N4 Economic Outline (Not Finished)

[Valles]

I could think of a couple of reasons, like:

• it makes designing a ship to a certain size much simpler (good for beginners)

I'd think that this would be the other way around, if anything. Light tonnage is a constant; fuel load and consumables vary depending on a wide variety of other topics.

• it's the way it was done in OTL as well

If we're doing everything the same way as OTL, what's the point?

• to prevent "fuel hogs"

Why is this considered desirable?

• it's simpler than choosing e.g. empty/standard weight for constructions (pure steel mass) and full load for upkeep (because I expect that ships which carry more fuel are likely to burn more as well)

This is essentially a repetition of one of your earlier points, and still needs support to make any kind of sense.

• the crew size depends on it (EDIT)

...And?

[Nobody]

Well Valles, everything I wrote made sense to me and are my own assumptions.

I could think of a couple of reasons, like:

• it makes designing a ship to a certain size much simpler (good for beginners)

I'd think that this would be the other way around, if anything. Light tonnage is a constant; fuel load and consumables vary depending on a wide variety of other topics.

Yes, but not for SpringSharp.

• to prevent "fuel hogs"

Why is this considered desirable?

I remember a couple of occasions were excessive bunkerage was criticized. If you pay for empty weight only you get range practically for free. I can't believe that's desirable.

• it's simpler than choosing e.g. empty/standard weight for constructions (pure steel mass) and full load for upkeep (because I expect that ships which carry more fuel are likely to burn more as well)

This is essentially a repetition of one of your earlier points, and still needs support to make any kind of sense.

Partially, yes. I was trying to point out that the normal weight might be a good (because simple) compromise in contrast to a more complex system which has a solid reasoning as well.

• the crew size depends on it (EDIT)

...And?

One could have suggested to make the upkeep proportional to the crew size instead, and since crew ~ normal displacement...

Anyway, all of this makes sense to me. If it does not for you... well then we're having opposing opinions... seems to happen a lot recently. Maybe we should start considering each other as arch enemies? ;)

Besides, I see no arguments for your view either.

[Delta Force]

If we did things at standard weight, wouldn't it make the costs of ships designed specifically to carry fuel be very high?

[Darman]

yes it would.  It would also make ships designed for long ranges to be very expensive as well. 

[Nobody]

"Standard" does not contain any fuel, so why should it? Besides, aren't long ranged ships supposed to be expensive?

[Delta Force]

yes it would.  It would also make ships designed for long ranges to be very expensive as well. 

But aren't fleet oilers and colliers essentially tankers and coal transports that do refueling at sea? There is nothing about them that should make them so expensive.

[Valles]

"Standard" does not contain any fuel, so why should it? Besides, aren't long ranged ships supposed to be expensive?

I don't know, are they? If so, is it just the cost of operating them, as I'd expect? In which case mightn't it be better to make the 'maintenance cost' of a ship more divorced from its construction cost, by relating it to the 'consumables' masses that Springsharp conveniently pre-calculates for us? That is, that building a ship costs light tonnage, and maintaining it per turn is a percentage of light tonnage plus a percentage of fuel+ammo+whatever? The 'maintenance costs' would be calculated and noted down at the time of construction, and would remain constants, so there wouldn't be a noticeable increase in paperwork. If people felt a little more ambitious, the 'consumables cost' would be the one to vary by operational state rather than just multiplying the whole, but I don't think that that's really necessary.

[Nobody]

"Standard" does not contain any fuel, so why should it? Besides, aren't long ranged ships supposed to be expensive?

I don't know, are they? If so, is it just the cost of operating them, as I'd expect? In which case mightn't it be better to make the 'maintenance cost' of a ship more divorced from its construction cost, by relating it to the 'consumables' masses that Springsharp conveniently pre-calculates for us? That is, that building a ship costs light tonnage, and maintaining it per turn is a percentage of light tonnage plus a percentage of fuel+ammo+whatever? The 'maintenance costs' would be calculated and noted down at the time of construction, and would remain constants, so there wouldn't be a noticeable increase in paperwork. If people felt a little more ambitious, the 'consumables cost' would be the one to vary by operational state rather than just multiplying the whole, but I don't think that that's really necessary.

I tried to "invent" such a system once. To calculate both upkeep and building cost I ended up needing all 4 weights plus cruising speed and range to make it "fair" (the intent was to calculate a fuel consumption per "time-frame"). While I still think that this would be nice even I have to agree that it is much to complicated.

[Valles]

I think that that would be overcomplicating. Counting, say, the difference between 'light' and 'fully loaded' would give us a 'second order' approximation rather than the 'first order' of calculating costs from Light or Normal tonnage without needing to get into the precise details of 'what gets used how often'.

That said, I'll keep referring to light tonnage outside of my actual reports whatever gets decided, so the gestalt can suit itself. ^_^

[Kaiser Kirk]

Why not build at light tonnage, maintain at Normal ?

[Valles]

A good way to sum up what I'm suggesting, yes.

[Delta Force]

What is the difference between normal and full tonnage in terms of what it includes?

[Valles]

IIRC, Normal tonnage is defined as 'displacement with magazines full and fuel, water, and other consumable stocks at half', whill full load obviously has all of the above topped off.

[Nobody]

IIRC, Normal tonnage is defined as 'displacement with magazines full and fuel, water, and other consumable stocks at half', whill full load obviously has all of the above topped off.

I think that depended on national tradition, between half and 2/3 of the consumables. I think SpringSharp uses 60% or so?

Why not build at light tonnage, maintain at Normal ?

Seconded.
But in case people don't want to track two different sizes, I would still choose normal.

[ctwaterman]

*sighs*

The point is ships built at light tonnage rewarded ships with massive amounts of Bunkerage.   Range was gained essentially for free....

So the move to standard tonnage means people are paying for some of those consumables, Ammo, and Fuel in the original build.   And then paying maintenance on them as well.   I dont have any problem with that any complicated system where we utilize 2 or 4 different weights, a spread sheet and advanced Calculus to arrive at the maintenance cost for each ship is simply over thinking the problem.

This is not an unreasonable limitation on ships.   Navys are large expensive things and what is the limiting factor on the UNS today.  Over 50% of the operational cost of a ship are still the Crew.   The New Carriers, Cruisers, and Destroyers are all built using greater automation to reduce crew cost saving Billions of Dollars over the life of a ship.

The Average ships perodic maintenance and crew cost and munitions, fuel, and food to operate the ship add up to many many times the ships building costs over the 25 to 30 year life of the ship.

Especially when the USN maintains most of its fleet at Active to Wartime readiness tempo'.   So lets all be happy with the maintenance cost we are using and not the totaly realistic ones we could be using.