Techology Discussion

[snip]

Yes and I did not see that. That is why I need a pair of glasses.

... although '>' actually means 'bigger than' and not 'less than' (or 'or equivalent to'). I may need glasses but do not need my mathematica books. ::)

Meh, best I could do without gunking up the table. The general idea is there, which is what matters.

[Darman]

Yes and I did not see that. That is why I need a pair of glasses.

... although '>' actually means 'bigger than' and not 'less than' (or 'or equivalent to'). I may need glasses but do not need my mathematica books. ::)

Meh, best I could do without gunking up the table. The general idea is there, which is what matters.

If I remember correctly then "10>" ought to mean 10 is the largest number covered in the column. "10<" would mean all other numbers are larger than 10.   

[Logi]

I implicitly insert an x on the other side so:

10>x and 10<x.... as such my definition is the same as Darman and Snip.


I've looked over the suggestions again:

Regarding the modified Gun Table. You should probably have >= 18" rather than >18" so 18" guns are included. Other than that, everything seems fine.

You probably used e because it provides the exponential/regressive curve desired.
To keep the desired form of curve without the complexity --> Maybe something like:
Cost = (Base cost)*(year difference from listed tech)^2 ...... if Year Difference > 0
Cost = (Base cost)*(1/year difference from listed tech) ....... if Year Difference <= 0

[snip]

There is a 18" column, it is separate to account for the British 18"/40 Mk1. This would allow that gun to be created at a historical time. The x>18" column is intended to cover larger guns that some may choose to design that are larger then 18", it is intended as a catchall for oversized weapons.

Maximum Bore Diameter Tech >18" 18" 16" 14" 12" 10"> 35 1885 - - - 3200 2000 1100 40 1895 - - - - 3000 1700 45 1902 - - - 4200 3300 2100 50 1907 - - 5200 4700 3600 - - 1911 - 6500 5800 5100 - 2500 55 1915 9700 7100 6400 5500 3900 - - 1921 10300 8200 7200 5900 4200 2800 60 1928 10900 9500 7800 - - - -

[Jefgte]

...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

[Walter]

Cost = (Base cost)*(year difference from listed tech)^2 ...... if Year Difference > 0

... so if you start 1 year earlier, you get (1)*(1)^2 = 1 so cost would remain the same...

Cost = (Base cost)*(1/year difference from listed tech) ....... if Year Difference <= 0

... including '0'? If you start at the exact time of the tech (0 years), you get (1)*(1/0) =

Another thing is that it is smaller than 0 so the numbers will be negative.... you will get (1)*(1/-1) = -1 so one would actually be getting $1 for researching it instead of paying $1 for it... Don't mind researching stuff to get money though. 8)

[snip]

...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

Outside of the historical guns, they would be governed by the 10" column. I think there are enough historical weapons in secondary calibers that we do not need to explicitly define what is ok for each one, and suitable historical "close enough" approximations could be found for ahistorical weapons. Seeing as we never had anything for less then 8" anyway, I did not see it as a problem.

[Kaiser Kirk]

...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

Could one not be able to figure out the cross section of the lower diameters relative to a 10" bore, scale the lowest pressure by that, then derive MV for a given shell weight?   

[snip]

...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

Could one not be able to figure out the cross section of the lower diameters relative to a 10" bore, scale the lowest pressure by that, then derive MV for a given shell weight?

I would see no reason why not, but as I said before I feel there are enough historical light guns that we can approximate the viability of any ahistoric ones if necessary.

[Logi]

Could one not be able to figure out the cross section of the lower diameters relative to a 10" bore, scale the lowest pressure by that, then derive MV for a given shell weight?   

We can already do so, in fact me and Nobody separately made ballistic tools that did precisely that. Granted his required a few more inputs than mine which was intended to be minimalist.

@Walter
Opps! I'll have to revisit that later then.

[Kaiser Kirk]

One of the things I've found is that the fun odd calibers kinda pass out of favor with the Washington treaty. Guns got lighter and more powerful with better shells, but 10, 9.4, 9.2, 7.5, 7, 6.75... all fell out of favor when the limits became 8 and 6. If there's going to be a formula, it would be nice to have an 'accepted' way of deriving smaller weapons.

...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

Could one not be able to figure out the cross section of the lower diameters relative to a 10" bore, scale the lowest pressure by that, then derive MV for a given shell weight?

I would see no reason why not, but as I said before I feel there are enough historical light guns that we can approximate the viability of any ahistoric ones if necessary.

[Walter]

Opps! I'll have to revisit that later then.

Slightly modifying it how about...

c = cost
b = Base cost
y = number of year tech's being researched earlier/later than listed. Earlier being negative, 0 being the exact year and later being positive numbers.

If y<0: c=b*(y^2+1)
If y=0: c=b
If y>0: c=b*(1/y))

With techs being started earlier, the y^2 will make sure that any negative values will become positive. I added the +1 to it so that when you start 1 year earlier, it'll become c=b*2 instead of the original c=b*1.

I thought about adding +1 to the other formula as well, but I thought it would perhaps be better that when you start a year later with the tech, it still costs the same as when you start researching it at the listed year.

[Logi]

Seems fine to me.

[snip]

Another proposal to simplify the gun table by reworking it into less columns, a more even progression of boar (2" increments) and eliminating redundant ones (the 8" and 9") while allowing for guns greater then 18".

Maximum Bore Diameter Tech >18" 18" 16" 14" 12" 10"> 35 1885 - - - 3200 2000 1100 40 1895 - - - - 3000 1700 45 1902 - - - 4200 3300 2100 50 1907 - - 5200 4700 3600 - - 1911 - 6500 5800 5100 - 2500 55 1915 9700 7100 6400 5500 3900 - - 1921 10300 8200 7200 5900 4200 2800 60 1928 10900 9500 7800 - - - -

Doing some further tinkering with this. I want to make sure that the progression is smoother and more consistent. I made sure that the techs are spaced 5 years apart. This allows for the development of the tech and guns based on it (amusing 3 year research and that gun development is started the next half) before the next level becomes available. Thoughts?

Maximum Bore Diameter Tech >18" 18" 16" 14" 12" 10"> 35 1885 - - - 3200 2000 1100 40 1895 - - - - 3000 1700 45 1900 - - - 4200 3300 2100 50 1905 - - 5200 4700 3600 - - 1910 - 6500 5800 5100 - 2500 55 1915 9700 7100 6400 5500 3900 - - 1920 10300 8200 7200 5900 4200 2800 60 1925 10900 9500 7800 - - - -

[Nobody]

"Thoughts?"

Yea, many. Not sure where to Start.

First of all. Diesels should have a much bigger range advantage. About 100%. Penalty is more difficult. The first generation of Diesel engines was actually lighter than a same power steam plant, but very limited in power.

About the guns: The heavy (e.g. 16" L50, L55 and L60) come much too early. Heck the 16"/50 was as good as it ever got until the 1940s (Iowa & Montana). Also you need to define where, say a 15" gun, fits into. Is it a 16" or is it a 14"? Neither category really fits them.
BTW the original table was created by P3D, I think. Who also provided the formula he used to create those values from the caliber and length.