These are the rules for warship upkeep from N3. I don't want to change them, simply a clarification.
Quote from: N3 RulesUpkeep 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.
Not that I am opposed to it, but is there a reason you would like these changes?
Quote from: snip on May 12, 2014, 07:59:41 AM
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.
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.
QuoteMobilized: 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.]
That sounds completely reasonable.
can we use the coastal defense values from N5? I'm asking because it adds parapet mounts and mortars.
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.
Quote from: http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5683.0.htmlSail 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.
Quote from: Darman on June 02, 2014, 09:25:32 AM
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.
Quote from: http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5683.0.htmlSail 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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Darman on June 11, 2014, 10:17:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Darman on June 11, 2014, 10:17:06 PM
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.
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.
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?
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?
Quote from: Guinness on June 12, 2014, 09:41:50 AM
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.
I think for these major (mostly military) projects, it should be paid for simply to the way we do with ships and divisions: a fixed upfront cost with maintenance costs paid every half-year.
Say... $5 and 1 BP per 100 km of non-economic railways. Economic railways covered as Snip mentioned.
That's fine, but you are back to having to have (potentially) confusing railroad rules.
Really all these things fall in the same category:
roads
railroads
undersea cables (etc)
wireless towers
canals
merchant shipping
ports
All of these things (and probably others) might exist as the result of economic activity, or might be partially or wholly subsidized by national governments. IC, in and of itself, is the funding of economic development. Whether or not it provides return on it's investment is the product of how sensible the investment is.
Or to put a finer point on the other side of the coin (woohoo mixed metaphors): if the military buys and wholly maintains a railway, can *any* civilian traffic use it? If so, do they pay the military for that privilege? See my point?
I think it would be safer not to call such projects military due to what Guinness mentions. The name should reflect the fact that these projects are typically outside the scope of what is "economically sane" for a non-centralized project.
I think we can all agree that more complexity in the rules is something we do not want, but at the same time some of these major infrastructure projects that governments conducted do need to be covered somehow. I think we already cover government investment in general infrastructure rather well with IC and BP, we just need to figure out the special projects beyond the scope of general improvments. What I think we have to gain by adding in these projects that don't "have a basis in normal economics for existence" is that we can cover things like the Trans Siberian Railroad and Panama Canal. Very important items both economically and militarily, but what non-government actor is going to pay for them?
I think the happy middle ground here is going to be having the up-front and upgrade costs payed in full by the responsible nation, but having there be no upkeep. My though here is that we can represent the initial investment rather nicely with an up-front payment and then cover the civilian uses under there being no upkeep. Any fees generated go to paying for maintenance. I know its not the most realistic, but I think it is best fitting under the economic system we have set up.
You bring up a good point. We can take of the typical IC construction as a mixed portfolio investment by the government into the economy. In that sense, the projects in question become a question of whether or not you can single out specific items to invest in. In order to keep the return rates uniform, we've disallowed this. All investment is mixed portfolio.
I also don't think the whole civilian traffic and military traffic is a large issue: most non-profit operations lose money, significant amounts as well. We can see this in the one-price all stops railroads so popular throughout the world which lose prodigious sums of money. Any possible positive subsidiary effect on the local economy can be approximated as equal to this lost (maintenance) - plus-minus zero.
Following from this it would be possible to detach this completely from the economic side of things. Without economic considerations, we could collect all this issues into one logistics "package". In this frame, the question becomes is such a logistic package significantly game-changing as compared to the package offered by default from the economy? I feel the answer is no.
I have some doubts about whether such a package would prove sustainable to troops in the field.
If there's a significant desire for railroads and other such packages to be in N6... I feel something similar to what you, Guinness, initially proposed with the rolling. Instead of making the roll affect the IC produced though, I think it would be better to have it affect the price of that particular IC. In this manner, the roll affects a one-time cost and there are no decimal points and other unwieldy effects on the sim report.
Edit: I am in agreement with Snip that something with an upfront cost would be best.
I know you guys missed me. ;-)
Feel free to continue to revise the rules with or without needing to include me in consensus and without requiring any sort of approval from me. I'll chime in occasionally with $0.02 when I feel like it's valuable.
Quote from: Guinness on June 12, 2014, 01:21:56 PM
I know you guys missed me. ;-)
Feel free to continue to revise the rules with or without needing to include me in consensus and without requiring any sort of approval from me. I'll chime in occasionally with $0.02 when I feel like it's valuable.
We do have these sort of projects that did take place about this time in OTL, so its a valid topic. Hell, the Panama Canal is going to come about soon. Im going to enjoy paying for that.
I think we can all accept that
in general IC in some fashion represents the approximate infrastructure level of a given region and I dont think anyone is contesting that point. In my mind, almost everything on the list Guinness provided a few posts back falls under this representation to a majority extent (underwater cables being the exception). I think what we are really getting hung up on here is the huge projects like the Panama Canal. We could always just approach each one of these on a case-by-case basis and determine whether or not the desired project is covered under the IC built in the region.
Quote from: snip on June 12, 2014, 01:30:41 PM
We could always just approach each one of these on a case-by-case basis and determine whether or not the desired project is covered under the IC built in the region.
This seems a reasonable approach, and IMNSHO one that should have been taken in the past instead of crafting rules for special cases.
Could we use ships @ the restart (jan 1900) when they are SS in 1898-1899 ?
in other world;
Is a 12000t BB, laid down or SS in 1899, ready for action @ the restart, jan 1900 ?
Jef
I think that that depends on how long it takes to build the ship. I noticed in the Japanese spreadsheet that a pair of BBs were laid down in 1899 and will be completed in 1901. In 1899, everything smaller than 3000 tons is probably finished before 1900 (unless laid down in H2/1899). In 1898, everything smaller than 15,000 tons is probably finished before 1900 (unless laid down in H2/1898).
I've got a couple of ships in progress; work done in 1898 and 1899 came out of my "allowance", but I'll be paying for the remainder from my 1/1900 and 2/1900 budgets.
Walter's correct.
As far as I'm concerned, you can have the cost of the ship to come fully, partially, not at all from your allowance.
I know this is written down somewhere, but I can't find it:
Pre-startup naval artillery: historical guns can always be used 3 years after their OTL design date, right? What's the rule for ahistorical guns? I'm not keen an ahistorical, but I also suspect that (say) a 10.5cm/40 could be introduced sooner than 1900...
We are basically going with declarations on guns, with the caviat of they at least have to pay some service to the rules (ie, nothing "big" above a L40 or "little" above an L50). Once you have a list, a quick once-over can OK it.
My list right now has EVERY GUN IN THE ENTIRE WORLD on it, so I need to pare it down a bit. Maybe later today.
EVERY GUN IN THE ENTIRE WORLD?!? :o I doubt you will have enough then. ;D
Naval Guns. ugh.
So,
I run into the problem that I've never gotten how to turn the Muzzle Energy allowed into a Bore/Caliber/Shellweight/MV combination,
If I have shell weight & MV on a weapon, I can use Big Gun to get a rough idea of what penetration that had at the expected combat ranges (here : 2000-8000 yards). With that knowledge I can design vessels to be internally consistent. It really doesn't matter if Big Gun is high or low, the folks in 1900 wouldn't know any better.
But with the Naval Gun Research saying that an 1895 10" gun has 1700 million lb.ft^2/s^2.... which means.... what? How does that convert to muzzle velocity in terms of shell weight.
How does one figure out MV and shell weight on sub 8" guns ?
Also,
I've long wanted to do a +7.5, +15, +30, +45 progression - was working there with Bavaria, had started the WW Dutch down the road. That yields a 7.5, 15, 23, 30, 37, 45, 52, 60, 75, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 255, 300, 345, 390, 435 progression. , so if I was simming a 13.5/30, the historic 343/30 becomes a 345/30 to keep it all neat.
Looking at the Italians, many Italian Guns were actually Armstrong guns from their factory in Pozzuoli, built in the 1800s. The result is the Italians had 17"/27 and 13.5"/30 in the late 1800s. Which runs into the problem of the Naval Guns allowed....those aren't allowed yet. So if simming Italians, could I just do a 435/27 and 345/30 instead of the 432/27 and 343/30?
Im assuming this is for pre-start ships in the 1890-1899 era. If not, the following may change.
I have no issue with altering the 343mm to a 345mm. The L30 as proposed fits into the rules (and you could even make a ahistorical L35 under the rules as well) so it does not mater that it would not be an exact copy of the historic gun. The 435/432mm Im a little more hesitant on. While I know the gun is a *ahem* poor performer and a change of 2mm is very tiny, I would rather keep hard and fast to the (at this point informal) rule that all guns that do not fit under the gun table need to be exact copies of the historic piece. Modifying the historic guns could theoreticly (and I don't see you proposing this, speaking in general) lead to guns outside what our gun techs allow being tweaked to make them superior to the guns made inside the table. For the sake of constancy, I would like all non-table compliant weapons to be exact clones down to all Springsharp-definable features with other applicable stats that are not covered within Springsharp untouched.
Okey dokey. That's the reason for asking. 432/27 ok, 435/27 not ok.
But the other part ? How to turn ME from the formula into something useful in terms of shell wt & MV ?
It strikes me as something I did get eventually in N3, but darned if I remember it now.
another question, also involving the pesky Italians...
on the big ships, they really took their time. So on something like the St. Bon Class it's laid down in 1893 - so 1895 engines....but they didn't bother launching it - i.e. finishing the armor deck and sealing it all up, until 1897.... so could that be 1900 engines?
On the other hand, if N6 doesn't slavishly duplicate the pre1900 vessels, I guess the laydown date could just be moved to 1897?
Those darned Italians again! ;D
For 1900 engines, you need to lay down the ship in 1898 or 1899. Ships between 1890 and 1897 would be using 1890 engines.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 01, 2014, 01:35:52 PM
But the other part ? How to turn ME from the formula into something useful in terms of shell wt & MV ?
IIRC Logi has something along those lines. *summons*
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 01, 2014, 01:41:40 PM
another question, also involving the pesky Italians...
on the big ships, they really took their time. So on something like the St. Bon Class it's laid down in 1893 - so 1895 engines....but they didn't bother launching it - i.e. finishing the armor deck and sealing it all up, until 1897.... so could that be 1900 engines?
Laydown date determines everything, unless the ship(s) in question is specifically modified prior to completion in accordance with the refit rules.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 01, 2014, 01:41:40 PM
On the other hand, if N6 doesn't slavishly duplicate the pre1900 vessels, I guess the laydown date could just be moved to 1897?
We are not forcing people to stick to exactly what was made during the historical 1890-1899 period, tho it seems most have been finding it helpful to take similar paths.
Are La Réunion, Tahiti & New Caledonia part of French colony ?
Is Polynesia French ?
http://www.polynesie-francaise.eu.com/fond-d-ecran-miss-tahiti_35.htm
:) :) :)
Jef ;)
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 01, 2014, 12:51:33 PM
Naval Guns. ugh.
So,
I run into the problem that I've never gotten how to turn the Muzzle Energy allowed into a Bore/Caliber/Shellweight/MV combination,
If I have shell weight & MV on a weapon, I can use Big Gun to get a rough idea of what penetration that had at the expected combat ranges (here : 2000-8000 yards). With that knowledge I can design vessels to be internally consistent. It really doesn't matter if Big Gun is high or low, the folks in 1900 wouldn't know any better.
But with the Naval Gun Research saying that an 1895 10" gun has 1700 million lb.ft^2/s^2.... which means.... what? How does that convert to muzzle velocity in terms of shell weight.
How does one figure out MV and shell weight on sub 8" guns ?
I've derived several
non-official formulas for that in the past, here is the most recent and accurate one:
(http://puu.sh/9SUBc/a813995cbb.png)
This was the error margin:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q11/Logi_Hack/MuzzleVelocityError.png)
IIRC, my old Steam and Sails Ballistic program used P3D's ME formula word for word to make it's calculations.
There the formula was:
MV = SQRT( ME * 2,000,000 / shell weight)
Quote from: Jefgte on July 01, 2014, 04:44:59 PM
Are La Réunion, Tahiti & New Caledonia part of French colony ?
Is Polynesia French ?
http://www.polynesie-francaise.eu.com/fond-d-ecran-miss-tahiti_35.htm
:) :) :)
Jef ;)
If you want it to be. IIRC, French Polynesia was not "officially" a colony til past 1885, so it's up to you, as the French player, if you want to take it to that route. If you want it, I'll modify the map accordingly.
Quote from: Logi on July 01, 2014, 06:35:04 PM
IIRC, my old Steam and Sails Ballistic program used P3D's ME formula word for word to make it's calculations.
There the formula was:
MV = SQRT( ME * 2,000,000 / shell weight)
Hmm, that one seems familiar.
Thanks Logi.
Quote
Each nation starts with any technology with a 1890 or earlier date. Technologies for the 1891-1899 period become available 3 years after the date which they would be researched normally (assuming no successful roll, so 1895 engine tech on a 1898 ship for example) at a price of $6 (flat cost of development if completed) OR the maximum amount that would be invested by the first turn in 1900. Any tech dated 1900 or later must start research after game start.
I could swear that this is no longer what we're doing.
My impression is that anything pre 1900 is ours, but I ran across the above quote instead.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 02, 2014, 10:46:49 PM
Quote
Each nation starts with any technology with a 1890 or earlier date. Technologies for the 1891-1899 period become available 3 years after the date which they would be researched normally (assuming no successful roll, so 1895 engine tech on a 1898 ship for example) at a price of $6 (flat cost of development if completed) OR the maximum amount that would be invested by the first turn in 1900. Any tech dated 1900 or later must start research after game start.
I could swear that this is no longer what we're doing.
My impression is that anything pre 1900 is ours, but I ran across the above quote instead.
Ignore the parts about cost. At start, anything pre-1900 is ours. During the starup period, you gain access to the tech 3 years after its listed date (so 1895 Engine becomes available for ships laid down in 1898). Mostly this effects ships, so dont really worry about it for land units. Seeing as they are all declared, we will note if we have any concerns about them being odd.
Ok, that fits more with what I thought was occurring, I just was finding the old info and not the new. Thanks
Yet more pesky questions !
A) I don't see it in the rules on Naval Construction...nor does it talk about it under using build points.
I presume the building rate is now 6,000tons/half year as opposed to 3,000 tons / quarter ?
B) In the Design guidelines, there is no Miscellaneous weight suggested for torpedo nets. I'm going to allocated 2/3t below water per Meter of hull.
Why?
because in the dim recesses of my mind, I think around a quarter century or so ago I saw a weight spec for the QEs of about 120t, and they were ~180m, so it's a WAG.
Any better #s?
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 03, 2014, 01:05:07 PM
A) I don't see it in the rules on Naval Construction...nor does it talk about it under using build points.
I presume the building rate is now 6,000tons/half year as opposed to 3,000 tons / quarter ?
I don't think we ever had a max BP-per-ship for a turn. I know we have some caps on $ amounts for a few items. Seeing as two currencies exist here, I dont think we really need a cap since the built times provide a solid floor for how long a ship takes to complete.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 03, 2014, 01:05:07 PM
B) In the Design guidelines, there is no Miscellaneous weight suggested for torpedo nets. I'm going to allocated 2/3t below water per Meter of hull.
Why?
because in the dim recesses of my mind, I think around a quarter century or so ago I saw a weight spec for the QEs of about 120t, and they were ~180m, so it's a WAG.
Can we call it a even ton just to make the bookkeeping simple?
Quote from: snip on July 03, 2014, 01:13:06 PM
Can we call it a even ton just to make the bookkeeping simple?
Well...ok.
but just this once
;)
Question- While formatting my tech list I noted that the specialist troops get movement and combat bonus.
Ok.
But, a 25,000 man Mountain Division at 5/1, in mountains, is 7.5/1.5. While a regular Infantry Division is 10/1.
So...even in mountains, in a straight up fight, specialist Mountaineers loose to regular infantry ?
Likewise Marines get 2x crossing a river, which brings a 5/1 Marine unit up to...10/1..... may as well just land a regular Inf Div.
Likewise many of the other troops.
Mobility is nice, but if you're pushing troops into a province, with no tactical level, what metagame value is it?
The result is I'm thinking of turning my Specialist troops back into regular infantry, and just calling them "Mountain", "Marine" etc.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 11, 2014, 09:32:37 PM
Question- While formatting my tech list I noted that the specialist troops get movement and combat bonus.
Ok.
But, a 25,000 man Mountain Division at 5/1, in mountains, is 7.5/1.5. While a regular Infantry Division is 10/1.
So...even in mountains, in a straight up fight, specialist Mountaineers loose to regular infantry ?
Likewise Marines get 2x crossing a river, which brings a 5/1 Marine unit up to...10/1..... may as well just land a regular Inf Div.
Likewise many of the other troops.
Mobility is nice, but if you're pushing troops into a province, with no tactical level, what metagame value is it?
The result is I'm thinking of turning my Specialist troops back into regular infantry, and just calling them "Mountain", "Marine" etc.
We talked about giving some sort of other bonus to specialists, but it was a while back so I have forgotten exactly what we were thinking about.
Quote from: snip on July 11, 2014, 10:34:06 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 11, 2014, 09:32:37 PM
Question- While formatting my tech list I noted that the specialist troops get movement and combat bonus.
Ok.
But, a 25,000 man Mountain Division at 5/1, in mountains, is 7.5/1.5. While a regular Infantry Division is 10/1.
So...even in mountains, in a straight up fight, specialist Mountaineers loose to regular infantry ?
Likewise Marines get 2x crossing a river, which brings a 5/1 Marine unit up to...10/1..... may as well just land a regular Inf Div.
Likewise many of the other troops.
Mobility is nice, but if you're pushing troops into a province, with no tactical level, what metagame value is it?
The result is I'm thinking of turning my Specialist troops back into regular infantry, and just calling them "Mountain", "Marine" etc.
We talked about giving some sort of other bonus to specialists, but it was a while back so I have forgotten exactly what we were thinking about.
I believe this was when we were considering Specialist formations to be half the size of a standard infantry formation. So you paid a little less in BP but but proportionately more in cash, because you got the bonus.
Well that makes sense if they are legacies of smaller units.
IF this is still a subject that may be incomplete,
then here's my 2 cents
-Mountaineers had pack howitzers and extra transport components
-Jungle about the same
-Cavalry one guy got to hold the horses for several when they fought dismounted - or they trained the horses to serve as barriers. Horse artillery used to be lighter.
-Marines had the same light gear & extra transport needs (no corp elements)
Give them 80% power - 1 of 5 regiments of each brigade is transport & the artillery is lighter.
That would give a Specialist division 8/1 on regular ground, but 12/1 in it's element with a movement bonus (which I presume will mitigate the terrain movement penalty). It means that in a normal battle, the Line Infantry win, but in their element, the Specialists win. In the case of Cavalry, it means they never can go toe-toe offensively, but can move around and can hold defensively.
It is my opinion that, man for man, a specialist unit is far more expensive than a regular infantry unit, at least for cash. We had a whole discussion about it here (http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6421.45.html)
Ok, so here is what we are going to do with regards to Specialists.
Specialists will have a declared element. Alpine, Desert, Jungle, or Marine. (Additional specializations may become available as the game progresses and combat experience is gained. Think things like Urban or Trench.) In any combat outside there declared element, Specialists have 80% of the fighting power of a regular INF division and 100% of the movement. This is intended to represent some kit that may be lacking due to the nature of the Specialist force. In combat within there declared element, Specialists have 120% of the fighting power of a regular INF division and 120% of the movement. This is intended to represent the superior organization, training, and equipment of the Specialist with respect to regular INF within that environment.
Cavalry are slightly different. There declared element is effectively open terrain like Plains or Hills, anything that does not constrict movement to a major degree. In these places, they have 200% of the movement of standard INF.
About Technologies
All technos before 1900 are owned but, we start 1st jan 1900 so,
no 1900 techno could be researching before the 1900H1 report - right ?
Green is Owned
Orange is Researching
Red is Digesting
No color is unknow
Naval Artillery
1885
1895
1900 => no researching, no color
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
Well everyone gets a single 1900 tech of there choice. The techs marked researching (at least in the US ency, Im sure others have done this to) are the ones I am going to start working on in 1900H1.
This is a question for Logi:
I went ahead and started my 1900-2 report, adding additional IC and getting revenues of $94.683. Then I realized I had forgotten to add our increases in population, so I did. My revenues decreased to $93.703. The formula I was using was
= (B6*0.1) + IF(C6 >= B6, 2*B6, C6) + IF(C6 >= 2*B6, B6, IF(C6 >= B6, C6-B6, 0)) + IF(C6 >= 2*B6, 0.5*(C6 - 2*B6), 0)
Midlands region (1900-1)
B6 = pop = 3.3
C6 = IC = 8
Midlands region (1900-2)
B6= pop = 3.33
C6 = IC = 9
I was talking to Walter and he allowed me to use his formula for revenue which is this:
= (B6*0.1) + IF(C6 <= B6, 2*C6, 2*B6 + IF(C6 <= 2*B6, C6 - B6, B6 + (C6 - 2*B6) * 0.5))
This formula works completely when I tried adding in my extra IC and population numbers. Which is the correct formula?
Our population goes up each half year?
No, each year IIRC...
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 16, 2014, 06:11:26 PM
Our population goes up each half year?
Quote from: Walter on July 16, 2014, 06:25:08 PM
No, each year IIRC...
....my mistake... I can easily go back to the original numbers, I'm just glad I discovered the glitch.
It was 2 years in N3 right?
If we were to do it each half year then India would have a population of 79,272,687,170 in 2014... and we shall not speak of the ridiculous population that China would have in 2014 if the population were to be increased every half year by 2.5%...
QuoteIt was 2 years in N3 right?
Yes it was. IIRC, I asked Logi somewhere and he said every year (for N6). Could be wrong about that though...
Having looked over the numbers while chatting with Darman, using India as example with a population of 284.5 and 16 ICs, he gets a revenue of $40.45 from his spreadsheet while I get $60.45 from mine.
Looking at the economic discussion thread as to what we agreed upon (since that what is given there I understand and that what is given in the rules makes my head spin and makes me glad I use the spreadsheet), the Indian population would give Darman $28.45 while the ICs would give him $32 (since IC < Pop) for a total of $60.45... so based on that it would seem that something is off in the spreadsheet version that Darman grabbed compared to the version I grabbed...
QuoteIIRC, I asked Logi somewhere and he said every year (for N6). Could be wrong about that though...
... and I noticed that it is in the rules as well... so I could have gotten it from there...
QuoteThe population of a nation can increase over time. By default a country's population will grow at one of three different rates per sim year depending on it's status. In addition, if the country is not at war with anyone, it grows a further 0.5% more than usual every sim year. These 'usual' rates are as follows:
Walter is correct, it was intended to be per year.
As to the spreadsheet, there are plenty of things wrong with it. I haven't compiled (and can't ATM) all the changes.
Okay. Fair enough. I'm going to run with Walter's formula because it actually makes more sense, and when I add population (I won't for 1900-2, don't worry) my revenue won't decrease.
Quote from: Logi on July 17, 2014, 05:19:00 AM
As to the spreadsheet, there are plenty of things wrong with it. I haven't compiled (and can't ATM) all the changes.
This makes me sad, as it means starting over for 1900...
I guess it's time for me to actually learn all the rules and crank out my own simplified-so-someone-as-dumb-as-me-can-understand-it version.
I have one with most of the changes fixed. Let me get it out of Google Drive and I will post it here.
EDIT: Here you guys go. Let me know if you find any formula errors and I can work to correct them. Its in both .xslx and .ods to cover all sorts of office programs, pick which one you need.
Hi Snip,
Thanks for putting those together.
I believe there is a formula error in research.
The formula is =IF(C7>B7;C7-B7;0)
So for my Piedmont area with 1.1 pop and 3 IC, it gives 1.9 research.
However, "It is one half of all the IC in excess of regional Pop " so it should be (3-1.1)/2= (1.9)/2 = 0.95, or 1. I could always go move those 100,000 folks I guess.
So I'm thinking there is a /2 is missing.
Edit : Looking at the old spreadsheet it was missing there as well, but there was a Trunc(c7-b7) command which eliminates rounding.
Edit : so looking at your sample further, I notice the research of 50cal guns- that's 1902tech. I also went and looked at the US sample sim, where the research bug is evident.
Quote from: snip on July 17, 2014, 07:50:56 AM
I have one with most of the changes fixed. Let me get it out of Google Drive and I will post it here.
EDIT: Here you guys go. Let me know if you find any formula errors and I can work to correct them. Its in both .xslx and .ods to cover all sorts of office programs, pick which one you need.
Can we get a rundown of what the changes are? I noticed changes to the Research section, anything else?
Mostly just formula cleanup and such. Nothing major to the functionality.
Quote from: snip on July 21, 2014, 08:00:47 AM
Mostly just formula cleanup and such. Nothing major to the functionality.
Okay, I'll just continue going through line by line then.
Question though: when we swap techs we still have to pay to digest them right? For example if I traded my own 1900 tech with someone else then they can't use it until they've digested it?
Correct
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.
Adding that as a note would not be a bad idea.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 18, 2014, 10:46:44 AM
Thanks for putting those together.
I believe there is a formula error in research.
The formula is =IF(C7>B7;C7-B7;0)
How many people have made major plans around the numbers this error produced?
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 18, 2014, 10:46:44 AM
Edit : so looking at your sample further, I notice the research of 50cal guns- that's 1902tech. I also went and looked at the US sample sim, where the research bug is evident.
My Derp-up on that for the 7" and 10" guns. The 4"/50 falls under the period-appropriate historical guns clause.
It sounds like people need to half their research totals. So math is to be...
IF IC > POP then (IC - POP) / 2 = Research Points?
Michael
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)
Quote from: snip on July 22, 2014, 10:48:27 AM
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)
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?
You can have an economy or research not both it appears to start.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on July 22, 2014, 01:57:01 PM
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"
QuoteIt sounds like people need to half their research totals.
I guess I am the exception. :)
Quote from: Darman on July 22, 2014, 02:02:45 PM
Quote from: miketr on July 22, 2014, 01:57:01 PM
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
Quote from: miketr on July 22, 2014, 02:29:30 PM
Quote from: Darman on July 22, 2014, 02:02:45 PM
Quote from: miketr on July 22, 2014, 01:57:01 PM
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.
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
Quote from: snip on July 22, 2014, 10:48:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Darman on July 21, 2014, 10:24:34 AM
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 ??
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 22, 2014, 08:02:29 PM
Quote from: Darman on July 21, 2014, 10:24:34 AM
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
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.
Quote from: snip on July 24, 2014, 08:07:47 AM
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.
I guess it is 'Compound' due to it being used in the old Navalism version of the armor tech...
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 24, 2014, 06:47:23 PM
So- thanks for volunteering.
You are most welcome.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 24, 2014, 06:47:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 24, 2014, 06:47:23 PM
*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.
Quote... 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
Quote from: Jefgte on July 25, 2014, 02:55:31 PM
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 (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.
Okay, guys, the research rules just don't work. Something has to give - whether it's the base cost of research, the escalating cost of research, or the IC/pop thing.
The current iteration is going to create technological stagnation.
It is like what mike said a bit earlier about this...
Quote from: miketr on July 22, 2014, 01:57:01 PM
You can have an economy or research not both it appears to start.
So the way it is now, you either go for a research budget which would come at the cost of some of the revenue or you go for revenue which would come at the cost of the research budget.
Italy is at the same $1, and will initially just be digesting techs I've traded for. As I've traded for 3, that's all of 1900,
and 0.5 for 1901 gone. That may spur me to double down on IC in Sardinia, to gain a $0.5, as the TRUNC part of the equation has been dropped, allowing for partial research $$. Otherwise I *really* need to find someone else to trade the 1900 Terni Armor plate with, so I can use that other $0.5 - my fault, haven't looked at the long term enough.
As a player of the weakest nation, I like the escalating cost, as it makes it less likely I'll be left in the dust.
However, only if I research the non-mainstream techs am I likely to have something to trade the other players, researching the same tech just negates that potential trade. Pretty sure all the majors will spring for aircraft research...making it pointless for me to do so. MTBs though...both Italian, and something I might be able to peddle -either as a tech or as goods.
May be interesting to figure out the average time to research a tech, the number of techs 1900-1920, and the likely amount of RD$ needed to research them. Then figure out if the player nations, in a coordinated effort, seem likely manage that.
However, I have fuschias and a hedge to prune, and a tiny blue car to finish fixing.
Quoteas the TRUNC part of the equation has been dropped, allowing for partial research $$.
I found it a lot more fun without the TRUNC bit to see all the various research numbers pop up during my test runs. :)
QuoteMTBs though...both Italian, and something I might be able to peddle -either as a tech or as goods.
I agree with that one. Italy = MAS so you not researching the MTB tech is a sin. ;D
So, research rules are that after 24mo, there's a 20% chance, after 30months, a 60% and after 36mo, 100%.
That means you will definitely spend (4x1) $4.
That means there is a 80% chance you will have to spend a further $1
And then there's a 40% chance you will have to spend another $1.
So I put the average cost of researching a tech at 4+0.8+0.32 = $5.12
1900-1920 inclusive
I count about 62 Naval techs and 46 land based techs.
Granted, the inclusion of 1900 techs which some have, and 1920 techs which will only be starting distorts things a tad.
However, that's 108 turns needed.
Requiring $552.96 research dollars.....if single tech research done.
So, how much research are countries doing..after they re-adjust ?
England :Guessing 2 techs ($3)
France : Guessing 2
Germany : Guessing 2
Russia : Guessing 2
USA : Guessing 2
Italy : 1
Japan : 1
Ottoman : 1
China : 0
-----
11
With 40 turns, and 9 active players, and the scaling rules
There are 360 opportunities for spending $1 researching a Tech...except China isn't researching yet.
Lets' pretend they are, so So lets say 12*40 = 480
On the one hand, that's only $70 short, and over 20 years economies will rocket.
One the other, there's a ton of 1900-1910 short term techs, and I'm guessing in
many cases that 2nd $ will go to guns/turrets/etc, as those *don't* scale.
I would guess, that by time we get to 1920, we will be relatively caught up in technology.
I would also guess that by 1910, we will be lagging.
I'm also guessing some techs may languish until 1915.
Oh, inconsistancy in research rules :
Quote
To "digest" technology that was obtained from another country, $0.5 must be spent for two half-year turns. Doing this in secret doubles the cost. One can not begin digesting technology from another country until the half-year after they successfully completed developing it.
....
Once 15 years has passed since a technology's 'base research-able' date, it is considered to be common knowledge. After that point, it may be researched by any nation as though it were being digested from another nation. Or in other words, $0.25 must be spent on that tech for two half-year turns.
From the text, the two costs should be equivalent.
ok, NOW the chores.
Quoteexcept China isn't researching yet.
Don't worry. It'll come... some Day... some HY... some Year... :D
QuoteI would guess, that by time we get to 1920, we will be relatively caught up in technology.
I would also guess that by 1910, we will be lagging.
Ignoring the economy and research budget, one reason why we will be lagging in 1910 is that in the period of 1900-1910 there are 63 techs becoming available to research while in the period 1911-1920, that number is down to 48 (76% of the total in the 1900-1910 period). Should be noted that in the period 1921-1930, only 22 techs will become available for research (35% of the total in the 1900-1910 period).
Putting it in smaller periods you'll get:
1900-1905 - 33 techs
1906-1910 - 30 techs
1911-1915 - 25 techs
1916-1920 - 23 techs
1921-1925 - 11 techs
1926-1930 - 11 techs
That's a good observation Walter.
There's an irony that the earlier techs require more research $ to keep up, just when we don't have any.
So while doing chores,
I realized I missed a significant step.
While it seems likely that all the tech steps could be researched, if countries worked together (BIG and rather metagamely IF),
I forgot about digestion.
Let's take the UK.
Say her economy gets to where there's $15+ R&D and 5 techs a turn can be researched.
Ok, 40 turns, x 5 techs / turn = 200 tech research turns, average of 4+.2+.48+.32= 5 turns the UK can then
research 40 techs total.
Leaving 60+ to be digested.
Which take 2 turns apiece.
So that's 120 turns worth of digestion.
So 3 per turn every turn, or $1.5.
So, from 1900 to 1920, to stay in the lead in tech, the biggest nation would need to generate ~$16.5 RD
plus any for guns & mountings- say $1... or $17.5,
which requires a surplus of 35IC over pop.
It will be a while until the UK hits that point. So, overall N6 will lag the real world.
It will be longer for other major powers.
For the minors, we just will have to skip categories entirely.
And it gets way worse if countries actually protect trade secrets.
I don't know if the above meets the R&D rules design goals or not.
On the bonus side my 1890s ships won't be obsolete nearly as fast,
and *Everyone* should be wanting my tech....so long as I don't duplicate someone else.
Logi and I will talk about it, but I am going to be tied up for the next dayish. We are working on it.
I shall release a trial balloon.
Walter notes we have 63 techs for the 1900 decade. Let's assume a great power should be able to research 75% of these on their own. Call it 45 techs. With an average of 5 half-years, or one quarter of a decade, the great power needs to be capable of researching 11 techs at a time.
Let's retain the general notion that there should be some sort of rising cost of research as more techs are done at one time. We'll set aside the doubling of costs and see if other scaling works.
Similarly, let's set aside the base price of $1 per tech.
Let's assume that R&D capacity is simply a dollar for every IC in excess of the population: $2 where you've got $3 and 1 mega-citizen, for example. We could probably allow fractional IC, so if the area's got 3 IC and the population jumps to 1.1 million people, you have a research budget of $1.90
Germany's a great power here. It has one area where IC exceeds population by three, giving it a research budget of $3. We're cognizant that Germany can probably double its economy in the next five years. Therefore, let's say we're comfortable with the notion of Germany being able to research 11 projects on $6. That'll be about 10% of their starting budget, but only 5% of their ~1905 budget.
So...let's assume the basic tech cost is $0.10 per turn. Each additional tech above the first costs an extra $0.10 more than the previous one. The scaling is then:
Tech 1: $0.10
Tech 2: $0.20
Tech 3: $0.30
Tech 4: $0.40 - This adds up to $1.00, which is the Ottoman starting limit.
Tech 5: $0.50
Tech 6: $0.60
Tech 7: $0.70 - This adds up to $2.80, which would be Germany's starting limit.
Tech 8: $0.80
Tech 9: $0.90
Tech 10: $1.00
Tech 11: $1.10 - This adds up to $6.60, which generally fits our stated objective of $6 for eleven techs.
The scaling of the prices is fairly intuitive: Tech #X costs 10% of X.
Obviously, we need to revise gun research costs downward to match. I'm tempted to suggest $0.02 per inch of diameter of the weapon. $0.0008 if you want to work in millimetres. That would mean a 12 inch gun would cost $0.24, making it a hefty project for somebody with an Ottoman-sized research budget, but not a huge deal for a Germany or UK.
We also need to play with digestion costs. A flat $0.10 for two half years? Or have it fit into the progression above ($0.1, $0.2, etc) but only require a single half-year of payment?
Thoughts?
1) I'm glad someone else decided to make a proposal.
2) A potential problem with setting it to 75% of the techs in the in the first decade is that by time we get to later years there are fewer techs and larger economies, that 75% will hit 100%. If a design goal is to prevent 1 nation from researching all, that is defeated.
3) I'm kinda intrigued by the idea of a "native genius" bonus 1 RD for each nation. Not sure why though.
4) One could make the cost of the tech escalate by how deep in the R&D tree it is, instead of the # being researched. That would make the numerous earlier techs easier to research simultaneously, while the fewer later ones would require the larger economy. One downfall of this is the techs that started in 1880 already have some levels in, but that could be addressed somehow.
5) Alternately, give progressively cheaper research rates for each year past the initial one, until the 15 years. So if 100% in y0 for 5 halves and 50% in 2 halves in Y15 (effectively 1/4), give -5% cost per year past the first. Research 1902 in 1908, that's -30% cost per half.
just some musings
You're probably right about #2. As you point out, it's iffy and meta-gamey to assume we're all going to trade techs with each other. We have alliance blocs forming; we're not likely to see trade between somebody and their ally's rival.
I think the question is - do we really need so many new techs in the 1900s in particular? Can we dump the experimental stuff and consolidate a few others?
#4 may solve the issue as well. If individual tech costs gradually escalate with time, it will take longer before anybody is self-sufficient.
My own two bits is that I don't like the idea of having these artificial regions as research centers. They are fairly arbitrary in size and make up. I think its much simpler to just move to a pure cash system. Tech 1 costs X, Tech 2 costs X+Y, etc. None of this silly stuff with your get research points because of the difference IC and POP in a region.
My one thought on Rock Doctors suggestion is that lower costs is better but it still has the IC to Pop Comparison.
Lets just have pure cash costs and be done with it. Or if the Mods are dead set on having IC be a factor then let it be the only one. Lets have some formula based on number of IC in the home nation. IE colonies don't count.
How number of IC divided by 10?
So research limits would be
| Country | IC | Research Limit |
| USA | 43 | $ 4.30 |
| ENG | 18 | $ 1.80 |
| GER | 28 | $ 2.80 |
| FRA | 12 | $ 1.20 |
| RUS | 21 | $ 2.10 |
| TUR | 13 | $ 1.30 |
| CHI | 7 | $ 0.70 |
| JAP | 12 | $ 1.20 |
If people want to limit things more than do a divide by 20 instead of 10.
But I really think a pure cash cost is the way to go.
Michael
The fun part is you look at that chart and you find the country with the most Brains- China, finishes last.
Well, why was China- a huge, ancient civilization that was responsible for many inventions over the millenia...not very original.
In large part because it's society had stagnated, but also a huge chunk of those brains didn't think beyond the concerns of their rice paddy villages.
Industrialization preceeded by improved agricultural practices, frees brains from illiterate farming, and moves them to urban areas with a variety of challenges. Literacy and education become both more useful, and for the modestly well off, industrialization creates more idle time.
So I think the current formulation of industrialization in excess of population having the side effect of research is correct.
What it skips is that "genius" factor , the Hazemaijer, the Fokker, the Bugatti, the Marconi, the Floranini, the Bernardi... the individuals that just stand out even when the country isn't a industrial powerhouse. But Floranini was a professor of Engineering, and got funding for his 1906 Hydrofoil and model helicopter...living in Northern Italy where it was most industrialized and so had need for professors of Engineering. However, managing to get a working helo model 13m up in 1877 is a fair accomplishment, and the Po Valley wasn't terribly industrialized then.
Here's what we are looking at for the modification to the research rules:
1. Removal of the concurrent research cost escalation.
2. Reworking the year difference cost of tech.
3. Removal of the "Divide-by-two" section of Pop:IC limits
<1>
QuoteResearching technology has a scaling cost starting from $1 each half-year. Each additional technology being researched that half-year will have double the cost of the previous technology.
Completely removed.
<2>
The year difference cost formula was:
Quote
c = cost
b = Base cost
y = year difference, earlier is negative, later is positive
If y < 0 : c = b*(y2 + 1)
If y = 0 : c = b
If y > 0 : c = b⁄y
Now it will be:
QuoteIf y < 0 : c = MAX(0.05 * Year Difference, 0.25)
If y ≥ 0 : c = e ^ (0.321888 * Year Difference)
The formula isn't that important, it's just used to derive this table (which is what you will see in the rules anyways)
| Year Difference | Cost |
| -15 | $0.25 |
| -14 | $0.30 |
| -13 | $0.35 |
| -12 | $0.40 |
| -11 | $0.45 |
| -10 | $0.50 |
| -9 | $0.55 |
| -8 | $0.60 |
| -7 | $0.65 |
| -6 | $0.70 |
| -5 | $0.75 |
| -4 | $0.80 |
| -3 | $0.85 |
| -2 | $0.90 |
| -1 | $0.95 |
| 0 | $1.00 |
| 1 | $1.38 |
| 2 | $1.90 |
| 3 | $2.63 |
| 4 | $3.62 |
| 5 | $5.00 |
| 6 | $6.90 |
| 7 | $9.52 |
| 8 | $13.13 |
| 9 | $18.12 |
| 10 | $25.00 |
| 11 | $34.49 |
| 12 | $47.59 |
| 13 | $65.66 |
| 14 | $90.60 |
| 15 | $125.00 |
| 16 | $172.47 |
| 17 | $237.96 |
| 18 | $328.32 |
| 19 | $452.99 |
| 20 | $625.01 |
<3>
QuoteIt is one half of all the IC in excess of regional Pop
changed to
QuoteIt is all IC in excess of regional Pop
The reasons for these changes:
1. The concurrent costs were a limiter we put in place to replace the BP-based N3 limit. We did not remove it after Pop:IC limits were added as they did not seem to be an issue at the time.
Clearly, it is too great a limit on our collective research ability.
2. The year difference formula was thrown in at first suggestion without too heavy consideration since it would be balanced by the concurrent cost escalation. Since the latter is being removed, this needed to be reworked and balanced.
As of now, tech 15 or more years old costs the same as simple tech digestion. Techs being researched 5 years ahead of time are 5x more expensive. Things 10 years ahead of time are 25x more expensive.
3. The "divide-by-two" portion of the Pop:IC limit seems to have broken everyone's research budget, so we'll go with it's uncorrected formula.
For those of you who just want to plug the formulas into your spreadsheet, here they are.
Cell F6 and down the column to the end of your regions.
= IF(C6 > B6, (C6-B6), 0)
Delete column O.
Then put this into the new O34. (This should be the column headed with Cost)
= IF(M34="n", IF(K34-L34>0, EXP(0.321888*(K34-L34)), 0.05*(K34-L34) + 1), 0.5)
I have attached a revised copy of my spreadsheet if you just want to move your data into it.
Me am pleased.
I got nothing at O34... actually I have nothing in column O... now I have to go and convert your xlsx file again into something I can work with so I know where to put the formula and know where they are referring to... :(
Quote from: Walter on July 28, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
I got nothing at O34... actually I have nothing in column O... now I have to go and convert your xlsx file again into something I can work with so I know where to put the formula and know where they are referring to... :(
What format do you want/need?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 28, 2014, 08:56:36 AM
Me am pleased.
Glad the changes make things better.
I'm pretty sure that it will not matter once I get my computer 'upgraded'... in the mean time I will just convert it...
One error that I noticed in your spreadsheet with population increase is at I14 you have "B14 * (1 + H14/100)" while at I15 you have... *drumroll*... "B14 * (1 + H15/100)".
Quote
Then put this into the new O34. (This should be the column headed with Cost)
= IF(M34="n", IF(K34-L34>0, EXP(0.321888*(K34-L34)), 0.05*(K34-L34) + 1), 0.5)
Oh, well, that makes *perfect* sense. ;)
I may have to spring for wifi on the flight home today just so I can digest the rules for real. Are the rules themselves up to date?
Another thing I noticed: The US is paying $2.37 on the upkeep of 7 units that do not exist.
In the mean time, I noticed an error in my own report caused by inserting lines at the top of the Army tab resulting in the upkeep formula to skip a bunch of units at the top of the list...
Quote from: Walter on July 28, 2014, 10:27:04 AM
Another thing I noticed: The US is paying $2.37 on the upkeep of 7 units that do not exist.
Which would those be?
Quote from: Guinness on July 28, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
I may have to spring for wifi on the flight home today just so I can digest the rules for real. Are the rules themselves up to date?
The tech section has not, but I'm poking Logi about it now. AFAIK, the rest are up to date.
These...
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg240/WvRooijen/error_zpse4409e20.png)
You might want to correct the formulas in H27-33 as they are referrring to the units on lines 20-26. Saves you $2.37 if you do, :)
ah, I see what you mean. Well, there is an additional $2.37 to play with.
Also, Clippy. That explains your compatibility issues.
I've put the modifications into the research rule post - the rules are now up to date.
when i plug the formula in it gives me a result of 0.50 as the cost even when I have no tech listed
Quote from: Darman on July 28, 2014, 01:10:17 PM
when i plug the formula in it gives me a result of 0.50 as the cost even when I have no tech listed
just remove the formula from cells that are not going to calculate costs. Making it self-zero tends to make for a very complicated formula.
ok
I'll push out a version where you don't have to do that later today.
Example Sim Report attached.
QuoteChangelog
- A few cells in Budget[Exp. Pop] had the wrong formula
- Unfilled research cells back to being zero cost
- Added automatic gun/mount research cost calculation
- Fixed incorrect formula in unfilled Army Upkeep cells
- Added additional base case for Fortresses, Fortified Lines, and Siege Artillery - it no longer responds to Tech 0 with an error
Today we learned the Logi is the Excel wizard, Snip is just a pretender.
(http://stusshed.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/1148888627_tim.jpg)
Shall we now call him Tim?
just for general knowledge - I had previously migrated Italian data into snip's prior sheet. This time I migrated Logi's formulas to that. I was paying for some soldiers that didn't exist apparently. While scrutinizing things, I discovered I was also paying for aviation assets...I hadn't even thought to check that tab as * I * didn't have any. It may just fall on somebody else to be the first to practice aerial bombardment and bomb the Turks in 1911.
Yes, do check your Air tabs. I am building a few Airships and a place to park them.
Just so everyone knows, I've spotted another error. Snip changed the ship construction formula so it no longer quarters BP cost on mercantile-standard ships.
Replace the [Occ. BP] cell which has:
= (H28/1000) * IF(E28 = "rc", 0.1, IF(E28 = "c", 1, 0)) + IF(E28 = "o", 0, G28)
with this formula:
=(H28/1000) * IF(E28 = "rc", 0.1, IF(E28 = "c", 1, 0)) * LOOKUP(I28, 'Navy Maint.'!$N$11:$N$22, 'Navy Maint.'!$P$11:$P$22) + IF(E28 = "o", 0, G28)
I've also extended the table for ship maintenance to include tenders. You can extend the table by inserting the following cells in-between the Ship Type table on Naval Maint. and then doing an automatic reordering of the cells in that table. You must do it like that of the formulas will break.
t / 1.00 / 0.25
tf / 1.25 / 0.25
Alternatively, wait for me go over the rest of the sheet and push out the new version.
Also, the ships should have their last refit date as their complete date by default. The cell is highlighted when the difference between the current year and the year in the last refit cell is more than 10. If you input "N/A" - looking at you Snip - it won't work as intended.
I'm going to redo my sim report. just let me know when you have the final version ready.... I can make all my final changes on that report.
Here is the corrected spreadsheet.
QuoteChangelog
- Fixed Mercantile-standard Ship Construction Error
- Added Tenders to Ship Type Table
- Fixed Incorrect Formula for Fortress Summation
I've changed back Snip's modification for Coastal Defenses - simply because I don't have standard battery sizes like he does. I'm sure you guys can change it if need be.
[bitchmode]
If I wanted to debug Excel all day, I'd go into software and systems architecture.
[/bitchmod]
Oh wait... too late.
I'm diving into transcribing my data into Logi's latest spreadsheet. I already see issues: the formulas for computing revenue per region on the budget tab seem to be inconsistent. Should the last constant in that formula be '0' or '0.5'?
0.5 I think
(that's what I have on my spreadsheet.)
Here is my spreadsheet. Please take a look and tell me if anything is amiss.
Ya, the .5 is correct as far as I can tell.
I didn't touch that section, but it seems 0.5 is the correct one.
Edit: I'll be doing a more comprehensive check of the whole sheet - hopefully with some behind the scenes testing before releasing an "official" version.
Preamble
Having finally gotten around to estimating gun performance,
I've decided in the early 1900s it's time to start researching some new guns.
Pretty happy with the historic 12" and 240mm, but need a bit more range vs. MTBs, and more punch at the cruiser level.
The chart doesn't really go down far enough, so I scaled based on energy/cross section.
I think I can get the shell weights & MV I want with the ME available in /45 tech.
Question #1
I was wondering what this meant : When a gun is first researched, the player can pick ONE free mount (outside of the single-deck provision). There is no need to research single deck mounts (+/- hoists) and casemates for guns of 8.27"/210mm and smaller.
So, I'm considering a 180mm and a 90mm,
I don't need to research single deck mounts (& hoists), nor casements because of their size.
So...I can choose a twin 180mm turret and a twin 90mm Mount and Hoist as the "Free" ?
Question #2
Is Naval Propulsion a "tree" that needs to be researched in sequence, or a collection of techs that can be researched as they come up ?
Remember for the smaller guns, there are enough historical examples that a 90mm L50 could be justified.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 01, 2014, 09:01:13 AM
So...I can choose a twin 180mm turret and 90mm Mount and Hoist as the "Free" ?
Yes
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 01, 2014, 09:01:13 AM
Question #2
Is Naval Propulsion a "tree" that needs to be researched in sequence, or a collection of techs that can be researched as they come up ?
Tree. Drive shafts and Misc Propultion are not.
Quote from: snip on August 01, 2014, 11:02:14 AM
Tree. Drive shafts and Misc Propultion are not.
doh, I meant misc propulsion, it's just not bolded.
TY
Regarding the Spreadsheet:
There is an error in the Growth Rate Formula and Aircraft Upkeep Formula. The lower cells have a different and incorrect formula. That's all I've noticed thus far.
There's an extra zero on the maintenance cost of band 3 of 'Open Mounts' in the "Forts, Siege Arty, Cst. Defense" Table.
That should be cell U93 where it is the row says:
| 3 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.0025 | 0.0001 | 0.0003 |
The '0.0001' which is actually [0.000129999999999999] should be [0.00129999999999999]
Can we have posted a 'latest approved' version of the excel?
Michael
Grab the one from the United States 1900 report. I corrected the noted errors in that.
I will do that for tomorrow. We might want to have a thread for the official / approved one is all.
Michael
Most likely it will just be the US one moved to an "official" spot