Madagascar Thread

[Walter]

No real idea yet as to react to the exploits of the Evil Huns.

But there is one thing I was just thinking of. How are you moving your troops to Madagascar? There are no vessels listed in the German encyclopedia capable of carrying troops. German Liners of the Norddeutscher Lloyd? What German Liners of the Norddeutscher Lloyd? There are none.

I always had the idea that we need to have ships built in order to move troops overseas, not just assume we have those ships. Other nations have transport ships and/or liners listed as having been built or being built but Germany is not one of those nations.

[The Rock Doctor]

There will be a bit of Ottoman response, but (given that they're pummeling their way to Lake Victoria) it'll be of the "Oh, well, so sad it had to come to that" variety.

[Darman]

But there is one thing I was just thinking of. How are you moving your troops to Madagascar? There are no vessels listed in the German encyclopedia capable of carrying troops. German Liners of the Norddeutscher Lloyd? What German Liners of the Norddeutscher Lloyd? There are none.

I always had the idea that we need to have ships built in order to move troops overseas, not just assume we have those ships. Other nations have transport ships and/or liners listed as having been built or being built but Germany is not one of those nations.

I believe that there was a work-around for that where you could hire shipping at a set rate, I can't recall where but I know that I proposed such a method, whether it got approved or where I'd posted it I don't recall.  If I have time when I return from work tonight I'll search for it. 

[Jefgte]

To continu Madagascar 's Mike history

=> We could consider using historical liners and assigning a lease per tonnage for military use.

(first idea for lease : 1$ per 10000t => 15000t liner cost 1.5$)

Jef ;)

[Walter]

Jef, the problem is that those 10000 tons in your suggestion tells us absolutely nothing about what it can do. If you want to move troops, you build the ships for it using the Mercantile Standards/Auxiliaries rule. That way you have a sim of the ship and you have an idea how many troops and/or military cargo it can carry as well as how many ships there are available to do just that.

Also a 10000 ton transport ship built using the Mercantile Standards/Auxiliaries rule would cost 2.5 BP and $2.5 as well as an upkeep of $0.125 per HY that it is used to move troops so $1 per 10,000 tons is just ridiculously cheap compared to building them. Why would any of us bother with building ships to transport troops when it is a lot cheaper to lease non existing ships? Also why would any government bother by leasing a ships for that amount of money when it can easily just take over any such vessel for the sake of the nation? "There is a war going on and we are your f**king government. We can do anything." would be their reply whenever any company would complain about such actions by the government and perhaps if the people of those companies complain some more, they will be arrested and shot for treason.

The mods were determined with their rules on colonies and controlling them to make it more difficult, therefore getting to lands to create potential colonies to begin with should not be easy either, therefore I believe that if a nation wants to move their troops, then ships need to be build or have been built capable of doing that and not use some quick, easy and cheap way to do that.

[Darman]

This was my proposal, that received no responses.  (quoted directly from thread)

I want to know if it is worth building my own cargo ships as "government subsidized merchant vessels".  There really aren't any rules on upkeep yet.  My opinion was that keeping the ship in reserve status in peacetime was penalty enough.  So when its "mobilized" and transporting troops or supplies it still costs the government the same.  My alternative, for those that aren't interested in building their own cargo ships on the government's dime or who need more cargo carrying capacity than their current government-sponsored fleet allows, is to charge $0.20 per ton per day.  Now these are little dollars, not budget dollars which actually represent millions of dollars.  For example (and please, I'm a history person not a math person so correct me if I'm wrong), I've taken 3 of my Taku Maru ships, or capacity to carry 10,000+ men (20,000+ tons) and estimated their total upkeep in two forms: Full (3,000 light tons), or merchant-hull quarter (750 light tons). 

Full (3000t ships, 3 ships)
     Reserve: $0.078
     Active: $0.308
     Mobilized: $0.432
Quarter (750t, 3 ships)
     Reserve: $0.027
     Active: $0.139
     Mobilized: $0.263

Under my alternative system for those who need extra transport capacity that same capacity (20,000 tons) would cost you 20,000 tons multiplied by 1 day multiplied by $0.20 per day (20,000 X 1 X 0.2 = 4,000) equals $4,000.00 per day.  Multiple that number by 30 days in a month and you get (4,000 X 30 = 120,000) $120,000 per month.  The calculations for upkeep are based on a six month turn so for fairness I'm assuming that I'm chartering the extra ships for 6 months of shuttling back and forth.  Multiply $120,000 per month by 6 months (120,000 X 6 = 720,000) equals $720,000 to operate one brigade's worth of shipping for 6 months (the same as upkeep/operating cost for a government-subsidized vessel for one turn).  In budget dollars it comes out to $0.72 every six months.  It penalizes you for not building your own cargo carriers but at the same time if you rarely use them it saves you the constant upkeep every 6 months. 

Does this seem fair?
Any other comments?

By the way, I am willing to amend my statement to when the government subsidized vessels are not being chartered by the government they are in reserve status, when they are engaged in peacetime transportation duties or transporting between friendly ports they are in active status, when they are entering hostile waters they are mobilized status.  I also believe that they should be judged on 1/4 of the tonnage rather than full tonnage.

[Walter]

Looking at it, the upkeep of three 3,000 ton vessels according to my spreadsheet are (military) 0.045/0.225/0.45 or (merchant/auxiliary rule) 0.01125/0.05625/0.1125. Especially the full mobilized cost you entered is off since it should be ten times as much as the reserve upkeep (so 0.78 using your numbers).

Another thing is that it seems unlikely to me that a 3,000 ton light displacement ship is capable of carrying ~7,000 tons of miscellaneous weights, unless you consider those 7,000 tons to be non-functional miscellaneous weight (as it is a cargo vessel). However, the rules clearly state that miscellaneous weights for troops is functional miscellaneous weight and must be included in the cost of construction. That means that your vessel would be using the light displacement that SS gives you (so about 10,000 tons per ship). To me, building a ship and subtracting the miscellaneous weight as non-functional and then use it as a troop transport is cheating (unless you slap a rebuild or so on it to pay for adding the functional miscellaneous weights prior to using the ship).

Using 10,000 tons for three ships you get the next upkeep: (military) 0.15/0.75/1.5 or (merchant/Hilliary rule) 0.0375/0.1875/0.375.

Then there is the cost of building the ships itself which would be (military) $30/30BP or (merchant/auxiliary rule) $7.5/7.5BP and it would take almost 2 years before they can be used.

Now with your proposal of $0.72 every six months, if I were to compare it with three actual built vessels using the numbers above of the merchant/auxiliary rule and use them constantly every half year (i.e always mobilized), that would mean that it would be 20 half years before the cost of "extra transport capacity" actually becomes more than the cost of building + upkeep of three actual built ships. In reality, you won't be using them mobilized every year so it is almost certain that the cost of "extra transport capacity" will never exceed  that of actual built ships.

Of course if you have more than 2% of armament and armor on your troop transports, they need to be built as a military ship and with an upkeep of $1.5/HY for the three ships, that means that, despite lacking proper protection and defense armament, you can have twice the "extra transport capacity" compared to the three military built ships.

But then the above does not take into account the BPs that are being spent on the actual built ships. The only cost fixed to that is what you get for it when sending it to the export market ($1.25 per BP). If we are going to add that, it will be 51 half years before "extra transport capacity" catches up with actual construction but after +25 years, a nation is probably looking at replacing the old ships so the whole process will begin again...

In the end, that would mean that no one will bother with building actual troop transport ships and just use your rule because:

a) While it looks like much, it is many times cheaper when taking into account the construction costs of actual built ships.
b) It does not require any BPs.
c) It can be used immediately. No need to wait until construction is completed and the shakedown cruises are finished.
d) No need to worry about age. You do not need to worry about overhauls, refits, refurbishments and reconstruction and the cost of those.

Looking at all the above, the cost should probably be ten times as much, but then why would a government bother paying that cash to a company when it can easily commandeer those vessels in time of war?

... so my opinion is still the same. If a nation wants to move troops overseas, it needs to have built ships that can do so.

[Darman]

Upkeep costs have changed (the ships were designed for Japan in 2012, i think that was Navalism 5 or somewhere around there.  And I made a mistake in my own numbers, the capacity of each 3k ton vessel was 2,000t for troops etc.  Not 20,000t total between the 3.  The 3 vessels together could transport one brigade.  My numbers for the whole original post were, in retrospect, highly suspect.  It was probably the brainchild of a late night.  But the point remains the same, calculate a price that is far more expensive than operating (not building and operating, just operating) your own transport vessels. 

The price the govt pays to charter these vessels is supposed to not only cover the actual price of the charter, but also the economic costs of the vessels being out of service.  Presumably all port and customs fees would be waived for vessels under charters from the govt.  Not only that, but import/export tariff revenue is lost, taxes lost because the ships aren't carrying civilian cargo, etc.  This covers those of you who wish to "commandeer" vessels on the cheap.  The cost is the same regardless of how you decide to fluff it up in your news reports. 

[Walter]

Upkeep costs have changed (the ships were designed for Japan in 2012, i think that was Navalism 5 or somewhere around there.  And I made a mistake in my own numbers, the capacity of each 3k ton vessel was 2,000t for troops etc.  Not 20,000t total between the 3.  The 3 vessels together could transport one brigade.  My numbers for the whole original post were, in retrospect, highly suspect.  It was probably the brainchild of a late night.

Okay, so if I get it right, you are actually looking at:

3 x 2000 x l$0.20 = l$1200

1200 x (364/2) = l$218,400 = $0.218/HY for 3 ships.

But the point remains the same, calculate a price that is far more expensive than operating (not building and operating, just operating) your own transport vessels.

Yes, it is more expensive than the maintenance of an actual built ship, but building and overhaul costs should be taken into account as well. You can't just wave your hand and make it disappear. You have to pay for them no matter what...

construction cost = 3 x 0.75 + 3 x 0.75 x 1.25 = $5.0625

upkeep = $0.1125

For the first half year report that you use your newly built trio of ships, you are already looking at a cost of $5.175 versus the $0.218 of your "extra transport capacity" cost idea. After five years it is significantly less, but at an average of $0.61875/HY, it is still almost three times as much as the "extra transport capacity" cost.

Recalculating with the same approach as above gives me 50 half years before "extra transport capacity" overtakes the cost of actual built... and the same as above applies, that is assuming that you use it every half year which in reality is not the case and a nation is most likely thinking about replacements after 50 half years. So different numbers, same result as above with those 10000 ton ships.

The price the govt pays to charter these vessels is supposed to not only cover the actual price of the charter, but also the economic costs of the vessels being out of service.

With the calculations given above, it will actually benefit a government when not building the transport ships and charter other ships to do the transport duty instead.

With the $5.0625 construction costs from the above calculations I could easily overhaul almost half of the entire Chinese fleet. If nothing changes, it is enough to pay for 23 years of upkeep of the Lei Yue Mun Fortifications at Hong Kong (including the coastal artillery, not taking into account the 12" guns being built). If nothing changes, it will be enough to make the people of Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan extremely nervous for the next 30 years by using it to pay for the upkeep of Fort Nathu La at the Sikkim/China border. Those $5.0625 will be extremely useful when buying ICs or BPs as well since you could for example finish 1 IC or BP in H1/1905 instead of H2/1905 and you will get the benefit of using it a half year earlier than when you had not spent that $5.0625 on the IC/BP.

... so for your proposal, the four points I mentioned above still apply:
a) While it looks like much, it is many times cheaper when taking into account the construction costs of actual built ships.
b) It does not require any BPs.
c) It can be used immediately. No need to wait until construction is completed and the shakedown cruises are finished.
d) No need to worry about age. You do not need to worry about overhauls, refits, refurbishments and reconstruction and the cost of those.

... and re-reading it, I probably should add:
e) No need to worry about occupying slips and/or docks when building, overhauling, refitting, refurbishing or reconstructing.
f) No need to worry about having to build replacement ships when the original ships become too old.

[Darman]

But the point remains the same, calculate a price that is far more expensive than operating (not building and operating, just operating) your own transport vessels.

Yes, it is more expensive than the maintenance of an actual built ship, but building and overhaul costs should be taken into account as well. You can't just wave your hand and make it disappear. You have to pay for them no matter what...

The point I'm making, that you seem to be ignoring, is that I'm advocating for the cost of charting transport to be more expensive for a single half year than the upkeep of an equivalent amount of transportation capacity would be for that half-year.  This may or may not have been clear in my initial post, but I'm clarifying it now as it was my intent.  The precise numbers are up for debate.  I want chartered transportation to be more expensive than building and operating your own transport vessels.  My previous post was simply trying to determine what the cost of transportation actually was.

... so for your proposal, the four points I mentioned above still apply:
a) While it looks like much, it is many times cheaper when taking into account the construction costs of actual built ships. I'll refer you to my statement above about cost, I want chartering vessels to be more expensive than building and maintaining transportation vessels on a per half-year basis, the difference is that when you charter a vessel it is only for a portion of its life span, thus it is cheap in comparison if you don't utilize sea transportation often.
b) It does not require any BPs. Why should chartering transport require BPs?  If anything this should encourage us to adopt a rule that adds an extra dollar value to the BPs required for the construction of a transportation unit when determining the cost, but again, the cost of hiring transportation is up for debate, all I have ever done is attempt to determine the cost of producing transportation, not the cost of hiring it
c) It can be used immediately. No need to wait until construction is completed and the shakedown cruises are finished. This would be why the cost should be as much as ten times more expensive than the combined annual cost of a national transportation vessel, again, I've not yet proposed a cost for the transportation, I've merely attempted to provide (addmitedly outdated and apparently flawed) information with regards to the costs of producing your own permanent domestic transportation vessels. 
d) No need to worry about age. You do not need to worry about overhauls, refits, refurbishments and reconstruction and the cost of those. See answer to C
e) No need to worry about occupying slips and/or docks when building, overhauling, refitting, refurbishing or reconstructing. See answer to C
f) No need to worry about having to build replacement ships when the original ships become too old.See answer to C

[Walter]

The point I'm making, that you seem to be ignoring, is that I'm advocating for the cost of charting transport to be more expensive for a single half year than the upkeep of an equivalent amount of transportation capacity would be for that half-year.

The point I am making, which you seem to be ignoring, is that

no one will bother with building actual troop transport ships and just use your rule

It's not just about "cost of charting transport to be more expensive for a single half year than the upkeep of an equivalent amount of transportation capacity would be for that half-year". It should also be more expensive than upkeep + construction costs at some point (and not a point after 50 half years as with your original l$0.20 proposal) meaning that if you only use it occasionally it should be cheaper than building actual ships, but if you use it continuously for a longer period of time it would have been better if you had built actual ships so if anything you should probably be looking at at least l$ 0.75-1.00 per ton instead of l$0.20 per ton.

Another thing (although extreme) is that, when at war, what is stopping me from spending $98.58 (which in H1.1904 is uses to build ICs) to transport a large amount of troops? That is enough for 1356 3000 ton ships (using l$0.20  per ton) each capable of carrying 1000 troops for a total of 1356000 troops which is more than enough to transport the entire Chinese Army (which has a size of 1140000 troops) and enough to almost transport the entire 1600000 man strong Russian Army. I doubt that in reality the Chinese have 1356 ships available for chartering. Even if we were to change that to l$1.00 per ton, you could still move +270,000 troops around.

Then there is the issue about functional/non-functional miscellaneous weight as given in the rules, meaning that even if the Chinese did have 1356 ships that it could charter, not all of them will be capable of transporting troops. A passenger ship can transport troops, a normal cargo ship cannot (unless you convert it so that the miscellaneous weights are paid for). An oil tanker? Highly unlikely.

Finally, like I said before, the mods were determined with their rules on colonies and controlling them to make it more difficult, therefore getting to lands to create potential colonies to begin with should not be easy either. So no cheap way to transport troops. If you want to move your troops, you have got to build ships that are capable of doing that.

[Darman]

We are still talking in circles and not understanding each other.  You seem to be under the impression that I'm creating a rule as written, what I'm doing is making a proposal, and attempting to amend it to make it more worthy of inclusion as a rule.  I understand your opposition to the original proposal, my numbers were all wrong and it wasn't clearly stated.  However, unforeseen contingencies and opportunities happen.  So make someone pay through the nose for taking advantage of them.  Even if its something as simple as needing to transport an extra brigade somewhere but all your ships are already tied up elsewhere.  Since you seem concerned about someone diverting funds from IC-production to chartering transport, make it clear that the cost of chartering vessels has to come from the military budget.  I haven't made that clear, I assumed it was understood, my mistake. 


Since you seem to want numbers I'll give you some existing costs of transportation. 
For ease of reference I'm going to use the following vessel as the basis for my own calculations for cost.  It might not be the most efficient vessel for transportation capacity versus overall tonnage but I want a rough estimation of cost. 

Oceanic, United Kingdom Passenger Liner laid down 1898 (Engine 1900)
Corvette (Unarmoured)
Displacement:
   9,077 t light; 9,283 t standard; 10,333 t normal; 11,173 t full load

This vessel commits 5,000t to the transportation of 2,500 troops.  It costs $2.27 and 2.27BP to build.  Its upkeep is as follows: Reserve- $0.01134625 (1/200th of purchase price), Active- $0.05673125 (1/40th of purchase price), Mobilized- $0.1134625 (1/20 of purchase price).  Assuming a 20 year lifespan (I'm pretty sure we can agree that 20 years is the ideal standard, along with two overhauls at $0.226925 each), the coast of building, maintaining, and operating the transport vessel ranges from $2.950775 if kept in Reserve for 20 years to $4.766175 if Active, and the highest is $7.035425 if its Mobilized. 
The average cost per Half-year is: (this includes two overhauls, construction cost, and upkeep costs)
Reserve- $0.073769375
Active- $0.119154375
Mobilization- $0.175885625

The vessel referenced above carries 2,500 troops.  The vessel itself is 9077t, an average of 3.631t per man.  The costs presented above are for the entirety of the cost of the vessel (all 9077t) not just the transport capacity (5,000t), which accurately represents the actual cost of the transportation capacity of the vessel. 

The average cost to transport 1,000 troops utilizing the above transport vessel is going to be:
Reserve- $0.02950775 (roughly l$30 per man)
Active- $0.04766175 (roughly l$48 per man)
Mobilized- $0.07035425 (roughly l$70 per man)


My proposal (just want to point out that this is the first time I'm actually proposing a specific amount for the price of chartering transport) would be to charge upwards of l$350 per man.  To transport 1,000 troops would cost $0.35,  whereas an equivalent amount of transportation capacity would cost $0.07 per half-year.  So owning your own transportation assets for 2.5 years is the equivalent of hiring the same transportation assets for 6 months.  The cost of transporting 10,000 troops would be $3.5, a pretty hefty price to pay, I'm sure you can agree.  And if you're worried about people taking advantage of this rule then create a limit: 10% of your total fleet tonnage is the maximum you can charter in a given half-year.  Using the UK as an example, with 1,280,200t of warships at my disposal I could charter out 128,020t.  Divide that by 3.631t (the tonnage per man as given above) and the UK can transport roughly 35,000 troops at a cost of $12.25.  If you wanted to round the tonnage per man up to 4 to make it easier, then so be it.  I agree with you, it shouldn't be cheap.  However, our divergence occurs whereby you appear to not want it at all whereas I want the option available, and I'm willing to pay for it. 

[Tanthalas]

I actually kind of like that proposal Draman, and I have to admit I too have been a bit concernd about how I was going to move troops around...

Personally I intend to build a few liners, but that's just cause I want to draw one ^.^

[Jefgte]

I suggest to devote 1904 H1 & H2 to built auxiliary vessels for countries which do not have create their auxilaries fleets (Germany...).

=>That means that the movement of warships and colonial actions are frozen for 1904 H1 & H2.

Jef

[Walter]

We are still talking in circles and not understanding each other.

Maybe you are, but I am attacking it head-on. :)

You seem to be under the impression that I'm creating a rule as written, what I'm doing is making a proposal, and attempting to amend it to make it more worthy of inclusion as a rule.

No. I am trying to make you quite aware that if (and it is a big if in my opinion) that were to be applied, the final price needs to be significantly more than what you initially had back then, not just a matter of adding l$0.05 or l$0.10 to the cost or doubling the cost.

Since you seem concerned about someone diverting funds from IC-production to chartering transport, make it clear that the cost of chartering vessels has to come from the military budget.

*looks at the new rules*

... right now my "military budget" is... *checks latest report*... $130.40 + cash from the sale of BPs. What's left of that after all my military costs are subtracted will go into civilian projects. In other words, I can spend all the $98.58 on transporting troops then because not only can I use all of it for civilian projects but I can use all of it for military projects as well.

Don't forget that with the last rule change, there are no longer limits on the military budget so if necessary you can now spend all your revenue on military projects.


As for the stuff below that, you lost me at "$0.01134625". Way too many decimals in those numbers and I really did not bother to look at most of the rest of it (sorry about that but it really makes my head spin :( ).

... so I will skip to something lower that is readable to me...

35,000 troops at a cost of $12.25

Now a number of posts back I mentioned to Jef "the problem is that those 10000 tons in your suggestion tells us absolutely nothing about what it can do." This is still the case. So thinking about what I said back than some more and looking at that $12.25, tell me:
- How many ships are we talking about exactly? How many unarmed and unarmored targets are out there for the enemy to sink? How many unarmed and unarmored targets are out there for you to protect?
- What is the displacement of each ship?
- How many troops can each ship carry? How are those 35,000 troops spread along all those ships? How many troops can lose their lives if one particular ship is sunk?
- Does the ship carry extra supplies and if so how much?
- How fast does each ship go?
- What is the range of each ship? At what cruising speed?
- What's the age of each ship?
- What's the condition of each ship?
- Do they use oil or do they need coal or do they need both? (in case you go beyond the ship's range and require a collier and/or oiler if there are no friendly ports around to rely upon)
- How much tons of oil/coal does each ship need? Do you have enough colliers and/or tankers with you (or even available) to refuel all your ships?
- What about stability, steadiness and seaboat quality? Will the troops be fresh to fight when they disembark or are they all seasick and hanging over the rail of the ship, unable to get off for the first week or so?
- How many shells are needed to sink each ship? How many torpedoes are needed to sink each ship? How many troops are likely to be killed/wounded should a ship be hit by (a) shell(s) or a torpedo but manages to get back to a safe port?

Several other points:
- How would it affect China if I were to carry out my Cargo Along Rails plans which would mean that a lot of the goods and passengers could easily be transported by rail instead of by ship once the rail lines are completed?
- What about island nations Japan and Britain? Would the chartering of ships capable of carrying 35,000 troops not have a much bigger economical impact on those two nations than Germany or Russia for example since they are much, much more dependent on merchant ships for trade than any other nation because they are both island nations?