The Way Forward

[Kaiser Kirk]

A) Thanks for chiming in Rocky/Fox.
B) I was already thinking I should just make a new thread on colonies

[The Rock Doctor]

Okay, proposal for canal revenues:

-Once completed, a canal earns revenue.

-If the canal is in a colony, the canal earns $1 of revenue for every $15 invested in its construction (so 67% of what that $15 would earn if directed toward building an IC in the colony instead).

-If built in the homeland, the canal earns $1 per $30 invested in its construction (whereas an IC will cost $20 or $25 in the homeland for a while).

[Kaiser Kirk]

So, I'm going to float an idea I think will be rejected, but this is the time/place.

I've long looked at BP as better a measure of precision tooling/gearcutting/metallurgy than simple "steel production".
We see an example of that in merchants being 1/4 the BP cost. 

Personally, I'd like to a move to a different way of doing ship costs.... <ducks>   oh that's right no one can hit me in a forum.
Ship Cost =      Armament + Armor + Non-AC Misc Weight+ 2x Normal Machinery + 3x Lightweight Machinery + 3x Aircraft Misc Weight   (all 000s tons)

Merchant ships would be done by the above system, which should correctly show that big empty volumes with small engines are fairly cheap.
Subs and MTBs, as basically all machined would still be paid by tonnage.


So an IRS Praeventores-class would be
3.38 + 11.02 + 1  + 2x1.64 + 3x 0 + 3x 0 = 18.68 BP  vs. the current 25.5 BP

But a IRS E-Class Destroyer would be
0.01 + 0.01 + 0.06 +2x0 + 3x 0.63 + 3x 0 = 1.94 BP vs the current 1 BP

WHY ?
Submarines and Carriers were far pricier than comparable ships by tonnage, and harder to build.  A submarine requires tons of engineering, and much of a carriers cost was the airgroup - which features a bunch of small high maintenance, cutting edge engines and alloys.
I believe destroyers were also pricier - the USN built 175 Fletcher class at $6mil each- so that should be reduced for mass production efficiency. The Iowas are a bad comparison as they were all STS steel, but cost $100 mill or 16.7 Fletchers while the KGV  cost $50mil, or 8.33 Fletchers ....the Battleships used a lot more weight of steel than destroyers, but much of it was massive and not finely tooled chunks.

Basically Machinery is difficult and hard to make.

So, I think this would be EASY to incorporate in the spreadsheets, AND better reflect the relative production cost. There's even precedent in our refit rules.
Plus at the end of the day, it would show that BP isn't just raw metal production.

[Desertfox]

The way you are proposing seems quite complicated, but I like the reasoning behind it. Perhaps just a flat modifier to cost. Say subs are x1.5, ships built to DD standards are x1.25, ships to cruiser (0.9 strength) are x1.1 and carriers require a separate "airgroup" cost based on size of airgroup.

[The Rock Doctor]

That would increase all warship costs, yes?

[Kaiser Kirk]

That would increase all warship costs, yes?

It depends on the multiples assigned.
My method Fox was replying to reduced it for some vessels and increased it others, putting more weight on..um..machinery weight.

The way you are proposing seems quite complicated...

That's the funny thing.   You are of course right, we each look at this things from our own viewpoint.

To me, it's obvious that you stick something like that in the ship construction tab of the budget spreadsheet.
You pop open your ship reports, and you grab the needed info out of :

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 3,379 tons, 12.0 %

   Armour: 11,021 tons, 39.2 %

   Machinery: 1,636 tons, 5.8 %

   Miscellaneous weights: 1,015 tons, 3.6 %

with only the Misc weight being a little extra - and the ship builder should find that part easy to read/digest.
And so I wind up thinking it's pretty simple and straight forward.  Fill out 5 fields in the spreadsheet instead of 2 (Light hull and Merchant/Not)

BUT..then I look at what I did Thursday.
I took the field notes and sketch I made Weds and turned it into a hand drawn map of a crossing.
Figuring the angle of repose of the different parts of the crossing , I used a nomograph to cross index with CFS (cubic feet per second) to get D50 Rock sizes for a stable crossing.
To get CFS I populated a spreadsheet with roughness, max 1 hr rainfall, and drainage area for rational method, but as that came out over 100 acres, I had to go use
the magnitude frequency method which entails elevation and length as well, plus the north coast coefficient. With all that, I could figure out the appropriate sized rip rap for a 100 year storm at that crossing.
Then I did it again... all as part of fixing the damage of 1958 & 1976 and putting together a 4-500 page document for state review. I still have 7 or 8 culverts to size, and associated rock, but meantime I'm trying to get out my Archaeological Contact letters to the local tribes.... all So we can go harvest timber in 2021.

So my attitude about what level of fiddling and excel-populating is complex is likely not well adjusted :)

[Kaiser Kirk]

The way you are proposing seems quite complicated, but I like the reasoning behind it. Perhaps just a flat modifier to cost. Say subs are x1.5, ships built to DD standards are x1.25, ships to cruiser (0.9 strength) are x1.1 and carriers require a separate "airgroup" cost based on size of airgroup.

Rocky also expressed interest as to what this 'costs'....and there was no answer at the time.
That is a side effect of trying to talk over ideas, is that they are not necessarily fully developed.

My goal included lowering ship costs a little, put primarily making them a bit more realistic.
A reason to lower them slightly is that during development, I do not think I properly projected land/support Aircraft  BP needs in the original BP start amount, so a little extra is useful.

With IC out of the equation for construction, that falls on the BP equation.
If we think of BP as tooling and machining, special alloys, it makes much more sense than raw steel does.

So I've trimmed and tried to balance my approach and then made a spreadsheet to compare the final costs for a navy using either the current rules, Fox's version above, or my approach.
It's a good example of how I am bad at KISS...

The reality is it was estimated that a Carrier's airgroup would cost as much as the ship over it's lifetime. The Invincible cost slightly more per ton than the Bellerophon
While 8-16 Destroyers apparently cost what a battleship did.
This sheet is set up so the BC costs ~5% more/ton than the BB, while 18 DDs cost 1 BB.   
That seems...closer to the reality.

BUT...tried to make it simple.
I used the Norse navy...which has WAAY more destroyers and PCs than I realized.. as a basis.
In a way, it's a good balance for a 1920-30s Navy and so a very good basis for evaluation.

When you open the spreadsheet you will see the Norse ship types on the left.

There is a GREY column based off light displacement like now.

There's a YELLOW column with Fox's multiples from above.
Then an ORANGE Column with the results of his approach.

Then there's a BLUE column with the results of my approach.


Over on the right you'll see 5 GREEN input fields - that's all I'd like to ask the player to put in. Comes right off the ship report.

The information for it comes right out of your report, plus any weight you put aside for Aircraft. I deleted the 'functional misc wt' concept, as most of it would not need special tooling or alloys anyhow.

So it's 4 simple fields easy to fill out that you can work into the ship construction tab easily.

Edit: Already thinking of more. If the Aircraft column was called Sub/MTB/AC tonnage, it would work nicely to reflect those expensive things

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 4,497 tons, 13.6 %
   Armour: 11,014 tons, 33.4 %
   Machinery: 1,489 tons, 4.5 %

So that...should be...pretty easy.

Down at the bottom you see the comparison of "Costs" for the 3 methods if the Norse Navy was rebuilt using their most recent classes.
Foxy's can be adjusted down, but right now is more expensive than current.

I've already tinkered with mine to make the end result about where I think it should be - about 10% savings.
That frees up 2-3 BP each for more land/air or docks.

,

[Kaiser Kirk]

General Update

- Tech Rules are Snip's to consolidate a bit.

- While not final, it looks like the Central American Barrier is staying as a strategic barrier/consideration, but canal costs will be reduced. ...discussion continues :)

- NPC tiers are worked out. The general tier and power level will be known, but the specific IC/BP power will not be.  For that matter, they may be like the US in 1880, where the military power was not reflective of the economic power, and so military power could alter as the nation armed.

- Snip's ideas on revamping colonies are still under discussion.  The various player contributions are part of that discussion.  I believe the ideas on provincial quality and some bonus resources are likely, and we are working on how to cleanly implement them.  I have made a trial "ports of Africa" and provided some old Atlas pages as discussion elements for province quality and resource points. I expect we will get to a point Snip can make a decision on how proceed, and then I'll assist in bringing that to life.

- As you can see from my prior post, the idea of tinkering with Ship Costs continues. It's more a secondary thing right now, but if we can find something that works well, it can be rolled out.

- I think bringing issues out onto the forum, working through some variations, and then consolidating it has worked fairly well. Not all ideas worked through are going to be taken up, but they can be evaluated from a big picture point of view.

-This is still the time to bring up new concerns/ ideas.  Right now I have several things I don't think are working "great", but haven't figured out a possible solution to offer yet.  If any of you have a problem and a potential solution, bring it up while we're hashing things out.

Hopefully this approach, where we all have opportunity to float concerns/solutions, but the 'detail work' falls on the Mod/Asst. Mod, works for all.

So, I'm really looking forward to getting this sim moving forward again with life in it.

[Desertfox]

- While not final, it looks like the Central American Barrier is staying as a strategic barrier/consideration, but canal costs will be reduced. ...discussion continues

If we are not going with the "pre-made" strait/canal, I can suggest a couple of other options. 1) Gatun Lake (Panama Canal) has formed naturally -> lower cost for building the Panama Canal. 2) Nicaraguan Canal built from Caribbean to Lake Nicaragua -> lower cost to finish and incentivizing player interactions with Mayans.

- Snip's ideas on revamping colonies are still under discussion.  The various player contributions are part of that discussion.  I believe the ideas on provincial quality and some bonus resources are likely, and we are working on how to cleanly implement them.  I have made a trial "ports of Africa" and provided some old Atlas pages as discussion elements for province quality and resource points. I expect we will get to a point Snip can make a decision on how proceed, and then I'll assist in bringing that to life.

I would suggest an incremental approach and not all at once, make it easier for you guys and keep some measure of "fog-of-war/mystery", like the Civilization games.

- As you can see from my prior post, the idea of tinkering with Ship Costs continues. It's more a secondary thing right now, but if we can find something that works well, it can be rolled out.

The main issue I have with your system is that it requires a separate program (excel) to find costs. I usually design ships to a specific light displacement since that is what current costs are based on. I like being able to determine costs just by looking at the SS3 report. That said, I do like the idea behind it.

Right now my numbers did increase costs across the board, if you want to decrease costs, it could be a simple matter of changing the multiples, say x0.75 for ships built to 1.0 Hull strength, x1 for ships built to 0.9 Hull strength, and x1.5 for ships built to 0.5 Hull strength.   

-This is still the time to bring up new concerns/ ideas.  Right now I have several things I don't think are working "great", but haven't figured out a possible solution to offer yet.  If any of you have a problem and a potential solution, bring it up while we're hashing things out.

For me, its the NPC colonization/concessions/interactions that I'm most concerned about. I loved interacting with NPCs before and I have several ideas for storylines going forward that would work best by involving NPCs. They are workable without changing the rules but I think they would work better and make more sense with changes.

[Kaiser Kirk]

- As you can see from my prior post, the idea of tinkering with Ship Costs continues. It's more a secondary thing right now, but if we can find something that works well, it can be rolled out.

The main issue I have with your system is that it requires a separate program (excel) to find costs. I usually design ships to a specific light displacement since that is what current costs are based on. I like being able to determine costs just by looking at the SS3 report. That said, I do like the idea behind it.

Right now my numbers did increase costs across the board, if you want to decrease costs, it could be a simple matter of changing the multiples, say x0.75 for ships built to 1.0 Hull strength, x1 for ships built to 0.9 Hull strength, and x1.5 for ships built to 0.5 Hull strength.   

Welcome criticism.  The ideas I'm putting forward are my take, and I recognize what I think is simple...um may not be looked at that way.

Clarification Question :
So what you're saying is you like knowing the final light tonnage in SS3 is the price you're paying.
Hmm, I get that, I tend to build ships to set tonnages as well.

However, as for a different program, as far as I know, using excel to do your turn budgets is standard. I'm suggesting modifying the budget sheet you're already using.
But I do see your point of a disconnect between the two.
How severe is that?

Clarification : I did note that one could adjust your variables.  I included what you had because my 2nd effort was a  reference point for how they all worked conceptually. The actual numbers are adjustable.

[Desertfox]

However, as for a different program, as far as I know, using excel to do your turn budgets is standard. I'm suggesting modifying the budget sheet you're already using.
But I do see your point of a disconnect between the two.
How severe is that?

Its not an issue once you have a design finalized and you're plugging it in to the spreadsheet, but it can be during the design process when you are looking at multiple different designs, or when you are looking at someone else posted design, especially if from a phone or a computer where you don't have the spreadsheet handy. And now if you want to design to a specific price point you have to have the spreadsheet open at the same time and bounce between the two. Now you might have the case where two competing designs with the same light displacement have different costs.

A flat modifier means I can compare my 800t destroyer to your 800t destroyer on equal terms, or say my 800t A design with my 800t B design. Also a flat modifier would tie in directly into our tech tree.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Now you might have the case where two competing designs with the same light displacement have different costs.

A flat modifier means I can compare my 800t destroyer to your 800t destroyer on equal terms, or say my 800t A design with my 800t B design. Also a flat modifier would tie in directly into our tech tree.

it's almost humorous - much of my goal was to better reflect the OTL reality that two vessels of similar displacement could have different costs per ton, and allow the players to thus control if they wanted a cheaper ships or not. 

That means meeting my intent runs directly into your complaint !!

It's funny.

The flat by archtype modifiers may be a way forward, and may be a better KISS means of roughly reaching the ends. |
For example, we know a 35,000ton KGV cost 8.33 of the  2,100 ton Fletchers, so your 0.75 and 1.5 works ok there. - 26.25 BP vs 26.24 BP


Other topics :
Colonial Rollout : Skip brought up figuring out workload / timeline/ implementation. We're still talking over the elements and implementation. Once he gets to a point he has the information to decide a course, I will work to help implement it. 

How exactly that's worked into the current game is also being discussed.

I'm hoping that by the end of the week, we have some clear announcements, and we can start doing turns with some reasonable idea of what will occur.
Either way, I think waiting is a mistake, and going forward unsure is less of a mistake :)

NPCs : I agree with you Foxxy. I think having the Mod/Asst Mod set up will help there, both in sharing workload and having a sounding board to ensure folks stay balanced.
Workload is the key, but my personal hope is the NPCs become more 'present'.  I think the influence idea is a good one. Things like Parthia's expansion in Sumatra SHOULD be a -Inf with Thailand, and help open the door for those that oppose Parthia...aka Byzantium.

Will we get there?  I don't rightly know at this point.
Most of the players each had stuff pop up this past year, that just brought the sim to a halt after a promising start. 
Most unfortunate, but we're trying to unstick the gears and get it going agin.

[Desertfox]

it's almost humorous - much of my goal was to better reflect the OTL reality that two vessels of similar displacement could have different costs per ton, and allow the players to thus control if they wanted a cheaper ships or not. 

That means meeting my intent runs directly into your complaint !!

It's funny.

Well my thinking is a 1,000t destroyer, 1,000t submarine, and a 1,000t gunboat should have different costs, so I am with you there, but at the same time, the cost difference between 1,000t destroyer A and 1,000t destroyer B, is probably not worth the added complexity.

[The Rock Doctor]

Anybody seen or heard from Walter lately?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Walter : I sent Walter a PM back at the end of December, and another a couple weeks ago once we were getting going again. His player info (click the poster's name) last I checked said he was on Jan 15th.


Generic Update
I  am sorry to report, but Snip must have gotten caught up in stuff because he went silent again.

This is *why* I volunteered to be the assistant, is so that when he's too busy the game can go on.
However, as we're adjusting things, it is unfortunate.

What can I tell you?

Tech trees- Snip is in charge of simplifying them.

So Canals - cheaper excavation, probably looking at revenue linked to the obvious sea route length saved. Details in discussion.

Colonial Regions - If you read the colony rules, we're supposed to define colonial regions and then occupy them. That has not worked as intended as we define it as a province or two, and then expand it later.  There have also been some sprawling ones, or in odd places etc.

So where Snip's trying to go is use anchorages/ports (and there were lots of them) as logical start points for supplies. From there have some sort of spatial distance for that colonial region, and possibly limit rate of expansion.  Having parts of your colony being too far from an anchorage would drive up IC costs. As this is a naval game, Snip would rather have interior colonies be less desirable, and frankly land transport costs and so development were substantially higher than maritime.

Getting a fair mechanism that is easy to set up and track, I tossed him an idea on how to achieve his goal, but haven't heard back.

Snip also floated the idea of using Amphibious tech as a limiter on expansion and substitute for Supply Units. I had some difficulties with that as it effects the prebuild,
My last take was perhaps Amphibious tech could put a ratio on how many ports or provinces could be claimed.
So say 1 port or 3 provinces connected to the port, for every 12 supply units.  That would achieve his rate of expansion concern while still making the prebuild viable.
The entire discussion on this Snip brought up right before he got busy, so it may all just go away.

Within the regions you will have the Prime/Average or Poor provinces.  They will be cheaper/average/harder to build IC. 
Since we don't want to track which province IS / IS Not developed,
The presumption will be the first IC goes on the prime, etc.
So the Colony of Shangra-La would have
                       # Provinces 
Prime                     2
Average                4
Poor                      1

The first 2 IC would be in the Prime...etc.

The quality of the land will be visible to players from rollout.

Not visible until claimed will be the resource points.
These also wound up as three - Ultra Rich, Rich and Harsh.    Those will effect output. 
Once you have the province, then they will be revealed to the world.  Not sure if there's a delay there.
Presume development of the best first.

The maps showing the ports, quality and resources are my workload. I've sent drafts to Snip for comment before I finish.
I am using a 'atlas of global geography' from about WWII which has a pictoral representation of food and resources as a baseline.  Snip may then adjust that to best fit his vision.
It does mean there are some Rich Prime, and some Ultra Rich Poor, and some Harsh Poor (if you try to colonize sand dunes, try not to be shocked).

Roll out
It's a little hard to say until what exactly is changed is known- that scale matters.
Then we want it simple and fair.
Snip did float that once we have the changes set up, then talking to all of you about how to roll out is the likely course. I second that.

I've offered 3 basic ways- I really can't say which if any will be among the choices.
1)  Start from 1912. Keep everything done, move forward under the adjusted set up.   On the one hand, everyone keeps their work and effort, on the other hand folks may have made different choices.

2) Reset colonies to 1910, hold claiming rounds to bring the game back up to 1912, move forward.

3) Allow a core of 8-12 provinces claimed to be 'kept'.  I like this one, as Jefgte's Madagascar story can stand, my Kandy & Zanziabar stories can stand, etc.  Player chooses which.
Not sure if we'd rebid the rest from there or just go from 1912.

Now - Question for all of you -
I'm trying to act as the Assistant to the Moderator.
You've all seen from my proposals I like to complicate the @#$ out of things, so I'm trying to simply focus on supporting Snip's KISS vision so we have a unified concept moving forward.

I am trying to write these updates so you have an idea of roughly where we're at, and where we're going.
Is this enough?
Are there questions/comments/concerns that you want to bring up?