Question for the Community

[Delta Force]

The British Empire could be handled like in the Stockholm Treaty I've been working on for my alternate history game. In other words the United Kingdom gets placed into the highest tonnage category and the dominions get counted as a separate (but combined) entity in a tonnage category below the lowest category. I suppose a more precise system (and one less complex for the dominions) could be used so that each dominion has it own category, or all the dominion navies can be put under a player just in charge of the British colonial navies.

[snip]

I want to avoid official treaties and the like at all costs. Economicly neutering the Empire to some degree is easyer in game terms and creates more balance in both the short and long term. The UK will still be on top, but not by nearly as much as historically

[Darman]

So for example:

The UK never gets India, and therefor cannot afford as large a navy. The in-game effect is less factories.

Is that what you are thinking?

Precisely.  Not necessarily India but it could be taking away australia or south africa or india.  And giving France Alsace-Lorraine back otherwise Germany is overpowered.... etc

[Nobody]

Why do interesting discussions always happen while I sleep...?

Anyway snip, while your arguments are sound, I don't really like your conclusions.

Its true that we don't need a tech tree if we use historical designs only, but if all happens as it did - what does that leave us to do as players?

I never really liked any of our economic systems, but then I don't know it's latest incarnation. Can you point me to the latest version? Maybe I can change my mind.


P.S.:
Obviously I would like to play Germany.

[KWorld]

If we needed to balance out countries, during the colonial period it's not too hard: shift colonies between them.  For example, if France needs a boost and the UK needs a reduction, move India from a UK colony to a French colony and adjust both sides numbers accordingly..

[KWorld]

Simple fact of the matter is that once we start play, we're going to need some sort of mechanism to handle technology advancement.  Whether that's saying "match OTL", or an every-two-game-years OOC conference, or tech trees doesn't really matter, we'll need something.  Even if at start, whenever that is, we have OTL technology, time passes and technology advances.

[KWorld]

Of course, another reason I'm not so thrilled with the "historical fleet" idea is that I wouldn't get any use out of my Columbiad Republic ships.   :D


Since other folks have started, I figure I'll put in a marker on the US.  Couldn't use Columbiad Republic ships directly if I got it, though, since the US is an "inches and feet" country, and the Columbiad Republic was decidedly metric.  :)


An alternate Kearsarge:

USS Kearsarge, USA Battleship laid down 1896

Displacement:
   11,175 t light; 11,806 t standard; 12,509 t normal; 13,071 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (459.84 ft / 450.00 ft) x 72.00 ft x (23.50 / 24.35 ft)
   (140.16 m / 137.16 m) x 21.95 m  x (7.16 / 7.42 m)

Armament:
      6 - 12.00" / 305 mm 35.0 cal guns - 810.13lbs / 367.47kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1896 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      14 - 6.00" / 152 mm 40.0 cal guns - 105.01lbs / 47.63kg shells, 180 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1896 Model
     14 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      12 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 5.42lbs / 2.46kg shells, 500 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1896 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 raised mounts
     4 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
      4 double raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 6,396 lbs / 2,901 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   270.00 ft / 82.30 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
   Ends:   6.00" / 152 mm   179.98 ft / 54.86 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
   Upper:   12.0" / 305 mm   270.00 ft / 82.30 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
     Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   12.6" / 320 mm   9.84" / 250 mm      11.8" / 300 mm
   3rd:   6.00" / 152 mm         -         6.00" / 152 mm

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 1.50" / 38 mm
   Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm  Quarter deck: 1.50" / 38 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,864 ihp / 7,358 Kw = 17.00 kts
   Range 4,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,265 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   590 - 768

Cost:
   £1.038 million / $4.152 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 876 tons, 7.0 %
      - Guns: 876 tons, 7.0 %
   Armour: 4,706 tons, 37.6 %
      - Belts: 2,752 tons, 22.0 %
      - Armament: 1,116 tons, 8.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 628 tons, 5.0 %
      - Conning Towers: 209 tons, 1.7 %
   Machinery: 1,644 tons, 13.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,938 tons, 31.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,334 tons, 10.7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 11 tons, 0.1 %
      - Hull below water: 11 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     14,836 lbs / 6,730 Kg = 17.2 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
   Metacentric height 4.3 ft / 1.3 m
   Roll period: 14.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.47
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a ram bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.575 / 0.580
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.25 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.21 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 39 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  19.00 ft / 5.79 m,  14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Forward deck:   25.00 %,  14.00 ft / 4.27 m,  11.00 ft / 3.35 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  11.00 ft / 3.35 m,  11.00 ft / 3.35 m
      - Quarter deck:   20.00 %,  11.00 ft / 3.35 m,  11.00 ft / 3.35 m
      - Average freeboard:      12.38 ft / 3.77 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 86.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 23,148 Square feet or 2,151 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 136 lbs/sq ft or 666 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.40
      - Overall: 1.00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Jefgte]

Nova Francia ships were inspired by France Navy.
I'll use for France; Lyon & Normandie class with little modifs.
Courbet class with deck side alterned turrets.
Bretagne class... not sure...
I have more liberty for DDs & Cruisers.
I"ll use historical French guns & turrets.

...Always with metric system, more easy for my little brain, I can count on my fingers  :)  :)  :)


Jef  ;)

[KWorld]

Nova Francia ships were inspired by France Navy.
I'll use for France; Lyon & Normandie class with little modifs.
Courbet class with deck side alterned turrets.
Bretagne class... not sure...
I have more liberty for DDs & Cruisers.
I"ll use historical French guns & turrets.

...Always with metric system, more easy for my little brain, I can count on my fingers  :)  :)  :)

Heh.  The Columbiad Republic ships were created from scratch, with very little OTL inspiration.  They were metric, because it's easy to use, but if we're restarting in the real-world, some countries don't use metric (and especially not if we're starting around the turn of the previous century).

[snip]

Don't worry, lots of thing happen why I sleep to. Anyway...

Why do interesting discussions always happen while I sleep...?

Anyway snip, while your arguments are sound, I don't really like your conclusions.

Its true that we don't need a tech tree if we use historical designs only, but if all happens as it did - what does that leave us to do as players?

I never really liked any of our economic systems, but then I don't know it's latest incarnation. Can you point me to the latest version? Maybe I can change my mind.


P.S.:
Obviously I would like to play Germany.

I really don't want a tech tree, it adds a layer of complication that I think is unnecessary. By no means do I want us to use exclusive OTL designs, I agree that would be boring as hell. What I was attempting to say (and evidently did not do well), is that we would use OTL as at metric against which to compare our designs for feasibility.

Example: Player X puts a design up that has what Player Y views to be pushed technology. Player X would need to produce some evidence that in fact that piece of technology is viable for the era. If the community agrees that this evidence is sufficient, then Player X can build the ship as is. If the evidence is deemed insufficient, then Player X would need to amend the design to eliminate the concerns.

I know this is far from a prefect system, but it is the simplest. For modifying designs from the pre-start period, the only requierments would be to keep the displacement close to the ship which it is replacing, and to use historical weapons. Once the game starts, these restrictions would no longer apply. The rules I would like to use can be found in the N4.5 rules as a PDF, tho they have been updated since that draft. I will post an updated version later today.

As far as nations go, Im going to place my finger on the UK. The reason for this it is really the only nation that is going to need to be toned down a significant amount from OTL in comparison to other nations. I don't want to do that to another player. That leave us with this list IIRC.

UK-Snip
US-KWorld
Germany-Nobody
France-Jef
Japan-Darman

That leaves a few major powers that still need to be claimed.

[Nobody]

What I was attempting to say (and evidently did not do well), is that we would use OTL as at metric against which to compare our designs for feasibility.

Example: Player X puts a design up that has what Player Y views to be pushed technology. Player X would need to produce some evidence that in fact that piece of technology is viable for the era. If the community agrees that this evidence is sufficient, then Player X can build the ship as is. If the evidence is deemed insufficient, then Player X would need to amend the design to eliminate the concerns.

I think that should work.
Maybe we should think about allowing to use up to one (or two) elements from a different ship. And we have to think about how much the reference ship(s) may date back, otherwise we might get a Dreadnought with Italia's 45 cm guns ^^, or every past Brandenburg ships gets 6 main guns...
BUT I think that only works for ships, definitely not e.g. for troops.

I'm looking forward to the latest version of the economic rules. Until then no further comment from me about that.



I see several advantages in starting early (1880 or before):
- easier startup and faster
   ships are much smaller, so they probably fall under the categories were we don't have to bother with slipways before start. Also pre-existing ships are mostly outdated (I hope I'm not mixing things up) so most players (except UK) don't have to to be to detailed about their start-up fleet.
- time to sort things out before times become interesting in the 20th century.
- more opportunities to move ones nation in the direction the player wants.
- more time before we have to start again^^

[Kaiser Kirk]

Personally, one reason I joined Navalism 3 in the first place was I liked the tech tree and the dual track economics.
To me, they addressed problems in Wesworld.

Specifically, one of  the problems that not all historic countries were at the same place economically and scientifically.
The USA of all places had issues with providing geared turbines in the early 1900s, and led engine technology by the 1940s.
there was differences in shell technology, fire control, radar, etc etc.

So, everyone needs to be on the same page that tech is even.  Then there tends to be a race to field the "best".

Then..Snip's proposal of "Y has to justify" works to a point - there needs to be agreement of what constitutes precedent. 

Do the quad turrets and narrow beams of the French proposed dreadnaughts count? Lay down date, completion or acceptance ?  Do the semi-automatic rifles that weere put into use in WWI...but then for some reason their governments decided not to keep in service interwar...is that an example of a successful weapon and cheap government...or something rushed into production during war, and found problematic in service? One player used the fact that 100 weapons entered service in a Central American civil war as precendent for his rifles. Others..disagreed.

To me, I think a universal tech tree with large periods and random advances would be doable.

Meanwhile in Wesworld we have places like an a-historic China.  If it's building dry docks, that takes a chunk of it's "Naval Factories", of which it has few. Yet we consider it to have close to the same tech and it fields a rather decent sized land/air force, AND in fact there's a huge, if low tech, manpower base and massive commitment of labor & hand work can in fact compensate for lack of industrial tools. That's why I like the Navalism 3  Heavy/light industry split. It allowed such things to be better modeled.

just some thoughts from a rare visitor.

[snip]

Nobody: Im glad we can agree that a system of review could work. Of course there are going to be times where it fails, but Im sure the comunity can reach compromises in those cases. I have attached a copy of the latest econ rules as I have them. Feel free to mull them over. See below for thoughts on starting era.

Kirk: Glad to see you still know the url :) While I agree with the earliest examples not always being the most reliable or accepted products, showing what can be physically done is sometimes half the battle. Given there would be no siming this time around (unless the community wants it, then we can talk) I feel that most of the land equipment would be storyline, and would be less of an issue because of that. Also, is there any way I can talk you into coming back?

My thoughts on the starting era are this: Starting in the 1800's means that there are more technological hurdles that need to be cleared. I think the more we can put into the sim-past, the better as it will lead to less arguments. My thought right now is to start somewere between 1900 and 1905, right before Dreadnaught is built but when the idea is clearly there. That allows our talks about "tech" to be more focused on idea based items and less on items being developed as far as ships go. Thoughts?

On the Rules: If a two-part system (Cash and BP ala N3) is something that the comunity wants, I would be willing to revisit those rules. Thoughts?

Keep the ideas coming.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Kirk: Glad to see you still know the url :) While I agree with the earliest examples not always being the most reliable or accepted products, showing what can be physically done is sometimes half the battle. Given there would be no siming this time around (unless the community wants it, then we can talk) I feel that most of the land equipment would be storyline, and would be less of an issue because of that. Also, is there any way I can talk you into coming back?

Office days I visit sometimes, just thought I'd offer my 2 cents.  As for joining up, no. In recent months I've been in the busy phase of life, and I haven't even been able to keep up in Wesworld- I have 4 pages of partially written news and 2 sets of Sim reports to finish there, so it would be foolhardy of me to add another sim, tempting as it is to get in on the "ground floor".

[Nobody]

I totally agree with Kirk on the tech tree matter.
In addition I think it would be nice if a country could only be leader in one tech path keeping close behind the leader in one or two other and otherwise would have to relay on imports or outdated stuff.
The "having to present real world period examples" system does have one advantage though. Build in obsolescence. Some development would phase out once their OTL reference gets old before they might reappear later on (like the AQY-Layout, or the Gatling-gun).

Now that document is a lot more than the economic rules, plus it seems to be missing the cost of a factory. That or I'm blind.
I have some more and different ideas for an economic system. Maybe I can post them later.

My thoughts on the starting era are this: Starting in the 1800's means that there are more technological hurdles that need to be cleared. I think the more we can put into the sim-past, the better as it will lead to less arguments. My thought right now is to start somewere between 1900 and 1905, right before Dreadnaught is built but when the idea is clearly there. That allows our talks about "tech" to be more focused on idea based items and less on items being developed as far as ships go. Thoughts?

Interesting. We seem to have the same aim (an easy start), yet we come to opposing conclusions. Naturally I can't agree with you at all.