Clarifications

[Darman]

These are the rules for warship upkeep from N3.  I don't want to change them, simply a clarification. 

Upkeep of Warships

Ships require constant minor repairs and material replacements in order to remaining functioning.  This effort increases as the ship spends more time at sea.

This is strictly a dollar cost - no BP is required for upkeep - and is based on original construction costs.  Consequently, submarines and warships built to destroyer/torpedo-boat architecture will require greater upkeep than other vessels of similar size, while ships built to merchantile standards will require less upkeep than other vessels of similar size.

There are three stages of readiness, with associated upkeep costs:

Mobilized:  The ship is in all respects ready for immediate military operations, and spends considerable time at sea.  Upkeep is 5% of construction cost, per half-year.

Active:  The ship can undertake limited military operations immediately, and will only take a few days to become completely combat ready.  It spends the majority of the time in harbour.  Upkeep is 2.5% of construction cost, per half-year.

Reserve:  The ship is anchored in a secure location, with a minimal cadre of crew conserving its equipment and undertaking essential maintenance.  The ship is not capable of undertaking immediate operations.  Upkeep is 0.5% of construction cost, per half-year.

I would like to add wording to the rules simply making it clear that a mobilized ship is 100% ready to fight, an active ship has 50% of its complement of crew (the remaining crew are mostly reservists and raw recruits who will provide the extra manpower required by a man-of-war), but an active vessel spends up to one week each month at sea, training etc.  Reserve vessels have a minimal crew (about 10%) and never go to sea unless activated or mobilized. 

[snip]

Not that I am opposed to it, but is there a reason you would like these changes?

[Darman]

Not that I am opposed to it, but is there a reason you would like these changes?

In attempting to plan the dispositions of the Royal Navy I have been looking at what most of the ships will be doing in peacetime.  Generally, ships on a foreign station (the Mediterranean, Gibraltar, China, East Asia stations etc) spend most of their time cruising around.  These will be mobilized.  Ships based closer to home in England or Ireland though will have 1/2 or 2/3 of their crew, most of them men will be trained enough to be specialists (gunners, spotters, petty officers), with the remaining crew to be filled by reservists or recruits during wartime who will perform manual labor: shifting coal, loading furnaces, moving ammunition overseen by an experienced hand etc.  These vessels are not sedentary, they aren't laid up in ordinary or mothballed.  So they ought to be considered active vessels because they can fight, and they do leave port for training cruises etc.  I was simply looking for a way to quantify the maximum amount of time at sea they will ordinarily spend without being considered mobilized and I figured that roughly 1 week per month was a good round number.  Meaning that if you have a division of 4 cruisers "active" in port, then every week one of them is at sea. 

I'm not wishing to make the rule more complicated, rather, I'm wishing to define it a little better.  The German Navy has a similar set-up: a few ships mothballed in their reserve fleet, a few mobilized ships cruising around the world showing the flag, and the rest are on 1/2 or 2/3 crew in port, leaving port occasionally to train.  The crews are to be completed by the addition of reservists, but the Germans have the additional problem of a new conscript class being placed aboard ship every year, these conscripts are no good except for manual labor until trained up. 

[snip]

I dont like hardcoding things into the rules that define how military aspects (such as crew rates in this case) differ between nations unless it is necessary (ex. Armies). How about this as a solution? Fluff examples and comments are in brackets.

Mobilized: The ship is able to preform at peak capacity as a combat unit on a moments notice. Upkeep is 5% of construction cost, per half-year. [This would be akin to the levels maintained by the USN during WWII. It covers things like sustained bombardment missions, blockades and long range escort/force projection. Ships would have there full compliment of crew, ammo, consumables, ect. Should really only be used in active war.]

Active: The ship is able to preform activities expected of a peacetime force (training, diplomatic cruises, etc) and limited military duties. Upkeep is 2.5% of construction cost, per half-year. [What should be the most common level. The ships are crewed, but not necessarily with a full compliment, and occasionally go to sea. Most activities are covered under this category, the exception being prolonged military operations.]

Reserve: The ship is held in a state where it is mechanically maintained pending possible activation. Upkeep is 0.5% of construction cost, per half-year. [Mothballed ships, cant really do anything aside from being looked at.]

[Darman]

That sounds completely reasonable. 

[Darman]

can we use the coastal defense values from N5? I'm asking because it adds parapet mounts and mortars. 

[Darman]

I'm only asking this because the RN has quite a few vessels with masts and rigged for sailing in 1900.  But can I use these rules from N5?  Most of these vessels will be scrapped soon anyways. 

Sail vs. Steam: As the 19th century progressed there was a transition of warships from sail propulsion, to steam backup and finally to all steam propulsion.  The switch over to steam comes because of two reasons.  First is that ships can steam all the time in all weather conditions.  The second is that rigging is a fire hazard and source of possible debris to block the ships deck.  Of course a ship with sails does not need to go to port to coal and doesn't require the ship engine to be maintained.  So sailing ships will remain common in civilian service for a great deal of time.

To simulate the weight of a ships sail gear and the ballast to counter the torque effects the mast has on the hull misc. weight will be used.  A portion will be below the waterline misc. weight and the other as above the deck misc. weight both found on the Weapons tab for SpringSharp3.

There are two types of sail plans that ships can follow. The Full Rigged Ship (3 masted ship) or Brigantine / Brig (2 masted ship).

A full rigged ship can do up to 2/3 of SS hull speed (not ship engine speed but speed based on hull) Displacement costs being 1.5% misc weight above hull for Full Rigged Ship and 6.5% misc weight below deck.  On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 480 total misc tons.


A Brigantine can do 1/2 of SS hull speed.  Displacement costs being 1% Misc Weight above hull and 4% misc weight below deck.  On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 300 total misc tons.   

[snip]

I'm only asking this because the RN has quite a few vessels with masts and rigged for sailing in 1900.  But can I use these rules from N5?  Most of these vessels will be scrapped soon anyways. 

Sail vs. Steam: As the 19th century progressed there was a transition of warships from sail propulsion, to steam backup and finally to all steam propulsion.  The switch over to steam comes because of two reasons.  First is that ships can steam all the time in all weather conditions.  The second is that rigging is a fire hazard and source of possible debris to block the ships deck.  Of course a ship with sails does not need to go to port to coal and doesn't require the ship engine to be maintained.  So sailing ships will remain common in civilian service for a great deal of time.

To simulate the weight of a ships sail gear and the ballast to counter the torque effects the mast has on the hull misc. weight will be used.  A portion will be below the waterline misc. weight and the other as above the deck misc. weight both found on the Weapons tab for SpringSharp3.

There are two types of sail plans that ships can follow. The Full Rigged Ship (3 masted ship) or Brigantine / Brig (2 masted ship).

A full rigged ship can do up to 2/3 of SS hull speed (not ship engine speed but speed based on hull) Displacement costs being 1.5% misc weight above hull for Full Rigged Ship and 6.5% misc weight below deck.  On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 480 total misc tons.


A Brigantine can do 1/2 of SS hull speed.  Displacement costs being 1% Misc Weight above hull and 4% misc weight below deck.  On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 300 total misc tons.   

I'm honestly not to keen on any sailing ships existing beyond auxiliary roles. But, I have felt these rules to be reasonable and have no qualms with using them.

[Darman]

The vessels in question consist of one class of screw sloops/corvettes for colonial duties only.  They are small and undergunned but are intended solely to be a presence-type of vessel. 

[Darman]

I'm nitpicking I know.  But I'm running off the assumption that the railroad networks in all developed countries are enough to run the civilian traffic, so roughly 1 track lines.  Maybe its a two-track line, but all the lines are at almost capacity with civilian traffic.  To really speed up military mobilization or movement, adding a second (or third track) would be the answer.  So, my question is: how much do extra rail-lines (or first rail-lines in undeveloped colonies) cost? 

Also, are we going to re-use the N3 rules for wireless towers and telegraph cables? 

[snip]

I'm nitpicking I know.  But I'm running off the assumption that the railroad networks in all developed countries are enough to run the civilian traffic, so roughly 1 track lines.  Maybe its a two-track line, but all the lines are at almost capacity with civilian traffic.  To really speed up military mobilization or movement, adding a second (or third track) would be the answer.  So, my question is: how much do extra rail-lines (or first rail-lines in undeveloped colonies) cost? 

This is a good one. I think there is some sort of railroad rule burried here. If you dig it up, might be a good place to start.

Also, are we going to re-use the N3 rules for wireless towers and telegraph cables? 

IMO, its more bullshit to keep track of so no. Logi may feel differently.

[Logi]

A railroad rule might be good, but we'll have to figure out how to work it into the system.

As for the wireless towers and telegraph cables... I've never seen it used to much effect (mostly it was built then forgotten) so my opinion is the same as Snip's.


I've also edited in the extra fluff for ship maintenance.

[snip]

Ok, here is what I am going to open with as far as railroad rules go. For the sake of minimal bookkeeping, Im going to tie the majority of this to Pop:IC and the levels that are built into the rules already for costs. Note this is meant to be an approximation, obviously there is room for flexibility under all these categories but I feel that the descriptions give us enough detail to make the necessary assumptions about rail capacity for our purpaces.

For Pop⁄IC ≤ 1: Minimal rail network. Mostly consists of major single-track lines between large cities, industrial sites, and throughways, tho the routs with heaviest traffic might have two tracks. Some spur lines to important industries and denser grids around major industrial or military areas. Any journey is going to be part by rail, part by foot/hoof in the majority of the region.

For 1 > Pop⁄IC ≤ 2: Two-track lines between most major cities with spur lines leading out to larger towns regardless of industrial importance. Practically all industrial areas are totally covered by rail networks. Getting anywhere by train is mostly simple, tho areas in the countryside might have a hard time handling large volumes at once (say a division trying to offload in a matter of hours).

For Pop⁄IC > 2: Major rail network. Almost every rout aside from dedicated single-use spurs is double track. Transport by train to practically all civilized areas is easy, and the network can handle massive amounts of burst traffic without major delays.

I would further add that it is possible to build dedicated rail lines from point to point over routs that might need additional coverage. Say something like the Tran-Siberian railroad. It is assumed that these lines would tie into the normal rail grid and be usable by both civilian and military trains. The cost figures I have found are for that 20km for such a line is $1 and .5 BP, but that feels rather outlandish. What do others think?

[Guinness]

N3 Railroad rules existed for the exceptions. In general, rail networks were a function of IC. We just needed to cover the stuff like the Trans-Siberian, which didn't have a basis in normal economics for existence.

I think that case can be covered by building 'directed IC', but the mechanism of how 'directed IC' would work is fuzzy. It depends on the socio-economic system in use there. For systems which are 100% centrally directed economies, all IC is directed IC, etc.

So one approach might be to have 'directed IC' which has a different set of rules/penalties than regular IC I guess, but that seems ponderous.

Maybe: players can direct IC to a specific project, but it has x% chances of partially or fully failing, and mods roll on it? For instance, you'd tack an 'in IC' cost on the Trans-Siberian, say 4 IC just for sake of this example. Then roll a D10. 1 means it failed almost completely, 10 means it succeeded completely, and in between. So they end up with a partial IC return for their investment when it's done, but they have their railroad. Say the rolls on each IC completed are:

IC 1: roll 6
IC 2: roll 10
IC 3: roll 8
IC 4: roll 3

IC 1's actual value would be .6 IC, IC 2's 1 IC, IC 3's .8 IC, and IC 4's .3 IC, for a total of 2.7 IC returned from their investment in 4 IC. This reflects the national risk assumed.

Thoughts? Too complicated?

[snip]

N3 Railroad rules existed for the exceptions. In general, rail networks were a function of IC. We just needed to cover the stuff like the Trans-Siberian, which didn't have a basis in normal economics for existence.

I think that case can be covered by building 'directed IC', but the mechanism of how 'directed IC' would work is fuzzy. It depends on the socio-economic system in use there. For systems which are 100% centrally directed economies, all IC is directed IC, etc.

So one approach might be to have 'directed IC' which has a different set of rules/penalties than regular IC I guess, but that seems ponderous.

Maybe: players can direct IC to a specific project, but it has x% chances of partially or fully failing, and mods roll on it? For instance, you'd tack an 'in IC' cost on the Trans-Siberian, say 4 IC just for sake of this example. Then roll a D10. 1 means it failed almost completely, 10 means it succeeded completely, and in between. So they end up with a partial IC return for their investment when it's done, but they have their railroad. Say the rolls on each IC completed are:

IC 1: roll 6
IC 2: roll 10
IC 3: roll 8
IC 4: roll 3

IC 1's actual value would be .6 IC, IC 2's 1 IC, IC 3's .8 IC, and IC 4's .3 IC, for a total of 2.7 IC returned from their investment in 4 IC. This reflects the national risk assumed.

Thoughts? Too complicated?

While it makes sense, I think it is a tad to complicated for what we want to do. For those railroads that don't "have a basis in normal economics for existence", I think its simpler if we just pay for them outright as we do with ships and divisions.