Other Costs

[Blooded]

Hello,

Perhaps we can talk about some other costs the game should cover? These costs were to represent the increased difficulty of creating these units.

We had 2x $ cost for MTBs/Subs and CVs; 1.25x $ for DD and $0.50/0.25BP for 1000 mines.

Other cost issues should include seperate Torpedo costing(say $1 per 50?). I feel they are sufficiently powerful to justify the time and effort involved in tracking this(like we did for mines-at least some of us did). Torpedos are extremely expensive in relation to weight(and difficult to make). In N3 they effectively cost nothing. In N3, A 100 vessel TB(100 ton each) fleet would be relatively cheap-$20(at the 2xrate of MTBs). In N4 it could rise another $10 to have 500 Torpedos on hand for them(iT should also be noted that they are 18" 1905 type; 100 on hand at 5 different bases).

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=5340.0 had a conversation going but it devolved quickly.

I would also suggest some form of tracking and additional costs for experimental/unusual guns. Say a 60 cal 12" gun developed in 1912 should have a barrel life of say 15 rounds or somesuch, tripling upkeep or more. Some theoretical guns were being talked about/newsposted that never should reach production because of issues like this. There is exploring the possible and then there is ASB territory. Exploration could cost extra if it is reasonable. ASB should be banned or at least realistically backfire(say a mag explosion during the first test firing aboard a BB, 14 steps down the approval line, passing with flying colors before then  ;D ).

Whatcha think?  ;) Heh heh

[TexanCowboy]

I'd be ok with a $1 per 100 torpedoes; it's simplified moreso if we track it like that.

I'm not so sure on the other factor.

[Tanthalas]

when it comes to things like guns, there is atleast for me Actual research and News Fodder.  Actual research is fairly realistic, and even a faild experiment will be haild as a sucsess (baring the gun explodes or somthing) for news purposes, but in News posts there is literaly no way of knowing what I will do/claim to have done. as for torps im with Texan I could go for $1.00 for 100 (ofcourse this depends on what value we give the game dollar in the end)

[Tanthalas]

Another thing I'd like to see, actually, is an extra 10% charge on the first ship of a class; discourages one-offs.

do we realy need that? I have never done a one off, I always do 3 ship classes.  atmitedly others may do them I never realy kept track and I would agree to it if there was a coresponding reduction in cost for repeats of the class, and you didnt get hit with it for simply improving an existing class

For example if you build 3 1890 battleships, then decide to repeat the class and build 3 more there is a say 10% reduction in the cost of the second group of 3.  As example for my second point, You build 3 1890 Battleships then put improved engines in a second group of esentialy identical ships no aditional 10% cost on the second group.

[Carthaginian]

WHY do we want to add more and more crap to figuring our what things cost?
Every time someone opens their mouth, it seem to be to say 'let's add more complexity!'

Sheesh- WHY?

[Desertfox]

I'm with ^this^ guy. Keep it simple...

And what's wrong with one-offs? Isn't that the reason N-verse was started? To come up with new ship designs?

[Tanthalas]

WHY do we want to add more and more crap to figuring our what things cost?
Every time someone opens their mouth, it seem to be to say 'let's add more complexity!'

Sheesh- WHY?

Nature of the beast... just like wanting to make us pay for fuel and watter and bullets that are already included under our upkeap =P

[snip]

Can we please see even an Alpha draft of the econ rules before we begin trying to morph things?

(pokes mods with sword)

[Carthaginian]

Blooded, if you play D&D... do you make people keep track of how many rocks they have for their slings?

There comes a time when realism has to be set aside and one has to ask oneself 'will this ADD TO or TAKE AWAY from the game.'

Damn reality- it sucks anyway.
We need a good, simple set of rules that is based around SPRINGSHARP... not Realityland.
Everything else will just suck the fun out of playing the game.

[Blooded]

;) Heh heh

'Cause I'm trolling for added complexity!   ;D

Honestly, my vision for the game is one which will give us a variety of options similar to what our counterparts(naval leaders) would have to deal with. I love the IDEA that 'If I was Yamamoto in 1936 I would....' blah blah blah.

Realism helps define what is possible in our physics parameters. If DF wants to build John Fishers wetdream fleet it should be possible to a degree(would any real government back that sort of plan? If yes... then go for it! If No then.... compromise like GB did ). If 'Bob' wants to build Bismarck in 1900 then NO! that is simply not a realistic proposition. Even if SS says it is possible.

Torpedos were an end all solution(at least to Jeune École) they are mini ships with massive explosive warheads. If ANYTHING should cost extra it should be Torpedos.

Personally most of the rules I suggest are because of a vocal few who will abuse any 'general consensus' or 'logical endpoint' that would suffice for 90%+ of the rest of us. P3D had to write up new rules to 'De-fun' the reality that other members operate under. Look into ancient forum topics.... they can get a bit ridiculous.

I propose adding, at least, torpedos into the 'extra cost' mix because they will factor into so many defensive plans
which will be based on tiny vessels destroying fleets of large ones with solely torpedo armament. Reality proved that NO-ONE had the nerve to close to 1000 yards to deliver the needed payload. But with our battle systems Torpedos are hitting at amazing rates! They are FEATURED too much! Reality showed that in WW1 NO(or extremely few!) hits happened to ships travelling at 15knots or more. N3 solution... all my ships cruise at 15knots.... thus are impervious to torpedos! (What a Godsend!)  ::)

Anywho.... at least I troll with purpose.  ;D  

Wow...  3 posts since I started replying... ;D

[Tanthalas]

Can we please see even an Alpha draft of the econ rules before we begin trying to morph things?

(pokes mods with sword)

Poking them gently with an unsharpend blade dosnt do much good, you have to poke realy hard with a knife sharp weapon to get their atention (course if you poke to hard then you have a dead mod and the men in straw hats come looking for you)

[Blooded]

Blooded, if you play D&D... do you make people keep track of how many rocks they have for their slings?

Hell yeah I do!   ;D



Reality... nah not really... BUT I can tell you how many I have!  ;)

[TexanCowboy]

MY men in straw hats.

Hmm. *Sends men in straw hats after snip preemptively*

[Tanthalas]

Blooded, if you play D&D... do you make people keep track of how many rocks they have for their slings?

Hell yeah I do!   ;D



Reality... nah not really... BUT I can tell you how many I have!  ;)

Honestly I think torps fall under our upkeap costs man, just like I figure thats where fuel, shells, watter, manpower all fit

MY men in straw hats.

Hmm. *Sends men in straw hats after snip preemptively*

Warns the Brotherhoods to watch out for the evil straw hatted ones as he was advising poking with a sharp sword

[TexanCowboy]

Tan, I'm not sure I can agree with that. You can mass-produce shells; however, it's not really possible to mass produce torpedoes. Just too many variables.

*tactical nukes the brotherhood*
You were saying?