You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Wednesday, January 21st 2004, 11:16pm

A Diplomatic Note from the Government of India

[The following is hand-delivered by India's ambassadors to the contracting powers of the Cleito Treaty on the morning of 6 January 1922]

A Diplomatic Note From the Empire of India to Signatories of the Conference on Limitation of Armament, Cleito, December 6 1920 .

The British Empire has a history of armed diplomacy and colonialism, and has in the past attempted to subjugate the lands and people that now constitute India.

The British Empire continues to occupy vast areas of Persia and Arabia for the purpose of economic exploitation.

The Royal Navy of the British Empire is entitled by the Cleito Treaty to operate up to twenty (20) capital ships with a combined standard displacement of six hundred thousand (600,000) tons.

The Navy of the Australian Commonwealth is entitled by the Cleito Treaty to operate up to six (6) capital ships with a combined standard displacement of two hundred thousand (200,000) tons;

On 4 December 1921, the Commonwealth of Australia and the British Empire concluded an agreement which will see four (4) capital ships of the Royal Navy stationed at Australia.

On 25 December 1921, the Commonwealth of Australia finally indicated its readiness to retire the illegal aviation ship HMAS Hobart after one year and nineteen days of non-compliance with the Cleito Treaty.

On 31 December 1921, the Commonwealth of Australia and the British Empire embarked on unannounced power projection exercises that included the landing of a divisional-scale force of soldiers.

The national defence requirements of the Empire of India have been materially affected by the build-up of British naval forces in the Indian Ocean and the demonstrated ability of the Anglo-Australian alliance to undertake large-scale amphibious landings. Therefore, the Government of the Empire of India requests that the signatories of the Cleito Treaty meet in conference to consider these circumstances and amend the Cleito Treaty in such a manner as may be necessary to ensure the security of the Empire of India.

(Signed)

His Highness the Raj, Lord and Sovereign of All India, King of Assam and Hyderabad, Ruler of the Great Delta, Prince of the Maldives and Chagos, Protector of the Andamans




2

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 7:23am

OOPM (out of player mode) What exactly do you prepose rocky. I get the sence that perhaps some of our smaller treaty signatory's could use an increase in tonnage alotments.
I've heard of an attempt by Italy to set up a naval limitations conferance with some of the worlds smaller navy's such as Greece and the ABC country's. Perhaps this would be the route India could take and perhaps pull out of the Cleito treaty? I'm not sure what reprocussions it would have though, but if India feels threatened perhaps this would be the route to go.
Another (more dreadfull) solution would be a modification to the existing CT and perhaps this would allow us to add new players (if we all agree that is).
The only problem with that would be if one country got an increase in ship tonnage and number of hulls all the other nations would want the same.

3

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 8:21am

well, one issue is that the CT-nations should be sure to be able to defend themselves against non-CT nations. Greece/Turkey comes to mind here.

OTOH I would prefer the limitations to stay in place - end of the day, that gives us a framework for diplomacy and the _need_ for alliances rather than trying to out-build ach other .... much more interesting that way.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

4

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 9:59am

Australia

OOP: The problem lies not within the CT. The problem is that one player time and again uses a neutral powers resources for his own goals and stories without asking anybody. We all agreed that the UK will stay neutral until attacked on own ground. I´m really sorry about it but personally I handle 17incs news that include actions of the RN or UK as if they never happened. Even if we take them for real (thus the UK detached four BBs) I see no reason why you should be concerned, Doc. Australia will not be able to use them in the SIM nor will they defend Australian home waters if Australia attacks anybody else with all its own forces. Australia is _not_ the UK nor a part of it and thus no UK territory. Australia has to take care of its safety all alone - having 4 RN BBs around for exercises or not.

Btw, why don´t you put up a news flash that India had talks with Britain and both nations agreed that the detached BBs just raised tensions and thus left Australian waters again to head back home? I mean, if one player can use a neutral powers sources and detach them around the globe everybody else could do the same... Or you could write a news flash with the USA lending India 10 BBs.... *shrug shoulder* It surely busts our SIM but if 17inc doesn´t stop using UK sources this will happen anyway except we take care of that problem alltogether.

Just _my_ very personal opinion of course,

HoOmAn

PS: Alliances among players are okay and from this point of view India has its powerful neighbors as friends. Why bother? If Australia gets aggressive... Well, its backyard surely will be open for a counterattack. Maybe there´s someone around who just can´t wait for this to happen... *evil grin*

5

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 10:31am

Well I think we all agreed that the story 17inc created was not realistic and he droped it...this seems to be fallout from that incedent and I don't really think we need to rub salt in the wounds, 17inc hasn't posted anything new.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

6

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 1:02pm

Eh?!

We´ve cancelled the invasion only, IIRC, or have we also cancelled those 4 RN BBs officially? I´m getting confused. Maybe you can give a note about the situation down there in the Pacific? Are there any RN vessels deployed and if so to what purpose?

Thanks,

HoOmAn

7

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 1:21pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Another (more dreadfull) solution would be a modification to the existing CT and perhaps this would allow us to add new players (if we all agree that is).


hehehe, I vote YES!!!! to that ;).






Now, jokes aside, and on the topic: if you want an outsider's view of the situation ,here's mine...

IMHO the problem is the lack of a GM. UK and USA are neutral in the game, but they both should be either left COMPLETELY aside, or played (well, not exactly played, let's say guided on the backyard) by someone who would have just that task, to decide what would both nations do, or what not, when they are mentioned in the news reports.


However I can see why noone would step forward for that role...in fact the man doing it should stand aside of all plots and keep a strictly neutral position regarding any happenings in the game other than those which explicitly mention either USA or UK...
that means that he's not really "playing", because he could start no real plot himself, nor participate in those which are not directly related to the neutral nations. No ship building, nothing.

Call that a boring duty, man ;)



So, IMO you can go either way to keep the game on a safe path...you can either expreselly forbid any mention to UK/USA (other than pure casual ones) and keep them out of all plots, or you have someone decide their stance on the plots involving them.


just my 0.02$

17inc

Unregistered

8

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 1:57pm

Well HoOMAn you will between aRock and a harded Place

ARE toy shore you wish to soport INDIA if it come,s to war HoOMAn if you want a war then UK and australian will give you a run for your money just rember you have a weak runing mate in INDIA and Any war with me will Bring the RN on myside and you will need most of your ships to face them in the South Atlanic this would leave varer little in way suporting the INDIA Navy from SA and i do not think there up to the job with one BB and some CLs but i donot inten to start one at this time.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

9

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 2:11pm

Indeed

Good post, RAM.

Just let me give you some background information.

"IMHO the problem is the lack of a GM. UK and USA are neutral in the game, but they both should be either left COMPLETELY aside,"

The problem is even worse - so to say - because this SIM was never meant to be a game in common sense. Several of us had alternate histories running or were thinking about starting one. While discussing this on the Design Board of warships1 Wes (IIRC) came up with the idea to melt all thos alternate fleets together into one alternate world. Said and done, we put some guys together and soon the next idea poped up in someones mind: Given that alternate world with those alternate powers, what would a naval treaty comparable to the WT look like in this world? That´s how we started discussing and then negotiating a naval treaty that later became known as the Cleito Treaty. At this point we still had no game and thus no need for a gamemaster. All that was necessary was moderater and with Wes we had one. And then this whole thing started to grow.... We wondered what would happen to our navies once the treaty is signed, what would change, how would people react to restrictions, we got our own first board for the SIM etc. Further more someone started to post news written as if puplished in WesWorld and soon we had a role-playing component, meant to be exactly that, just for fun, while we focus on the development of our fleets from a technical perspective.

That´s where we´re today - more or less. At least _I_ still take it not as a game but the whole damn thing surely has grown up to a point where it could be one. The rules are not yet completed (we´ve only some economic rules but none for fighting it out with someone else for example) and if we really want to make it a game we need more than a single moderator - we need a gamemaster, just as you said. The question now is if all participants want this SIM (I have no better name for it) to become a game. With the exception of using neutral forces it doesn´t seem to be necessary to me...but it´s worth thinking about.

Talking about the UK and the US we agreed at the very beginning to leave them completely aside. They´re just part of WesWorld because we couldn´t think of a world without them and in 1920 they have to be rated as first-rate military (naval) powers.

Hope this offers some insight,

HoOmAn

10

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 2:12pm

Quoted

Originally posted by 17inc
ARE toy shore you wish to soport INDIA if it come,s to war HoOMAn if you want a war then UK and australian will give you a run for your money just rember you have a weak runing mate in INDIA and Any war with me will Bring the RN on myside and you will need most of your ships to face them in the South Atlanic this would leave varer little in way suporting the INDIA Navy from SA and i do not think there up to the job with one BB and some CLs but i donot inten to start one at this time.




huhm...see what do I mean?

indeed you do need a referee (please, not me, I'm aching to play, not to do some boring job ;) :P), or forbid any explicit reference to UK or USA...

11

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 2:19pm

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn


That´s where we´re today - more or less. At least _I_ still take it not as a game but the whole damn thing surely has grown up to a point where it could be one. The rules are not yet completed (we´ve only some economic rules but none for fighting it out with someone else for example) and if we really want to make it a game we need more than a single moderator - we need a gamemaster, just as you said. The question now is if all participants want this SIM (I have no better name for it) to become a game. With the exception of using neutral forces it doesn´t seem to be necessary to me...but it´s worth thinking about.



any simulation is a game...that's why the military call their simulated actions "war-games" ;).

I think that it's worth working out some way to simulate naval combat results, in a RPG-style combat fashion (comparing the ships in command, making some dice rolls, here and there and adding a set of rules for creating leaders from a puntuation given to each nation, so you can select having very good admirals, but few, or rather normal ones in more numbers) to keep the SIM going ahead. Granted, it will take some work to come with a good set of rules that make the combat realistic, but any good RPG gamemaster can do it.

That's one of the things I raised when I first posted here..."is this just a game of building or will you play war?"...general consensus was "probably there'll be a war". And I think it was a good idea :).


Quoted

Talking about the UK and the US we agreed at the very beginning to leave them completely aside. They´re just part of WesWorld because we couldn´t think of a world without them and in 1920 they have to be rated as first-rate military (naval) powers.



then I simply don't understand how all this fuss started...if UK and USA are completely aside, is rediculous that one of the players claim one of those nations to be on his side...

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

12

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 2:50pm

Yes

"then I simply don't understand how all this fuss started...if UK and USA are completely aside, is rediculous that one of the players claim one of those nations to be on his side..."

Indeed. I expect our moderator to take steps if it doesn´t end.

"I think that it's worth working out some way to simulate naval combat results, in a RPG-style combat fashion (comparing the ships in command, making some dice rolls, here and there and adding a set of rules for creating leaders from a puntuation given to each nation, so you can select having very good admirals, but few, or rather normal ones in more numbers) to keep the SIM going ahead. Granted, it will take some work to come with a good set of rules that make the combat realistic, but any good RPG gamemaster can do it. "

Feel free to help us with this. I´m an experienced role-player (AD&D most of the time) and I´ve also played several table-tops now and then but right now I haven´t got the time nor the will to set up such a system.

On the other hand I´ve just ordered two boxes of Avalanache Press´ Great War at Sea series, let´s see what kind of rules they have. However, I doubt I´ll have the time to do the job.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

13

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 2:53pm

Quoted

Originally posted by 17inc
ARE toy shore you wish to soport INDIA if it come,s to war HoOMAn if you want a war then UK and australian will give you a run for your money just rember you have a weak runing mate in INDIA and Any war with me will Bring the RN on myside and you will need most of your ships to face them in the South Atlanic this would leave varer little in way suporting the INDIA Navy from SA and i do not think there up to the job with one BB and some CLs but i donot inten to start one at this time.


I spoke of "friends" - that´s plural. I can handle the RN in the South Atlantic and Japan can still wipe out any (australian) resistance in the Pacific if necessary. *g*

However, I know this is pure theory because I trust in you when you say there´s no australian plan to start a war.

Enjoy,

HoOmAn

14

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 3:55pm

actually at this point I appeal to the moderator to explan to 17inc that the UK is - repeat after me - NEUTRAL! it will not fight on Australia's side. 17ic you will have to find your own allies and cannot hide behind the big brother ...

Bernhard

15

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 4:12pm

Hi folks

I'll stay out of character here.

First and foremost, let me state that I'm not trying to be mean or rub salt in wounds or anything like that. I appreciate the fact that 17inc's running Australia and posting interesting news on its behalf. Therefore, I think it is important that India take that news at face value and react appropriately, for better or worse.

My understanding of the Australian thread of 31 Dec 1921 is that the ten division invasion had been corrected and changed into a ten battalion exercise. If this is still valid, then it is reasonable that India will be concerned - most of her offshore holdings would be easily overwhelmed by force of that size. If, in fact, we had agreed to ignore the thread entirely, my apologies, and I'll revise the Indian note and ask that the thread be deleted.

Personally, I agree with the assessment that India has little to worry about. She has allies, officially and unofficially, and I do believe that 17inc is not inclined to be launching any adventures in the direction of India. In fact, I've seen little to suggest that Australia spends any time thinking about India. Considering that, as noted, India can't even crush an ABC power, this is no surprise.

However, I think it reasonable to assume India itself has a different view point; having been the target of colonialism attempts in the past, and having several European-governed colonies in its vicinity, has influenced Indian thinking. In a sense, India has the same mild paranoia about Australia and the UK that Australia has about Japan. Thus India is reacting to all these events differently than I personally would - that's roleplaying.

As for how to proceed, the ball is no longer in India's court. India will be awaiting in-character responses from somebody.

Personally, there are at least four routes this could take.

1) India withdraws from the treaty. I don't think this is wise out-of-character, and doubt that the Raj could accept it as an in-character response.

2) As laid out in Part I, VII of the treaty, the powers can meet in conference to discuss how to proceed and revise the treaty accordingly. This needs to be done in-character; an Indian proposal has been prepared if this is the route taken.

3) A diplomatic solution is possible. A non-aggression pact between India and Australia would likely be sufficient for India to withdraw the request made in the diplomatic note.

4) None of the above happen, and India reacts (well or not so well) to the status quo in some fashion.

Thanks for the discussion thus far; I figured this would raise some eyebrows.

J

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

16

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 4:23pm

Hmmm....

Hmmm....I think I like point 4) the most....

RAM, get your knife-fight-rules ready!

17

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 4:32pm

Knife fight rules? Man, I thought we were doing a naval sim, not a street-fight sim...

J

18

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 7:04pm

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Hmmm....I think I like point 4) the most....

RAM, get your knife-fight-rules ready!


hey hey hey, not so fast,buddy...I'm waiting for a spot to open so I can play!...refereeing is fun, but not that much after months of biting my toes wanting to play the sim :D.

Now seriously, if it's a serious requirement,then I can think about some rules for engagements. Be warned that the idea that I hold is that the player has no tactical control over the fleet in battle. That means, the player holds the operative-strategical command, but the tactical-operative level is hold by the admiral-in-charge. The battle will be "battled" (I know this sounds awful but hey! I'm spanish :P) at an abstract level. I know that battling each battle would be fun, but this ain't no Harpoon...and I know first-hand the kind of time you have to spend to develop a proper battle.


In rough lines this is my idea of how to decide the battle:

- A first roll of dices will decide how does each admiral perform in the battle. The better the admiral, the bigger the bonus he gets, but in the end it will be all 50%-50% to the admiral and roll dicing. Even the better admiral can make a mistake, but the better the admiral, the lesser the chance he has a "bad day".


- a second roll of dices will decide which fleet holds the tactical upper hand. Also here will be a bonus if the fleet has a good admiral...winning that roll means that the fleet gets a better starting position, and that if the player has given preference to some kind of battle (say, night fighting over day fighting, for instance),there's an increased chance that he gets what he wants.


-then I have to figure out how to find out exactly how much damage is done by each fleet and how does that damage get distributed among the ships of each force. There should be lots of modifiers on armor, weapons, speed, etc, because it's clear that a BB with thick armor facing another BB wich can't penetrate it from most distances isn't going to be badly hurt...well, probably he isn't ;).

This is the most complicated part to sort out, and can take me a long time. But it can be done.


The need to set some rules to appoint admirals using "command points" is overriding if we're going with this system. I still have to figure out how to raise a good set of rules to see how many "CPs" are assigned to each nation, but I'd say that giving each nation CPs proportional to the starting infrastructure points is a good idea; that represents naval tradition (because infrastructure points were given depending on how many capital ships had been launched before 1920).


This is a way too simplified view on what I do have into my mind at this moment...If you people think it's a good start, I can work on it (but WILL take time, be warned and don't go to a war too soon ;)).


Oh, and please, hurry find a referee to apply the rules after I set them on stone. Damnit I WANT TO PLAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!! :D

19

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 7:29pm

The problem of a neutral U.S. and UK has been nagging me since we started the whole SIM. The more the SIM go's on the more problems this causes. We did address the need for a ref of some sort for the SIM but as RAM stated it would be a boring job.
I know quite a few of us are happy with the ammount of players but we have some problems that have to be delt with. These are the problems we have:

Problem 1

The U.S. and UK are both nuetral and as a result any mention of them (and other non player countrys for that matter) in a story tends to be frowned upon.

Problem 2

A ref of some sort is needed to keep players in line, seeing as all the original players that started this SIM had and have every intention of playing. We need an outsider for this role.

Problem 3

We have several AWOL players as we all have varying degrees of real life to deal with, this tends to slow down the SIM and complicate storylines when a region has a player that is "not home to pick up the phone".

I have some solutions for this and as much as I'm reluctant to do this two key things that most of us are against will have to be done. First we have to make the U.S. and UK playable nations, second we need to add new players and third we need a ref.
I have a plan for the U.S. to be devided up into two separate nations due to the Civil war being a stalemate. This idea has floated around on the Warships1 board for some time and would give us two smaller nations that are not as much of a threat and would eliminate the problem of a nuetral country thats mere mention will get feathers in a ruffle.
In dealing with a nuetral UK i will kill two birds with one stone and put a Ref in charge of the UK. This will make the UK un-playable and un-usable as an allie and give us a ref to solve issues. Hooman, Peng and I as moderators will back him up on decisions he makes, we only need to find a ref for this. (what happened to coldmeres representative?)
Thirdly I think we need a few more players to make things interesting, given the fatc that currently Peng is busy as is Harry and Rocky will be AWOL for some time while he makes a long distance move. Turkey, a split U.S. Philipines and a united Netherlands /Belgium / Luxemburg are some idea's for players.
Your thoughts?

20

Thursday, January 22nd 2004, 8:06pm

You won't get any objections from me, as long as it doesn't ruin the Wesworld sim.


- Turkey => No problem
- A split US => You intend to split it up like Turtledove did in his books?
- Philipines => Good! A playable nation to conquer... Oops, I mean more room to maneuver for me in the Pacific. :-)
- United Netherlands /Belgium / Luxemburg => No problem. Perhaps we could use the Rock Doctor's suggestion and unite them later in the sim (perhaps late 20s, early 30s).

The last one is a bit tricky if you were to unite them later. This would mean that the infrastructures of all three nations would be combined (Belgian and Dutch slips/docks and Belgian, Dutch and Luxemburg factories).

With a split US, it would mean that Britain would depend more on its other allies during the Great War.

Walter