Technology and Research changes

[snip]

As stated before, I really do not think this adds anything to the game from a streamlining PoV. Fuel upkeep allows for the elimination of some variables there, which is streamlining the overall game. This does no such thing, and makes a area of tech that some already have an issue with more complicated then it needs to be.

[Nobody]

I don't think it complicated (it uses an already present element in a new way), but rather intimidating (due to the number of tech levels - about 40 game years divided by one level every 3-5 years, that's 8 to 13 levels per propulsion type).
But at any given time the player would only have to choose between the few levels available to him.


ANYWAY, none of this matters in 1900, how about we postpone this question until ~1905? Let us then decide if we are willing to add branches.
For now we only have to decide if we want separate search path for turbines and reciprocating engines, or not.

[Tanthalas]

Agreed thats our only real concern atm.  I can see arguments both ways, personaly id just as soon not mess with what we already have but thats the reactionist in me =P

I don't think it complicated (it uses an already present element in a new way), but rather intimidating (due to the number of tech levels - about 40 game years divided by one level every 3-5 years, that's 8 to 13 levels per propulsion type).
But at any given time the player would only have to choose between the few levels available to him.


ANYWAY, none of this matters in 1900, how about we postpone this question until ~1905? Let us then decide if we are willing to add branches.
For now we only have to decide if we want separate search path for turbines and reciprocating engines, or not.

[Delta Force]

I think that the transmission technologies would be overly complicating things seeing as we don't really have any way to manipulate their efficiency like we do with engines through the use of the engine year.

On another topic I was thinking perhaps we could have the slips and drydocks limited by tonnage as opposed to length. Facilities can be as limited by their ability to move components around as they can be by the physical size of docks and most modern (large) facilities give their capacity limits in tons as opposed to dimensions.

[Logi]

I had thought the new rules were like N4.5 regarding slips/drydocks - apparently I didn't read closely.
I agree with Delta on changing the limitation to tonnage on a dock rather than length.

[KWorld]

Ths USN laid  down the collier Jupiter in 1911, she was a test ship for turbo-electric drive (which was proposed in 1900 but it took until 1911 before the USN was convinced to test it).  I think the first geared naval ships were HMS Beaver and Badger, ordered in 1911.


Found a bit more data:
http://books.google.com/books?id=DluSJEQBki0C&pg=PT150&lpg=PT150&dq=US+Navy+turbo-electric+trials&source=bl&ots=L8Si1gxoWe&sig=VFobvg583HXAyjkNRNTj5BsVijs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=US%20Navy%20turbo-electric%20trials&f=false

The book that's covered above happens to have the chapter on USN turbo-electric propulsion posted, useful for this discussion.  In a study in 1916, it was found that at cruise speeds the turbo-electric transmission was approximately 20% more efficient than direct-drive turbines (Parsons or Curtiss), and at least 6-8% more efficient than geared Curtiss turbines (probably didn't have a geared Parsons turbine to test against, what with WWI raging in Europe).  In the preview that was up yesterday (I suspect it will return), it was mentioned that in 1935 15 different drive options were prepared for new USN battleships, 10 geared and 5 turbo-electric.  For the same output power, the turbo-electrics were 10% heavier and bulkier, I don't remember there being any expectation of higher efficiency (the geared systems had probably added additional low-speed gears by this time).


Also, turbo-electric technology was really very little more than putting period electric power-plant technology aboard ship, the initial installations were of similar power output to period municipal power plants.  Pretty straight-forward stuff.

[KWorld]

Engine tech

> 1895 Baseline(0): Complex Reciprocating Engines, Engine Year 1900
> 1902 Advanced (+1): Engine year 1905, Max. non-VTE power 5,000 HP/Shaft,
>         Direct-drive Turbines
> 1905 Cutting Edge (+3) Engine year 1909, Max. non-VTE power 12,000 HP/Shaft
> 1909: Engine year 1912, Max. non-VTE power 20,000 HP/Shaft
> 1913: Engine year 1916, Max. non-VTE power 35,000 HP/Shaft
> 1917: Engine year 1920, Max. non-VTE power 40,000 HP/Shaft, Engine year = year laid down.
>
> Miscellaneous propulsion technology:
> 1900 Underway Recoaling
> 1906 Oil-firing boilers: Allows bunkers with larger than 10% percentage for oil
> 1906 Electric Propulsion
> 1912 Geared Drives
> 1912 Capital Ship Diesel Engines
> 1915 Underway Oiling

A couple dates seem off: HMS Viper was equipped with turbines in 1899.  Electric propulsion
could have happened any time after 1900 when it was first proposed to the USN by Fessenden,
there were no technical difficulties to be overcome.  The USS Lexingtons were supposed to have
45,000 HP/shaft.

[snip]

A couple dates seem off: HMS Viper was equipped with turbines in 1899.  Electric propulsion
could have happened any time after 1900 when it was first proposed to the USN by Fessenden,
there were no technical difficulties to be overcome.  The USS Lexingtons were supposed to have
45,000 HP/shaft.

The rules are not prefect, but the do work for the vast majority of OTL ships (hell, most of the outliers a UK AFAIK). There is no need to drastically alter the rules regarding SHP and introduction of turbines to fit the few cases which they do not work for. The date for Turbo-electric about splits the proposal and the service implementation. We could talk about moving it one way or another depending on what else changes.

On another topic I was thinking perhaps we could have the slips and drydocks limited by tonnage as opposed to length. Facilities can be as limited by their ability to move components around as they can be by the physical size of docks and most modern (large) facilities give their capacity limits in tons as opposed to dimensions.

I had thought the new rules were like N4.5 regarding slips/drydocks - apparently I didn't read closely.
I agree with Delta on changing the limitation to tonnage on a dock rather than length.

I adivise you both go read this again. Slip, drydocks and other Naval infrastructure are not up for discution, nor have they been.

More later, but time to head to work.

[snip]

I don't think it complicated (it uses an already present element in a new way), but rather intimidating (due to the number of tech levels - about 40 game years divided by one level every 3-5 years, that's 8 to 13 levels per propulsion type).
But at any given time the player would only have to choose between the few levels available to him.


ANYWAY, none of this matters in 1900, how about we postpone this question until ~1905? Let us then decide if we are willing to add branches.
For now we only have to decide if we want separate search path for turbines and reciprocating engines, or not.

Here is my main issue with the proposal as presented. Why would the turbines or VTE plant be different between geared or electric or direct drives? I understand that this is to get different engine weights, but to me it makes no conceptual sense that if you had say 1920 turbines that you would be limited to 1910 ones on TE ships. To me, it makes more sense from the conceptual standpoint to have each advanced drive take some % of the engine weight. I would say it should look something like this, changes in bold.

Naval Propulsion
1895 Baseline(0): Complex Reciprocating Engines, Engine Year 1900
1902 Advanced (+1): Engine year 1905, Max. non-VTE power 5,000 HP/Shaft,
        Direct-drive Turbines
1905 Cutting Edge (+3) Engine year 1909, Max. non-VTE power 12,000 HP/Shaft
1909: Engine year 1912, Max. non-VTE power 20,000 HP/Shaft
1913: Engine year 1916, Max. non-VTE power 35,000 HP/Shaft
1917: Engine year 1920, Max. non-VTE power 40,000 HP/Shaft, Engine year = year laid down.

Miscellaneous propulsion technology:
1900 Underway Recoaling
1906 Oil-firing boilers: Allows bunkers with larger than 10% percentage for oil
1906 Electric Propulsion: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 20% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 10% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization.
1912 Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Takes a additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912 Capital Ship Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric or Geared drives.
1915 Underway Oiling

The numbers are rough, and just there to give an idea of how such a system would work.

Thoughts?

[Tanthalas]

Honestly I kind of like that proposal.  I always hated having to keep track of what engine year I had (ok so that dosnt fix it but atleast I dont have to add another layer of data to it)  Speaking of which all my startup ships should have engine year 1900 Woot Woot free tonage.

[snip]

Honestly I kind of like that proposal.  I always hated having to keep track of what engine year I had (ok so that dosnt fix it but atleast I dont have to add another layer of data to it)  Speaking of which all my startup ships should have engine year 1900 Woot Woot free tonage.

We might have to do something about pre-start ships. I'm thinking nice and simple Engine year= Laydown year for pre-1900 ships.

[KWorld]

Frankly, I think the current engine tree is too complicated, for a technology that was well known and well distributed.  I'd suggest that engine year = laydown year, except in the case of ships that have been refit with new engines, with miscellaneous weight modifications for turbo-electric and diesel engines at the appropriate times.   

[Tanthalas]

The point behind the existing engine tech was simple.  Without some limitation players would inevitable push SHP to unrealistic (as compared to OTL) levels, and by seting engine year its easy to verify how much SHP player X is restricted to. (I said I hated it I didnt say I didnt understand it)

Frankly, I think the current engine tree is too complicated, for a technology that was well known and well distributed.  I'd suggest that engine year = laydown year, except in the case of ships that have been refit with new engines, with miscellaneous weight modifications for turbo-electric and diesel engines at the appropriate times.

[snip]

Frankly, I think the current engine tree is too complicated, for a technology that was well known and well distributed.  I'd suggest that engine year = laydown year, except in the case of ships that have been refit with new engines, with miscellaneous weight modifications for turbo-electric and diesel engines at the appropriate times.

It is a known evil, and if there is a proposal that does not gut the tech and reduces complexity, I am all ears.

[KWorld]

Proposal:

Direct Drive turbines are the baseline turbine type.  No change from what SS generates.  Use engine year=class laydown year, unless a ship has been refit with a newer engine system.

Geared turbines are an improvement on the direct drive type, first available in 1912 (small ships) to 1916 (capital ships).  They are more efficient at cruise than direct drive turbines, getting a 10% cruise range bonus when first available and a 20% cruise range bonus after 1935.

Turbo-electric drives are an mprovement on the direct drive type, first available in 1900.  They are more efficient at cruise than direct drive turbines, getting a 20% range bonus.  However, they are also heavier, weighing 4.5% more than the several turbines needed by a direct drive system.

Diesel engines are an alternative to steam engines, being more efficient at cruise speeds but substantially heavier.  They weigh an additional X% and get a 100% range bonus.


SHP limits need to be looked at, since RMS Mauretania had a designed SHP of 17,000 when laid down in 1904, and was at 19,000 in 1909 during her record runs.