United Kingdom 1903/2

[Darman]

Country	Year	Half	War	Ratio
United Kingdom	1903	2	NO	50
Region	Pop	IC	BP	Revenue	Research		Growth Rate	Exp. Pop
English Midlands	3.394	12	9	13.1274	8.606		1.00	3.428
England (-Midlands)	28.967	18	11	38.8967	0		2.50	29.691
Ireland	4.848	2	1	4.4848	0		2.50	4.969
Scotland	4.848	3	3	6.4848	0		2.50	4.969
Wales	2.132	2	1	4.2132	0		2.50	2.185
India	306.373	25	4	80.6373	0		2.50	314.032
Ceylon	4.203	1	0	2.4203	0		2.50	4.308
Burma	10.988	2	0	5.0988	0		2.50	11.263
Australia	3.877	6	0	10.2647	2.123		1.50	3.935
New Zealand	0.832	1	0	1.9152	0.168		1.50	0.844
Canada	6.019	6	0	12.6019	0		2.50	6.169
Cape Colony	3.116	3	0	6.3116	0		2.50	3.194
Leeward Islands	0.133	0	0	0.0133	0		2.50	0.136
Windward Islands	0.677	0	0	0.0677	0		2.50	0.694
Bermuda	0.082	0	0	0.0082	0		2.50	0.084
Jamaica	0.789	0	0	0.0789	0		2.50	0.809
Indian Ocean Terr.	0.472	0	0	0.0472	0		2.50	0.484
South Atlantic Terr.	0.010	0	0	0.001	0		2.50	0.010
Gold Coast	4.274	0	0	0.4274	0		2.50	4.381
North Borneo	0.349	0	0	0.0349	0		2.50	0.358
Malaya	1.568	0	0	0.1568	0		2.50	1.607
Papua New Guinea	0.523	0	0	0.0523	0		2.50	0.536
Pacific Territory	0.174	0	0	0.0174	0		2.50	0.178
Total	388.648	81	29	187.3618	10.897			398.266
Misc. Civ. Income			0	0			IC Cost: $40 each		$50 --> $10
Misc. Mil. Income			0	0					+$25--> +$5
							BP Cost: $70 each		$50 base cost
Total Budget			29	187.3618					Every 10BP adds $10 to cost
Military Budget									Every 100BP adds $50 to cost
Civilian Budget
Spending
Static Works & Arty Maint.				2.5418
Static Works & Arty Const.			0	0			Researching	Item		Tech Year	Year Started	Intergration?		Cost	Turn
Army Maint.				7.718			1	Naval Artillery		1900	1903	n		$0.85	2	Pass	integration
Army Const.			0.675	13.8			2	BB/AC Architecture		1902	1903	n		$0.95	1		SF
Aviation Const. & Rep.			0	0.1125			3	TB/DD Architecture		1904	1903	n		$1.38	1
Navy Const. & Rep.			28.315	35.2134			4	BBC/AC Architecture		1902	1901	n		$1.38	6	Pass	Wings
Navy Maint.				20.05825375			5	Army Reserves		1900	1901	n		$0.95	6	Pass
Research				$9.21			6	Signals Intel		1900	1901	n		$0.95	6	Pass
							7	Navy Shells		1905	1903	n		$1.90	2
Special Ops: Northwest Frontier				0.5			8							$0.00
Special ops: South Africa Frontier				0.5			9							$0.00
				0			10							$0.00
				0									Total	$8.36
				0			Guns	Name		Bore	Caliber			Cost	Turn
Special Ops: Ireland				0.25			1	BL 6" Mk XI		6"	50			$0.25	2	4 turns
Other Expenses			0	1.25			2	QF 4.7" Mk. V		4.7"	45			$0.25	1	4 turns
							3							$0.00
Irish Land  Reform ($37-37=complete)			0	37			4							$0.00
Midlands IC ($40-3.81=36.19)			0	3.81									Total	$0.85
Canada BP ($40-40=complete)			0	40
Invest Japan IC ($12.5 due 1903/2)			0	12.5			Mounts	Type		Bore	Caliber	Barrels	Turns (req)
Invest Japan IC ($12.5 due 1904/1)			0	0			1	twin turret/barbette		9.2"	47	2	2	$0.25	3
England (1 started: $4.14-4.14=complete)			0	4.14			2	Deck mount/hoist		6"	50	1	1	$0.10	2
Economic Develop.			0	97.45			3							$0.00
							4							$0.00
Spent Mil. Budget			28.99	89.90706975			5							$0.00
Remaining Budget			0.01	0.004730247			6							$0.00
													Total	$0.35
News	Naval Propulsion and Underway Recoaling were completed and now available
	7th and 8th Infantry, 3rd Cavalry Divisions have finished forming and will ship out for S. Africa on 4 July  1903.
	2nd and 3rd Cape Mounted Rifles, and 2nd Cape Militia have finished forming and are deployed on 28 June 1903.
	Bushveldt Carbineers are reorganized at the end of May 1903 and ready to ship out midway through June.
	2 Formidable-class Battleships have been completed (Bulwark and Venerable).
	2 Midlands-class cruisers have been completed (Worcestershire and Northamptonshire).
	Expanding Slipways at Glasgow and Newcastle (2 --> 3)
	10 Rover-class troop transports laid down.
	Bombay dockyards are especially busy this year, overseeing the overhaul of 3 Daring-class destroyers (Ardent, Boxer, Bruizer)
	Australian Dockyards are similarly busy with Daring-class destroyers requiring their midlife overhaul (Daring, Decoy, Havoc) as well as constructing 2 Rover-class transports
	With news of further defeats in South Africa the various colonies have begun recruiting drives for new units for overseas service:
	Forming in Australia are the Queensland Mounted Infantry, New South Wales Mounted Rifles, Victorian Mounted Rifles, South Australian Bushmen, and the West Australian Mounted Infantry
	Forming in Canada are Lord Strathcona's Horse and the 1st Royal Canadian Regiment.
	Forming in England is a cavalry unit of upper and upper middle-class volunteers: the Imperial Yoemanry Regiment.
	Purchase of a new Type 0 Airship based at Plymouth for experimental purposes

[Walter]

Snip, three months ago I asked you and Logi in a pm about investing in a NPC nation and you said "No" and I then asked you if this also applied to Player nations...

... and I never got a reply to that.

About 1 1/2 month later I asked again and you said you already responded to that question but I never got any pms from either you or Logi between March 25 when first asked you the question (right after your "no" decision) and May 02 when I asked about it again (to which you replied that you already responded).

... So I replied to that pm you sent me but never go a reply to that pm either.

Now I am looking at this British report which clearly indicates that Britain is investing into Japan, another player nation, so am I supposed to conclude from this report that your supposed response to my question I asked 3 months ago was a "yes"?

[Logi]

Sorry, I must have missed the questions and replies. Investing into a NPC nation is not allowed because of tracking issues. Investing into Player nations is allowed because those issues do not exist.

[Walter]

Thanks for clarifying that, Logi. Like I mentioned in the pms, I have no problems with not being allowed to invest into NPC nations but I really have the feeling that you mods are trying to make things a lot more complicated than they should be with that. I asked in a pm to clarify in the hope to see the logic of your thinking and what you have in mind as to what is needed to deal with that which you do not want to deal with. There was also a mention of circumventing rules and asked which rules as I had no idea which ones was being referred to. Instead of an attempt to make things a bit clearer for me and tell me exactly what those rules are, I get a "no further conversation necessary" reply. Like how is that going to help me understand what unknown rules are being applied to the logic of the mods as well as the sim? Also I asked but got nothing on the question of what makes the Ottoman and Italian investments different from mine...

... and there are a few more questions I asked which I never got an answer to:
- What is the final decision on the transports. Does your "if you didn't build it, you don't have the capability" apply or do we apply the "movement of less than a brigade's worth of troops per half year is grandfathered in until 1905/H2" you mentioned back then in the same post?
- Should I treat the "Sikkim IC" (which, because we're not allowed to invest in NPCs, I build as a Tibet IC) when completed as a Tibet IC and get $2 from it or treat it as a Sikkim IC and get ~$0.70 from it?
- What is the status of the various islands and Qatar that are marked as neutral, but when I dig around a lot are claimed pre-game by nations? Do I stick to the claims or is the map correct and the final judgement of the mods as to who owns what?

... and Darman, sorry about posting all this in your report thread.

[Kaiser Kirk]

... and Darman, sorry about posting all this in your report thread.

heh :)

[Logi]

There was also a mention of circumventing rules and asked which rules as I had no idea which ones was being referred to.

I believe the circumventing rules bit was that it would be possible to use NPCs to min-max the returns from IC or make unfair deals. I believe Snip mainly handled this exchange so I don't remember all that much. My point of view was that it created more additional work than it was worth. If investing in NPCs was economically viable, players would naturally gravitate towards it and almost all NPCs would have to have their incomes and ICs tracked.

Of course the distinguish of un-viable and viable still requires tracking as that can change as IC is built.

Also I asked but got nothing on the question of what makes the Ottoman and Italian investments different from mine...

I don't remember this.

- What is the final decision on the transports. Does your "if you didn't build it, you don't have the capability" apply or do we apply the "movement of less than a brigade's worth of troops per half year is grandfathered in until 1905/H2" you mentioned back then in the same post?

The latter applies after which the former applies. You can move less than a brigade worth of troops per half year until 1905/H2 after which it expires and if you didn't build a transport, you can't transport troops. We decided on the latter "grandfather" rule to accommodate players who hadn't realized transportation for troops didn't naturally exist.

Should I treat the "Sikkim IC" (which, because we're not allowed to invest in NPCs, I build as a Tibet IC) when completed as a Tibet IC and get $2 from it or treat it as a Sikkim IC and get ~$0.70 from it?

Unless China owns Sikkim (which it doesn't) or Sikkim is played by a player (which it isn't), China can't invest into Sikkim. Therefore you didn't build an IC in Sikkim, you built it in Tibet. As such it is counted as a Tibet IC.

What is the status of the various islands and Qatar that are marked as neutral, but when I dig around a lot are claimed pre-game by nations? Do I stick to the claims or is the map correct and the final judgement of the mods as to who owns what?

The map is not entirely accurate. Stick to the claims unless it seems absurd. Bring it to the attention of the mods in that case. Updating the map is on my todo list.

[Walter]

Not sure what else will be discussed (maybe a lot and maybe nothing) but it is already a lot more than I originally thought when I posted about it so it might not be a bad idea if either you or snip move these discussion parts to the Meeting Room... I still posted it here since I assume that it is probably easier for you to move it all as a whole instead of moving it and then merge it with a new post I created...

I believe the circumventing rules bit was that it would be possible to use NPCs to min-max the returns from IC or make unfair deals.

The first bit vaguely sounds like what was mentioned in the pm and it was never clarified what was meant by that when I asked about it ("no further conversation necessary"). And if it is similar, then I still have no idea what the "use NPCs to min-max the returns" is supposed to be about.

As for unfair deals, the fairest deal an investing nation can get is when it gets 100% of the revenues from the ICs it invested in. :)

My point of view was that it created more additional work than it was worth. If investing in NPCs was economically viable, players would naturally gravitate towards it and almost all NPCs would have to have their incomes and ICs tracked.

The thing is do you really need all the additional work? I'm pretty sure something very easy could be worked out that can be tracked in the reports of the investing nation without the mods needing to track stuff in the NPC nations.

... but like I said, I don't have a problem with your decision not to allow it so no need to waste time to figure out an easy way.

I don't remember this.

I mentioned that in a pm back on... *check sent messages* ... May 3. I see the Ottomans co-funding an IC in Ethiopia and Italy is funding Zanzibar to build an IC. I would assume that this would only be allowed if in the end neither the Ottomans nor the Italians will get any revenue from those ICs. But if that is not going to be the case, then what?

The latter applies after which the former applies. You can move less than a brigade worth of troops per half year until 1905/H2 after which it expires and if you didn't build a transport, you can't transport troops. We decided on the latter "grandfather" rule to accommodate players who hadn't realized transportation for troops didn't naturally exist.

The thing is that in your post back then, it it is clear that the former applies though it was possible to consider applying the latter. However I never saw a decision posted in that thread to confirm what would be applied which is why I asked about it 1 1/2 month ago. Thanks for clearing that up.

Unless China owns Sikkim (which it doesn't) or Sikkim is played by a player (which it isn't), China can't invest into Sikkim. Therefore you didn't build an IC in Sikkim, you built it in Tibet. As such it is counted as a Tibet IC.

That is what I told you but that is not the issue. It is about the revenue that that IC creates. I have absolutely no problem with keeping it simple and get $2 as I would get from any other IC I build in Tibet but I want to be certain you agree to this as well so I do not run into a discussion later with you guys where you say "weeeelllll... even though you counted it as a Tibet IC and we agreed to that, you should get revenue from it as if it were a Sikkim IC and thus only get $0.70 from it and not $2.00 because in reality that Tibet IC represents a part of your Iron Tea Horse Road that in 'reality' runs on Sikkim soil and, if we had allowed NPC investments, would have been a Sikkim IC".

Stick to the claims unless it seems absurd.

[China mode on]
To us, the claims do not seem absurd. They are absurd.
[China mode off]
;D

[Kaiser Kirk]

I don't remember this.

I mentioned that in a pm back on... *check sent messages* ... May 3. I see the Ottomans co-funding an IC in Ethiopia and Italy is funding Zanzibar to build an IC. I would assume that this would only be allowed if in the end neither the Ottomans nor the Italians will get any revenue from those ICs. But if that is not going to be the case, then what?

For Clarity, from the Italian point of view it goes into Never-Never land.
As for revenue - the Treaty simply calls for Italy to build it, Zanzibar owes us nothing back, it's part of the purchase price for Querimba.
It may mean Zanzibar has +1 IC and that if ever conquered...that will be destroying in battle/rioting etc...or preserved....or lost to corruption at some time.  I don't care.


For me, it's a very good Storyline way of demonstrating Italy's approach is different than say ...Bavaria's. Italy is paying heavily for her territory, and working out agreements with the local rulers. The IC means Zanzibar should be more prosperous and see a distinct benefit from it's agreement with Italy.
Now the Brigades built as part of the Treaties in both Zanzibar and Warsangali, are being tracked in my Army report as I'm providing part of their funds. They should make any 3rd party invading those nations work far harder for it. However I expect them to stay Zanzibar & Warsangali troops.

On the bright side, if all of this is disallowed, I'd be happy to plow those funds into Sicily, who needs them. Heck, I can use the additional 6 brigades as well. :)

[Darman]

you bastards have hijacked my thread!!!!! 




But its worthwhile and entertaining shit, so carry on ;)

[Kaiser Kirk]

you bastards have hijacked my thread!!!!! 

Yes, and we're flying it to Syria until you pay the ransom.

Make the check out for1 Miiiilllliooon  Dollars to Dr. Evil, Inc. 
We are a 501(c)3 corporation so it is tax deductible.

Your line : You can't be Syriaus !

[Walter]

Make the check out for1 Miiiilllliooon  Dollars to Dr. Evil, Inc.

... Don't you think we should ask for *more* than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days... :)

[Darman]

On a related note... I'm considering having the UK perform a referendum on whether or not to leave Europe.  We have the largest navy in the world, surely if we chose to leave Europe we could find enough ships to tow the British Isles further away from Europe!

[Walter]

Are you saying that not being directly connected to the European mainland is not enough? Maybe just buy Greenland and move everything and everyone there. :D

[Darman]

As long as we can smell Europe, we are still too close