Fort Upkeep (and RR Guns Upkeep)

Blooded · December 15, 2009, 01:22:24 AM

Hello All,

I just noticed that the Fort upkeep costs(6 Citadel-which used to equal a corps) are twice the cost of an Army Corps. I had totally missed that in the conversations, is it correct? And if so, is everyone aware?

In recalculating my Army upkeep I noticed it would jump up $6(around 30%)!

For what it is worth I hope that it is wrong. If correct it would mean that fort garrisons cost 6 times what the mobile infantry do-man for man! I can except higher buying costs but not higher upkeep, at least not that much. I would suggest the same as regular corps or even half of that(which would still be 33% more man for man).

I would except a higher level of ammo use in wartime if that is what was being represented.

-----------------------------

Also, I had mentioned it before but I think it got lost in another subject. Railguns still show an enormous Upkeep verses CD guns. They probably should be reduced to the same levels as infantry(10% at wartime).

Guinness · December 15, 2009, 07:33:42 AM

I've moved the discussion we had to General Army Discussion to make it easier to find, but it's here: http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=2869.0

On page two is a discussion of upkeep costs.

However I don't believe it's that forts got more expensive, it's that army upkeep got cheaper, and unfortunately the two changes didn't come about at the same time.

miketr · December 15, 2009, 10:56:02 AM

If you look in the old rules.

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?board=164.0

You see that a corps sized fort, what we now call a 6 citadel fort, had upkeep costs based on the matching tech level infantry corps.

Then when we went to the new upkeep rules forts upkeep became based on there construction cost not on the matching infantry corps. The new costs found here.

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=4345.0

As you can see that upkeep of fort dropped with the new system. It didn't drop as much as infantry did, which became far cheaper. In effect forts became more expensive but only relative to infantry and only in terms of upkeep.

Michael

Kaiser Kirk · December 15, 2009, 11:27:24 AM

Since the old generic Forts became 6-Citadel structures, they also saved quite a bit in manpower. With a 5-7% cap, this is of interest for countries with larger neighbors, like Bavaria :)

Armored Trains continue to have the old upkeep, as that got overlooked.
"Half-yearly maintenance is 25% of cost when mobilized, 12.5% when active and 2.5% in reserve. "

There also continues to be a disconnect between the tech tree,
which allows research into "Railway guns" and the available army unit which is an "Armored Train". The two are not quite the same, and a simple RR gun would require less metal.

Walter · December 15, 2009, 11:51:58 AM

I used the Armored train for the railway guns I recently built cause there wasn't anything else to use. For my railway guns I used existing guns to give some idea how they would look like.

The 15 cm SK L/45 "Nathan" was 54.6 tons. Using the Armored train rule, I had to pay 100 tons (0.1BP) for it.

The 21 cm SK "Peter Adalbert" was 108.7 tons. Using the Armored train rule, I had to pay 200 tons (0.2BP) for it.

The 28 cm SK L/40 "Bruno" was 154 tons. Using the Armored train rule, I had to pay 650 tons (0.65BP) for it.

While I think the first two are reasonable (assuming that the cost includes a locomotive and a few wagons with ammo and the crew), the gap with the last one is quite big. I might be wrong but perhaps the fact is that when it comes to BPs, everything beyond 8.27" for a railway gun is just too expensive using the armored train rule while all the armored trains below 8.27" are too cheap compared to figures that to me seem reasonable for just a railway gun that is less than 8.27".

Kaiser Kirk · December 15, 2009, 12:15:40 PM

Quote
I used the Armored train for the railway guns I recently built cause there wasn't anything else to use.

Which is what I did. Researched the carriage, researched a 10 " gun to put in it, then built 6 to serve as siege artillery. I just don't get the price and the maintenance cost.

Another factor is that "armored trains" generally didn't sport large naval rifles. Smaller howitzers and some automatic weapons were all that was needed.

my little artillery book by Hogg has some RR art figures.
Lists a 240 Mle 93/96 as wt in action of : 140,000kg / 137.75 tons, or 0.138 BP
A 320 mle 1870/93 as 162,000kg / 159.3 tons or 0.159 BP

WWII K5(E)
28cm, 218,000kg / 214.6tons / 0.215 BP

An outlier is the WWII K12(E) with a long barrel. Lobbed shells up to 55 miles.
A 21cm K12(E) came in at 302,000kg or 297.28 tons or 0.297 BP

As for the locomotive and flatcars, most of that would be for transport. I don't know how they worked in action, but I would presume you'd leave a small locomotive, or a simple steam/diesel donkey engine with a pulley system to pull the gun back into firing position. I don't see the flat cars being any different than army supply, or mercantile shipping. Those elements aren't special high quality steels or specialized construction. If there was a cost for them, it should be low, and fairly fixed irregardless of gun size.

Guinness · December 15, 2009, 12:19:52 PM

How much RR arty and armored train customization is desired?

Would a set of tables such as those we did for coastal artillery suffice? I'm thinking of being able to piece together a train from a standardized set of parts, ie a locomotive, cars to support x number of guns of y caliber, and cars to support z number of troops, etc.

Kaiser Kirk · December 15, 2009, 12:34:51 PM

I'd be happy with lowered maintenance costs to match ships. It's a big hunk of metal with simpler engines and fittings that is *not* sitting in water. Shouldn't take more to maintain than something a great deal more complex that is sitting in water and subjected to saltwater baths.

Beyond that, I'd rather see Armored trains listed as a separate line, and have RR guns simply be separate. Or have the "armor" be an optional additional cost.

Walter · December 15, 2009, 12:52:23 PM

Now I assume you should pay for the whole train, so the wagons and the locomotive and the guns and the armor and the men.

http://blinda.ld.infoseek.co.jp/vkg_214a.html
http://kurogane-rail.jp/sl/e9600.html
Looking at the Japanese Temporary Armored Train, the biggest gun is 150mm so it would be 0.1BP to pay for that train according to our rules. Yet the locomotive used for that train (The page says 1D so I think it is a 9600 class which is the only 2-8-0 loc on the page) has a weight of ~60 tons while the tender is ~35 tons so a total of ~95 tons.

http://blinda.ld.infoseek.co.jp/vkg_214b.html
http://kurogane-rail.jp/sl/ed50.html
Type 94 Armored Train. Biggest gun is 105mm so it would probably be 0.1BP as well. Locomotive is a 1D1 'Mikado', a D50 class, so that one is 78 tons.

... and those are weights without the armor plating on the locomotive.

Looking at wiki, there's not much info I can find there on armored trains and weights.

The Gromobój. Biggest gun =???. Locomotive is a kkStB Class 229 which has a service weight of ~67 tons.
The Smok Kaszubski. Biggest gun = 47mm. Locomotive is an OKl27 which is ~85 tons.

Now for the two big ones (everything greater than 10.75"), that does not seem to be too much of a problem. The smaller ones are just too cheap when it comes to BP.

Looking at it, I think the first three values are probably right for railway guns but too cheap for armored trains. The last two values are probably right for the armored trains but too expensive for railway guns.

Just throwing something simple out.

RR gun
5"-6" --------- 0.1BP
7.5"-8.27" ---- 0.2BP
9.2"-10" ------ 0.3BP
10.75"-12" ---- 0.4BP
13"-14" ------- 0.5BP

$ cost is double the BP cost.

Armored train is double the RR gun cost of the specific level.

Kaiser Kirk · December 16, 2009, 10:55:39 AM

I would think that the railcar and locomotive construction would be to civilian standards, not utilizing any special steels or extra framing, and thus the equivalent of nautical mercantile construction.

If we can build a 4000 ton merchantman with oil-fired steam turbine engines for 1 BP, why would the locomotive and railcars - which I expect would be simpler to build- not also be reduced?

Guinness · December 16, 2009, 11:27:38 AM

Well, we need to start somewhere...

I agree that the common railway car will have very little BP impact. However, I suspect that a Locomotive is going to cost very close to the full cost in BP. Just to stab at a number, let's say the average Loco is 150t. If we're paying full freight (see what I did there?), that's going to be $0.15 and 0.15 BP.

So following that thought out, maybe we assign that as the "base cost" of any railway artillery setup or armored train? Add to that costs from some table similar to (or maybe even reusing) the coastal artillery table?

Actually, now that I've written that, the idea of reusing the CD table seems elegant in it's own way. Does that idea work though? Railway artillery/armored trains enthusiasts, please?

Kaiser Kirk · December 16, 2009, 11:42:31 AM

actually, none of the locomotives in Walter's post are over 100t.
I'm hardly an enthusiast, Walter seems to have dug into them more.

And yes, I note and honor the pun. :)
My problem is I think of them all the time and far to many escape into the wild, dismaying those about me.

Borys · December 16, 2009, 11:56:02 AM

Ahoj!
Please keep in mind that Japanese locos are 1067mm gauge, not 1435mm. The broader you are, the more you weight, as any woman would know ...
Borys

Guinness · December 16, 2009, 11:57:36 AM

150t was just stabbing a reasonable sounding round number for argument's sake. Let's not hang up on that now...

I'm more interested in the question on the end of my post: do we think maybe we could simply reuse the CD table (more or less) for our railway arty/armored train costs too?

Walter · December 16, 2009, 12:25:08 PM

I would not be surprised if this one is enough to pull a railroad gun of various calibers, with the probable exception of the really big ones (like the Schwerer Gustav) and it is not even 21 tons.
http://kurogane-rail.jp/sl/eb20.html

QuotePlease keep in mind that Japanese locos are 1067mm gauge, not 1435mm. The broiader you are, the more you weight, as any woman would know ...

One of the locos (kkStB Class 229) was Austrian and the other (OKl27) was Polish. Both are standard gauge, not narrow gauge. Also Broader does not necessarily mean heavier. The 9600 class is heavier than the kkStB Class 229 and the Mikado is heavier than both of them eventhough the Japanese locomotives are narrow gauge.

Quote150t was just stabbing a reasonable sounding round number for argument's sake.

It surprises me that you did not go for a nice sounding 0.5BP. That, of course, is somewhere in the vicinity of the really big locomotives. :D

Quotedo we think maybe we could simply reuse the CD table (more or less) for our railway arty/armored train costs too?

I think it really depends what exactly it is we'll need to pay for. Does it include the locomotive? Does it include the various wagons needed? Is it just the guns and armor you need to pay for and are locomotives and wagons already paid for with the constructions of ICs?