Random thoughts, as y'all are rebooting

[Korpen]

Historically, turbines were mounted in smaller ships first... this wasn't just for no reason.
Smaller sets were easier to build, cheaper to build, and less risky.

Granted that it was common to build smaller ships as test beads for new propulsion systems; it is by no mean certain that the larger ship would need a larger turbine. In fact it might allow for a more rugged and solid turbine as weight and space are not so crucial. As for risks, that should really be a players choice.

THAT is the reason that there should, in my mind, be limitations on the size of ships that you can mount turbines in to begin with. If you don't do that, then frankly, no one will put turbines into ships until the cost surcharge diminishes to a rather nominal level... which will have no real difference in effect from having an 'introduction year' in the first place.

If one adds 100% of the engine cost to the cost of a turbine it will mean that the cost of a 26 000 shp turbine and 26k shp VTE will be about the same in 1906, so if the worse fuel economy is worth the increase in sustained speed, then turbines will be used.
I am not out after limiting turbines as much as reducing the economic advantages they enjoy.

[Nobody]

However I do not really like the concept of dividing engines accorded to class in such a manner as I think it is a bit silly that one could mount a turbine in a small destroyer, but not the same turbine in a ship five times as large.

The thing is, you cannot. At the very least not without very precise, highly efficient gearbox offering something like a 1 to 1000 ratio. However suitable gearing didn't exceed a 1 to 10 ratio until about 1916.

Why? You might ask. Think of it this way: How much power has a modern outboard engine? 300 hp maybe? Given the right engine and prop that's enough to push a 5500 ton ship to 7 knots, but that doesn't mean strapping said outboard to said 100 meter ship will have a similar result - or even move at all.
Being more scientific, the first turbines run ~20000 rpm. For Turbinia that was down to a couple thousand rpm. However ship propellers rarely exceed a 200 rpm, and the bigger the ship is, the slower the props have to be. And the only way they knew to reduce turbine speed was to make them bigger. Which btw reduces efficiency and power level and increases weight. It was therefore impossible to use the same engine on differently sized ships. (same thing actually why you don't put a 400 hp sports car engine in a truck/lorry, or the 400 hp truck engine in a sports car, although that's not the only reason)

[Korpen]

However I do not really like the concept of dividing engines accorded to class in such a manner as I think it is a bit silly that one could mount a turbine in a small destroyer, but not the same turbine in a ship five times as large.

The thing is, you cannot. At the very least not without very precise, highly efficient gearbox offering something like a 1 to 1000 ratio. However suitable gearing didn't exceed a 1 to 10 ratio until about 1916.

Why? You might ask. Think of it this way: How much power has a modern outboard engine? 300 hp maybe? Given the right engine and prop that's enough to push a 5500 ton ship to 7 knots, but that doesn't mean strapping said outboard to said 100 meter ship will have a similar result - or even move at all.

I am well aware that there might be difference depending on the specific employment (and can argue against some of you claims here). But that is really irrelevant and a technical discussion on the difference a turbine to give a 500 ton ships 24 kts or a 1500 one 21kts is not what I am after. My point is that there is no more difficult in building a turbine for one of those ships then the other and that placing artificial "just because" limitations are boring. Better to go with options that forces players to make interesting choices in the design process.

[Sachmle]

My point is that there is no more difficult in building a turbine for one of those ships then the other...

So it takes no more funding, material, machining, research, personnel, etc. to make a turbine for a 25,000t ship (which will probably need 3 sets at least.)than for a 3,000t ship (protected cruisers usually tested turbines IRL, not DDs IIRC). Not to mention convincing those in power that the brand new really expensive 25,000t Battleship should use the brand new, never tested, engines that may or may not work.

[Korpen]

So it takes no more funding, material, machining, research, personnel, etc. to make a turbine for a 25,000t ship (which will probably need 3 sets at least.)than for a 3,000t ship (protected cruisers usually tested turbines IRL, not DDs IIRC).

That is really only true if you increase the size (power) of the turbines. There is not significant difference in the work needed for two 10 000kw turbines irrelevant of their use.

Not to mention convincing those in power that the brand new really expensive 25,000t Battleship should use the brand new, never tested, engines that may or may not work.

That in-game character issue, and turbines or no most of the ones in power would chocke on the 25 000 ton part...

[Sachmle]

So it takes no more funding, material, machining, research, personnel, etc. to make a turbine for a 25,000t ship (which will probably need 3 sets at least.)than for a 3,000t ship (protected cruisers usually tested turbines IRL, not DDs IIRC).

That is really only true if you increase the size (power) of the turbines. There is not significant difference in the work needed for two 10 000kw turbines irrelevant of their use.

Actually, as Nobody already pointed out, the only way to make an early turbine run at a reasonable RPM to not cavitate the exceptionally slow turning props on a battleship (compared to a cruiser) to pieces, is to make it larger. So, you've actually just made my point for me.

[Korpen]

Actually, as Nobody already pointed out, the only way to make an early turbine run at a reasonable RPM to not cavitate the exceptionally slow turning props on a battleship (compared to a cruiser) to pieces, is to make it larger. So, you've actually just made my point for me.

By that logic it would be impossible to build any turbine in a ship desigend to go slower then 30 knots....

[Nobody]

There is not significant difference in the work needed for two 10 000kw turbines irrelevant of their use.

That would only be true if turbine design had been a science, which is was not. What they did was take a design they had increase it in size and hoping it would work.
The other thing is manufacturing. The larger the parts become the more difficult it gets to produce them within tolerances and without faults (e.g. changing steel quality).

[Carthaginian]

As for risks, that should really be a players choice.

NO, some things should NOT be a player's choice... especially bending the laws of physics till both ends touch and the middle is cracking.

[Korpen]

As for risks, that should really be a players choice.

NO, some things should NOT be a player's choice... especially bending the laws of physics till both ends touch and the middle is cracking.

Hu? How on earth did you get the idea that budgetary decisions is a matter of physics???

[Carthaginian]

As for risks, that should really be a players choice.

NO, some things should NOT be a player's choice... especially bending the laws of physics till both ends touch and the middle is cracking.

Hu? How on earth did you get the idea that budgetary decisions is a matter of physics???

How can you NOT realize that they are linked?
It don't matter worth a tin shit how awesome something is- if it cannot be afforded, it will not be used. If the physics of building something make it cost-prohibitive, then the money will not be allotted by whatever decision-making body holds the purse strings of the military's procurement division.

Titanium is AWESOME for making submarine hulls- far better than steel.
It's molecular structure is more suited to the job of withstanding pressure, it has a higher strength/weight ratio and it cannot readily be detected by MAD probes.

However, the physics of refining titanium oxide makes it's use a limited proposition AT BEST.

Budgetary matters are limited by physics... or perhaps I should say 'the laws of physics.'

[Logi]

However Carth, I don't believe the budgetary limits here are nearly as extreme.

[snip]

However Carth, I don't believe the budgetary limits here are nearly as extreme.

Well, as we have yet to see the rules that will shape our budgets, I think that conclusion is a tad premature to make

[Carthaginian]

However Carth, I don't believe the budgetary limits here are nearly as extreme.

Budgetary limits are as real as you want to play your nation!
If you want to spend insane amounts of money, short your nation in one area to provide something uber in another, you feel free. That is not 'playing the sim'- that's playing. We're supposed to be thinking like the government of a nation-state rather than someone playing a game.

With so much debate no how the rules should be 'realistic' I can't see how people can't think about designing realistically.

[Korpen]

With so much debate no how the rules should be 'realistic' I can't see how people can't think about designing realistically.

Then one is back to the question "what is realism?"...

How can you NOT realize that they are linked?
It don't matter worth a tin shit how awesome something is- if it cannot be afforded, it will not be used. If the physics of building something make it cost-prohibitive, then the money will not be allotted by whatever decision-making body holds the purse strings of the military's procurement division.

Titanium is AWESOME for making submarine hulls- far better than steel.
It's molecular structure is more suited to the job of withstanding pressure, it has a higher strength/weight ratio and it cannot readily be detected by MAD probes.

However, the physics of refining titanium oxide makes it's use a limited proposition AT BEST.

Budgetary matters are limited by physics... or perhaps I should say 'the laws of physics.'

If one state (Read: USSR) want to build submarines out of titanium and was willing to pay the price, why should that not be allowed?
As it has been done there is no doubt that it is possible.
Such things are subject to the judgment of the player in his or her capacity as leaders of the state.
I much prefer a use of the "carrot" give economic incentives (or disincentives) then to use the "stick" and outright ban things or place hard artificial limits on things one does not want.