Madagascar Thread

[Darman]

We are still talking in circles.  I went through all the trouble of creating an estimate of the cost of transporting troops AND put forward a proposal that satisfied your own request that it be more expensive than building and maintaining a transport fleet, and yet your response is basically: oh, that's cute...but numbers give me headaches so I'm not going to read it and yet still lecture you on how it needs to be more expensive AND add more requests for details. 
So you went ahead and skipped to the "35,000 men costs $12.25 to transport" quote.  And then ask me for more details.  I'm sorry, I'll get around to answering your questions about details for ships that are currently unnecessary unless you want to sim the entire merchant marine after you read the part I wrote about the costs of shipping.  Because that, after all, is the issue you've been harping on this whole time.  You thought that my proposal (none was actually made until now) was too cheap. 

[Darman]

How do the mods and everyone else feel about this proposal? 

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. 

And I'd like to point out that every other transport vessel the UK possesses has displacement per man ranging between 4 and 4.5 tons.  So 5 tons per man might be more appropriate as these are dedicated transport vessels and vessels commandeered or hired won't be.  In addition, the cost could be raised from l$350 per man to l$400 (or more) per man, as the vessel in question is the most efficient of the 3 types of transport vessels in Her Majesty's service. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

How do the mods and everyone else feel about this proposal? 

I find it a rather interesting big question, though the specific details I'd have to re-read to see what I thought.

I will note this  : In the original timeline the Belgians lacked troopships, but had troops in the Congo.  The Dutch lacked troopships but had troops in Dutch Guiana and DEI.  I don't know how the Italians got troops to Ethipoia, or what troopships the Napoli was escorting in the invasion of Bengahzi in 1912, but googling Italian troopships doesn't turn up any. I don't actually know the order of battle for the other powers, but I know that during the first world war, liners were seized - including neutral Dutch liners, and put into service as troopships.

Which leads me to wonder - prior to WWI did nations just rent cabins and cargo space? Or did they have dedicated troop transports ?  I'm guessing the former. Feel free to educate me to the contrary - my Italy has troop carrying capacity, a collier and a hospital ship :)


So, I would say that peace time movement of troops between two ports on civilian vessels at a modest cost is not unreasonable. Also, realize any troop movement - by rail/road or boat - is going to disrupt local transport and take money, and would be part of the costs accounted for when a unit is activated or mobilized.

Now, what if there is not typical commerce between two ports?  Like the Italian Nacala, and to a large degree the Rome- Zanzibar run. 
In those cases chartering a vessel or having military transport should be required.

So...I do think some rule for the cost of chartering civilian vessels to make a run to deliver troops/cargo is reasonable.
That number probably would apply to the matter of moving troops from Germany to Madagascar as there is unlikely to be a common cargo run there.

What that number is... well lets first hear folks opinions on how off base I am :)

[Darman]

Belgian troops in the Congo were mostly native askari.  Only the officers and a portion of the NCOs were European.  As such, it would have been easy for European officers and NCOs to book passage aboard ships contributing to the regular trade of the colony in question. 

[The Rock Doctor]

I've not followed the discussion in detail, but am of the general view that a country should be able to charter (unseen) civilian shipping to move troops.  I assume the cost of such a movement would be less than building and maintaining dedicated transports in the short term - but not over the long term.

[Jefgte]

I've not followed the discussion in detail, but am of the general view that a country should be able to charter (unseen) civilian shipping to move troops.  I assume the cost of such a movement would be less than building and maintaining dedicated transports in the short term - but not over the long term.

quick idea  :)
=> Proposition for using 10000t liner for 2500 soldiers transport (10000/4)
1$ per 10000t per month
Hambourg/ Diego Suarez/Hambourg (via Suez) ;
6755nm @ 10kts => 28 days give 0$93
x2 for the return => 1$87 for the charter
----
20000 soldiers transported from Hambourg to Diego Suarez cost:
1$87 x 8 = 14$96

[miketr]

1) If the 'conquest' of Madagascar was against the rules I have no objection if its canceled. 
2) I am of the opinion that you can do the first two levels of Amphibious Technology with leased transports as neither requires special design landing ships or support ships.

"Baseline: Lifeboats and the use of enemy harbors.
1905: Shallow draft barges and shallow draft support ships"

3) Since it is leased transports I don't see it as at all likely for the owners of said ships to be willing to put them into harms way.  IE if there is ANY type of defenses like coast guns for example I would expect the ship owners to out right refuse the contract.

I just assumed that civil shipping would be available.

Regards,
Michael

[Jefgte]

If the 'conquest' of Madagascar was against the rules I have no objection if its canceled...

You could built transports in your 1904H1-H2 budget & made Madagascar conquest in 1905

...
I just assumed that civil shipping would be available.

I just assumed that civil shipping would be possible.

=> We could add rules.


Jef  ;)

[Darman]

=> We could add rules.

I suspect that the mods wouldn't want to allow rules to be added that would retroactively make previously publicized operations by players legal (such as making the Madagascar operation legal after the fact).  Unless there was a widespread misinterpretation of the existing rules that would warrant clarification. 

[Logi]

At this point the Mods don't believe the creation of new rules concerning transportation by civilian shipping yields benefits that outweigh the costs and complexity that these rules will have to be.

I've looked at the simple proposals and they all have areas where they can be abused. The complex proposals don't seem worth it for the few times it historically happened in this sim's era. Historically most of the time less than a brigade and often less than a regiment was transported at a time. In the interest of keeping our sim rules simple, if you didn't build it, you don't have the capability.

------------

If many players were counting on small transportation by civilian shipping we could potentially grandfather it for a period. For example, movement of less than a brigade's worth of troops per half year is grandfathered in until 1905/H2 after which military transports are required.

[Kaiser Kirk]

------------

If many players were counting on small transportation by civilian shipping we could potentially grandfather it for a period. For example, movement of less than a brigade's worth of troops per half year is grandfathered in until 1905/H2 after which military transports are required.

I think that's a good presumption, while I have troop transport capability, I was still expecting routine civilian transport to be available.