Displacement used for building?

Carthaginian · June 10, 2011, 11:29:37 PM

Which set of displacement figures will we be using in the new sim?
Light
Standard
Normal

Just wondering if this had been settled yet.

Tanthalas · July 02, 2011, 03:59:14 PM

my vote will always be for light =P it just makes sence to me...

P3D · July 03, 2011, 10:04:21 AM

Normal.

Logi · July 03, 2011, 10:08:47 AM

My vote's for normal, it's just easier when trying to adjust the weight so it lands on a multiple of 500.

Carthaginian · July 03, 2011, 10:10:12 AM

Thanks... makes sense as one has to pay for building everything in a ship, not just an empty hull.

And I agree with Logi- the math is easier with the precise calculations that Normal allows.

Borys · July 03, 2011, 10:43:33 AM

Ahoj!
I've no opinion.
Borys

Valles · July 03, 2011, 10:44:19 AM

I find it easier to hit specific tonnages with Light, personally. It's dependent on fewer variables, and therefore easier to predict. Cost wise, if we're paying a maintenance budget, then everything but the base hull should, by rights, go there.

Carthaginian · July 03, 2011, 10:51:48 AM

Easier for light? For N3 I sized every one of my ships by exact light displacement numbers, and it was a pain.
Normal: You just type it in... no mess; you just decide how much the ship will displace overall.
Light: You have to screw around with magazine capacity, range, number of light guns, etc.

Personally, I think that is was ridicules that two people could build two entirely different ships with the same LIGHT displacement, but one of those ships could be 6-8% heavier when loaded and have the corresponding advantages of range and survivability... and the ships would cost exactly the same thing.

Nope, when you build a ship you don't get the shells, fuel, racks, food and water for free.
You gotta pay for those as well.

TexanCowboy · July 03, 2011, 11:18:02 AM

I like Standard, to tell the truth. I do not feel it nessasary to pay for the fuel and crud in the ship; isn't that what we have maintanance costs for?

Valles · July 03, 2011, 12:20:01 PM

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 03, 2011, 10:51:48 AM
Easier for light? For N3 I sized every one of my ships by exact light displacement numbers, and it was a pain.
Normal: You just type it in... no mess; you just decide how much the ship will displace overall.
Light: You have to screw around with magazine capacity, range, number of light guns, etc.

*blinks*

You know, I never noticed you could do that?

Mind, I'd still rather not, but I can live with other people preferring it.

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 03, 2011, 10:51:48 AMPersonally, I think that is was ridicules that two people could build two entirely different ships with the same LIGHT displacement, but one of those ships could be 6-8% heavier when loaded and have the corresponding advantages of range and survivability... and the ships would cost exactly the same thing.

Barring some kind of justifying 'in universe' treaty, it's always going to be ridiculous that ships are precisely matching any particular measure of tonnage. For costs...

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 03, 2011, 10:51:48 AMNope, when you build a ship you don't get the shells, fuel, racks, food and water for free.
You gotta pay for those as well.

...That's what maintenance is for. If the direct relation of operational costs to building tonnage is oversimplified, that's fine, but the solution isn't to break the part of the relationship that's already rational, it's to change the way maintenance is calculated.

Blooded · July 03, 2011, 02:19:52 PM

Hello,

My vote would be for Normal if based on Tonnage for Cost. As Carthaginian mentioned, I also felt Too many ships abused the Light Tonnage prices with inflated ships range(which also made them more stable and able to absorb more punishment). That range/ability should come at some sort of cost.

When N3 was started we used the SS calculated cost. SS has both £ and $. I vote we go back to that. I believed we switched to tonnage cost because SS had an escalated inflation after 1913 or so due to WW1. I am not sure how it is calculated but it seemed to represent ships armaments better(ie. ships with higher armament % cost more per ton; or so it seemed- it has been awhile). N3 lasted 14 game years. N4 would have 33 gameyears until the price inflator reared its head again.

Tanthalas · July 03, 2011, 02:34:15 PM

Light or standard, Fuel should fall under the upkeap we pay on our ships, and watter is free so normal puts us paying for fuel twice and watter that should be free. I can see paying for the Beans and bullets, although I think that to would fall under maintnence costs making light the logical choice, however I could accept standard.

Blooded, it kind of depends. if we use the direct cost it wasnt a problem the problem was the way we used IC in 3.0 that made ships to expensive, once the escalator kicked in and if I remember right light sticks fairly well with cost

Having just checked some numbers
an 8500 ton light Heavy Cruiser under original rules costs .862 million pounds or 8.62 for our purposes in 1908 in 1913 the exact same ship just changing the laydown year costs .723 million pounds or 7.23 for our purposes. so I would tend to agree with you that switching to cost is a good idea =P

Blooded · July 03, 2011, 03:05:21 PM

Hello,

The Water aboard ship is hardly free. It had to be distilled multiple times before use or the boilers and tubes would get clogged with mineral deposits extremely fast. Relegating the ship to harbor queen if not kept on top of. Very upkeep intensive. Not sure how long it took to discover all this in the big picture, I think it was around our N4 start timeframe.

It was also found that the water(for the boilers) onboard limited range more than the coal. So more water is brought onboard at the cost of coal, accomodations or something else of importance.

But I digress...

Initial cost of a ship will all be relative. Yes, light would buy more than Normal but production could be increased to compensate for that difference. The main need is to decide what should our economies be able to produce per year/half-year. If we want to be able to lay down 2 BBs(12K), 2 ACs(10K), 4 Cls(4K), and 8 DDs(500Ton)(average ability ships built in SS) in an average year then we make our starting economies reflect this(then we buy whatever the hell we want after it is determined of course). The question is what is more fair for the cost to be based on(including the knowledge of SS weaknesses).

The only problem I foresee so far is that Valles has planned on building 5x 30,000ton BBs per year/cycle(meaning he wants a n3 French level economy),. I doubt that is even close to where we will begin.

Jefgte · July 03, 2011, 03:31:56 PM

Light displacement & SS cost
Generaly, SS numbers for all Navalism calculations

Jef ;)

Tanthalas · July 03, 2011, 03:41:06 PM

LOL blooded even france couldnt afford to do that in N3 (trust me I did the books for quite a while) and I agree with Jef, light displacement for our BP equivilant and Dollar cost to pay for them. we just set up our economy to deal with the costs asociated with the dollar figure initialy.

I simply feal that using normal unfairly penalises people that have to build in massive range (atmitedly IDK if anyone is in this catagory to start with in N4 but the fact remains that if sucsesful we virtualy all will)