Technology and Research changes

[KWorld]

Actualy, I did intend to allow specialization so some extent. I did try and design the system so that in order to improve any area, at least two had to be sacrificed.

Heh, sounds like this is something that should be limited to the less expert, then, if there's some particular techs that are more valuable to "jump on" than others.  Or that those super-techs should simply be off-limits for specialization.


In any event, how is it we would do specialization, in general?  I can see some areas that the US historically was behind the times here, and others where they were a bit ahead.

[Tanthalas]

I dont think there will be anymore, atleast thats the impresion I got from snip last night when I asked about spending my remaining startup cash on tech.  Mostly because there are techs that are more "valuble" than others (example nurfing your airship and aircraft techs wouls allow you to bost say layout and engines by one each).

Actualy, I did intend to allow specialization so some extent. I did try and design the system so that in order to improve any area, at least two had to be sacrificed.

Heh, sounds like this is something that should be limited to the less expert, then, if there's some particular techs that are more valuable to "jump on" than others.  Or that those super-techs should simply be off-limits for specialization.


In any event, how is it we would do specialization, in general?  I can see some areas that the US historically was behind the times here, and others where they were a bit ahead.

[KWorld]

One way to do things, if specialization was desired, would be to have further out specialties cost more: for instance, a 1901 technology costs 2 techs, a 1902 technology costs 4, a 1903 technology costs 6, etc.  Or if you wanted to allow specialization but didn't want to see too much of the good stuff, go to a model where such things cost as the square of their advancement: ie, a 1901 tech costs 1 tech, a 1902 costs 4 techs, a 1903 costs 9, etc.

But that's just IF this sort of thing were thought desirable.

[Tanthalas]

thats more or less how it was handled in N2/N3.  Sadly you still had people *looks around and acts inocent* who substantialy advanced one or 2 techs (what I wasnt building 1K ton DDs & Super Fireing battleships in 1900 I swear).  In previous incarnations atleast such advantages proved to be fleating at best.

One way to do things, if specialization was desired, would be to have further out specialties cost more: for instance, a 1901 technology costs 2 techs, a 1902 technology costs 4, a 1903 technology costs 6, etc.  Or if you wanted to allow specialization but didn't want to see too much of the good stuff, go to a model where such things cost as the square of their advancement: ie, a 1901 tech costs 1 tech, a 1902 costs 4 techs, a 1903 costs 9, etc.

But that's just IF this sort of thing were thought desirable.

[snip]

Tan is correct when he says that pre-game specialization of tech will not be allowed. Everyone will start at the 1900 baseline

[snip]

OK, Im going to post a summary of what I believe are all the changes that are still up for debate here.

Changes to Research costs and Research Time

Regarding research, I present the following regarding cost of research. This would allow for research to be conducted more organically wile still useing the N3 tree for speed of start. Instead of having a year that tech can be researched from, it is posible as long as you have the previous technology. It is however much more expensive. The formula is Cost= (Base cost)*(e^(year difference from listed tech)). This also makes it cheaper to catch up on outdated technology. The accompining changes to the research mechanic would be the elimination of the $ cap per turn replacing it with a cap on the number of projects (inclusive of new guns). There would also be no tech trading, you would need to buy finished products instead (this was talked about and I agree with it).

Thoughts?

The only modification to this proposal is the need of time adjustment for very advanced and very obsoleet techs. Any proposals on this?

Reworking of the Naval Propulsion technology tree

OK, I get where you are coming from. I think we both want the same thing, just from different angles. The weight penalties I gave were just out-of-my-hat numbers and were not intended to be very serious. So I propose the folowing as a framework to move forward with. It is unfortunetly going to make the tech a bit more complex, but I think it will be workable in a way that makes the engineering plant a more realistic componate of design.

Naval Propulsion: Steam Plants
1895 Baseline(0): Complex Reciprocating Engines, Engine Year 1900
1902 Advanced (+1): Engine year 1905, Max. non-VTE power 5,000 HP/Shaft,
        Direct-drive Turbines
1905 Cutting Edge (+3) Engine year 1909, Max. non-VTE power 12,000 HP/Shaft
1909: Engine year 1912, Max. non-VTE power 20,000 HP/Shaft
1913: Engine year 1916, Max. non-VTE power 35,000 HP/Shaft
1917: Engine year 1920, Max. non-VTE power 40,000 HP/Shaft, Engine year = year laid down.

This part is just the first secton of the N3 tree. It stays as is for all direct-drive steam plants. Diesels would get there own tree, and Nobody's looks like a good starting place. (We dont need it pre-start I think, so can we back-burrner it until we get the sim rolling?)

Naval Propulsion: Drive Systems
1895: Baseline(0): Direct drives.
1902: Experimental non-direct drives. 85% of direct drive SHP. Electric OR Geared OR Hydraulic
1909: First generation non-direct drives. 100% of direct drive SHP. Electric OR Geared OR Hydraulic
1913: Second generation non-direct drives. 115% of direct drive SHP. Electric OR Geared OR Hydraulic
1917: Third generation non-direct drives. 130% of direct drive SHP. Electric OR Geared OR Hydraulic

For this tech, each drive option (Electric, Hydraulic, Geared) would have to have each level researched separately. I only want one tree in total, and all levels would function like the 1910 Reserves tech. Each drive class would have a set % for weight penalties (if applicable) and range bonus (if applicable) regardless of level. All numbers are out of my hat, and are just there for comparative reasons. I feel that allowing for experimental drives earlier at less SHP then DD-turbines will help show the techs in there infancy and increase the amount of time that DD-turbines remain a viable option.

The rememder of Engine tech then looks like this.

Miscellaneous propulsion technology:
1900 Underway Recoaling
1906 Oil-firing boilers: Allows bunkers with larger than 10% percentage for oil
1915 Underway Oiling

This leaves the matting of turbines (and eventually diesels) and there drives-to-shaft up to both levels, which I feel is a bit more logical then having differing engine years for each type of drive. Thoughts?

For Diesels I propose (year is year to be used and probably engine year as well, because I don't know how much time research requires, haven't thought about the weight penalties yet):
1912: max 500-1000 hp per shaft, no weight modification, 3x range
1917: max 12000 hp per shaft, lighter than direct drive, 2.5x range
1930: max 26000 hp per shaft, x1% heavier than geared turbine, 2x range
1935: max 40000 hp per shaft, x2% heavier than geared turbine, 2x range
1940: max 55000 hp per shaft, x3% heavier than geared turbine, 2x range

I beleave this was where the discution had tappered off. Any further thoughts on this?

Change to Oil Firing tech

Or have the transition be more gradual:

1901: Mixed firing: allows bunkers with up to 25% percentage of oil.
1905: Oil firing: allows bunkers with over 25% percentage of oil.

I like it, if the 1906 date for pure oil-firing is kept. Its a year, so not that much difference.

Any further thoughts on this?

I think these were all the changes under discution, if I missed anything, let me know and I will update this post.

[KWorld]

Reworking of the Naval Propulsion technology tree

OK, I get where you are coming from. I think we both want the same thing, just from different angles. The weight penalties I gave were just out-of-my-hat numbers and were not intended to be very serious. So I propose the folowing as a framework to move forward with. It is unfortunetly going to make the tech a bit more complex, but I think it will be workable in a way that makes the engineering plant a more realistic componate of design.

Naval Propulsion: Steam Plants
1895 Baseline(0): Complex Reciprocating Engines, Engine Year 1900
1902 Advanced (+1): Engine year 1905, Max. non-VTE power 5,000 HP/Shaft,
        Direct-drive Turbines
1905 Cutting Edge (+3) Engine year 1909, Max. non-VTE power 12,000 HP/Shaft
1909: Engine year 1912, Max. non-VTE power 20,000 HP/Shaft
1913: Engine year 1916, Max. non-VTE power 35,000 HP/Shaft
1917: Engine year 1920, Max. non-VTE power 40,000 HP/Shaft, Engine year = year laid down.

This part is just the first secton of the N3 tree. It stays as is for all direct-drive steam plants. Diesels would get there own tree, and Nobody's looks like a good starting place. (We dont need it pre-start I think, so can we back-burrner it until we get the sim rolling?)

Naval Propulsion: Drive Systems
1895: Baseline(0): Direct drives.
1902: Experimental non-direct drives. 85% of direct drive SHP. Electric OR Geared OR Hydraulic
1909: First generation non-direct drives. 100% of direct drive SHP. Electric OR Geared OR Hydraulic
1913: Second generation non-direct drives. 115% of direct drive SHP. Electric OR Geared OR Hydraulic
1917: Third generation non-direct drives. 130% of direct drive SHP. Electric OR Geared OR Hydraulic

For this tech, each drive option (Electric, Hydraulic, Geared) would have to have each level researched separately. I only want one tree in total, and all levels would function like the 1910 Reserves tech. Each drive class would have a set % for weight penalties (if applicable) and range bonus (if applicable) regardless of level. All numbers are out of my hat, and are just there for comparative reasons. I feel that allowing for experimental drives earlier at less SHP then DD-turbines will help show the techs in there infancy and increase the amount of time that DD-turbines remain a viable option.

The rememder of Engine tech then looks like this.

Miscellaneous propulsion technology:
1900 Underway Recoaling
1906 Oil-firing boilers: Allows bunkers with larger than 10% percentage for oil
1915 Underway Oiling

This leaves the matting of turbines (and eventually diesels) and there drives-to-shaft up to both levels, which I feel is a bit more logical then having differing engine years for each type of drive. Thoughts?

For Diesels I propose (year is year to be used and probably engine year as well, because I don't know how much time research requires, haven't thought about the weight penalties yet):
1912: max 500-1000 hp per shaft, no weight modification, 3x range
1917: max 12000 hp per shaft, lighter than direct drive, 2.5x range
1930: max 26000 hp per shaft, x1% heavier than geared turbine, 2x range
1935: max 40000 hp per shaft, x2% heavier than geared turbine, 2x range
1940: max 55000 hp per shaft, x3% heavier than geared turbine, 2x range

I beleave this was where the discution had tappered off. Any further thoughts on this?

Geared should be at least 10 years behind turbo-electric, they weren't available at all until the gear-cutting state of the art was advanced enough to allow for very high precision gear cutting in the early 1910s.

Hydraulic..... technically it doesn't seem to be as problematic as geared, it looks like no one thought of it until really too late for it to take off.  From sources like http://books.google.com/books?id=ZNA3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA709&lpg=PA709&dq=Fottinger+hydraulic&source=bl&ots=uY3Coo1ppu&sig=yp8cshG5rAkIdcn37dfZpPZY52w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xVRfUJGsBa78yAHZ_4CACg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Fottinger%20hydraulic&f=false, it seems that the hydraulic drive was a very compact unit, perhaps even smaller than a geared drive.  In a straight-up test, with the hydraulic drives piping separate from the turbine, the best efficiency was around 90% of what a geared system could do, though if the transmission was used as a "pre-heater" for the water going into the turbine, less fuel would be needed to turn it into steam so the efficiency would be increased.  First tested in 1908, planned for installation in various late WWI German warships, but never actually installed.

[Nobody]

Yes, how exactly is our research going to work? Like the N3 systems with growing probabilities OR with that interesting formula posted somewhere else? Either way how long is it going to take on average and how do we handle prerequisites? Do I only need the previous tech or can't I start before the given year has past (as in N3)?

[Tanthalas]

I think part of it is going to be based on world events but also that interesting formula (which is causing me to do much work on my spreadsheat) is going to be used.

Yes, how exactly is our research going to work? Like the N3 systems with growing probabilities OR with that interesting formula posted somewhere else? Either way how long is it going to take on average and how do we handle prerequisites? Do I only need the previous tech or can't I start before the given year has past (as in N3)?

[snip]

Yes, how exactly is our research going to work? Like the N3 systems with growing probabilities OR with that interesting formula posted somewhere else? Either way how long is it going to take on average and how do we handle prerequisites? Do I only need the previous tech or can't I start before the given year has past (as in N3)?

I think that leaving it like the N3 system is best, with tweeks to account for changes to research structure. For any given tech, you would need the prior one on the tree in order to start, but you would no longer be tied to the listed date. The listed date has an effect on the cost of researching the tech in comparison to the game year. I don't know what sort of time modifier I want, but I think one should be included.

Example: On turn one, the United Kingdom begins researching 1902 Steam Plants. The cost to do so is determined by (BaseCost)e^(Tech year-Game year), which in this case would make it $1*e^(1902-1900) or 1e^(2) per turn of research.

Large Block of text

Keeping the drives even is just simpler overall while still providing differences between the levels of drives. I feel that while we do need to account for differing developments of drive technologies, that dispersing the elements into to many trees becomes overly complicated.

[Nobody]

Geared should be at least 10 years behind turbo-electric, they weren't available at all until the gear-cutting state of the art was advanced enough to allow for very high precision gear cutting in the early 1910s.

Hydraulic..... technically it doesn't seem to be as problematic as geared, it looks like no one thought of it until really too late for it to take off.  From sources like http://books.google.com/books?id=ZNA3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA709&lpg=PA709&dq=Fottinger+hydraulic&source=bl&ots=uY3Coo1ppu&sig=yp8cshG5rAkIdcn37dfZpPZY52w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xVRfUJGsBa78yAHZ_4CACg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Fottinger%20hydraulic&f=false, it seems that the hydraulic drive was a very compact unit, perhaps even smaller than a geared drive.  In a straight-up test, with the hydraulic drives piping separate from the turbine, the best efficiency was around 90% of what a geared system could do, though if the transmission was used as a "pre-heater" for the water going into the turbine, less fuel would be needed to turn it into steam so the efficiency would be increased.  First tested in 1908, planned for installation in various late WWI German warships, but never actually installed.

Yea, that's pretty much it. But when HMS Hood was laid down, geared drives already ahead.
There is an interesting German page about it, including a rather interesting list of ships build with hydraulic (water) drive systems.



Which brings me back to a different matter.
We want players make decisions and specializing in certain matters, right? In which case I think the choice should matter, and that means I would like there to be an actual difference between the drive systems (best early system-> hydraulic, best 1920 system -> electric, most powerful early and best long-term system -> geared) with the geared drive also being the "standard" not requiring any modifications aside setting the engine year.



Engine Year vs Misc. Weight
From my point of view using the engine year, even if vastly different from the year laid down are the following:

• setting it is a necessity anyway
  
• SpringSharp does the calculations for us, especially handy if you're toying around with power or speed
  
• it can be set ahead or back, while you can only add but not subtract misc. weight.
  The disadvantage is that the range has to be corrected, because the engine year effects the fuel consumption.
  
  
  @snip, maybe we make a poll concerning the tree engine tech possibilities and then make the best of the result instead of an endless discussion? Shall I?

[snip]

Go ahead an make a poll. I do want the choice of drives to matter, and fully agree that it will add to the game. My personal "meh" factor about using engine year is that the weight of the propulsion plant itself (boilers, turbines, diesels ect) is something independent of drive system weight. What I would like to see possible, would be for someone to theoretically be able to have baseline engines and top level drive technology.

[Nobody]

...I do want the choice of drives to matter, and fully agree that it will add to the game. My personal "meh" factor about using engine year is that the weight of the propulsion plant itself (boilers, turbines, diesels ect) is something independent of drive system weight. What I would like to see possible, would be for someone to theoretically be able to have baseline engines and top level drive technology.

Now that would be really cool, but I don't think we would be able to find numbers for that. Hard enough to find figures like the ones for Bismarck stating that a turbo-electric power-plant - in total - would have been 20% bigger. (Not surprising if you consider that while you fill the turbine-rooms with electric motors, you now still need a place to put a generator 4 times the size and a giant turbine. Not to mention tree-sized cables)

[KWorld]

The USN did a similar exercise in 1935, they came up with 10% larger for the same power and efficiency.

[Nobody]

Here is my idea so far. You can start researching if you have the predecessor, or if you have a tech on the same level/line. if there is no predecessor you can start right away.
I think it would be a good idea to make VTE techs cheaper and grant them automatically once you have one other tech in the same line.

	VTE		direct-drive T.		geared		turbo-electric			hydraulic
reference year	engine year	cruise range	engine year	shp limit per shaft	engine year	shp limit per shaft	engine year	shp limit per shaft	cruise range	engine year	shp limit per shaft
1895	1900
1902	1905		1903	10500
1905	1909	+5%	1905	20000	1909	15000	1908	10000	+	1910	10000
1909	1912	+10%	1907	22000	1912	25000	1911	25000		1914	30000
1913	1916	+25%	1909	25000	1916	30000	1915	40000		1918	35000
1917	1920	+40%	1912	28000	1920	41000	1919	50000	+20%	1921	42000
1922	1925	+40%			1925	45000	1921	60000	+25%	1925	45000
1927	1930	+35%			1930	50000	1923	70000	+35%	1929	48000
1932	1935	+35%			1935	55000	1926		+30%	1933	52000
1937	1940	+35%			1940	60000	1931		+25%	1938	55000
1942	1945	+30%			1945	70000	1935		?	1942	60000
1945	1950	+30%			1950		1939		?	1946	65000

Comments, questions, ideas?