BGForums

BattleGoat Studios
It is currently Nov 21 2017

All times are UTC-05:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: HMS Canada
PostPosted: Aug 26 2017 
Offline
Brigadier Gen.

Joined: Nov 29 2010
Posts: 515
Human: Yes
This was one of a class of 2 battleships being built for the Chilean navy. The ship which would be renamed into the HMS Canada was nearly complete at the outbreak of war, so it's potentially debatable whether you want to include it as a finished ship, but I would lean in favor of adding it as it was virtually finished. It should definitely be added for the 1917 scenario though as it was in service at that time. Her sister ship didn't see real construction begin until 1917 and at that time was converted into an aircraft carrier (HMS Eagle), so could be a buildable design but shouldn't be in either of the current starts. She had a speed of 42km/h.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: HMS Canada
PostPosted: Aug 26 2017 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 08 2005
Posts: 1272
The question was posed on an earlier thread as to how BG was going to handle ships that were not yet in commission at the beginning of SRGW. An answer to that post has not been received.

That also applies to the future HMS Canada, which at the beginning of the game would be Chilean navy [iAlmirante Latorre[/i], along with sister-ship Almirante Cochrane building in the UK.

The initial BG response was that Supreme Ruler has
Quote:
no contracts
, meaning no ship can be contracted to be built by another.

So, what does BG do? Do they award the ship to Chile - as I think it should be - or should it be in the Royal Navy or other Commonwealth navy (as with HMS Canada).

The full Royal Navy naval order-of-battle - at beginning of game - clarifies some of the below posts of what can be in the game, but still leaves BG to explain:
* * the issue of ships not yet built?

* * and, what to do with numerous battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines building in foreign shipyards that get interned for the navy whose country is building them. Clarity is appreciated. :-)


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: HMS Canada
PostPosted: Aug 26 2017 
Offline
Brigadier Gen.

Joined: Nov 29 2010
Posts: 515
Human: Yes
Well, for the most part I don't think ships being built will be counted. In this case, the sister ship likely won't be represented in the game as anything except potentially a buildable design, but won't appear as an actual ship in the OOB or in the construction queue. The HMS Canada herself is potentially trickier, seeing as she was pretty much complete at the time the war began. Even still, I can understand if they decide not to add it into the 1914 OOB but it should still be included in the 1917 one.

But any ship that's in various stages of construction by the starting point will pretty much just disappear unless you choose to manually build it yourself. I feel this is simply the easiest option available seeing as engine limitations won't make it possible to do otherwise.

Any ship that was already seaworthy and historically seized by the power at the outset of war, serving for the entire duration of the war, should be included in the OOB as it was effectively a part of their navy from the outset.


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 26 2017 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 08 2005
Posts: 1272
I recognize that is your view, but believe the larger body needs to have what BG is going to do with this. :-)


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC-05:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited