Random thoughts, as y'all are rebooting

[ctwaterman]

I believe the parrallel to this arguement is occuring in the Mod threads about Tech... about when we will allow people to start researching stuff or do we want to just have the techs become available.   

The General consensus I believe is the Tech Tree will not be completely vissible certain N4 events will trigger techs to appear or the passage of large amounts of Time.  I believe if the N4 remains completely stagnant then we could go long periods with very little new tech being introduced.

Now none of this is set in stone just as you are arguing it out here we are doing the same in the Mod Section so by all means continue maybe your discussion will yield an Idea ours has not yet achieved... :o

[Carthaginian]

My take on things:

There needs to be some kind of 'master tech tree' in ModLand which will govern the MINIMUM and MAXIMUM years at which a new tech can be introduced. Beyond that, we should look at how the 'history of the future' evolves, so to speak. If there is a lot of capital ship combat between 1880 and 1900 (as there was in OTL) which reenforces the construction of All Big Gun warships, then we should allow for the tech to become available in a historical timeframe; if there are very few wars which generally involve smaller ships and shorter ranges, we should wind up building semi-dreadnoughts for a long time... and eventually the secondary batteries will become so heavy that the mods can declare 'as spotting at range is becoming difficult because of a mixed 12" and 10" armor, designers suggest just building the next class of battleships with nothing but 12" guns.

[Guinness]

Carthaginian: that's pretty much what the concept is. Instead of players being able to plan out their technical pursuits for years and years, we're trying to find a system that will reward tech investment in general by promoting long range general subject area research. For instance a nation researching "naval propulsion" would get access to a propulsion technology earlier than those not researching it. Still even those researching it wouldn't have any sure idea when that breakthrough will come until it's revealed by the mod team. Nations would pay for establishments in these specific areas of research, not for individual discoveries to technologies, and I expect no more than about a dozen or so areas of research. Still, this can yield a wide variety of different technology bases and capabilities, as we might not bind a tech to one area of research, but several. A DD tech, might require a naval propulsion tech and a naval architecture tech, for instance.

So in a lot of ways, it would be the "tech tree" system as we see it today, but with less cherrypicking of individual tech progressions. Also, I expect there will be no tech trading per-sea, but rather that nations friendly with one another may co-fund research establishments for a small extra cost, and then both benefit from any fruits of those labors.

[Nobody]

I find it difficult to discuss aspects of the game we know noting about, therefore I would like to have a look at parts of the rules as soon as their drafts "ready". I realize that's not always possible or useful, but if e.g. the merchant marine rules are as ready as it sounded they were, I would love to digest them and see no harm in publishing them early.

In the meantime some ideas I had about merchant shipping:
I think I would be nice to have three different classes/categories of merchant ships

• Category 1: Fast Ocean Liners
• Category 2: long range Freighters and medium sized passenger ships
• Category 3: Coasters, fishing boats and other small ships

In case of war or a crisis these categories would be affected differently. Category 3 ships would remain profitable unless you face a wide scale invasion, but category 1 & 2 are the ones you would like to draft as transports, auxiliary cruises or raiders.

[Korpen]

If there is a lot of capital ship combat between 1880 and 1900 (as there was in OTL)

No, it were almost no capital ship combat whatsoever, the only fights between modern ships in that period were during the USA-Spanish war (perhaps the battle of Yalu as well). Between Lissa and the Russia-Japanese war there were in effect no major fleet action between modern fleets.

So in a lot of ways, it would be the "tech tree" system as we see it today, but with less cherrypicking of individual tech progressions. Also, I expect there will be no tech trading per-sea, but rather that nations friendly with one another may co-fund research establishments for a small extra cost, and then both benefit from any fruits of those labors.

To be a bit metaphysical; but what do you see as the purpose of tracking techs on an individual basis? And what is purpose of the techs (it is so easy to talk past each other if one have different perception as to the purpose of a function)?

[Korpen]

I want something that will keep people from saying 'the Rules say I can build HMS Hood in 1905, if I pay triple' because this will take a lot of the fun out of the sim for people that want plausible ships to be built above all else. Only someone acting out of complete hindsight would immediately design a ship which had turbines, high speed and large guns immediately upon that technology becoming available- it took Great Britain TWENTY YEARS to piece together the requisite technology and proof of concept to field the Dreadnought.

I would say it took a lot longer then just 20 years.
But the thing is that if one built a hood with 1905 (make a 1905 SS of hood and tell me that is a good ship....) technology or a dreadnought with 1895 tech they would not really be good ships and outclassed by the much more economical BB of the period.
There were almost always a good reason why people designed the ships the way they did, and understanding those reasons is key to plausible designs.
There were really three factors in play:
What can be done, technically and physically.
What is perceived as efficient given the technology.
What is perceived as efficient given the mission of ship and its intended function.
"Hard rules" should in my opinion only focus on the first one, the later two should always be open to arguments.


The devils is in the details. Such as.

I think there should be concrete rules for the following things:
1.) the years turbines are allowed on each type of ship

What is a type of ship? What one sees as a cruise is a battleship for someone else, and ones torpedoboats is another's cruisers, not to mention the potential mess with gunboats.

[Walter]

What is a type of ship? What one sees as a cruise is a battleship for someone else, and ones torpedoboats is another's cruisers, not to mention the potential mess with gunboats.

Would be best to make fixed definitions of each category for the purpose of the sim as a guideline. Afterwards, it would not matter if you were to call that ship a torpedoboat or a cruiser or a battleships, for the purpose of the sim, that particular vessel would fall into one specific category only, regardless what a player calls it.

[Nobody]

There were almost always a good reason why people designed the ships the way they did, and understanding those reasons is key to plausible designs.
There were really three factors in play:
What can be done, technically and physically.
What is perceived as efficient given the technology.
What is perceived as efficient given the mission of ship and its intended function.
"Hard rules" should in my opinion only focus on the first one, the later two should always be open to arguments.

I can agree to that

The devils is in the details. Such as.

I think there should be concrete rules for the following things:
1.) the years turbines are allowed on each type of ship

What is a type of ship? What one sees as a cruise is a battleship for someone else, and ones torpedoboats is another's cruisers, not to mention the potential mess with gunboats.

I kind of have to agree as well. I think we had a similar discussion somewhere else (shipbuilding maybe?).

Best idea I could come up is as follows:
Once you are allowed to use maritime turbines you can build a ship of a certain maximum size (around 100 tons for example). As the understanding of turbines improve the size of ships which can be fitted with turbines increases (e.g. by 10% per year). The allowed size also increases greatly for every turbine powered ship build and tested. For example to twice the size of a turbine powered ship which has completed its maiden voyage.
There could be similar limits on max turbine power per shaft as well.
I think that might be a good representation of OTL progress. Bigger steps could be possible at greater cost and risk.