Merchant ship ideas

[spacenerd4]

The merchants that are supplied with the game are okay for the first 20 years of the game. However, I believe that by the end of the game, merchants become ridiculously slow and unrealistic looking. Therefore, I propose the following.

-New and better hull forms to reflect 20s, 30s and 40s ships
-Higher displacement XL merchants near ports from 40s on
-If you have a certain tech unlocked, invasion transports have 1 4in gun on the front
-Raise speed to 10, 12, then 14 knots
Feel free to suggest any other ideas!

[oldpop2000]

The only comment I have is that most transports were not made for military campaigns and such. You could authorize attack transports and ships like the liberty ships which were designed to be used only once. I believe that this might actually complicate the game. But would support something like the building of attack transports within the game.

[spacenerd4]

I was not implying that all TRs should be armed, only the invasion ones, similar to the Armed Merchants that protect regular convoys.

[brygun]

Considering these are generated for each battle it would be a plausible to have sets of them by decade (simplest) or if certain techs are unlocked (harder)

[oldpop2000]

Sept 15, 2020 6:07:00 GMT -6 spacenerd4 said:

I was not implying that all TRs should be armed, only the invasion ones, similar to the Armed Merchants that protect regular convoys.

During both wars, many merchant ships were armed generally with machine guns and 3 to 6 inch guns. They were not just armed merchant ships. The number of armed TR rose during WW1. September 1916 there were 1749 and by February 1917 there were 2899. 

[oldpop2000]

Interesting document on Conversion of Merchant Ships to War Ships


Conversion of merchant ships to war ships.pdf (177.95 KB)

[brygun]

On a related note the modern idea of merchant ships never having weapons even in wartime had to do with updating definitions on what makes a warship. It was an international agreement, at some point (which oldpop2000 might know), where it was decided to stop the practice. I recall it being after WW2.

As a result though we have desperate people, like coastal Somali, going out in what is little more than fishing boats with AK-47 to threaten, hijack and ransom merchants and passenger ships. The merchants aren't allowed mounted weaponry so fight back with water spray from fire hoses. Armed guards are possible though its also a risk of escalting.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 13, 2020 9:03:45 GMT -6 brygun said:

On a related note the modern idea of merchant ships never having weapons even in wartime had to do with updating definitions on what makes a warship. It was an international agreement, at some point (which oldpop2000 might know), where it was decided to stop the practice. I recall it being after WW2.

As a result though we have desperate people, like coastal Somali, going out in what is little more than fishing boats with AK-47 to threaten, hijack and ransom merchants and passenger ships. The merchants aren't allowed mounted weaponry so fight back with water spray from fire hoses. Armed guards are possible though its also a risk of escalting.

I this what you are referring too? www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c834dd3d-bb76-4064-8cc4-1e12046001d5

[brygun]

In general that's the idea. Its no longer "cannon" (which was 18th/19th century) nor the naval guns of WW2 (e.g. 4") but now the man handled "small arms" such as rifles or perhaps machine guns.

It was a transition in the maritime laws to avoid having merchants being considered warships by limiting/blocking the few naval guns but in turn made small-arms pirates more practicable. Laws protecting them from nation states made them vulnerable to minor warlords and pirates. I believe overall it was the right choice though not without said consequences.

(Pet peeve, political, the poorer nations fight against modernization and then find their people going out as pirates to 'steal' from the same nations that were willing to develop them into more functional economies)