Technology and Research changes

[snip]

1. is that already explaind in the rules section (I haven't had a chance to read them yet)

Yes

2. do we really need to use e? How about something simpler, like 2?

My thoughts on using e where: 1. It is a well known function. 2. As you get further away from the tech year, there is a gap in how much underlying technology needs to be made up, hence the increased $ cost.

3. I'm not sure if it is a good idea (or fair) to use the starting value for the entire research time. Also sounds like a nightmare to track as a moderator.

Tracking is rather simple as we already have to know the turn the tech was started anyway. Keeping the value is simpler then having to change it every year. You pay more overall to get the tech ahead of when it is listed.

4. (related to 2) its a very speed function, not sure if that is desirable.

It is from my PoV, as I really dont want things cascading to out of control tech levels. The exponential helps simulate the necessary prerequisites that we don't track needed to be developed.

[Desertfox]

I am looking at the research rules and I think they are spiraling out of control in regards to complexity. Can I propose the following instead?


Each country receives X amount of research points equal to 1/3 (1/4?) that country's IC. These points are not spent, they are "invested". The country can put between 1-3 points into a specific category (ie BB/AC Architecture). There are no research rolls. If 3 points are invested the country gets the tech 1 year ahead of the set year (ie 1903 for a 1904 tech). If 2 points the country gets it on schedule. If 1 point, the country gets the tech behind it (ie 1890 instead of 1904). If no points are invested the country gets nothing (ie dont invest in engines, country has to import ALL engines).

Countries wishing to get techs even faster, say 2 years ahead of schedule have to invest double per tech per year. So 6 points for 2 years ahead, 12 for 3 years and so on.

Guns are handled differently. 1 invested point will get you 1 gun 12" and higher, 2 guns 8"-12", 4 guns 4"-8". If you have a point invested and you move it elsewhere, you lose the capacity to make said gun period. Example, the Dutch want to have 11", 8", 6", and 4" guns. 3 points must be invested in total. Say 1 point is moved elsewhere, Dutch lose capacity to build the 11" gun and must now import.

Points are assigned at the start of each year. Only 10% can be reassigned each year. A reassigned point is out of commission for a year. Going from say an 11/40 gun to an 11/45 would remove the gun point offline for a year.

The engine tech tree would be simplified. A country investing 2 points would just use laid down year = engine year. A country investing 1 would use (laid down year-3 = engine year).

Possibility of adding a $ bonus for unused tech points?


Changes would be: Research assignments are done only once a year. No tech rolls (less mod work). Streamlined tech trees (especially engines). No possibility of tech transfer, but greater chance for selling components. Less confusion on when something is available done.


Thoughts? Too late to implement?

[Darman]

Thoughts? Too late to implement?

Just a hunch, its gonna be a little too late. 

[Desertfox]

Tried to make it so it could easily be integrated even this late.

[snip]

Thoughts? Too late to implement?

Just a hunch, its gonna be a little too late. 

Correct

[Tanthalas]

about 3 weeks to late...

Thoughts? Too late to implement?

Just a hunch, its gonna be a little too late.

[snip]

so in case it is not obvious, the answer is no.

[Desertfox]

Alright, I still do think the current rules are even more complicated than they need to be. And wanted to reduce the mod workload, the tech rolls do take time.

[Tanthalas]

Not realy, and honestly the only technical part is the researching tech in advance of current (honestly you and I dont even need to worry about that rule) I argued for engine year = laydown year vigirously (and lost), and the engine system isnt that much more complex than the N3 system (just have to pick a system and run with it).  No matter what system we had chosen it was going to be a pain for the mods to keep track of.

Alright, I still do think the current rules are even more complicated than they need to be. And wanted to reduce the mod workload, the tech rolls do take time.

[Desertfox]

I hate the engine year tech rule, complicates SS3 (which is already complicated) even more. The two things I wanted to get rid of were 1) tech rolls, they are more work for all ad slow down quarters, and 2) the whole mess of figuring out when you can start researching and how much time you have been researching and percentage for tech rolls. Here if you spent the money at the start of say 1904 you have the tech, simple to the point.

[Delta Force]

Is the second 1890 torpedo technology a typo (supposed to be 18 inch?) or is it a very large 16 inch torpedo?

1890: 800m@26kts range, 50kg warhead (-1 dam.), Compressed Air, 16" dia.
1890: 1200@26, 400@35, 100kg warhead (+0 dam.), Compressed Air, 16"

[KWorld]

Is the second 1890 torpedo technology a typo (supposed to be 18 inch?) or is it a very large 16 inch torpedo?

1890: 800m@26kts range, 50kg warhead (-1 dam.), Compressed Air, 16" dia.
1890: 1200@26, 400@35, 100kg warhead (+0 dam.), Compressed Air, 16"

Should probably be 18", they were certainly more common in the 1890s than 16".

[Delta Force]

Which technology represents coastal defense mortars?

[KWorld]

Which technology represents coastal defense mortars?

No idea.  It should be similar to a less-expensive version of a disappearing carriage gun for 10-12" guns.  Wouldn't make sense to build them smaller than that.

[snip]

Ok, just a note to the community. The mods are discussing advanced technology and are ariving at the concensus that any system implemented will ether
a) Be horrendously complicated and unwieldy
b) Be only useable by the Big Four (France, United States, Germany, United Kingdom), which leads to them getting an insurmoutable lead
c) Be easily explotable by the Big Four, which leads to them getting an insurmountable lead

To that end, it is all but serten that the advanced research provisions will be struck down.