|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 6, 2018 14:28:15 GMT -6
As you may know, non-democracies can cheat slightly on the displacement of the treaties already in RTW1. Blatant disregard is another thing, and I am not sure that is needed. IIRC Yamato was not in disregard of any treaty, as Japan had withdrawn from the WNT before starting building her.
|
|
tuna
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by tuna on Sept 6, 2018 17:58:56 GMT -6
Very promising. Does this mean treaties will be more detailed in Rtw2? Probably not very. It will be complicated to implement all possible aspects of treaties. Like the tonnage ratios of the WNT for example. Hard to predict relative strengths and what would come out of a negotiation. The single change I'd really want out of a treaty system is modelling treaty cruisers distinct from the battleships. The historical CA (10 000t, 8in guns) just shouldn't exist without a treaty enforcing it, and they usually don't exist in RTW as it is. I think this is a loss, because in all their fragility and unbalancedness they are interesting to fight with. If you edit in a treaty that creates them, all the battleships get wonky.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 6, 2018 18:43:59 GMT -6
The single change I'd really want out of a treaty system is modelling treaty cruisers distinct from the battleships. The historical CA (10 000t, 8in guns) just shouldn't exist without a treaty enforcing it, and they usually don't exist in RTW as it is. I think this is a loss, because in all their fragility and unbalancedness they are interesting to fight with. If you edit in a treaty that creates them, all the battleships get wonky. I wouldn't be so certain. The British Hawkins class (~10,000 tons, 7.5" guns) predated the Washington Naval Treaty and I wouldn't think it unlikely that similar ships would have been developed by other nations to counter them, and as a group such cruisers would be notably dissimilar to the more typical ~5000t 6" cruisers of the First World War period and probably also the ~5,000-8,000t 6" cruisers typical of non-US Treaty-period light cruisers to be considered as a different type of cruiser.
I'd agree, however, that it is unlikely that such cruisers would have stabilized on 10,000 tons and 8" guns or been built in the numbers in which historical heavy cruisers were built without the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty and subsequent treaties.
|
|
|
Post by millsian on Sept 11, 2018 2:02:11 GMT -6
This thread has already cost me GBP14 as I am now reading the excellent “warships after Washington “ book !
|
|
|
Post by spartyon on Sept 11, 2018 4:50:16 GMT -6
This thread has already cost me GBP14 as I am now reading the excellent “warships after Washington “ book ! Read it a few months ago. Good book. It was interesting how countries dealt with the 10000 tonne limit on cruisers differently. Warplan Orange is also a good book. Its about the different interwar plans the United States had to deal with Japan.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 11, 2018 7:56:25 GMT -6
The treaty can be found here if somebody is interested.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 11, 2018 8:23:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 11, 2018 12:50:40 GMT -6
Hello spartyon - welcome to the forums! We have internally discussed exactly such an option earlier during development, but I cannot say at this point if it will be included or not. If such an option is included I will be sure to make it a part of an update post in the Developers Journal. Thanks! Check out the Developers Journal (i.e. I should keep with the latest alphas as Fredrik just reminded me):
I see a Versailles treaty checkbox. Would it be possible to have 1920 games start with a random punitive treaty in effect, rather than just Versailles?
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 11, 2018 12:54:54 GMT -6
As you may know, non-democracies can cheat slightly on the displacement of the treaties already in RTW1. Blatant disregard is another thing, and I am not sure that is needed. IIRC Yamato was not in disregard of any treaty, as Japan had withdrawn from the WNT before starting building her. But in RTW1, there's no way to repudiate a treaty unilaterally, or before the next war. An event where the politicians ask about repudiating a treaty (at a high prestige/tension tradeoff) might be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 11, 2018 13:17:45 GMT -6
As you may know, non-democracies can cheat slightly on the displacement of the treaties already in RTW1. Blatant disregard is another thing, and I am not sure that is needed. IIRC Yamato was not in disregard of any treaty, as Japan had withdrawn from the WNT before starting building her. But in RTW1, there's no way to repudiate a treaty unilaterally, or before the next war. An event where the politicians ask about repudiating a treaty (at a high prestige/tension tradeoff) might be interesting. Good point! Will consider it.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Sept 16, 2018 8:28:19 GMT -6
Will there be a possibility to violate a treaty you are a signatory of? Obviously at a risk that you get found out if you don't have high enough counter espionage spending or just by random event chance. That way we can be like Japan and flagrantly disregard the Treaty in the hopes of building Superbattleships/Supercarriers. Japan didn't flagrantly break the WT at all. Sure, it went very weird ways to exploit loopholes in the treaty (Building Ryujo under 8000 tons so it wouldn't be qualifiable as "carrier" by the treaty - even while it ended up so unstable that they had to completely rebuild it), or to undermine the spirit of the treaty if not the letter (Building the whole series of 15-gun "light cruisers" with the specific purpose to rebuild them as 8'' heavy cruisers as soon as the treaty was over), or to severely understate the displacement of their units (like they did with the aforementioned cruisers, which were all well avobe the 10k ton limit). But they didn't "openly" violate the treaty. The Yamatos began building after they had announced they would withdraw from the treaty and not sign the new '36 London Treaty. The Shokakus began being built before the treaty expired, but weren't complete until it was (a breach of the spirit of the treaty, if not of the word). The Yamatos were shrouded in secrecy not to hid the fact they breached any treaties (they didn't, they began construction after Japan was unbound by any treaty), but to mask it's true potential - and particularily so the real caliber of their guns (it wasn't until after the Pacific War was over that the allies found out that the ship had 460mm guns, they thought they had 16'' weapons, for instance).
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Sept 17, 2018 1:36:29 GMT -6
Will there be a possibility to violate a treaty you are a signatory of? Obviously at a risk that you get found out if you don't have high enough counter espionage spending or just by random event chance. That way we can be like Japan and flagrantly disregard the Treaty in the hopes of building Superbattleships/Supercarriers. Japan didn't flagrantly break the WT at all. Sure, it went very weird ways to exploit loopholes in the treaty (Building Ryujo under 8000 tons so it wouldn't be qualifiable as "carrier" by the treaty - even while it ended up so unstable that they had to completely rebuild it), or to undermine the spirit of the treaty if not the letter (Building the whole series of 15-gun "light cruisers" with the specific purpose to rebuild them as 8'' heavy cruisers as soon as the treaty was over), or to severely understate the displacement of their units (like they did with the aforementioned cruisers, which were all well avobe the 10k ton limit). But they didn't "openly" violate the treaty. The Yamatos began building after they had announced they would withdraw from the treaty and not sign the new '36 London Treaty. The Shokakus began being built before the treaty expired, but weren't complete until it was (a breach of the spirit of the treaty, if not of the word). The Yamatos were shrouded in secrecy not to hid the fact they breached any treaties (they didn't, they began construction after Japan was unbound by any treaty), but to mask it's true potential - and particularily so the real caliber of their guns (it wasn't until after the Pacific War was over that the allies found out that the ship had 460mm guns, they thought they had 16'' weapons, for instance). Sure sounds like blatant disregard to me.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 17, 2018 6:46:52 GMT -6
If you build a ship larger than the treaty limit allows, you have 'openly' violated the treaty, at least by my definition.
I'd admit that the US (and Britain) indulged in some sea-lawyering and rules-slicing ('Lexington' and 'Saratoga' coming in at 33,000 tons each comes to mind) but they were open about their reasoning - they claimed the ships were 33,000 tons and still met treaty definitions, they didn't claim the ships were 25,000 tons apiece.
Any reasonable comparison of 'Atago' and a County-class or a 'New Orleans'-class would lead one to conclude that Japan cheated. But the naval treaties had no teeth - there was no penalty for cheating short of war - and the two Western naval powers had such a low opinion of Japanese naval power that they didn't pursue it.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Sept 18, 2018 23:21:51 GMT -6
Japan didn't flagrantly break the WT at all. Sure, it went very weird ways to exploit loopholes in the treaty (Building Ryujo under 8000 tons so it wouldn't be qualifiable as "carrier" by the treaty - even while it ended up so unstable that they had to completely rebuild it), or to undermine the spirit of the treaty if not the letter (Building the whole series of 15-gun "light cruisers" with the specific purpose to rebuild them as 8'' heavy cruisers as soon as the treaty was over), or to severely understate the displacement of their units (like they did with the aforementioned cruisers, which were all well avobe the 10k ton limit). But they didn't "openly" violate the treaty. The Yamatos began building after they had announced they would withdraw from the treaty and not sign the new '36 London Treaty. The Shokakus began being built before the treaty expired, but weren't complete until it was (a breach of the spirit of the treaty, if not of the word). The Yamatos were shrouded in secrecy not to hid the fact they breached any treaties (they didn't, they began construction after Japan was unbound by any treaty), but to mask it's true potential - and particularily so the real caliber of their guns (it wasn't until after the Pacific War was over that the allies found out that the ship had 460mm guns, they thought they had 16'' weapons, for instance). Sure sounds like blatant disregard to me. the same disregard the US had when they claimed the Saratogas were treaty compliant when they really weren't. It's not as if Japan undestating tonnages of some ships was exclusive to them - to some point or another all nations, bar the british, did it in some way or another, and you can't go around saying that they were flagrantly breaking the WT/LT... at any rate what's for sure is that whatever breach the japanese did of the Treaties wasn't related with any wish to build a "Superbattleship or supercarrier". Both the Yamato and Shokaku classes were built only after Japan had announced they were not going to renew the London Treaty.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 19, 2018 1:25:04 GMT -6
Sure sounds like blatant disregard to me. the same disregard the US had when they claimed the Saratogas were treaty compliant when they really weren't. It's not as if Japan undestating tonnages of some ships was exclusive to them - to some point or another all nations, bar the british, did it in some way or another, and you can't go around saying that they were flagrantly breaking the WT/LT... at any rate what's for sure is that whatever breach the japanese did of the Treaties wasn't related with any wish to build a "Superbattleship or supercarrier". Both the Yamato and Shokaku classes were built only after Japan had announced they were not going to renew the London Treaty. Lexington and Saratoga was according to WNT. Read the treaty, article IX. For UK and USA these converted carriers were crucial to develop carriers tactics. During this years both nations comes to same conclusion that the first hit wins. In USA there was even thinking to solve this problems by increase number of decks and building more but smaller carriers. Lucky for USA it was not done and Yorktown class was backbone of carrier force with 2 Lexingtons.. In UK this issue was raised again when threat of Italy came and they solved it by armoring carrier and creating Illustrious class. Another effect of this exercises was that USN split their carriers and create TFs so that if one TF is destroyed other can fight back. RN on opposite have all carriers in one basket that they can be defended with higher force. Different environment get different approaches as USN operated carriers in blue waters where hit and run was main strategy, UK operated carriers mainly in European theatre where you cannot hide carrier so you need to enhanced your defense capabilities to survive attack of land air power, so USN design carriers to have maximum hitting power, to operate in TFs to not jeopardize other carriers if one is under attack. On opposite UK design their carriers to maximum survivability and operating together as one force and night attack by their smaller aircraft complement. And you can see that through the war USN hitting power was on top with USN at start of Pacific war and was never matched by RN as RN defense capabilities was on top and was matched by USN only very late in the war. IJN had similar strategy with first hit first win however they neglected passive defense capabilities completely. They used one force to defend carriers but with they limited passive defense capabilities when they CAP was overwhelmed their losses rose too much.
|
|