sim is currently in the year 1922, each year is devided up into 4 quarters and the sim initially started after a treaty was signed in January 1921 (Q1/21). several nations are in various storylines of their own making. Currently Nordmark is in a rather nasty war with Argentina after the handover of the Falklands and other Islands from the British to Nordmark sparking a conflict.
My own country Atlantis is currently engaged in a flurry of various diplomatic efforts such as a treaty dealing with Turkey. Atlantis is also with other nations attempting to contain the conflict between Nordmark and Argentina which has expanded to include several other South American Nations. Atlantis and Iberia have several territory's in the region that they would like to protect.
To some extent real world events prior to WW1 are as historical but have a slightly different outcome as some nations are either completely fictional or drastically different than historical. For example Russia did not have a revolution near the end of WW1 but still pulled out of the war early while Greece was not in the war.
Again so far new nations are not allowed to enter the Sim but we have had many requests to join and I have to say I have explored the issue somewhat so keep in touch and the issue will be resolved soon.

It's just that as the SIM is in the year 1922, would it be possible for a consideration to be made for the entry of the newly formed "Irish Free State" as it was then called to Sign up to The Cleito Treaty as it did The League of Nations.
As for designs I have been playing, they probably suck, but I am open to constructive criticism.

***********************************************

Nuada, Hibernia BB laid down 1922

Displacement:
28,700 t light; 30,663 t standard; 33,000 t normal; 34,738 t full load
Loading submergence 1,340 tons/feet

Dimensions:
700.00 ft x 100.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
213.36 m x 30.48 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
8 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (8 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
12 - 4.00" / 102 mm AA guns
6 - 2.00" / 51 mm guns
Weight of broadside 15,636 lbs / 7,092 kg
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt 12.00" / 305 mm, upper belt 3.00" / 76 mm, end belts 6.00" / 152 mm
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 12.00" / 305 mm, 2nd turrets 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower 12.00" / 305 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 66,903 shp / 49,910 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
1,224 - 1,591

Cost:
£8.084 million / $32.334 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,955 tons, 5.9 %
Armour: 9,999 tons, 30.3 %
Belts: 3,916 tons, 11.9 %, Armament: 3,939 tons, 11.9 %, Armour Deck: 868 tons, 2.6 %
Conning Tower: 267 tons, 0.8 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,010 tons, 3.1 %
Machinery: 2,269 tons, 6.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,401 tons, 43.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,300 tons, 13.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.2 %

Metacentric height 5.0

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable and able to fight her guns in the heaviest weather

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 37,742 lbs / 17,119 Kg = 22.4 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 5.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 76 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.93
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.52

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.550
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.68
'Natural speed' for length: 26.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 88.2 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 182.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 109 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.95
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 207 lbs / square foot or 1,009 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.57
(for 25.00 ft / 7.62 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 5.77 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Nuada, the first of the "Ard Ri" class, is to become the flagship of the newly formed Hibernian Navy.
She is to be built within the rules laid out in The Cleito Treaty even though Hibernia is not currently a signitory to the treaty.
She will carry 3 recon floatplanes, type unknown - to be decided closer to completion.

***********************************************

Deirdre, Hibernia CA laid down 1922

Displacement:
11,197 t light; 11,741 t standard; 12,911 t normal; 13,795 t full load
Loading submergence 751 tons/feet

Dimensions:
550.00 ft x 65.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
167.64 m x 19.81 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
9 - 8.20" / 208 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
14 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (7 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
6 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 3,437 lbs / 1,559 kg
16 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 4.00" / 102 mm, upper belt 1.00" / 25 mm, end belts 2.00" / 51 mm
Belts cover 125 % of normal area
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Main turrets 4.00" / 102 mm, 2nd turrets 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower 4.00" / 102 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1.25" / 32 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 85,951 shp / 64,120 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
605 - 787

Cost:
£3.166 million / $12.665 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 430 tons, 3.3 %
Armour: 2,548 tons, 19.7 %
Belts: 1,043 tons, 8.1 %, Armament: 641 tons, 5.0 %, Armour Deck: 486 tons, 3.8 %
Conning Tower: 47 tons, 0.4 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 331 tons, 2.6 %
Machinery: 2,916 tons, 22.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,253 tons, 40.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,714 tons, 13.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.4 %

Metacentric height 2.9

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.06
Shellfire needed to sink: 7,859 lbs / 3,565 Kg = 28.5 x 8.2 " / 208 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.2
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.92
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.632
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.17
'Natural speed' for length: 23.45 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim: 58
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 143.9 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 143.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 109 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.94
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 124 lbs / square foot or 604 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.76
(for 25.00 ft / 7.62 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 9.06 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00


***********************************************

Eriu, Hibernia CL laid down 1922

Displacement:
6,712 t light; 6,980 t standard; 8,005 t normal; 8,793 t full load
Loading submergence 483 tons/feet

Dimensions:
450.00 ft x 55.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
137.16 m x 16.76 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
10 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns
8 - 0.50" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 1,293 lbs / 586 kg
12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 3.00" / 76 mm, upper belt 1.00" / 25 mm, end belts 1.00" / 25 mm
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Main turrets 2.50" / 64 mm, 2nd gun shields 0.75" / 19 mm
Light gun shields 0.25" / 6 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower 3.00" / 76 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 68,316 shp / 50,963 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 8,250nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
423 - 550

Cost:
£1.896 million / $7.583 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 162 tons, 2.0 %
Armour: 1,254 tons, 15.7 %
Belts: 477 tons, 6.0 %, Armament: 223 tons, 2.8 %, Armour Deck: 313 tons, 3.9 %
Conning Tower: 26 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 216 tons, 2.7 %
Machinery: 2,317 tons, 28.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,929 tons, 36.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,292 tons, 16.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.6 %

Metacentric height 2.4

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.10
Shellfire needed to sink: 3,332 lbs / 1,511 Kg = 30.8 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 0.7
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 71 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.60
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.566
Sharpness coefficient: 0.38
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.88
'Natural speed' for length: 21.21 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim: 59
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 173.4 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 116.6 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 111 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.91
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 98 lbs / square foot or 479 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 2.33
(for 23.00 ft / 7.01 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 8.52 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Secondary armament is mounted in twin mounts, 2 mounts on each beam, and 1 in X position.
It is mounted on a new type of mount, to allow the guns to be used in both high and low elevations.
Torpedoes mounted in triple turrets, 2 to each beam


***********************************************

Dun Aeongus, Hibernia CDA laid down 1922

Displacement:
7,446 t light; 7,954 t standard; 8,005 t normal; 8,013 t full load
Loading submergence 542 tons/feet

Dimensions:
360.00 ft x 70.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
109.73 m x 21.34 m x 5.18 m

Armament:
4 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (2 Main turrets x 2 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
Main turrets are grouped together
6 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
6 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
8 - 0.50" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 4,186 lbs / 1,899 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt 8.00" / 203 mm, upper belt 4.00" / 102 mm, end belts 6.00" / 152 mm
Belts cover 110 % of normal area
Main turrets 8.00" / 203 mm, 2nd turrets 0.75" / 19 mm
AA gun shields 0.25" / 6 mm, Light gun shields 0.25" / 6 mm
Armour deck 1.60" / 41 mm, Conning tower 8.00" / 203 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 5,273 ihp / 3,934 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 750nm at 10.00 kts

Complement:
423 - 550

Cost:
£2.027 million / $8.106 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 523 tons, 6.5 %
Armour: 3,222 tons, 40.2 %
Belts: 1,603 tons, 20.0 %, Armament: 694 tons, 8.7 %, Armour Deck: 561 tons, 7.0 %
Conning Tower: 69 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 294 tons, 3.7 %
Machinery: 307 tons, 3.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,369 tons, 42.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 559 tons, 7.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 25 tons, 0.3 %

Metacentric height 3.3

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.06
Shellfire needed to sink: 7,156 lbs / 3,246 Kg = 8.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.4
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 72 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.54
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.654
Sharpness coefficient: 0.47
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 5.50
'Natural speed' for length: 18.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 %
Trim: 59
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 103.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 106.7 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 99 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.95
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 138 lbs / square foot or 672 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.71
(for 12.50 ft / 3.81 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -1.98 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.01

BB Nuada
Upper belt: 3", end belts 6". Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Armour deck: 1". Seems very thin to me.

CA Deirdre
Not sure if upper belt and end belts are useful on a CA.
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Torpedo Bulkhead: 1.25". TBH is in my useless on a vessel of this size (mind you, I started out the same way with springstyle)
BC: 0.632 which is higher than your Battleship BC of 0.55.

CL Eriu
Doubt if upper belt and end belts are useful on a CL.
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Torpedo Bulkhead: 1". TBH is in my useless on a vessel of this size.

CDA Dun Aeongus
Upper belt: 4", end belts 6". Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Torpedo Bulkhead: 2". TBH is in my useless on a vessel of this size.

No destroyers yet? :-)

Could be wrong on some points but those are my observations.


[Edit: there are a few more things but the ones above were the ones I noticed first]

Walter

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Well for starters so far no new players are allowed to join as the SIM is underway, however this would be up to the group as a whole and I have given some thought as to how new players could join. In any event those that did join would be very severely limited as they would be nations just starting to get into BB building. Keep watching the sim unfold and perhaps this question will be answered difinitavly in the future!

and I'll be readily lurking around here to raise my hand and ask for a spot .

My nation would probably be BENELUX, a joint belgium-holland-luxemburg, it won't require a big deal of history redrawing (other than Belgium not winning it's independence in the early XIX century, the colonies would be more or less the same as both nations had historically...oh, that, and that in WWI it was invaded as a whole by Germany), has a good tradition on the sea, and has a pretty good need for a capable seagoing force to protect it's overseas territories.

Would fit very well into the current game

No destroyers yet? :-)

Could be wrong on some points but those are my observations.


[Edit: there are a few more things but the ones above were the ones I noticed first]

Walter
[/QUOTE]

As for destroyers, I tried some 1940 vintage, just for fun as I wanted to stay within the spirit of the SIM.

However, I was trying to replicate a US PT Boat of 40's vintage, but SpringStyle didn't like it one little bit!
Any thoughts on overcoming this?

Quoted

However, I was trying to replicate a US PT Boat of 40's vintage, but SpringStyle didn't like it one little bit!

I wonder what would be more difficult, a US PT boat of 40's vintage or those 1902 Japanese 2nd class Torpedo Boats I tried to sim.
Indeed SS doesn't seem to like those little ships.

Walter

Don't even try with small fast ships. It is impossible. full stop.

Springstyle isn't very good for small but fast vessels, unfortunately - the best route at the moment is to base designs on something historical.

While I'm not keen on adding people in general, I'd be less adverse to people taking on states that we already know exist in our timeline - places like Turkey, for instance, or whatever's left of the ABC powers when Peng is through with them.

If you're keen to be playing, have a go at a sim of your own. I know folks have had mixed success starting new sims in the past while, but some fresh, keen players might change this.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Springstyle isn't very good for small but fast vessels, unfortunately - the best route at the moment is to base designs on something historical.

I tried using the exact stats for the Elco 80 foot PT Boat,
but it couldn't handle the weaponry, speed , or non-metal hull!

Sorry, I phrased that badly. What I meant was that we'd just say, "My unit is based on PT-109, but the gun armament is a pair of 20 mm". I didn't mean actually simming something based on a historical design - as indicated, that's a hopeless cause.

J

... use the original info on the ship, rather than trying to sim it with SS.

Edit: oops too late :-)

I did sim two fearsome vessels which were quite small one design of 10 tons and one design of 4 tons.
...
...
...
Okay, so they didn't have any armament, lousy armor, had a short range and only a 7 knot speed, but they weren't designed at all to function as combat units.

Walter

Well I personally thing the Pacific is a little empty, the Philipines and posibly an independant Indoneasia.
I like the idea of a combined belgium-holland-luxemburg, but I'm not sure how Germany or France would feel about that. Canada could be another nation. allthough Rocky and I may take exception to some of the things you do with our native country!
I don't mean to get hopes up but it is intriqueing.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
[SIZE=2]normal[/SIZE] tahoma green
I have been looking through the posts and have a few questions that I would like to ask.
So if I may.......
1/ How does one get to play?
2/ At what stage in the time line is the SIM currently?
3/ Does to SIM follow the history of the real world to any large degree?
4/ Depending on the answer to Q3, what is the position on new countries coming into existance, and wishing to sign The Cleito Treaty?

I´ve once written a summary about WesWorld on another board... See

http://warshipprojects.board.dk3.com/2/viewtopic.php?t=582

for more. Simply scoll down the thread...

And.... Welcome! ;o)

Cheers,

HoOmAn

I'd disagree - I think the Pacific region's relatively full. Perhaps not entirely with active players, but we still have Japan, Russia, France, Britain, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (assuming we retain that name for it), Australia, and the US. India and South Africa aren't too far away either.

Benelux would be an intriguing nation to have introduced from the start, but I'd be opposed to introducing it now. It would disrupt either Germany or India's alternate history; maybe both.

If we decided to bring in new players, I could accept having the new player inherit an almost-historical Belgium or Netherlands (if we concede that Qazpar's not going to be back). That player could then lay the groundwork to creat a unified Benelux sometime later in our timeframe.

On that note about somebody playing Canada: history, even alternate history, is pretty much just a sequence of good and bad decisions and their reprecussions. So I (as a player) am willing to accept any decision or action another player takes in the sim, so long as there's a reasonable basis for them. My countries might say differently, but that's to be expected.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Benelux would be an intriguing nation to have introduced from the start, but I'd be opposed to introducing it now. It would disrupt either Germany or India's alternate history; maybe both.

If we decided to bring in new players, I could accept having the new player inherit an almost-historical Belgium or Netherlands (if we concede that Qazpar's not going to be back). That player could then lay the groundwork to creat a unified Benelux sometime later in our timeframe.

hummm, I'd rather like to be the whole confederation, but I can see your point, and after all the players already here have the right to set the rules for (if) new players are admitted.

Disturbing as less as possible the alternate history already created is a good point, and anyway, as you say, we can work out an hipotetical confederation of Belgium, netherlands and Luxemburg during the game (would be interesting to see how exactly can be done, given that I intend to play a mostly pacific nation, and so it should be done pacifically) .

So if the game opens anytime on the future for new players I'll agree to take just one of the nations. Probably I'll take netherlands, as it has a real need for a surface fleet while Belgium with a mostly landlocked colony as Congo doesn't need a fleet at all .

"I'd disagree - I think the Pacific region's relatively full. Perhaps not entirely with active players, but we still have Japan, Russia, France, Britain, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (assuming we retain that name for it), Australia, and the US. India and South Africa aren't too far away either."

Given the fact that Japan and Austrailia are so lopsided in naval strength and the U.S. is Nuetral the pacific is wide open in my opinion, and I'm sure walter is licking his chops! Given the fact that the SAE and India control the Arabean Sea and Bay of Bengal and Iberia being in control of the Panama canal it makes it very difficult for any other nations to defend Pacific territory's.

Quoted

Given the fact that Japan and Austrailia are so lopsided in naval strength and the U.S. is Nuetral the pacific is wide open in my opinion, and I'm sure walter is licking his chops!

Wait a minute! I ain't got no time to lick me chops!!! I need to make me battleplans using the 'Tripple S' formula!!!! Even the US is powerless against Japan's fearsome 'Tripple S' tactics!!
:-)

Actually when I look at the map at mainland Japan, I see this:
To the North, I have the Russian Federation...
To the Northeast, I have the United States...
To the East, I have water (lots of it)...
To the Southeast I have the Pacific islands under Japanese mandate...
To the South, I have the Philipines, the Dutch East Indies and Australia...
To the Southwest, I have Formosa (with pro me government), Southeast China, Hong Kong, San Hainando and French Indo China...
To the West, I have Chosen (with pro me government) and China...
To the Northwest, I have Northeast China and the Russian Federation...

... and despite the fact that (in my opinion) there is a lot around there waiting to be conquerer by either me or 17inc, for some reason, I get the impression that I have very little room to maneuver.
Why do I get that impression? Because of US controlled Philipines directly below the Japanese mainland territory.

Walter

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Well I personally thing the Pacific is a little empty, the Philipines and posibly an independant Indoneasia.
I like the idea of a combined belgium-holland-luxemburg, but I'm not sure how Germany or France would feel about that. Canada could be another nation. allthough Rocky and I may take exception to some of the things you do with our native country!
I don't mean to get hopes up but it is intriqueing.

How could I do anything bad to the nation that gives us that great comic "Mike Wilmot", he who gave us to best comic's intro I have ever heard.
"Hi, I'm Mike Wilmot. I'm from Canada, you know 668, the neighbour of the beast!"