Page 1 of 1
SHELL HYPOCRISY
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:27 am
by operating
Why do the British "Shell Shortage Crisis" memo in the game, if your only limited to 50 shells at any one time? Now with the increased number of England's BBs (3 start 1914) (Germany 2 BBs), included in the 1.30 patch, make it even more of an enigma. Plus it is not an overnight ritual to build up to the cap, even at 10 shells per turn. Plus the investment to even get to a 10 shell turn, it takes alot of money management to accomplish, on top of that you cannot sell back your investments! If a player uses 1 gun and 1 BB per turn for 3 turns virtually depletes a very expensive shell stockpile, tack on 1 more turn for good measure to be completely broke. One might expect to get what you pay for, just like in Research Techs, RRs, or transports.
Why not be able to stockpile Railroads, or Transports that are not used?
Allright, take for instance you lost all your guns, so now you are going to be punished further by restrictions , while building new guns, THAT's BALONEY!
My final thought on this is; You are penalized for not using your gun(s) or BB bombardments, that's braindead!
Re: SHELL HYPOCRISY
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:08 am
by operating
But what is so "arcane" about the game; Is that the Developers do not explain their reasonings to the customers. Such as Game Development Notes, or explain these crucial factors in the Manual. No, These people just let the customers go blindly through a game, to trip over numerous problems. Their attitude must be, screw them, we got their money, why tell the customers the details of the game, or explain abnormalities, that should be addressed!
Sorry, back to the issue at hand; There should be no "SHELL CAP", period.
Re: SHELL HYPOCRISY
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:48 pm
by operating
But, What I would like to hear; What was the formula to arrive at 50? Not all the nations had the same production capabilities during the war. Why were the CP subs sinking convoys? It was not to deny kids toys in London or Paris, there was war materials on those ships. Did you ever hear the expression; "London's Calling"? Yes they were calling North America to send them bombs, shells, bullets, you name it. Matter of fact, At Halifax, Nova Scotia a shipment of munitons blew up in the town, killing hundreds of people, take a guess where the ships were going....
Yes, I get a little heated about different aspects of the game, including the expense of management. If I am laying down more money for goods, ect., there should be more convoys to reflect that. It only makes common sense!
PS; It might have been 2000 who died in Halifax.
Re: SHELL HYPOCRISY
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:16 pm
by operating
quote:
Nova Scotia portal
History of Canada portal
The Halifax Explosion occurred near Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, on the morning of Thursday, December 6, 1917. SS Mont-Blanc, a French cargo ship fully laden with wartime explosives, collided with the Norwegian vessel SS Imo[2] in the Narrows, a strait connecting the upper Halifax Harbour to Bedford Basin. Approximately twenty minutes later, a fire on board the French ship ignited her explosive cargo, causing a cataclysmic explosion that devastated the Richmond District of Halifax. Approximately 2,000 people were killed by debris, fires, and collapsed buildings, and it is estimated that nearly 9,000 others were injured.[3] The blast was the largest man-made explosion prior to the development of nuclear weapons[4] with an equivalent force of roughly 2.9 kilotons of TNT.[5] In a meeting of the Royal Society of Canada in May 1918, Dalhousie University's Professor Howard L. Bronson estimated the blast at some 2400 metric tons of high explosive.[6]
Mont-Blanc was under orders from the French government to carry her highly explosive cargo overseas to Bordeaux, France. At roughly 8:45 am, she collided at slow speed (one to one and a half mph) with the 'in-ballast' (without cargo) Imo, chartered by the Commission for Relief in Belgium to pick up a cargo of relief supplies in New York. The resultant fire aboard the French ship quickly grew out of control. Without adequate and accessible firefighting equipment, the captain, pilot, officers and men were forced to abandon her within a few minutes following the accident. Approximately 20 minutes later (at 9:04:35 am), Mont-Blanc exploded with tremendous force [7] Nearly all structures within a half-mile (800 m) radius, including the entire community of Richmond, were completely obliterated. A pressure wave of air snapped trees, bent iron rails, demolished buildings, grounded vessels, and carried fragments of the Mont-Blanc for kilometres. Hardly a window in the city proper survived the concussion. Across the harbour, in Dartmouth, there was also widespread damage.[3] A tsunami created by the blast wiped out the physical community of Mi’kmaw First Nations people that had lived in the Tuft's Cove area for generations. There were a number of casualties including five children who drowned when the tsunami came ashore at Nevin's Cove.[8]
When I first recalled this explosion, I thought it was a
British HMS ship, even more compelling, it turns out to be a
French SS bound ship,
full of munitions.
Re: SHELL HYPOCRISY
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:01 pm
by operating
The war
began for corporate America long before it started for the common
man. Within two months of the conflict's August 1914 beginning,
Charles Schwab, president of Bethlehem Steel, one of the world's
largest arms merchants, took a profitable trip to London. There,
he secured orders from the British government for millions of artillery
shells, as well as ten 500-ton submarines. Though the construction
of such foreign vessels broke the law, Bethlehem proceeded with
it and the Wilson administration did not stop them. The company
earned $61 million in 1916, more than its combined gross revenues
for the previous eight years.
"The
Bethlehem story is a pithy summary of the evolution of the United
States into a branch of the British armament industry during the
thirty-two months of its neutrality," writes historian Thomas
Fleming in his powerhouse book The
Illusion of Victory: America in World War I. "Wilson
talked – and talked and talked – about neutrality and
apparently convinced himself that he was neutral. But the United
States he was supposedly running was not neutral, in thought, word
or deed, thanks to Wellington House (the engine of British government
propaganda) – and the international banking firm of J. P. Morgan
in New York."
By the
time America declared war on Germany, Morgan was having a bang-up
war of its own. The company had already loaned Britain and France
$2.1 billion (around $30 billion by 2004 standards), and had cleared
$30 million – around $425 million in 2004 dollars – in
profit.
Fleming
summarizes a very effective partnership: "As British and French
orders for ammunition and other war materiel filled the books of
U.S. companies, the pressure for financial assistance to pay for
them grew more and more acute." In other words, the more intense
the fighting, the more arms, ordnance, and supplies the British
and French ordered from American manufacturers, and the more money
they borrowed from American banks.
Some parts of this quote I highlighted, to point out the excess munitions some countries recieved, outside of their own production.
Re: SHELL HYPOCRISY
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:22 pm
by operating
googled this;
U.S. Trade with Belligerents, 1914 - 1916
(Millions of Dollars)
Nation 1914 1915 1916 percent change
Great Britain $594 million 912 1,527 + 257%
France $160 million 369 629 +393%
Italy $74 million 185 269 +364%
Germany $345 million 2 9 .2 9 - 1,150%
What is the trend of U.S. trade from 1914 to 1916? Why?
The WHY is; Increased trade in armaments and ammunitions.