StarDestroyer.Net BBS

loomer wrote:Quick question - is it possible to get in on this, since it's only a month or so old at this point? Are there any territories still unclaimed I could slide into, or would I have to negotiate with another player to split off a couple of states and start that way?

You want Afghanistan?

Lonestar wrote:

loomer wrote:Quick question - is it possible to get in on this, since it's only a month or so old at this point? Are there any territories still unclaimed I could slide into, or would I have to negotiate with another player to split off a couple of states and start that way?

You want Afghanistan?

That's.. quite hilariously unfunny.

It's not an ideal spot, but hell, that should just make it more interesting to work with.

I'll start writing up a history that'll work with everyone else's and a factbook, unless anyone has any objections.

vv
Ah, well, that'll teach me for not reading the territory claim thread and being colourblind.

Edit Mark 2:
So Afghanistan isn't Sheps, then, just likely to be the site of some border struggles in the future? Again, unless anyone has objections, I'd like to step in and try my hand from that awkward positioned nation.

Uh loomer Lonestar is pulling your chain, Afganistan is Sheps territory.

Agent Sorchus wrote:Uh loomer Lonestar is pulling your chain, Afganistan is Sheps territory.

No. The grey spot above Shep is Afghanistan.

Hmm, yeah I am in the wrong. My brain played a trick on me with colors. Bah humbug.

Just a quick thing, shouldn't such large forts, like the Crusader's Gate, have a cost and some limits like we did with battleship? Same with remote minefields and the like. Otherwise this is simply going to grind as every major harbor suddenly sprouts and unbeatable fort and remote minefields. I'd also like to see things like that in OOB's because when tensions start in the region and people suddenly post, 'Oh BTW I have a fuck off huge fort that crawled from my ass, still want to fight?' it kills the mood.

It does have me regretting not conceiving some system of determining one's fortifications and trusting players to be reasonable.

Just a note, like the Ottomans, there's a few Byzantine forts with nice large guns to put a hole in ships when they sail up the Dardanelles. There are forts also on Crete.. Cyprus... Athens... S. Italy.. Sicily and Carthage.

Zor, amphibious tanks in 1925? Really?

Norade wrote:Just a quick thing, shouldn't such large forts, like the Crusader's Gate, have a cost and some limits like we did with battleship? Same with remote minefields and the like. Otherwise this is simply going to grind as every major harbor suddenly sprouts and unbeatable fort and remote minefields. I'd also like to see things like that in OOB's because when tensions start in the region and people suddenly post, 'Oh BTW I have a fuck off huge fort that crawled from my ass, still want to fight?' it kills the mood.

Why, I believe I even mentioned at some point that part of my 3+2 army was represented by fortified borders and coastal forts.

In fact, Steve in IM was even helpfully telling me that parts of my border with Shepistan were not ideal for fortifications.

Yeah, just like the sudden 'Oh this is a warzone now' the fort seems to have sprung up in response to the gathering fleets seeing as it is a rather important bit and should have been included briefly in an OOB or a history. I'd also like to ask that we have a date where OOB's must be done as we have a huge amount not done and it feels unfair to have mine up when others don't.

EDIT: Well, I didn't see that, but it would have been easy to miss. Maybe you could include them and give a basic rundown in your OOB to avoid it seeming as if they simply spring up as needed.

Just being a good mod. Though I admit the temptation to have put you and Shep in the middle of Central Asia was strong.

Norade wrote:Just a quick thing, shouldn't such large forts, like the Crusader's Gate, have a cost and some limits like we did with battleship? Same with remote minefields and the like. Otherwise this is simply going to grind as every major harbor suddenly sprouts and unbeatable fort and remote minefields

Why the hell do you think the japs made "no fortifications in the pacific, ever" a key precondition of them ever signing the various naval arms limitation treaties?

For example, Wake Island with a mere six 5" coastal defense guns sank a jap destroyer on the FIRST invasion attempt; and a Wildcat sank a second destroyer at nearly the same time.

MKSheppard wrote:

Norade wrote:Just a quick thing, shouldn't such large forts, like the Crusader's Gate, have a cost and some limits like we did with battleship? Same with remote minefields and the like. Otherwise this is simply going to grind as every major harbor suddenly sprouts and unbeatable fort and remote minefields

Why the hell do you think the japs made "no fortifications in the pacific, ever" a key precondition of them ever signing the various naval arms limitation treaties?

For example, Wake Island with a mere six 5" coastal defense guns sank a jap destroyer on the FIRST invasion attempt; and a Wildcat sank a second destroyer at nearly the same time.

I have no problem with people having forts, but they should be paid for and listed like the rest of the military so people don't simply poof in forts as needed when somebody attacks.

Steve wrote:Zor, amphibious tanks in 1925? Really?

Call it a long term development plan. Besides, their were experiments with the concept during the War to end all Wars.

Zor

MKSheppard wrote: Why the hell do you think the japs made "no fortifications in the pacific, ever" a key precondition of them ever signing the various naval arms limitation treaties?

For example, Wake Island with a mere six 5" coastal defense guns sank a jap destroyer on the FIRST invasion attempt; and a Wildcat sank a second destroyer at nearly the same time.

The problem is Shep this is not some remote Island location this is right in the middle of the second busiest stretch of waters in the world after the Suez was completed. Your talking about over a hundred ships a day perhaps one military ship an hour from various nations Navy's as they pass by this point as first the small ships move in and build the docks and unloading facilities needed to accept the large equipment you need to make bunkers tough enough to stand off heavy naval gun-fire. And never-mind moving the 16inch guns themselves. Unless you want to talk about casting them on location your talking about a decent sized port has to be built to off-load the things and transport them along well purpose built roads to the bunkers themselves. And you can't leave that bit off till last you need to build the base and casement first before installing the gun and laying it and not once Britain nor Germany, nor the Mohammedans ever looked at the construction of such massive fortifications with such gigantic defensive guns and said "Hmm perhaps such a fort would allow them to shut off quick access to my Pacific possessions once completed"


And... did nothing?


*Edit on floating tanks if Zor keeps up with Japanese development he can have floating Ha-go's in just six years as that's when the first prototype's went into production and there was a drive to produce an amphibis version at the time which the work was done then shelved for four years before being brought back to build what was essentially an armored boat with a Ha-go turret on the top and along the boats bottom.

Norade wrote:I have no problem with people having forts, but they should be paid for and listed like the rest of the military so people don't simply poof in forts as needed when somebody attacks.

The problem with that is forts are retardedly cheap to build and can resist quite large caliber bombardment. For example, the entire US 1940 Coastal Defense Plan would have cost about as much as one (1) Fast battleship, and provided defenses for about 25~ harbors capable of repelling full scale battle fleets individually at each harbor.

Zor wrote:Call it a long term development plan. Besides, their were experiments with the concept during the War to end all Wars.

So that's why the British had the first real amphibious tank in the 1930s. Yup. Remember that.

Mr Bean wrote:Your talking about over a hundred ships a day perhaps one military ship an hour from various nations Navy's as they pass by this point as first the small ships move in and build the docks and unloading facilities needed to accept the large equipment you need to make bunkers tough enough to stand off heavy naval gun-fire.

If worse comes to worse; they just build the guns inland; 16 inch guns can reach to 20-23 miles; the strait is only 17~ miles wide at it's narrowest; so the guns are sited inland.

It could be that the Island is merely a fire control post; plus contains large number of small caliber anti-torpedo boat guns to keep the minefield from being breached or an amphibious operation from happening.

MKSheppard wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:Your talking about over a hundred ships a day perhaps one military ship an hour from various nations Navy's as they pass by this point as first the small ships move in and build the docks and unloading facilities needed to accept the large equipment you need to make bunkers tough enough to stand off heavy naval gun-fire.

If worse comes to worse; they just build the guns inland; 16 inch guns can reach to 20-23 miles; the strait is only 17~ miles wide at it's narrowest; so the guns are sited inland.

It could be that the Island is merely a fire control post; plus contains large number of small caliber anti-torpedo boat guns to keep the minefield from being breached or an amphibious operation from happening.

Still doesn't answer why anybody in their right mind would have allowed the project to even start, let alone finish. If I saw a fort being built there you can be damn sure there would be talks and if talks failed I'd simply shell it until work stopped and then come back and do it again whenever I heard it had started again.

MKSheppard wrote:
If worse comes to worse; they just build the guns inland; 16 inch guns can reach to 20-23 miles; the strait is only 17~ miles wide at it's narrowest; so the guns are sited inland.

It could be that the Island is merely a fire control post; plus contains large number of small caliber anti-torpedo boat guns to keep the minefield from being breached or an amphibious operation from happening.

There's still no facilities there historically which is why ships were needed to patrol it. Regardless of where you situate it it. Look the damn thing up in Google Earth
Or pre-marked here
http://itouchmap.com/?c=ym&UF=-3185399& ... 927&DG=ISL
There's nothing... NOTHING there. Anything you build there is going to require it's own port(Not that you don't have locations to chose from) but your talking again about a high traffic area from multiple nations and your just laying minefields out there?

In Naval terms your talking about walking into the middle of Times Square and digging holes to plant claymores.

Mr Bean wrote:Your talking about over a hundred ships a day perhaps one military ship an hour from various nations Navy's as they pass by this point as first the small ships move in and build the docks and unloading facilities needed to accept the large equipment you need to make bunkers tough enough to stand off heavy naval gun-fire. And never-mind moving the 16inch guns themselves.

Yeah, It'll be so hard moving everything onto that island. In fact, just build the concrete plant on the Goddamn side of the Red Sea and barge over the slurry. Or just pump it via a huge pipe.

Mr Bean wrote:There's nothing... NOTHING there.

In our timeline, nope. But this is a timeline in which a rail line extends all the way to Mecca and a hundred or so miles past it; so...

Norade wrote:Yeah, just like the sudden 'Oh this is a warzone now' the fort seems to have sprung up in response to the gathering fleets seeing as it is a rather important bit and should have been included briefly in an OOB or a history. I'd also like to ask that we have a date where OOB's must be done as we have a huge amount not done and it feels unfair to have mine up when others don't.

EDIT: Well, I didn't see that, but it would have been easy to miss. Maybe you could include them and give a basic rundown in your OOB to avoid it seeming as if they simply spring up as needed.

Heh.. heh.. I'm one of those with an as-of-yet unfinished OOB. Just need the Aux ship specifics and details concerning the composition of my Army/Marine forces. All of the basic numbers are down, though. Forts and costal defense batteries, etc, I've committed a fairly large portion of my Marines to, will likely up that number some too, draw some numbers from my army. My History also details Spanish forts like the Punta Blanca Batteries watching over the Mediterranean side of the Strait for Gibraltar. If further details on fortifications and such are needed, I could go back and add that in without too much trouble. Thinking it may be a good idea if we do have that information down somewhere so bunkers and such don't start coming out of the ether.