Merchant Marine rules

[P3D]

I see no liners built by UNK in the reports. Nor does UNK have spare lvl3 slips to lay down any ships longer than 170m. Please adjust your news accordingly.

[Earl822]

Hmmmm, completely civilian vessels, built in civilian yards, for civilian owners, with civilian resources. I make a distinction by only using yards for military purposes that I consider to be naval yards.

Also the rules on the merchant marine don't work, as the size of a merchant marine depends on exports and imports, and the size of the empire, nothing more. Military budgets can be constrained by tax, but a civilian can spend what he pleases on whatever he pleases.

[P3D]

What slips and BPs you have is the shipbuilding capacity of your nation. The same applies for heavy industry - there's no distinction between factories for civilian or military use. Similarly, there's no reason why a slip that can accomodate 900' long liners could not accomodate a 700' long battlecruiser.

To accomodate passenger liners I decreased merchant marine price - including passenger liners, so BP cost is 25% of the light tonnage.

[Earl822]

This is why I am so infuriated with this sim, and writing sim reports, there is no artistic liscence, there is no distinction between the civilian budget, and the military budget, that is not realistic, that is pointless. I feel terribly constrained. Under the old rules, we could trade BP, we could order ships from each other using BP!

As you should know, industrial capacity depends solely on demand. The only reason RL British Empire, didn't build more Battleships prior to World War 1 is that it couldn't afford to because it was already spending its budget, a budget aquired from taxation. At the same time, the British Empire was also building large numbers of merchant ships, warships for export, etc.

The rules we have here give only one budget, the military one, as if all income is taxed at 100%, which is not realistic.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I agree with Earl. This is micromanagement. Civilian yards building civilian ships for civilian buyers - that should be beyond the scope of the Game.
Borys

[Korpen]

Ahoj!
I agree with Earl. This is micromanagement. Civilian yards building civilian ships for civilian buyers - that should be beyond the scope of the Game.
Borys

I second that, if we are to cover the civilian shipbuilding with our BP;s as well i would demand at least twice, more like three times as many BP;s.

Very few if any state here is the sort of totlatitarian state that was created in the sovjet union, and to have that kind of total conrtoll over the economy is just silly, and most importantly, it is NO FUN!

[Borys]

What slips and BPs you have is the shipbuilding capacity of your nation. The same applies for heavy industry - there's no distinction between factories for civilian or military use. Similarly, there's no reason why a slip that can accomodate 900' long liners could not accomodate a 700' long battlecruiser.

I protest. I do not wish to get down to the level where issuing new sabres to the cavalry leads to shortage of high quality steel for switch-blades, and the whole male population runs around with beards, and the Holy Father issues a Dispense to Austrian priests who can't shave their tonsures.

EDITIED DUE TO HERETICAL CONTENT IMPLYING MORE THAN ONE HOLY FATHER
:)

Borys

[Korpen]

What slips and BPs you have is the shipbuilding capacity of your nation. The same applies for heavy industry - there's no distinction between factories for civilian or military use. Similarly, there's no reason why a slip that can accomodate 900' long liners could not accomodate a 700' long battlecruiser.

I protest. I do not wish to get down to the level where issuing new sabres to the cavalry leads to shortage of high quality steel for switch-blades, and the whole male population runs around with beards, and the Holy Fathers issues a Dispense to Austrian priests who can't shave their tonsures.

Borys

Again i second.If I want to play a game with a lot of intricate economic management in the era, then I will play Victoria.
I play this sim to indulge in international diplomacy and to design competitive and interesting ships.
Not, to play a 3rd rate economic simulation, like I said, if that is what I want, there are games  far better for that.

[P3D]

There's no artistic licence to get fast troop transport capacity for free.
Trading BP is utterly laughable concept. Turkey, Argentina, Chile, Brazil did not pay for their battleships by delivering 10000tons of steel.
Budget: we have military and civilian budget to
a/ simulate a realistic economical development
b/ mobilization of national economies for war.
The old system failed miserably in this two aspects. Allowing 20% yearly ecomonic growth is anything but realistic. And wartime mobilization was nonexistent.

And yes, there are new constraints. BP represents the complete heavy industry. Shipbuilding is still BP-constrained not $, I realized it, but decided not to change the rules halftime so the sim could start. I do have some (actually very simple to implement) ideas, how to make nations' shipbuilding cash and not BP-constrained, but I postponed introducing them.

[Korpen]

There's no artistic licence to get fast troop transport capacity for free.
Trading BP is utterly laughable concept. Turkey, Argentina, Chile, Brazil did not pay for their battleships by delivering 10000tons of steel.
Budget: we have military and civilian budget to
a/ simulate a realistic economical development
b/ mobilization of national economies for war.
The old system failed miserably in this two aspects. Allowing 20% yearly ecomonic growth is anything but realistic. And wartime mobilization was nonexistent.

And yes, there are new constraints. BP represents the complete heavy industry. Shipbuilding is still BP-constrained not $, I realized it, but decided not to change the rules halftime so the sim could start. I do have some (actually very simple to implement) ideas, how to make nations' shipbuilding cash and not BP-constrained, but I postponed introducing them.

There are better ways to solve that problem, like rule one, and being arbitrary (like if you want to charter civilian shipping not subsidized for that purpose, make the lines simply refuse, or demand huge amount of money for the charter).
As thing stand I think the solution is a far greater problem then the problem ever were.
Somehow the old doctor joke comes to mind: "The procedure was a success, but the patient died"

And I for one have no intention of continue if I have to start design my harbour tugs , police boats and wooden canoes for use on the rivers on Borneo.

[Borys]

There's no artistic licence to get fast troop transport capacity for free.

This can is a question of player responsibility, if necessary tempered by GM/moderator.
ADDED LATER:
I agreed with Korpen.
Borys

[Borys]

Ahoj!
With no offence to anybody, this might be linked with US vs. European attitude towards RPG.
I have some knowledge of AD&D and Warhammer, and the former is much more structured than the latter.

Borys

[Korpen]

Ahoj!
With no offence to anybody, this might be linked with US vs. European attitude towards RPG.
I have some knowledge of AD&D and Warhammer, and the former is much more structured than the latter.

Borys

I do not think so (us vs. Europe) as there are plenty of  nice American rpgs that are pretty loose in their system (Star wars D6 for one).
What I think we have here is rather a case of trying to cover everything in the rules, and that usually makes things more detailed, but less realistic. I think it is important not to mix up "detailed" with "realistic", as adding details for everything often means a loss of the big picture, so the end result is less believable (trovärdigt).
In RPGs, I think Rolemaster is the best example, with tables and rules for exactly everything.

Different rules for different purposes. And I think this sim should play to its strengths, that is the diplomacy and rule of a state (as that is not really possible to do elsewhere) and the possibility to design and build interesting  ships and fleets. Everything else, such as the economy, yearly steel production, amount of civilian trade and 10000 other minor things that make up the country should be simplified as far as possible.
I think the present system I fairly good, if you do not have to keep to much track of the civilian side of things. But if you got to keep track of almost everything in the civilian shipping business as well, then I think you simply add allot of extra work for the players, without adding anything to the realism or plausibility of the game.

[maddox]

P3D, the liners can be used for troop transports. But the old rule for AMC's was appropriate also for this.
It costs military budget to get a liner from a floating palace to floating baracks. 

As long a liner is a liner I don't see any reason to cut into the military budget for this.
On the other hand, if the "liner" (troop transport) or "merchant"(collier,example Cyclops) is a warship from the start, then this ship can be build pure from the military budget. Then this ship gets the full benefits on damage resistance and military capabilities.

Now to avoid the precedent the UK is showing here, ships larger than what the military accepted slips can build cannot get a wartime refit. As rule number one say, Play the Game, not the rules. 

(Korpen, I was a D6 west end Star wars gamemaster)

[Earl822]

Cloak off:-

Exactly, note also that many passenger liners had far better engines than the warships built at the same time.

As Maddox says an AMC is built as a warship from the start, and if I wished to use these as AMC's I'd have to pay the 15-25% to fit the weapons, and also the upkeep.

Cyclops was a fleet Collier, and a military ship from the start.

As for using liners as troop transports, it may be sensible if nominal upkeep is payed, e.g. equivalent of active vessels.

But that won't concern me for now

Cloak Up: