Refreshing

[Kaiser Kirk]

Folks,

A week or two ago a question came up on the Architecture thread, and then I got a PM on a related issue.

So, I've been fiddling with my Parthian's turn, and thinking on these.
I thought I would share my opinions and hear yours.

A) Basically, how to handle the incremental upgrades of the tech tree,
such as improved night fighting gear, 1903 superfiring vs. 1910 superfiring, etc.

B) and how to enact the gun research lines :
D. Refreshing, Importing, and Modification of Guns/Mounts
Guns and mountings can be refreshed to reflect the benefits of new gun technology. This only affects alterable characteristics (soft stats) like rate of fire and elevation but not fixed characteristics (hard stats) such as muzzle energy. Refreshing costs same as if the gun or mount was newly developed but the development time is halved.

This "refreshing" proviso covers the costs associated with importing a gun design from another nation. It also covers weapons that are bored out to increase shell diameter or fitted with thicker liners to increase caliber for a smaller shell, such as the historic 15" Mk1 and 8"/120 Sub-Caliber Mk1. Such boring out or relining will need to be approved by the moderators.


Thoughts on A & B
We already track Fire Control Year.
Depending on the nation we mostly track the Torpedo size/Year.

Many of the nations do not track which artillery design in on the warship.
Some do not even have a listing of naval artillery and mounts that I can find.

Currently going through and determining the costs to upgrade my FC again, it's a hassle.

opinion :
I think listing and tracking the tech year of each subsystem covered by Tech Trees is too much to expect.
I think having Misc Weight dedicated to that subsystem, and assuming "maintenance" upgrades those to the player's current tech level is the way to go.

I think the exceptions are:
1) Fire Control, and
2) if a pre-1910 tech ship can fire it's superfiring mounts fore/aft
3) It would be nice in general if folks had their artillery year set correctly, and in the Misc. Weight covered which mount generation they had.

opinion
As for mounts and superfiring, and refreshing mounts in general  -
They did not replace turrets on battlewagons to allow them to fire directly ahead.
So they modified them in place. That would require cutting new vision ports, redoing the interior to move the FC from from to back, and plating over the old.

I think that qualifies as a new mount design to figure out where everything needs to be, but applying the 20% tonnage refurbishment to JUST the MOUNT tonnage.
A simple note "refurbished in 1912 for 1910 superfire" could then be added.

The same goes for 'refreshing' mounts in general - you have to research an updated design, then apply the 20% tonnage refurbishment to JUST the MOUNT tonnage.
this updates the gearing, the electrical, the ramming system, the ammo hoist etc.

If you want a change in the basic dimensions of the gun/shell, then you need to replace the turret.

[snip]

Let me throw some thoughts at the wall here. In no specific order...

0) Everyone needs to have guns and mounts listed in the Ency. I know that I have not personaly kept track of when a given mount was designed, but that could be sussed out based on other data. If thats something we need to track then we need to make that a hard rule right now.

1) I generally agree that we can get away with most Misc weight things being at the latest level with the understanding it just kinda happens as part of what we pay for under normal warship upkeep.

2) I think there are two things we need to add to Kirk's list of exceptions, Torpedoes and Aircraft Facilities for ships with flight decks.

3) For torpedoes, since we already have some variable Misc weights tracked (reproduced below), we do need to track what sort of torpedo facilities a ship is equipped with. I agree that this should not track the fish in the tubes, we then need a better definition of what these mean, especially in places where we have two for a given diameter.

Torpedoes:  Do not use the built in Torpedo utility in SS3. Use these weights instead.
16" (1890 Tech): 1.5 t each
18" (1899 and 1905 techs): 2 t each
21" (1908 tech): 3 t each
21" (1913 tech): 4 t each
24" (1918 tech): 5 t each

Since torpedoes are an important weapon system I feel its a place worthy of additional scrutiny.

4) For aviation facilities, my comments are mostly directed more at the future use of Misc weight for carriers rather than the slightly less future use for catapults. I think catapult setups should have a simple misc weight requirement, X tons per catapult and Y tons per aircraft. For anything with a flight deck, the Authorial Intent of the tech levels as they currently stand was to have differentiation of capability based on what generation of tech was possessed. Having this happen "automagicly" would really make carriers a superior capital unit compared to gunships which are required to undergo refits to receive capability upgrades. My proposal would be that ships with flightdecks (and thereby having aircraft as there primary armament whether understood tactically at the time or not) would have an amount of misc weight dedicated to a specific generation of aviation facilities (exact details like amount per aircraft TBD). This amount could than be modernized in a refurbishment. This puts the upgrade of flightdeck ships main armament on the same level as similar capabilities for gunships.

5) For Fire Control refits specifically, I've interpreted the rules like this. If a ship already has Fire Control, then it can be upgraded to a newer generation via a Basic Refit, as Fire Control is explicitly mentioned as something that a basic refit covers. For ships without Fire Control, they need a Refurbishment in order to assign Misc Weight to Fire Control. Is that interpretation correct?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Since this is a discussion thread, I like to let folks talk over things.
I feel if I jump in and answer point by point, that harms that effort.

5) For Fire Control refits specifically, I've interpreted the rules like this. If a ship already has Fire Control, then it can be upgraded to a newer generation via a Basic Refit, as Fire Control is explicitly mentioned as something that a basic refit covers. For ships without Fire Control, they need a Refurbishment in order to assign Misc Weight to Fire Control. Is that interpretation correct?

Um,
well I've always viewed it as a Basic Refit as it's listed there. I rather presume that when my ships were fitted with FC pre-1910, that a refurbishment was done ...because it was free.  All I paid for was the BP of the FC from my prebuild.

A basic refit is limited to changing external fittings, specifically:  above-deck torpedoes, mine-laying/sweeping gear, simple deck-mounted guns with ammo lockers, wireless, fire control, searchlights, and early radars and listening devices.  Temporary alterations to superstructure - dummy funnels and disguises, or emergency berthing - are also possible.

From refurbishment
Armor and functional miscellaneous weight

New armor decks, external belts, and external bulges for torpedo defense (not "torpedo bulkheads") can be added.  Existing armor decks, external belts, or weapon armor can be replaced or removed (not increased).  Functional miscellaneous weight can be added at the expense of non-functional miscellaneous weight or savings from removed components.

So I can see the argument (now) for Adding Fire Control being Adding Functional Misc Weight and so needing a refurbishment.
But I view it as primarily changing your fittings by bolting on rangefinders and running wires and setting up a room for a dreyer table.

From a practical & historical point of view,
the biggest change I remember being needed was upgrading the gearing in the mounts to allow both finer points of aim and keeping them trained as the ship rolled - and that would be for the 1905.
Beyond that, it could be something just not much discussed - dockyard refits don't tend to be discussed much- but I really don't see the huge cost of a refurbishment as something that happened.

Also, the BP cost of Fire control is tied to armament. But the cost of refurbishment is strictly ship size. They are not well related.

You should be able to add fire control without doing a large amount of hull repair, boiler tube replacement, and the other things assumed in a Refurbishment.
So, it's listed as something you can do in Basic Refit, it makes sense that way.

I'm inclined for it to be a Basic Refit. 

[Jefgte]

If I understand well, that mean:

Armored cruiser, LD 1896, Com 1898 => 1896 FC & 1896-18" TT

Will have automatically, without any rebuilt cost,  in 1911 => 1910 FC & 1908-18" TT
-------------
What about Guns ?
Did we change automatically Guns every 10y
1896-8"/45 => 1906-8"/45

[Kaiser Kirk]

So this all discussion at this point, trying to figure out what needs refits, what needs refurbishments, and how much we need to track.
So my answer is my view.

If I understand well, that mean:

Armored cruiser, LD 1896, Com 1898 => 1896 FC & 1896-18" TT

Will have automatically, without any rebuilt cost,  in 1911 => 1910 FC & 1908-18" TT
-------------
What about Guns ?
Did we change automatically Guns every 10y
1896-8"/45 => 1906-8"/45

That's not what I'm suggesting.
So perhaps I need to reword.

I think the exceptions are:
1) Fire Control, and
2) if a pre-1910 tech ship can fire it's superfiring mounts fore/aft
3) It would be nice in general if folks had their artillery year set correctly, and in the Misc. Weight covered which mount generation they had.

Which would mean
Armored cruiser, LD 1896, Com 1898 => 1896 (Baseline) FC & 1890-16" TT
Will have automatically, without any rebuilt cost,  in 1911 => 1896 (Baseline) FC & 1908-16" TT

The FC is an exception and does not automatically upgrade.
The Torpedoes do automatically upgrade within size.
You go from Early Self-Propelled Torpedoes with Compressed Air engines to Improved Fuse automatically, but they stay 16" unless you refit them to 18" or 21"

So to get 1911 => 1908 FC & 1908-21" TT , you would need to conduct a Basic Refit

The above is suggested for Tech Trees.

What about Guns ?
Did we change automatically Guns every 10y
1896-8"/45 => 1906-8"/45

My answer - definitely not.
It is not my suggestion to change guns so that they automatically
you still have to research new mounts and guns and then add them to ships.

What I am suggesting is if you have a
1899 300mm/45 in a Mark I 1899 "Twin Turret and Barbette",  (guns 97t, mount 213t)
and you want to upgrade to a 1912 Mark II "Twin Turret and Barbette"so you can use your 1910 Superfiring turret technology, and  fire "B" turret over "A",
you just pay the 20% refurbish cost for the mount 213t, not the 12000t ship.
After all, what you're doing is modifying the turret insides to an updated version, not overhauling the ship.

[TacCovert4]

I generally agree with those two.

[The Rock Doctor]

I spend $6 on each tech and $7 or more on naval upkeep every turn.  I would like to think that can take care of detail-oriented things like upgrading rangefinders or re-arranging turret interiors.

Otherwise, we're on an endless loop of constant little refits to implement each new tech across our fleets.  That might be realistic, but it isn't enjoyable.

[TacCovert4]

Well, so far as Fire Control goes, historically that would just be something done whenever it went into the yard for a refit or refurbishment.  So maybe rather than it's just changed as a matter of course, any refit is going to be considered to have modernized the fire control?  And 'disposable' items like torpedoes of the same 'caliber' are upgraded in the normal course of business just like shells would be with better shells of the same caliber.

[Guinness]

In my mind, the only refits we should have to account for are "major" refurbishments and reconstructions where the ship comes out of service, like the interwar capital ship reconstructions. More minor updates should be covered by general maintenance.

So to me, these things require extended time alongside and temporary decommissioning:

• Re-enginging and/or reboilering
• Changing fuel mix
• New turrets
• Significant changes to secondary battery, like going from casemates to gunhouses, or low angle to AA
• Bulging and/or lengthening
• Changes to armor scheme except within limits

So basically anything that requires going into springsharp to change, with  a couple of exceptions: First: I think removing secondaries or moving them, if weight isn't added, should be ok. This accounts for removing hull secondaries once the prove too wet, etc. Second: I think removing weapon armor should be acceptable.

So updating things that aren't bolted down or are easily swapped should be allowed as part of normal maintenance cycles. This includes:

• Updated FC elements, including rangefinders and fire control clocks, in a ship that already had central fire control
• Updated wireless sets, or adding short-range wireless to a ship that lacks it
• Newer generations of torpedoes which are the same diameter and length as the old ones
• Newer generations of gun ammunition
• Removing gun mounts or in the case of turret on barbette mounts, removing guns from mounts
• Removing armor from gun mounts
• Crew comfort features which don't change the fabric and structure of the ship, such as updating from the Mk1 potato peeler to the Mk2 potato peeler, or adding awnings for tropical service, etc.

Just my $0.02. Rule lawyering when you aren't an admin is fun :-)

[Jefgte]

...Otherwise, we're on an endless loop of constant little refits to implement each new tech across our fleets.  That might be realistic, but it isn't enjoyable....

I agree totally.

If we have to update the technos on each ship, one by one or a class by class, the stories of colonization will be very brief and that will slow down HY reports.

Imagine a battle with ships, in a squadron, that have different technos levels.

[snip]

Having let it sit overnight, Im not feeling the need to track the additional superfireing requirements beyond the tech level. If you have the tech, you can shoot in the way it would allow. As noted by others, I agree that its a bit of bookkeeping that really does not add much for the overhead it requires.

While Im not fond of folding most things listed under the Basic Refit under general upkeep, I think we could stand to have a better list of what is covered under basic upkeep. Basic Refits are cheep and quick, I dont see a need to move away from them.

[Desertfox]

I'm with the KISS crowd on this one. Dealing with refurbishments is already a pain, lets not complicate it further.

[TacCovert4]

Maybe consider that the tonnage allocated in the build for FC, for those ships that have post-1905 FC systems, as tonnage allocated and FC is added-modified as acquired?  Certainly you might not need several hundred tons for a simple dreyer table and a couple of relatively short-based rangefinders....but it's allocated for in the build as a built-in expansion anyway.  This would pretty well cover everything until we get to adding radars....and maybe at that point a hard 20% instead of 10% on any ships that you wish to equip with radar in addition to optical systems?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Interesting discussion.

The idea of tracking things like incremental upgrades to night fighting technology had come up at the end of another thread, and I thought we should discuss these things. Both as player and mod I was not inclined to do so.

As a player :
Parthia started 1912 FC in 1910. Combining the Fire Control with her 1910 Capped Shells, and Parthia now can destroy enemy ships from long range. Now if someone would pick a fight while I have the advantage....
Parthia finished the FC in 1912 HY2, ...I haven't even finished all the 1908 FC refits (I have most of the fleet done), and  it's a pain to try to allocate tonnage, particularly with the time out of service vs. the colonial deployments.

Fire Control is a "Big Deal", an integral part of the ship's fighting capacity, and as we do it a substantial amount of tonnage. I kinda think it should be tracked.

I really really don't want to track my searchlight generation, or if I upgraded my 1900 18" torps to 1905 18" torps, or my mine-sweeping paravanes, etc.

From the view of moderating combats: .
Tracking what type of FC which ship had was bothersome, but doable in the Sino-Japanese war.
I should disclose, I did screw up, and thought Baseline was 3k, and 1908 was 8k, which helped the Japanese, as the numbers are 2k and 10k. That meant the Chinese could have been hitting earlier, and would have taking a turn of "accurate" fire away from the Japanese.

I can guess the gun generation and associated muzzle energy from the bore/date.
Folks are supposed to have a list of Naval Artillery.

Beyond that -
I would like to see the Torpedo SIZE specified in Misc Weight. 12t for Torpedoes is not enough.
How many of which size and what mounting. Otherwise I'm going to guess and use ship laydown date for what those were.

The rest... night fighting/paravanes/etc, I would prefer to just look at what tech you have than to have to go check each ship class.

Per the Gun Research Rules, Older mounts are - as historic - not as effective as new ones.
As I game combats, it makes a little difference now, but pre1900 guns and mounts lack the gearing to use 'modern' fire control, so it may be more of a problem.


opinion
I think Fire Control is important enough it should be a dated item, added/changed through basic refit. I recognize that is a hassle, as I'm in the midst of doing it.

The current way of modeling FC weight was chosen pre-game, and may not be my choice, but I'm not looking to reopen that debate.

I think Torpedo Size and Arrangement should be specified, but torpedo ability updates via Tech Tree.  If you want to change the Size and Arrangement, then you need to refit. That could mean you have a 16" torp with improved wet heater and fuses.
I think other tech tree based advances should be worked into 'maintenance' as suggested by many. 
That includes 1903 superfiring -> 1910 superfiring.

Weapons are core to the function of warships. What generation you have matters.
So, I think Guns & mounts should remain a separate item, addressed through refits/refurbishments etc as they are now.
I was not meaning to imply a 1897 305L45 can somehow evolve into a 1910 305L45 with the higher ME.
Likewise a 1897 mount stays an 1897 mount until you replace it via refit/refurbish or "refresh"

"Refresh"
The current Gun Research rules allow "refreshing", basically changing a 1897 to a 1910. This is Optional.
You have to design the new mount.
After that it doesn't say *how* one does it. Which is why I brought it up in this thread.
That's where I'm thinking you just pay the 20% of "Mount weight" to change out the internals.
Useful, but optional.
If one is doing that, noting the mount type in miscellaneous will help me.

[snip]

For the lists of Naval Artillery, what format would you like us to record that information in?