Feasibility Study - Fuel based Upkeep

[snip]

We will keep discussing this, but right now I feel the matter of great importance is the baseline economic system. If we could finish that off, the rest of these talks will then have the added benefit of knowing exactly how the baseline economics would work. Can we put this on hold for a few days until we finalize the economic system?

[Nobody]

We will keep discussing this, but right now I feel the matter of great importance is the baseline economic system. If we could finish that off, the rest of these talks will then have the added benefit of knowing exactly how the baseline economics would work. Can we put this on hold for a few days until we finalize the economic system?

Actually I think we should do it the other way around:

• finalize turn length
• decide on ship upkeep
• use (2) to adjust the ratio between shipbuilding and upkeep cost (I think shipbuilding cost should equal a few years of upkeep)
• determine other cost in relation to (3)
• calculate required economy size with the cost of (1), (3) and (4)
• finalize econ rules

This way would allow for the largest number of "nice" values and hopefully guaranteer a balanced system.

[KWorld]

At this time period, I'd expect construction cost to dominate upkeep, because personnel costs are not as dominant as they are now.

[snip]

We will keep discussing this, but right now I feel the matter of great importance is the baseline economic system. If we could finish that off, the rest of these talks will then have the added benefit of knowing exactly how the baseline economics would work. Can we put this on hold for a few days until we finalize the economic system?

Actually I think we should do it the other way around:

• decide on ship upkeep
• finalize turn length
• use (2) to adjust the ratio between shipbuilding and upkeep cost (I think shipbuilding cost should equal a few years of upkeep)
• determine other cost in relation to (3)
• calculate required economy size with the cost of (1), (3) and (4)
• finalize econ rules

This way would allow for the largest number of "nice" values and hopefully guaranteer a balanced system.

I agree with that. I was more referring to the baseline econ (Pop/IC/IP) and how that system is tuned for growth and such. I agree that before we begin finalising numbers for given countries we need to do the above six.

[Nobody]

Here is an example with numbers. I made some minor changes which should simplify future implementation. Otherwise it's the same system I originally proposed.
Numbers used:
Base Ship upkeep   1,00 $ per 1000 t
Fuel Cost   1,00   $ per 1000 t
Turn Length   2922 h (a Term)

The simplest variant of ammunition cost is the difference between light and standard displacement. Better would be a (moderator) assigned value based on its firepower.

The following table contains a couple of infos about the ship all possible upkeeps and an simple ammo example.

	displacement							Upkeep
								peace			war			ammunition
	light	standard	normal	max speed [kn]	cruise speed [kn]	range [nm]	bunker size [t]	reserve	active	mobilized	reserve	active	mobilized	peace [t]	war [t]
battleship	16631	17383	18434	22	12	4000	1892	6,79	28,49	43,58	12,61	49,3	90,07	752	3760
USS Smith	617	640	742	29,5	15	2000	183	0,56	3,41	7,4	1,37	8,85	20,8	23	115
USS Arkansas	2676	2852	3074	12,5	10	3000	400	1,14	4,78	7,34	1,84	6,14	9,81	176	880
USS Omaha	3971	4132	4837	27	12	6000	1269	2,21	10,89	19,96	5,1	27,26	59,45	161	805
USS Montana	14811	15544	17198	25	12	6500	2977	6,61	28,79	46,17	13,28	58,06	114,19	733	3665
USS Connecticutt	12819	13588	14695	18	10	6600	1993	5,06	19,93	27,78	9,07	31,4	52,04	769	3845
Shikishima	13204	14089	15000	19	10	5000	1640	5,26	21,08	30,2	9,66	35,31	61,28	885	4425

The results in the attached excel document should look exactly the same. Play with the variables to see what happens if you change them!

[KWorld]

Hmmm.  A little bit complex upfront, but you'd only have to do it once per ship type.  I'm not sure where the wartime ammunition tonnage comes from, though I can see the peacetime numbers. 

[Nobody]

Hmmm.  A little bit complex upfront, but you'd only have to do it once per ship type.  I'm not sure where the wartime ammunition tonnage comes from, though I can see the peacetime numbers.

Are both comments on ammo?
Yes the disadvantage is that you need copy both light and standard displacement in addition to the other values into the list. I would also penalize ships with high ammunition storage. Much better would be number calculated based on a ships weapons.

I simply multiplied the peacetime value with 5 to the the wartime figure.



I get the feeling I shouldn't have posted the reworked fuel proposal together with the ammo example at the same time...

[KWorld]

One thing I find interesting about the numbers is that they're pretty high.  All of the ships, at peacetime active state, cost over 1.5 times as much as 1% of their normal tonnage (and the DD is over 4 times 1% of it's normal tonnage).  Wartime costs are even higher: the DD is somewhere over 25 times 1% of it's normal tonnage, and the AC is over 6 times 1% of it's normal tonnage.  Part of the wartime number is that the speed mix is probably over-estimating the amount of time at full speed (so is the peacetime number, I expect).

[Nobody]

One thing I find interesting about the numbers is that they're pretty high.  All of the ships, at peacetime active state, cost over 1.5 times as much as 1% of their normal tonnage (and the DD is over 4 times 1% of it's normal tonnage).  Wartime costs are even higher: the DD is somewhere over 25 times 1% of it's normal tonnage, and the AC is over 6 times 1% of it's normal tonnage.  Part of the wartime number is that the speed mix is probably over-estimating the amount of time at full speed (so is the peacetime number, I expect).

We haven't decided on any numbers so far, which means there is no high or low yet. (see here to see how I think our prices should be defined - and we are still at stage 1)

Since its fuel based it's only natural that fast (and small) ship are more expansive to run. The monitor on the other hand is rather cheap. The advantage is that special upkeep rules for destroyers or merchant ships might be no longer necessary.

If you don't feel comfortable with the numbers, please play with the variables and tell us if you find nicer ones.

[KWorld]

When I said "high", I was using (normal tonnage * 0.01) as the baseline number for my expectation.  Fast ships, when they use their speed, will have a higher fuel burn than slower ships of the same vintage, engine type, and hull design, absolutely.



I did a little playing with the spreadsheet: I think better numbers for cruise/max speeds in peace & wartime are 99/1% for peacetime and 80/20% for wartime.  This gives 7.2 hours per month at max speed in peacetime and 144 hours per month in wartime

[Nobody]

When I said "high", I was using (normal tonnage * 0.01) as the baseline number for my expectation.  Fast ships, when they use their speed, will have a higher fuel burn than slower ships of the same vintage, engine type, and hull design, absolutely.

Well in that case the values are indeed quite high, because I chose $1 per kiloton of ship/fuel.

I did a little playing with the spreadsheet: I think better numbers for cruise/max speeds in peace & wartime are 99/1% for peacetime and 80/20% for wartime.  This gives 7.2 hours per month at max speed in peacetime and 144 hours per month in wartime.

That could work just as well. The reason I chose a much higher top speed value is not because I think they will be going that fast that often, but they will usually cruise at higher speeds than their actual cruise speeds - especially if you're at war.

I admit "it's just another factor", but have you tested with different turn lengths (C4) than 2922 hours (Term) (currently more favored are Halfs or Quarters)?

[snip]

At this time, I really do not want to add in ammo upkeep. It makes the system have a few to many variables IMO. Tonnage+fuel is about as complex as I am willing to go for naval upkeep outside of refits.

[KWorld]

Simplicity is why I suggested the idea of using normal tonnage for the basis of maintenance costs during peacetime and maximum tonnage during wartime.  Divide that by 1000, apply any applicable readiness modifiers, and there you are.  As pointed out, though, that idea doesn't work well for commercial vessels, and could work better for small, fast vessels that may need to fuel multiple times per month.

This system is a bit complex, but as noted it's complexity is of a "calculate once" nature, you don't have to keep doing the calculations over and over.

[Darman]

I like the idea of fuel costs.  Just tossing my 2 cents in, don't really have any constructive to say at this time.  Carry on peoples....

[Nobody]

Assuming we keep half year turns I tweaked (lower fuel cost and overall smaller numbers) my proposal a bit. I also added a few more examples using recently posted ship designs.

	displacement					Upkeep
						peace			war
	normal	max speed [kn]	range [nm]	cruise speed [kn]	bunker size [t]	reserve	active	mobilized	reserve	active	mobilized
dreadnought like battleship	18434	22	4000	12	1892	6,23	24,07	32,52	10,74	34,31	52,6
USS Smith	742	29,5	2000	15	183	0,41	2,24	4,49	0,81	4,39	9,65
USS Arkansas	3074	12,5	3000	10	400	1,04	4	5,4	1,7	4,98	6,92
USS Omaha	4837	27	6000	12	1269	1,88	8,29	13,46	3,56	14,98	28,73
USS Montana	17198	25	6500	12	2977	5,98	23,76	33,61	10,63	36,88	61,24
USS Connecticutt	14695	18	6600	10	1993	4,77	17,62	22,01	8,12	23,84	33,15
Shikishima	15000	19	5000	10	1640	4,93	18,42	23,54	8,46	25,69	37,21
USS Kearsarge	12250	16	4000	10	1244	4	14,89	18,84	6,73	19,58	26,9
Cassini	1074	21,2	2730	10	205	0,44	2	3,38	0,83	3,61	7,09
Fuji	13008	18	4000	10	1279	4,29	16,11	20,76	7,33	22,18	32,04
USS New Orleans	3988	20	5000	10	781	1,42	5,74	8,37	2,51	8,95	15,18
Jeanne d'Arc	12038	22,92	3000	12	1382	4,34	17,84	26,53	7,66	27,57	47,25
Cats class	15837	20,26	6500	12	3122	5,4	21,01	28,78	9,19	29,2	44,5
BB4 & BB5	18800	21	5000	12	2500	6,34	24,42	32,84	10,84	34,1	51,4
Illustrious Class	14500	16,37	7000	8	1472	4,59	16,45	19,38	7,84	22,15	29,27

Details are in the xls file. I would like to point out that it would be possible to simplify the calculation, but then it would be no longer possible to see were the numbers came from. I think it is a nice feature to be able to look at a part of the equation seeing that you have to pay for e.g. 15000 tons of coal for this ship in that half year.

EDIT:
Based on these numbers
a building cost of $15 per 1000 tons normal displacement, equals about 5 years of duty
a building cost of $25 per 1000 tons normal displacement, equals about 8 years of duty

Would that be reasonable? Do we want smaller numbers or should ships be more expansive/cheaper in comparison to their running costs?