StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I am, in fact, contemplating the fleet as it is now suffering a collision between ships off Brittany due to a winter storm. I even have the post partially done, could post it tonight.

Reply to Lonestar forthcoming.

A few points.

"The neighbors won't stand for it!" Why not?
(1)Everyone here has been expressing amazement at the incidents in the Northern Arabian Sea, which makes me suspect that there was no perception of the Grand Dominion or Shepistan being overly aggressive assholes until recently.

That's not reasonable to assume though if you engaged in the conquest of Aden in the last century or, frankly, if you and Shep have been doing this toll nonsense before now (As you yourself implied in a post and as Shep has stated on a number of occasions as being Shepistani policy) as well as numerous forced searches of civilian vessels with the claim of the Arabian Sea as a war zone.

Even if there was a fort there that went mostly ignored as it was pre-Suez, any attempt to bulk it up significantly since the 1910s would have been reasonably challenged.

(4)It becomes an issue of risk theory: Do we WANT to go to war over this? Do we want to spend the blood, sweat, and treasure on a "maybe"? The answer may be yes, but maybe not. Especially given the relative lack of overseas adventurism both countries has expressed.

There are, actually, a number of countries that would probably answer that with "Yes, because the maybe is too big a risk".

(2)For those of us keeping score, the talk of calling a time out only occurred after the majority of the world's countries managed to come to an agreement by telegram, began deploying large numbers of capital ships to the region, and then magically ignoring that the entire economy of the IO should be being twisted in unnatural ways.

Actually, Thanas' note was after I declared time freeze, and he was hardly the only one to fail to acknowledge it.

The rest of your complaints in that section have nothing to refute the belief that you and Shep are going to have your states cooperate to inflict grief on everyone else. Your records as players do not invite trust, I'll point out. Shep's record speaks for itself, and your's? Last time around you intentionally went about your way to break apart the World Conference and pissed people off in doing it. You wrote up a "dictatorship" on Sirnoth that you could be justified in crushing. You provoked an incident in Frequesue with Siege, far from your actual area of interest, and then promptly used that incident to ratchet up CATO-MESS tensions. And then you decided to "resurrect" Shep, brought him back into the game, and began working to give him freaking Japanistan, a nuclear-armed country.

Not everyone read that game, but enough players remember it that, combined with what they see going on, the conclusion that you and Shep are being griefers is going to seem obvious. I mean, seriously, look at how you two started the game. First day in, you're extorting money from cargo ships on one of the world's most important trade routes. That only reinforces the record that already exists.

Now, again, Fort William may not be the Strait-closing fortress of doom. You may have a facility there, as stated in last post on the issue, but not the claimed facility.

Such is my ruling.

Steve, what sort of IBP cost should be set aside for such a massive fleet action?

EDIT: Corrected a spelling error.

When I get back I'm going to look over the existing rules and make some up for claiming the existance of forts, whether they are coastal defense or inland facilities.

I'm not too stuck on the forts issue since it does give some drama and tension to work with; sometimes games can be paralyzed by players unwilling to go PvP. Clearly with Shep and Loney we don't have this problem .


On other subjects, Stas, please interject if I am screwing up the Russian stuff.

If all else fails, guess what? We can use the PT Boat Swarm of doom backed up by the EMB swarm of doom manned by Hindoo volunteers to close the straits. PT Boats and EMBs suck on the high seas; but in the narrow confined waters of the straits, they have a much easier time of it.

Steve wrote:
That's not reasonable to assume though if you engaged in the conquest of Aden in the last century or, frankly, if you and Shep have been doing this toll nonsense before now (As you yourself implied in a post and as Shep has stated on a number of occasions as being Shepistani policy) as well as numerous forced searches of civilian vessels with the claim of the Arabian Sea as a war zone.

Seeing as several people have been claiming that this could not have been the case, turnabout is fair play. If people are running with the "no, we had no reason to think of the Northern Arabian Sea as a war zone", then the sword cuts both ways.

Even if there was a fort there that went mostly ignored as it was pre-Suez, any attempt to bulk it up significantly since the 1910s would have been reasonably challenged.

Perhaps, but I'm operating under the assumption that the Egyptians and the Sudanese have coastal defenses that can shoot pretty far into the Red Sea themselves. I'm not challenging their right of possession in that case either.

There are, actually, a number of countries that would probably answer that with "Yes, because the maybe is too big a risk".

Except war in that case guarantees a longterm disruption of Red Sea traffic. A for sitting there doesn't.

Actually, Thanas' note was after I declared time freeze, and he was hardly the only one to fail to acknowledge it.

I was referring to the rapid mobilization of fleets, stores, fuel, and victuals to the IO inside of a month game time more than the note, actually.

The rest of your complaints in that section have nothing to refute the belief that you and Shep are going to have your states cooperate to inflict grief on everyone else. Your records as players do not invite trust, I'll point out. Shep's record speaks for itself, and your's? Last time around you intentionally went about your way to break apart the World Conference and pissed people off in doing it. You wrote up a "dictatorship" on Sirnoth that you could be justified in crushing.

Incredibly, with the Setzer's permission. Meanwhile, you all looked the other way as Stas killed off 200 million people in that game...hmmm...

You provoked an incident in Frequesue with Siege, far from your actual area of interest,and then promptly used that incident to ratchet up CATO-MESS tensions.

Specifically coordinating with Siege and Coyote(who, as Darth Coyotus, was acting in a quasi-moderator status), because the game was slowing down. Not sure I see the actual "griefing" there.

And then you decided to "resurrect" Shep, brought him back into the game,

....who was never dead or gave the "fuck you all, I quit!" like Norseman did

and began working to give him freaking Japanistan, a nuclear-armed country.

Again, with permission of Coyote, who had been acting as Japanistan in a quasi-moderator status as Darth Coyotus.


You do know that none of that is actually "griefing", right? What you're actually saying is "you did some things that I and some other players didn't like so we're calling it griefing". "Griefing" means actively trying to make the game so unpleasant for others that they want to quit. That is far different from what was done in the last game.

Not everyone read that game, but enough players remember it that, combined with what they see going on, the conclusion that you and Shep are being griefers is going to seem obvious. I mean, seriously, look at how you two started the game. First day in, you're extorting money from cargo ships on one of the world's most important trade routes. That only reinforces the record that already exists.

Now, again, Fort William may not be the Strait-closing fortress of doom. You may have a facility there, as stated in last post on the issue, but not the claimed facility.

Such is my ruling.

Fine. I'll just place an order for 50 MTBs in the next naval Bill and move them there. If push comes to shove, I only need one merchant ship to hit a mine to cause a long-term derailment of traffic in the Red Sea. I'm not sure why you're banning the minefields between the island and the Arabian mainland though.

Norade, sending a fleet that large is just asking for trouble. Seriously, there's only so much space in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, even less when you count avoiding Dominion coastal waters.

Well, not all of it is going into the gulf, some of it will be held in reserve in Egypt in case fighting moves to the open, if it breaks out at all. I'm taking this whole thing as a massive fleet exercise mainly, and I think others are at least partly doing the same.

Norade wrote:Well, not all of it is going into the gulf, some of it will be held in reserve in Egypt in case fighting moves to the open, if it breaks out at all. I'm taking this whole thing as a massive fleet exercise mainly, and I think others are at least partly doing the same.

Don't complain then if/when I RP problems to reflect the realities of such a commitment.

Lonestar wrote: Seeing as several people have been claiming that this could not have been the case, turnabout is fair play. If people are running with the "no, we had no reason to think of the Northern Arabian Sea as a war zone", then the sword cuts both ways.

The claim from Thanas was that the way you wrote it could not be the case because he would be convoying and escorting in such an occasion, therefore either the incident couldn't happen to a German ship or there was no declared war zone. Once we had the ship as Cascadian but German-owned that solved the contradiction there.

Perhaps, but I'm operating under the assumption that the Egyptians and the Sudanese have coastal defenses that can shoot pretty far into the Red Sea themselves. I'm not challenging their right of possession in that case either.

Defenses here and there, sure, but likely none with the ability to completely close off traffic in the area.

Except war in that case guarantees a longterm disruption of Red Sea traffic. A for sitting there doesn't.

It guarantees a disruption in the near-term, but ensures that you can't hold world trade hostage for the long-term afterward. And yes, I think the same thing would apply to Sudan if it tried to fortify its side of the Bab al-Mandeb in such a fashion.

I was referring to the rapid mobilization of fleets, stores, fuel, and victuals to the IO inside of a month game time more than the note, actually.

But nobody's there yet. Just a squadron of German BCs, two British BCs, and a couple days ago I posted a squadron of Cascadian BCs with attached DD squadron (and tender) departing Sumatra as convoy escorts. There has only now been a "mobilization" of fleets to sail to the Gulf of Aden.

Incredibly, with the Setzer's permission. Meanwhile, you all looked the other way as Stas killed off 200 million people in that game...hmmm...

That was when he was finishing off Shep, who had just bio-deathed Astaria. But frankly that entire sequence was a cluster-fuck because we had no mod to take a hammer to Shep's actions.

Specifically coordinating with Siege and Coyote(who, as Darth Coyotus, was acting in a quasi-moderator status), because the game was slowing down. Not sure I see the actual "griefing" there.

Actually, as I recall, Siege did collaborate with you on the initial elements, but then you started ramping things up because his IC apology "wasn't good enough" and it left him mighty ticked off.

....who was never dead or gave the "fuck you all, I quit!" like Norseman did

He was the one who caused that entire situation! Seriously, Shep seems to thrive on inciting chaos and eventually doing something to wreck everything. He killed SDNW1, he would've killed SDNW2 if the players hadn't decided to collectively ignore his "end of the world" post.

Again, with permission of Coyote, who had been acting as Japanistan in a quasi-moderator status as Darth Coyotus.

Coyote was playing Japanistan as a caretaker while the situation of modships was still undetermined, that does not give him carte blanche to turn it, and its weapons, over to a player who's history suggested he would use those weapons in a world-shattering fashion whenever it suited him.

You do know that none of that is actually "griefing", right? What you're actually saying is "you did some things that I and some other players didn't like so we're calling it griefing". "Griefing" means actively trying to make the game so unpleasant for others that they want to quit. That is far different from what was done in the last game.

So Shep destroying SDNW1 and nearly doing the same to SDNW2 doesn't count? And yes, it is unfair to blame you for things Shep does, but everyone knows you two are friends and collaborate on these things together. Some of that concern over Shep will transfer over.

Fine. I'll just place an order for 50 MTBs in the next naval Bill and move them there. If push comes to shove, I only need one merchant ship to hit a mine to cause a long-term derailment of traffic in the Red Sea. I'm not sure why you're banning the minefields between the island and the Arabian mainland though.

Fine. And if you have a good reason to close the strait at any time then that will be that, but if I find that you or Shep are intentionally fucking with the rest of us for shits and giggles there will be mod-hammerings.

So long as such problems aren't something like a Hurricane sinking my entire fleet or Dreadnoughts crashing into each other in mass confusion I'm okay with issues.

Norade wrote:So long as such problems aren't something like a Hurricane sinking my entire fleet or Dreadnoughts crashing into each other in mass confusion I'm okay with issues.

Well, you might have a destroyer and a cruiser collide if weather's heavy enough....

Consults weather charts, and calls up an astrologist to read the stars. xD

Steve wrote:

Norade wrote:So long as such problems aren't something like a Hurricane sinking my entire fleet or Dreadnoughts crashing into each other in mass confusion I'm okay with issues.

Well, you might have a destroyer and a cruiser collide if weather's heavy enough....

Well, it did happen to a bunch of USN ships in WWII when they were refueling in the middle of a typhoon that resulted in the loss of a few destroyers, some of which broken in half or something.

Beowulf wrote:Luckily for you, I gave back Kamchatka, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky is a warm water port.

I never accepted Kamchatka back. And Vladivostok has enough infrastructure and good railway connection to support the Navy. Unlike anything in Kamchatka, save for me going the Super Stalin Northern Railway plans executed in reality, and putting a railway through the North.

Beowulf wrote:If you really want one where Manchuria is, your sole reasonable option is Lushunko (aka Port Arthur).

*shrugs* Maybe I should think about that.

Beowulf wrote:Brilliant! Secret pacts are supposed to be secret.

*shrugs* That was not a secret pact, just an explanation that the USSR is reasonably pragmatic to consider the interests of other nations when it comes to securing it's own interests.

Beowulf wrote:You have Pacific access, as I point out above. The Chinese North-East is in reality heavily populated, because China is over populated. The Russian side isn't as much so, because Chinese can't immigrate across the border into the rest of the Manchurian Plain. My borders encompass the entirety of that plain. As such, there's no real barrier to populating the plain with Han Chinese. Jilin Province today has some 27 million people. Primorsky Krai, next door and climitologically similar, largely, has 2 million. And it's bigger than Jilin Province.

Like I said, I never accepted Kamchatka back and it was never finalized in the world maps. Well, the dense population certainly changes my plans. A little bit. Kamchatka is useless for a lack of railway connection. Pretending otherwise is just foolish.

Beowulf wrote:Back then, the only way to get more people there is to forcibly deport them.

Actually, I could do that. What did I have in this reality, Basmachi riots? Allright. Time to export several million people out there.

Coyote wrote:BTW, Stas, what's the status of Leon Trotsky around this time? In OTL he'd be having a year of despondency and unemployment; not yet gone to Turkey (still a couple years off) and Mexico is a ways in the future. I was wondering if he'd be good for a visit to the Yishuv; I figured the "international socialist brotherhood" flavor of the Jewish-Arab workers' collectives would be a natural magnet for him.

That works. Trotskiy still works for me, but I'll kick him out of the Union sooner or later (probably c.1929) due to his opposition to industrialization. Though probably no icepicks will follow - I'll just make him an ambassador to some god-forgotten nation.

Oh, I see... *reads Coyote's post* Sadly the mighty Soviet Union is so embroiled in issues with it's geopolitical position and industrialization that it's hard to commit to industrial projects overseas. Still, we can have connections.

Um, Stas, it was finalized on the world map.

http://sdnworld.wikia.com/wiki/File:SDNW3worldmap.png

Official map says: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/sdnwo ... rldmap.png Kamchatka is yours. There are two options for Hansheiwei. One: it's as built up as you want it to be, in which case it's also inhabited by enough Manchurians that I can't reasonably countenance you taking it, and will possibly end up burning it to the ground before you take control. Two: It's not a Manchurian city, in which you have neither railway nor infrastructure of any sort.

Lushunko is far to close to China for them to be comfortable. You try for there, and you have the endless Chinese horde coming against you, guaranteed.

Oh, damn. I didn't notice that. *surprised* I thought it wasn't mine. But it's irrelevant since like I said, Kamchatka is impossible to bind by railway communication (in fact it has not been done for the entirety of Russian history regardless of much necessity of railway polar communications). Thus it's badly suitable for a military port.

Beowulf wrote:There are two options for Hansheiwei. One: it's as built up as you want it to be, in which case it's also inhabited by enough Manchurians that I can't reasonably countenance you taking it, and will possibly end up burning it to the ground before you take control.

Very bad for me, but so? I'll have to spend effort to rebuild it. Luckily, you can't really "burn down" port facilities such as piers, drydocks and deepened pits for ship mooring.

Beowulf wrote:Two: It's not a Manchurian city, in which you have neither railway nor infrastructure of any sort

How can it not be Manchurian when it's in your territory?

Beowulf wrote:Lushunko is far to close to China for them to be comfortable. You try for there, and you have the endless Chinese horde coming against you, guaranteed.

Yeah, Port Arthur is too deep into your territory and too close to China to make sense grabbing for.

Stas Bush wrote:Like I said, I never accepted Kamchatka back and it was never finalized in the world maps. Well, the dense population certainly changes my plans. A little bit. Kamchatka is useless for a lack of railway connection. Pretending otherwise is just foolish.

Have you considered Russia having built a railway to the Siberian coastline and then along the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk to Kamchatka, or to Kamchatka via any other route through the Siberian wilderness? Sure it's a long way, but you'll have a railway to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky...

Steve, Lonestar, Shep

I'm not a game mod but if I may offer a suggestion:

- The criticism of Lonestar in the last game was essentially based on the "he brought evil Shep back," the same evil Shep who killed 1/10th of the folks Stas did. So as he did point out, and this is a bit of a mea culpa on my aprt, its mostly based on the same dislike of Shep that Mike point out in the Senate V1 thread. In Redux folks blamed Shep for things from Game 1 when he was probably at worst a mildly violent nation in the scope of things.

- Matt and Mark there is no reason to start building that fort until the Suez enters construction, as soon as it does the spot becomes immedaitely a point of obvious concern to the Egyptians, the British, the Germans, the South Africans, hell everybody who ships through there. Given the endemic warafer you've been protraying it woudl only take one of those nations getting truly pissed off to stop this project because they can oncentrate and you have to disperse. In fact the very reactions here are clear proof that the IG nations would react strongly to the establishment of such a fort

- Steve some of the naval committments to the IO are excessive and fleets either are gonna break down or be out of commission for a bit when they get home to refit.



So anyway I think bitching back and forth is not gonna get us somewhere so Matt take a smaller fort and everybody else should reduce their IO deployments or accept some sort of economic or maintenance hit for this reaction. Oh yes and points for forts is probably excessive unless someone is constructing the Maginot line or the Siegfried Line (the 1930s variant not the WWI variant). That's at least what I recommend because we might be able to get back to actually doing something.

Excellent points as always, Wilkens. That is why I have, indeed, only ruled that the fort must be lighter, not non-existent.

As for the issue of deployments, I have already spoken with at least one person doing so and made it clear that if deployments are huge there will be problems. Nasty things like collisions from signaling failures and mix-ups, bad morale in the crews from limited facilities for proper liberty, the hot weather of the region, etc.

Frankly I'm not sure why the detachment isn't just a couple dreadnoughts and four or so screens from each concerned country. Such a force is still excessive but nowhere near as costly and still quite capable of getting the point across. I have six capital ships operating in the Indian Ocean, but I actually have ports on that ocean and only 4 are moving to link up with the Anglo-German BCs after they finish a convoy escort.

I've been contemplating a mechanism for requiring some IBPs be spent for force maintenance. Not much - something like 1 IBP per 100,000 tons in the fleet, per 100,000 regulars in the Army (maybe also 1 per million reservists, reflecting the slight costs of yearly retention training and the costs of each year's draft/conscript class being given initial military training), and per 100 or so airplanes (to reflect acquiring spare parts and the occasional replacement of a crashed aicraft).

Any objections/proposals?

Stas Bush wrote:

Beowulf wrote:There are two options for Hansheiwei. One: it's as built up as you want it to be, in which case it's also inhabited by enough Manchurians that I can't reasonably countenance you taking it, and will possibly end up burning it to the ground before you take control.

Very bad for me, but so? I'll have to spend effort to rebuild it. Luckily, you can't really "burn down" port facilities such as piers, drydocks and deepened pits for ship mooring.

Can't burn those down, but you can dynamite them and mine them. Also, they don't necessarily have to be facilities that can accomodate naval vessels larger than a cruiser.

Beowulf wrote:Two: It's not a Manchurian city, in which you have neither railway nor infrastructure of any sort

How can it not be Manchurian when it's in your territory?

You're mis-reading. It's not "not Manchurian" but rather "not a city". I haven't yet decided whether there's a real city there, instead of just a little fishing harbor.

MoP, did I not just post asking people to knock off the grand fleet deployments to the Gulf of Aden?