Technology and Research changes

[Tanthalas]

Masts, Rangefinders, Electromechanical Computer, Shot Clock... I went through it once and tryed to come up with 250 tons, I got stuck at under 100 for an IOWA.  Not that that matterd LOL Mario and Borys told me to shut up and Soldier on.  It isnt a game breaker or anything like that for me its just my pet peave =P

not alot relitivly though, paying for them with cash would atleast be logical.  Best I can understand the original 250 tons for FC (the one that realy drives me nuts) is it was to acount for a larger than "normal" mast... seriously thats the explination given when I questiond the tonage.

I always thought it was a really heavy electro-mechanical computer and control cable setup. That and I don't think that the masts were that much heavier (certainly not 250 tons heavier). Coincidence rangefinders don't weigh that much or take up enough space to require something that large.

[Desertfox]

An idea as a possible compromise. Set a fixed date for say rangefinders. Countries that get the tech and lay down ships before that date have to use misc weight for the equipment as it is "too modern".  But after that date, the equipment becomes "free" and no longer has to be included.

[snip]

Once again, that portion of the rules are not up for discution.

[Tanthalas]

Actualy you should proly mark it on the calander and go buy a lottery ticket, cause if DF and I actualy agree on somthing well the stars are truely in alignment, or a benevolant god has interveand.

Once again, that portion of the rules are not up for discution.

[Nobody]

Set a fixed date for say rangefinders. Countries that get the tech and lay down ships before that date have to use misc weight for the equipment as it is "too modern".  But after that date, the equipment becomes "free" and no longer has to be included.

That's pretty much what I said in the first place. Only that I wouldn't want to use a date but base that on a tech level.

@snip
The thing is this was never fully integrated in the N3 rules, to my knowledge, just used. It was however almost always a source of problems.

[Tanthalas]

I actualy think Borys came up with the original numbers... atleast I know he was the first one to develop the FC tech.

Set a fixed date for say rangefinders. Countries that get the tech and lay down ships before that date have to use misc weight for the equipment as it is "too modern".  But after that date, the equipment becomes "free" and no longer has to be included.

That's pretty much what I said in the first place. Only that I wouldn't want to use a date but base that on a tech level.

@snip
The thing is this was never fully integrated in the N3 rules, to my knowledge, just used. It was however almost always a source of problems.

[snip]

Regarding research, I present the following regarding cost of research. This would allow for research to be conducted more organically wile still useing the N3 tree for speed of start. Instead of having a year that tech can be researched from, it is posible as long as you have the previous technology. It is however much more expensive. The formula is Cost= (Base cost)*(e^(year difference from listed tech)). This also makes it cheaper to catch up on outdated technology. The accompining changes to the research mechanic would be the elimination of the $ cap per turn replacing it with a cap on the number of projects (inclusive of new guns). There would also be no tech trading, you would need to buy finished products instead (this was talked about and I agree with it).

Thoughts?

[Darman]

As you put it, it seems fairly straight forward.  Is it still going to have the same time frame as N3?  I.e. minimum of 2 years spent researching and after two years its a 25% chance of successful completion, after 3 its 50% and after 4 its 75% (or something along those lines I forget). 

[snip]

The time to research will need to be looked at, as I feel the more advanced a tech is from its N3 date the more underlying tech that would need to be resolved. If the proposal for cost is good, I will have to come up with how the timescale will work.

[Delta Force]

Regarding research, I present the following regarding cost of research. This would allow for research to be conducted more organically wile still useing the N3 tree for speed of start. Instead of having a year that tech can be researched from, it is posible as long as you have the previous technology. It is however much more expensive. The formula is Cost= (Base cost)*(e^(year difference from listed tech)). This also makes it cheaper to catch up on outdated technology. The accompining changes to the research mechanic would be the elimination of the $ cap per turn replacing it with a cap on the number of projects (inclusive of new guns). There would also be no tech trading, you would need to buy finished products instead (this was talked about and I agree with it).

Thoughts?

Why won't technology purchases be allowed? I think that as long as a minimum "adoption" time exists it should be allowed. The Austro-Hungarians and Japanese didn't develop their own turbines but did purchase a license to build them on their own. But I do agree that buying turbine technology and being able to build them right away would be an issue, some time should be set aside to account for building the required knowledge/industrial/technological base.

[snip]

Technological sale effectively elimates national specialization, which is something that members of the community have desired.

[Darman]

Regarding research, I present the following regarding cost of research. This would allow for research to be conducted more organically wile still useing the N3 tree for speed of start. Instead of having a year that tech can be researched from, it is posible as long as you have the previous technology. It is however much more expensive. The formula is Cost= (Base cost)*(e^(year difference from listed tech)). This also makes it cheaper to catch up on outdated technology. The accompining changes to the research mechanic would be the elimination of the $ cap per turn replacing it with a cap on the number of projects (inclusive of new guns). There would also be no tech trading, you would need to buy finished products instead (this was talked about and I agree with it).

Thoughts?

Why won't technology purchases be allowed? I think that as long as a minimum "adoption" time exists it should be allowed. The Austro-Hungarians and Japanese didn't develop their own turbines but did purchase a license to build them on their own. But I do agree that buying turbine technology and being able to build them right away would be an issue, some time should be set aside to account for building the required knowledge/industrial/technological base.

Technological sale effectively elimates national specialization, which is something that members of the community have desired.

My comment covers both:  Why not allow the sale of licenses with a limited time frame? 

[snip]

I have mixed feelings on this. While it is more realistic, I feel it adds unneeded complexity. It makes diplomacy more interesting as players have to juggle more, which IMO improves the game without overbearing rules.

[Darman]

I have mixed feelings on this. While it is more realistic, I feel it adds unneeded complexity. It makes diplomacy more interesting as players have to juggle more, which IMO improves the game without overbearing rules.

Good enough answer for me.  I was just wondering if it would be feasible.  I do agree that countries should have to do the research for themselves, so I favor no wholesale selling of technology levels. 

[Tanthalas]

I see no problem with lisencing though, heck most of the italian made guns are lisenced versions of british guns OTL