|
|
Post by tmp on Jun 1, 2019 21:33:24 GMT -6
In a 1900 game about 1-2 years in got armament treaty established through an event, which imposed ship size limit of 10000 ton and guns no heavier than 8in. In 1903 or 1904 got it extended by another 5 years, through another event. Mousing over the relevant area in the ui specified it'd apply for 90 months or so.
And then in September 1905 I get a notification Germany has laid down a battleship. Curious to see what sort of a battleship the AI would invent with the treaty limits in place I check the almanac and see that they are indeed building a battleship... a 15000 tons one. And not only that, they've also laid down a 17000 tons battlecruiser, while Great Britain is building a 20000 tons BB. And then I notice the treaty time in the ui displays '-' and there's no tooltip with the details anymore.
Not sure if it's a bug, or some sort of treaty-breaking AI action? But i don't remember reading anything to such effect in the turn messages, and the manual only vaguely mentions "If government type is Fascist or Communist, there is a chance the leader will repudiate the treaty." without specifying if it means armament treaty, or a peace treaty.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 1, 2019 22:27:50 GMT -6
My guess would be that you clicked through a 'Fuhrer/Duce/General Secretary/Chairman/etc denounces treaty" message at the start of a recent turn. It's easy to do if you have a bunch of ships commissioning or coming out of refit all at once, the turn message log only has the current turn's messages, and I don't know that the computer can lay down treaty-exceeding ships immediately after denouncing the treaty.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 1, 2019 23:18:58 GMT -6
You can check if treaty is still active in left down corner.
If it is not that you probably cancel it as aeson said. |
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Jun 2, 2019 7:37:16 GMT -6
My guess would be that you clicked through a 'Fuhrer/Duce/General Secretary/Chairman/etc denounces treaty" message at the start of a recent turn. It's easy to do if you have a bunch of ships commissioning or coming out of refit all at once, the turn message log only has the current turn's messages, and I don't know that the computer can lay down treaty-exceeding ships immediately after denouncing the treaty. That's the thing, pretty sure there wasn't a popup to such effect; it's wouldn't be *that* easy to miss while getting at most 2-3 messages a turn, and I don't remember ever seeing anything that wasn't a ship status update or notification of research progress/lack thereof. |
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Jun 19, 2019 0:19:06 GMT -6
Update: so I had the exact issue pop up in the same game, a few years later -- this time the ship size limit was 12k and 10 inch guns, there's still a few solid years of it remaining... then a war breaks out between Russia and me (Japan) and after I complete the first battle and return to the main game mode, the treaty is gone. Pretty sure there was no mention about this in the turn messages or popups.
For what little it's worth got the saves this time, from November 1912 when the treaty was still in effect, and December when the war kicked in and the treaty is gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 19, 2019 0:45:47 GMT -6
Update: so I had the exact issue pop up in the same game, a few years later -- this time the ship size limit was 12k and 10 inch guns, there's still a few solid years of it remaining... then a war breaks out between Russia and me (Japan) and after I complete the first battle and return to the main game mode, the treaty is gone. Pretty sure there was no mention about this in the turn messages or popups. For what little it's worth got the saves this time, from November 1912 when the treaty was still in effect, and December when the war kicked in and the treaty is gone. War cancels any naval limitation treaty. |
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Jun 19, 2019 10:40:42 GMT -6
Well, no one mentioned that when i asked originally. It's not mentioned in the manual. It doesn't even make sense to have it end automatically worldwide just because a war started somewhere, if no one made any explicit denouncement, warring parties (especially) included -- a major reason to establish these things was to prevent military budgets from spiraling out of control, why would everyone decide "hey, you know, let's ruin ourselves after all" the minute two countries start duking it out over some island at the other side of the globe?
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 19, 2019 12:06:39 GMT -6
Well, no one mentioned that when i asked originally. It's not mentioned in the manual. It doesn't even make sense to have it end automatically worldwide just because a war started somewhere, if no one made any explicit denouncement, warring parties (especially) included -- a major reason to establish these things was to prevent military budgets from spiraling out of control, why would everyone decide "hey, you know, let's ruin ourselves after all" the minute two countries start duking it out over some island at the other side of the globe? Because that's what happened historically? When Germany and Japan denounced the various treaties, escalator clauses kicked in, and the treaty as a whole eventually got tossed out the window. The Iowas, for example, were only designed when the treaty has been thrown out, so the old rule of 14" ships on 35ktons was replaced with 16" ships on 45ktons(eventually 48ktons as built). But they were designed in 1938, when the only active war in the world was between Japan and China. |
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Jun 19, 2019 12:24:07 GMT -6
Historically Japan and Germany denounced active treaties and it was a few years before actual war broke out. The treaties didn't just dissolve overnight in say, 1931 when Japan started a war with China.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 19, 2019 13:07:44 GMT -6
True. I'd love to see a "Treaty breach" event get created, where nations decide how they'll react to various non-treaty ships getting built. If AI wars existed, this would be especially cool. Even better, if cheating was more possible, but you could get caught by enemy intel and denounced by the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 19, 2019 15:06:06 GMT -6
Historically Japan and Germany denounced active treaties and it was a few years before actual war broke out. The treaties didn't just dissolve overnight in say, 1931 when Japan started a war with China. The 1930 Treaty of London (1TL) provided that the signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty (WNT) would not lay down the capital ship tonnage that they had been permitted to lay down in the period 1931-1936 (inclusive) by the Washington Naval Treaty, though France and Italy were permitted to lay down the ships that the WNT had permitted them to lay down in 1927 and 1929, and said that the ban on capital ship construction was without prejudice to replacement of ships lost in accidents. France had been entitled to lay down 35,000 tons of capital ships in 1927 and another 35,000 tons in 1929, and it could be argued that it was entitled to a further 35,000 tons to replace the battleship France, lost accidentally in August 1922 (though to my understanding the WNT had slated France to be replaced by the 35,000 tons to be laid down in 1929). The 1930 Treaty of London was to remain in force until 31 December 1936.
So, what capital ships did France lay down in the period 1931-1936 inclusive? Dunkerque (26,500 tons standard, 24 December 1932), Strasbourg (26,500 tons standard, 24 November 1934), Richelieu (35,000 tons standard, 22 October 1935), and Jean Bart (35,000 tons standard, 12 December 1936). With Richelieu, France had laid down 88,000 tons (standard displacement) of capital ships, exceeding the 70,000 tons it was unquestionably permitted by the 1TL; with Jean Bart, France had laid down 123,000 tons (standard displacement) of capital ships, exceeding the 105,000 tons it was arguably allowed, if the loss of the battleship France is presumed to have given France the right to lay down a further 35,000 tons of capital ships beyond the 70,000 tons it had been allotted for 1927 and 1929.
Britain and the US weren't really threatened by German naval expansion in the early 1930s, or by the battleship race between France and Italy kicked off by the French response to the German naval program. France, though, did feel threatened - by Germany's naval expansion, by signs that Britain would not necessarily be willing to involve itself in a future war between France and Germany, and by the Italian response to the Dunkerque - and as a result exceeded the limits set in the 1TL. If Britain and the US had felt threatened in the early 1930s the way that they did in the late 1930s, the treaty system would have been much further along the way to disintegrating in the mid-1930s than it was historically.
I would also note that whereas the WNT and the 1TL had imposed both qualitative and quantitative limits on the navies of the signatory powers, the 1936 Treaty of London imposed only qualitative limits on its signatories. That's a very significant change in the nature of the treaties and marks the abandonment of the treaty system as a control on naval expenditure.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Jun 20, 2019 10:00:48 GMT -6
The 1930 Treaty of London (1TL) provided that the signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty (WNT) would not lay down the capital ship tonnage that they had been permitted to lay down in the period 1931-1936 (inclusive) by the Washington Naval Treaty, though France and Italy were permitted to lay down the ships that the WNT had permitted them to lay down in 1927 and 1929, and said that the ban on capital ship construction was without prejudice to replacement of ships lost in accidents. France had been entitled to lay down 35,000 tons of capital ships in 1927 and another 35,000 tons in 1929, and it could be argued that it was entitled to a further 35,000 tons to replace the battleship France, lost accidentally in August 1922 (though to my understanding the WNT had slated France to be replaced by the 35,000 tons to be laid down in 1929). The 1930 Treaty of London was to remain in force until 31 December 1936.
So, what capital ships did France lay down in the period 1931-1936 inclusive? Dunkerque (26,500 tons standard, 24 December 1932), Strasbourg (26,500 tons standard, 24 November 1934), Richelieu (35,000 tons standard, 22 October 1935), and Jean Bart (35,000 tons standard, 12 December 1936). With Richelieu, France had laid down 88,000 tons (standard displacement) of capital ships, exceeding the 70,000 tons it was unquestionably permitted by the 1TL; with Jean Bart, France had laid down 123,000 tons (standard displacement) of capital ships, exceeding the 105,000 tons it was arguably allowed, if the loss of the battleship France is presumed to have given France the right to lay down a further 35,000 tons of capital ships beyond the 70,000 tons it had been allotted for 1927 and 1929.
It can be argued that the tonnage of ships laid down by France in 1931-1935 period i.e. 88,000 tons was within the limit of 105,000 tons allocated with France replacement included. Jean Bart was laid down many months after the Second London Naval Treaty which, due to Japan's denouncement, effectively removed the caps on number of warships that could be laid down. Even ignoring this, 12 December 1936 is mere 20 days before the first London Naval Treaty was about to expire. It means even the potentially no longer applicable treaty was followed for over 99% of time it's supposed to last. Even though France did feel threatened by its aggressive neighbor, like you mention. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 20, 2019 12:19:44 GMT -6
Jean Bart was laid down many months after the Second London Naval Treaty which, due to Japan's denouncement, effectively removed the caps on number of warships that could be laid down. Doesn't matter; the First London Treaty was to remain in force until 31 December and was not repealed by the Second London Treaty, which was only to enter force 1 January 1937 at the earliest anyways. The Japanese denouncement of the treaties took place in 1934 and gave notice that Japan did not intend to remain a part of the treaty system, but the terms of the First London treaty were to remain in force for all signatories - including Japan - to the end of 1936 despite this.
Britain, the US, Japan, and Italy all abided by the terms of the First London Treaty, albeit with some cheating on tonnages, despite your claim that Japan's denunciation "effectively removed the caps on the number of warships which could be laid down."
Except that the idea that France was permitted 105,000 tons is suspect, because if you read the Washington Naval Treaty, or specifically Part 3, Section II: Replacement and Scrapping of Ships, table for France, it's pretty clearly the case that the battleship France was meant to be replaced by the 35,000 tons of capital ship tonnage allotted to France for 1929, and the way I read the rules for replacement of accidental losses (Part 3, Section I, Paragraph (d)) they'd allow France to lay down the 35,000 tons scheduled for 1929 in 1922 since that was the block of tonnage allotted to replace the battlehship France, but would not allow the laying down of the 35,000 tons for 1931, the 35,000 tons for 1932, or the 35,000 tons for 1933 to be advanced to the 1920s.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 20, 2019 12:39:43 GMT -6
|
|
