N4 Economic Outline (Not Finished)

[The Rock Doctor]

My recollection is that large bunkerage did allow more capability on the same light displacement; certainly more damage resistance, and probably better seakeeping/stability (from the larger/longer hull) but I think also more stuff carried aboard.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Dramatic sighs are not conducive to civil conversations.

Looking at the numbers, there is a slight increase in light weight to retain 1.0 comp hull when increasing bunkerage. That increase is indeed substantially less than the increase in bunkerage.

Example
Using HMS Erin, as provided with SS2.

Base range changed to 5,000, BC to 0.55

Ranges 5,000, 10,000 and 15,000
Difference - BC increases until comp hull returns to 1.00,

5,000nm :
Range : 5,000nm, BC 0.55
Displacement:
    20,259 t light; 21,906 t standard; 22,698 t normal; 23,331 t full load
Bunker at max displacement = 1,493 tons (25% coal)

10,000nm :
Range 10,000nm, BC 0.569
Displacement:
    20,317 t light; 21,980 t standard; 23,482 t normal; 24,683 t full load
Bunker at max displacement = 2,767 tons (25% coal)

15,000nm :
Range  15,000nm, BC 0.59
Displacement:
    20,424 t light; 22,104 t standard; 24,348 t normal; 26,144 t full load
Bunker at max displacement = 4,040 tons (25% coal)

we get the following Light/Normal/Full  (hmm, perhaps I should have done Standard, oh well)

Differences : 5,000/ 10,000 / 15,000
Light  : 0/ +58/ +165
Normal : 0/ +784/ +1650
Bunker at max displacement = 0/ +1273/ +2547
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
    Armament: None
    Armour: 0 / +39 / +82
    Machinery: 0/ +34/ +72 tons
    Hull, fittings & equipment: 0/ -54 / +11
    Fuel, ammunition & stores: 0/ +725 / +1486

Since the baseline is 5,000, that set is all 0, but minor to moderate increases occur in the other categories.
There are minor differences at light- so yes, range is gained very cheaply. Very little steel being added.
One of the most odd results is at 10,000nm, hull weights decline slightly, I haven't a clue why.


Conclusion : Yes, almost free, not quite. Degree of problem in the eye of the beholder. I'm thinking having larger void spaces isn't that intensive a structural building problem, and feel that we should keep things installed machined steel weight. You disagree.


At 5,000nm, the difference between light and  standard is 8%
At 15,000nm, the difference between light and  standard is still 8%, ratio stays the same.

So.. if shifting from light to standard, there will need to be an increase in the naval building capacity to keep the same relative strength.

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.

It seems a far stretch to relate modern crew costs to historic costs. Modern military is better equipped, trained, housed, fed, cared for, compensated,  has better retirements, lives longer etc etc.  Still, if crew is the principle driver of maintenance costs, and you're happy with multiple variables, why do we completely ignore it both for maintenance and manpower considerations?

[Guinness]

So.. if shifting from light to standard, there will need to be an increase in the naval building capacity to keep the same relative strength.

The new system would be sufficiently different from the old such that comparisons between the two probably aren't valid, but I think it's a true statement that there will be more available building capacity in the new system than in the old.

[Korpen]

My recollection is that large bunkerage did allow more capability on the same light displacement; certainly more damage resistance, and probably better seakeeping/stability (from the larger/longer hull) but I think also more stuff carried aboard.

Not really, More bukerage did not allow for more extras compared a ship with less bukerage. And a major factor against using more bukerage was the way it pushed up the weight of the engines, especially in smaller, faster ships (and a major factor why longer-ranged ships was slower).

Conclusion : Yes, almost free, not quite. Degree of problem in the eye of the beholder. I'm thinking having larger void spaces isn't that intensive a structural building problem, and feel that we should keep things installed machined steel weight. You disagree.

I feel there is a good point in both keeping lights tonnage as the standard, as well as in a shift to normal tonnage. But I think there is little point to join the debate until one sees the rest of the system; until I see how things will hang together there is not much point of getting too deep into details.

[Nobody]

Back to Economic

I think we should allow a "carryover" from one year to an other in the order of 10% (both positive and negative) of that years income. Especially if we have a changing world economy. It would allow a bit more relaxed planning. Of course constant overdraw might call for punishment and savings might vanish...

Will we keep track of population in N4? Only to limit army size or does it have some impact on the state income?

Since we have been talking about GNP, I would like to point out that government spending is actually a part of it. So a harbor (which is supposed to have some upkeep) might work as an permanent subvention in that province.
My idea is that spending which can be related to a certain area (ports, stationed troops) have a direct impact on that area.

Instead of a lengthy explanation I have prepared an example (almost everthing is calculated without much user input). If you have questions, please ask.


EDIT (2011-06-10)
I'm a bit surprised no one said anything.
Let me add a short description:

The "harbor" table. Since ships are assigned to a harbor (by its number) each harbor automatically calculates the total tonnage stationed in it and shows how much more it can take or if it is too small.

In the same way army and harbor costs are correlated to the province they are in. The GNP of a province is divided into a "civil" and "government" part which are treated separately.
As a result moving troops has a direct impact on your economy. Especially removing them from it to fight somewhere outside.