Clarifications

[Darman]

This is what should go in cell F6. Just dragging it down as far as you need to should update all the variables for different rows.

Code Select Expand

= IF(C6 > B6, (C6-B6)/2, 0)

No way.... that cuts my research down to one item total in 1900-1.  2 items in 1900-2.  Is that really how slowly we want research to go?

[miketr]

You can have an economy or research not both it appears to start.

Michael

[Darman]

You can have an economy or research not both it appears to start.

Michael

And here I thought running only 3 research projects at once for what ought to be one of the premier researching nations was "little research"

[Walter]

It sounds like people need to half their research totals.

I guess I am the exception. :)

[miketr]

You can have an economy or research not both it appears to start.

Michael

And here I thought running only 3 research projects at once for what ought to be one of the premier researching nations was "little research"

That would gut my economy, the penalty simply isn't worth it.  Not with how cheap IC is.  Have max economy to start build up your economy as fast as possible.  Then worry about research.  My plan at any rate.

Michael

[Darman]

You can have an economy or research not both it appears to start.

Michael

And here I thought running only 3 research projects at once for what ought to be one of the premier researching nations was "little research"

That would gut my economy, the penalty simply isn't worth it.  Not with how cheap IC is.  Have max economy to start build up your economy as fast as possible.  Then worry about research.  My plan at any rate.

Michael

I might be re-distributing my IC. 

[miketr]

I don't see any reason not to decrease the number of IC in Berlin.  It will odds are be two years before I increase my research total to 2 items since I will need to build 4 IC now. 

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

This is what should go in cell F6. Just dragging it down as far as you need to should update all the variables for different rows.
= IF(C6 > B6, (C6-B6)/2, 0)

For my purposes, I found semicolon ; instead of comma ,  made the Error:508 code go away when I pasted that in.

I like omitting Trunc, as our fractional research $ may then add up and give us a bit more.

I'm a little curious as to how this is going to work in the end. My impression is there are more early techs than late techs. Italy is going to be preoccupied just digesting techs I traded for, much less researching 1900 techs.  I foresee underway recoaling being a rare investment, particularly with juicy 1902 techs and 1905 coming....and the need for gun research.

Toss in only 9 countries, and I would not be shocked if it takes some time for all the 1900 techs to get researched and exchanged...but I think by time we get down the road, the 1930 techs will vanish fast.

Should we be specifying the type of armor plate and ammunition that our ships are equipped with?  So a ship build in 1900 can't have 1900 armor plate unless you've researched them.  So my battleships have compound armor, but anyone who chooses the 1900 armor tech can have Krupp Cemented on any ships laid down in 1900.

Darn it, you may be correct.
I went and got 1900 Armor plate specifically because I wanted my building ships to have it and they weren't ready to launch.
I kinda figure that the armor deck and belt go on towards the end of pre-launch construction, after that it's pretty much lighter weight hull.
...maybe I'll spend some $ and refit the partially built ships.

How much would that cost, considering there's not much to remove to get to the armor - or the armor isn't there yet ??

[Kaiser Kirk]

Should we be specifying the type of armor plate and ammunition that our ships are equipped with?  So a ship build in 1900 can't have 1900 armor plate unless you've researched them.  So my battleships have compound armor, but anyone who chooses the 1900 armor tech can have Krupp Cemented on any ships laid down in 1900.

Darn it, you may be correct.
I went and got 1900 Armor plate specifically because I wanted my building ships to have it and they weren't ready to launch.
I kinda figure that the armor deck and belt go on towards the end of pre-launch construction, after that it's pretty much lighter weight hull.
...maybe I'll spend some $ and refit the partially built ships.

How much would that cost, considering there's not much to remove to get to the armor - or the armor isn't there yet ??

So my question is - How much $ & BP to change from Compound Armor to Terni KC plate on my ships under construction in 1900

Hmm, so this is my proposal :

I'm going to argue common sense is I should pay on one class, but not the other.

Cost of reconstruction for ships building.

The Regina Margherita class - 4,000 tons in or 27%.
Engine is 3,277 tons, the Armor Deck won't go on until after that's installed,
so I think I'm pretty solid that in 1900 there's no armor installed in the vessel.

The Garibaldi class - 4,000 tons in or 47% complete.
So she's going to have the 684 tons of deck armor in and possibly the belt armor, but unlikely.

This would fall under refurbishment.

So the cost would be none for Regina Margherita class as there's no work to do.

for the The Garibaldi class
would be 20% of the cost of construction - or 20% * $4  = 0.8, and
tonnage / 1000  $&BP  - here I'd say 684/1000 = $0.684 and 0.684
For a total refurbishment cost of : $1.084 & 0.684

[snip]

As far as I can tell, even if the armor was not installed it still would have been ordered. From what I know, it would not be as simple as redoing the plates with the material used in the old ones. So I think the cost (in both $ and BP) should be this.

Total Cost = (payed for so far)*.2 + (Weight of Armor)/1000

Since you are just ordering new armor, we only need to take into account the weight of the armor on the ship. The additional 20% of the current investment is to cover any changes that need to be made to the already constructed parts of the hull, as we can assume that the unbuilt parts of the ship can be modified.

[Kaiser Kirk]

As far as I can tell, even if the armor was not installed it still would have been ordered. From what I know, it would not be as simple as redoing the plates with the material used in the old ones. So I think the cost (in both $ and BP) should be this.

Total Cost = (payed for so far)*.2 + (Weight of Armor)/1000

Since you are just ordering new armor, we only need to take into account the weight of the armor on the ship. The additional 20% of the current investment is to cover any changes that need to be made to the already constructed parts of the hull, as we can assume that the unbuilt parts of the ship can be modified.

Well my first impulse is to further discuss/argue my point as I don't agree- which is ok.
My second impulse is not to make life heck for the guys who volunteered to Mod.
So- thanks for volunteering.

Plus I realize some standardized application of rules make sense. Change it here, what happens with the next armor evolution, or holding off on gun installation until the new barrels are ready, etc.

I think I'll probably go cancel the two Regina Margerhitas as I think my dummy turns had them completing in 1903ish anyhow as I can't afford to actually use all my BP unless I'm in a war.
That will give me 8BP tons pre-1900 to put elsewhere, and so I may just steal a bit from the floating dock (5.5BP so far) under construction and complete the Garibaldis with Compound*. Only need 13.197BP for the trio, so I could just finish all of them.

Then lay the Regina Margerhitas in 1900. Since I won't have to spend BP to complete the Garibaldis, the Regina Margerhitas should still complete on time, but with no extra $/BP expenditure.

So, I'll get my pre-1900 stuff revised in the near future

*So while looking back at the dates, I think we've got some of the tech tree named wrong. (I know, big whoop)
Cast Iron went out about 1885 for Compound and Nickel-steel.
After ~1890ish, when the USN tested it, it should be Harvey Steel.
After 1894, Krupp Steel.  Then the Krupp Cemented 1900ish.
Also, Wiki gives Krupp steel as 15% better than Harvey, not the 10 falldown we have.
Not horribly important, but interesting.

[Walter]

I guess it is 'Compound' due to it being used in the old Navalism version of the armor tech...

[snip]

So- thanks for volunteering.

You are most welcome.

Plus I realize some standardized application of rules make sense. Change it here, what happens with the next armor evolution, or holding off on gun installation until the new barrels are ready, etc.

Just to elaborate here on why I think we need to approach these sort of things in this manor. I think it is safe to assume that long lead items such as armor and guns are all started early, possibly before the ship is laid down. While our payments and scheduled do not explicitly cover this, I feel that what we have is meant to approximate OTL building practices. So unless we want (and I for one do not want) to go though and map out the construction of each and every component, I think its a fair compromise. So it would make sense that any alterations to the ship, specifically with regards to long-lead items, after our reports start construction is going to be a refit.

*So while looking back at the dates, I think we've got some of the tech tree named wrong. (I know, big whoop)
Cast Iron went out about 1885 for Compound and Nickel-steel.
After ~1890ish, when the USN tested it, it should be Harvey Steel.
After 1894, Krupp Steel.  Then the Krupp Cemented 1900ish.
Also, Wiki gives Krupp steel as 15% better than Harvey, not the 10 falldown we have.
Not horribly important, but interesting.

I would be ok with renaming the levels, but since folks have planed around the listed differences I feel it would be unfair to change them.

[Jefgte]

... Wiki gives Krupp steel as 15% better than Harvey,...

I have not find the comparison with Le Creusot steel.

Shell tests on a Hovgaard book  "1920 Modern History of Warships" (1860-1914) give le Creusot steel as equal to Krupp steel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hovgaard

Jef

[Kaiser Kirk]

Shell tests on a Hovgaard book  "1920 Modern History of Warships" (1860-1914) give le Creusot steel as equal to Krupp steel

Interesting, I had seen the "Creusot Steel" notation but never looked into it.
according to http://www.atsteels.com/wanad-vanadium.html it came into use in 1896, only at Creusot for Armor Plate.
It sounds like the vandadium used to alloy it was rather rare albeit better after 1905 when Peru found deposits., and I found elsewhere a notation that it was very expensive. While doing the reading, I found a fun assertion that Terni armor plate was the best WWII face hardened battleship-grade armor. :)

Krupp steel seems to have been about 1893 and I'm not sure when Krupp Cemented came in, but could be 1895-1896 on Canopus, and it sounds like it was planned for the 1898 Ohio and dropped for some reason.