www.navalism.org

Greetings all,

The board has been fairly quiet for some time.

So what is the status of the reboot?

Sorry, I got hit with a family issue that took the wind out of my sails on a lot of things. Will assess where we are and what needs to be done.

We just need Nations Threads to start to work on the Navy, Army, Governement, Technos...

Ok, thets get this ball rolling. If you care about why I basically up and vanished for a while, that's below. I apologize for doing that, its unacceptable and I will do my best to keep better engaged. I think at this point a good start date is to aim for early July, so by July 1st can everyone have the following items prepared and ready.

--Startup data, like Walter has posted here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7000.msg90133.html#msg90133).
--Ship designs you are considering.
--Other data you want/need for getting rolling.

Once everyone has a chance to get that stuff together, we will set a firm start date and get going. Nothing posted will be considered carved-in-stone until later, so if you end up needing to make some minor changes it's alright. I'm sure there are a few rules things that still need to be finalized or corrected, so if you run across anything like that, please let me know.

For those who want to know, I found out back in March that my parents are getting divorced. There was a period from October to then when I knew something was wrong, but it was still news I didn't really see coming. I didn't really handle it all that well from a personal mental health perspective and became really unmotivated to do much outside of my routine. Not an excuse, as I should have handled it better, but an explanation.

So I'm late to the party, and reluctant to commit to anything give my generally insane level of business, but... The map intrigues me. Is the intention to keep matters close to Europe and Middle east and just have the occasional NPC on other continents?

There is a world map floating around somewhere (paging Cartographer Walter) that has the major NPC nations that exist. Seeing as I actually bothered to qualify how colonization works the intent is getting to play the colonies game with steel ships instead of wood ones.

Ah ok. I can see from my cursory examination that it's like that N. America would be a blank slate. Well except that the native peoples of the Americas might present a bit of a problem. :-)

I'd expect that China would also be formidable, there's probably some interesting NPCs in the Subcontinent, and potential for an interesting back story with Japan too.

The map (again, as I recall it) has several major NPC powers who fall on the spectrum of being able to resist the player nations but are unwilling or unable to build significant enough naval assets to be considered player nations. From a design standpoint, its to give the player nations something to interact with aside from each other in the colonies game as well as provide a buffer to direct overland expansion.

I found this post:
https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6992.msg89677.html#msg89677

Which I think is the one you were referring to.

(http://i.imgur.com/rPNCqww.gif)

Quotepaging Cartographer Walter

[answering machine mode on]
Cartographer Walter is currently unavailable due to being KO from having to get up at 3:00 AM in order to start at 4:00 AM for his new job.
[answering machine mode off]

Random thought: real role play, while I enjoy it, likely would result in other players waiting for me. But what if I were to contribute NPC "reference" ships? A standard BB, AC, PC, and DD that would be what we'd use to fill up NPC's paltry inventories if and when they are needed? This would scratch my mess with SS itch.

I would not be opposed to such. Let me think on details.

Quote from: Guinness on July 07, 2017, 07:15:59 PM
Random thought: real role play, while I enjoy it, likely would result in other players waiting for me. But what if I were to contribute NPC "reference" ships? A standard BB, AC, PC, and DD that would be what we'd use to fill up NPC's paltry inventories if and when they are needed? This would scratch my mess with SS itch.

I like it.
Plus I'd nominate a "budget" to purchase vessels from foreign nations. Those RFP bits are always fun.

...and everything east of the Red Sea is MINE....muhahhaahhahahahahha

Who are you and why are you reading my mind regarding NPCs?

...and everything east of the Red Sea is MINE....

You can have a bit of that... but the Norse Kingdom already has a firm foothold in North American with the first permanent European settler, chieftain Ingólfr Arnarson, building his homestead there in 874 and 'today' with plenty of brave and hardened troops present there... America is as good as ours!!!  muhahhaahhahahahahha²

;D

Nice to see you guys are moving this along.

Ok, its time for another update.

So it looks like things are moving along nicely. I see lots of info coming out. I'm working on putting together the places for all that info to end up officially. That means it's Encylopedia time, so please PM me what you want your sub-headers called. I'm going to build things off a default template with the following categories. You are of course free to have more as you see fit.

Quote--Army
--Navy
--Air Force
--Government & Civilian

I am also tinkering with the layout of forums and sub-forums, let me know if something looks hugely out of place.

It's also time to finalize the rules. I made one change regarding the 1910 capital ship tech as posted about here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7007.msg89968.html#msg89968), but other than that there were no major changes identified. If that is incorrect and I have missed something, please let me know. If I have no pending changes on 8/1/2017 at 0600 PST I will post the rules here and they will be considered done pending discovery of something really broken.

I've got a first draft of the turn report I intend to use. It is attached to this post. A quick color key, Light Blue is an auto-calculated number, darker blue is a sum, Green is pulled from another sheet. Please look it over and let me know if anything is broken.

Also, it is looking like we may be lacking a player for Green. While Darman was scheduled to take that slot, he has not been online in a little over a month and has not responded to my contact attempts. While I don't want to force him out should he come back, I also don't want to hold the rest of us back waiting for him. If you can think of anyone who would be able to fill this slot, please let me know. I would like to have a solution on 8/1/2017 if possible.

You guys also might notice the G-man himself poking around. Guinness has agreed to help out with various aspects of the game, including providing a little meat to the NPC nations. You might see some stuff from him pop up in the news section as well. Probably more importantly, he has agreed to help with GMing in situations which would produce a major conflict of interest for me. It's a role I hope we don't need to ask of him, but I am grateful he is willing to help.

My thoughts on an "official" start date are this. I am going to be out of town from 8/11 to 8/13, so I would like to have all the pre-start things taken care of by 8/10. This is 10 days after the final posting of the rules. That way we can start the 1910/H1 clock ticking on 8/14. Does that work for everyone?

Have I missed anything people would like to know?

I can should be "go" on 8/14.
During the summer-fall my schedule is a little unknown as I'm forester, but my agency does wildland fire suppression.
So at pretty much anytime I could be told to go make maps (nope, not the front lines) for a fire. Happened last week.
However, I have vacation the 25th-5th, so at the least  I should be around for the first turn. :)
Still considering fiddling with my startup, less ships, longer docks....but what I have now will do if I can't decide.

QuoteThat means it's Encylopedia time, so please PM me what you want your sub-headers called. I'm going to build things off a default template with the following categories. You are of course free to have more as you see fit.

I will keep it simple so you can enter the default categories in the Northern Kingdom section.

Snip,

Not a high priority :
When you have a bit, could you put the Sub and MTB tables somewhere ?
Eventually I need the stats for my encyclopedia.

I'm here, trying to catch up

Welcome back Darman,
feel free to ask questions to help catch up as needed.

 ;) cool
Welcome back aboard

*whew* got my encyclopedia done.
Next...the first turn. Oh, I should decide on the # of regions shouldn't I.
Argh.

Yes, It's okey )

So, time for another update. The 14th came and went with no great fanfare. I was out of town the previous weekend and was just wiped out. I've been working on a recertification exam the last week, so free time was not all there. But now thats almost done, so time to light this candle.

--All the rules are posted, but I've (of course) run into a couple parts that need to be re-englished. Please consult this (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7051.0.html) thread if something looks different. Note that unless notified elsewhere, any changes at this point will be for clarity of wording only. No mechanical changes without an additional post.
--Thanks to Guinness for some new smart looking calculators to help with some of the more odd calculations within the rules. If you can think of anything else that would benefit from having one of these gizmos, let me know.
--If everyone can drop a quick "Im ready" or something like that in this thread when all of your Turn 0 stuff is done and posted, that would be great.
--People who need some additional time, can you please shoot me a PM with your best guess date for being good to go.
--While we are waiting for all the startup info to be finished off, I think we need to do a bit of work on initial diplomatic standings. Post here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7106.0.html) with your thoughts. Keep in mind the timeline stuff talked about here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7014.0.html).
--Feel free to start posting 1910 ship designs.

Is there anything else you guys need/want from me?

1. I am kinda ready, my ships are in the Encyclopedia, my sample turn posted.
2. I still have a fair amount of prep work to do, but unexpected things keep falling out of the sky on my head, stunning me, and so I haven't gotten to them.
    a. Provinces
    b. finish history
    c. populate general information
    d. read Walter's Norse Catholic doc, write a short treatise on Zorastorism, oh and re-look up Zorastorism...
    e. drink more coffee
    f. finish reading the two Friedman books and return to the tech thread with helpful info.
   g. Fill out Snip's recent Diplomatic post. Really haven't put much thought into those matters yet. I figure Parthia and Byzantium have 2100 years of on/off warfare between them.  Plus I figure I lost Baghdad and it's surroundings in the 1800s. So they aren't really good friends. The Norse had a Mongol problem like we did so there's some commonality. The Swedes are likely friendly too, enemy of my enemy, and trade routes to both over the Volga.
   
3. Theoretically, I have next week off, so I may actually wrap things up.

QuoteIf everyone can drop a quick "Im ready" or something like that in this thread when all of your Turn 0 stuff is done and posted, that would be great.

My ships are posted and the only thing I really need to do is post some detailed fluff here and there (government, rulers, VIPs, army weapons, etc.) which I guess isn't really that important for the game start. Probably an OOB and a naval gun list as well.

Quoted. read Walter's Norse Catholic doc, write a short treatise on Zorastorism, oh and re-look up Zorastorism...

I removed it from the post as it was just wasting space on the board (after all, it came in at a massive 28.5 kB. It was huge! :D)... guess I will have to repost it then...

Quote from: snip on August 21, 2017, 07:57:59 AM--While we are waiting for all the startup info to be finished off, I think we need to do a bit of work on initial diplomatic standings. Post here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7106.0.html) with your thoughts. Keep in mind the timeline stuff talked about here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7014.0.html).

Well, I am trying to come up with thing that I might be able to apply to relations between The Northern Kingdom and other nations.

One thing that kinda surprised me is that with Rome's relations, Norse Catholicism is not mentioned. I kinda feel that the Roman Catholics would brand the whole North as Rebel Catholics.

Another update.

--I see some of you are still working on getting startup stuff finalized. Please drop me a PM with your expected completion date and any help you need to get things done.
--We are starting to get some Diplomatic standings up here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7106.0.html). Take a little bit and get a post up.
--During some discussion here, Kirk and I got to talking about armor layouts and realized we don't have a defined rule of what All-or-Nothing actually is. This has the potential to cause an issue, so he and I are working on hammering something out. The current working proposal only runs afoul of a small number of designs (one of which is mine) and the individuals in question would be contacted if the rule is formally adopted.

Quick update for you guys. Darman has informed me that he does not currently have the time to be seriously involved. This means that the Sweeds are currently unmanned. If anyone has any thoughts as to someone who could fill that hole or other ideas please shoot me a PM.

As stated before, We have never had a defined rule of what All-or-Nothing actually is. To clear that up, the following amendment to the Ship Design Guidelines (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7032.0.html) document is proposed. The good news is that this only impacts three encyclopediae posted designs; one Norse, one Byzantine, and one Roman. I will be shooting the relevant players a PM after this is posted to see how best to get these designs compliant. If these changes are minor (eg small shifts in laydown date, change of mount type or a minor expansion in tonnage) my intent is to allow the necessary changes for free if the pre-start report is already finalized. This is because this is a late change. Let me know if you have any questions or feedback.

Armor Layouts: The following detail some specifics of the allowed armor layouts.
--All Capital Ships must possess a Main Belt and an Armored OR Protected Deck. They must use either a Traditional or All-or-Nothing layout.
--Traditional Armor Layouts for Capital Ships must have at least a 90mm Upper Belt. This belt must provide reasonable protection for the portion of the freeboard above the main armor belt. Traditional layouts must also possess End Belts, tho these have no minimum thickness requirements. End Belts must provide reasonable protection for the waterline.
--All-or-Nothing Armor Layouts for Capital Ships become available after researching the 1910 Capital Ship Architecture tech. Designs constructed to an All-or-Nothing standard have no minimum requirements regarding Upper or End Belts.
--Armor Layouts for Cruisers may have any combination of Belts and Protected OR Armored decks OR Boxes over Magazines, Engines, or both.
--Ships built to Destroyer Standards may have Belt or Deck armor intended for splinter protection.

Sorry that I come with this now, but since I am actually somewhat awake now (with having to go to work quite early in the morning) and looking around a bit since I need to alter one of my designs, I read this...

QuoteTraditional layouts must also possess End Belts... End Belts must provide reasonable protection for the waterline.

... I looked into my book on British Battleships and saw enough late 19th century designs without one to disagree with those two bits.

Can you point me to a couple?

In order in the British Battleship book...

The first one I encounter in the book is funnily enough not British, but the 1873 Italian Caio Duilio class (there are 4 classes prior to that one, but they'd probably fall under the cruiser architecture as they do not use turrets or have the guns in twin mounts).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Duilio_class_ironclad_left_elevation_Brasseys_1888.jpg/640px-Duilio_class_ironclad_left_elevation_Brasseys_1888.jpg)

Inflexible (1874)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/HMS_Inflexible_Diagrams_Brasseys_1888.jpg/624px-HMS_Inflexible_Diagrams_Brasseys_1888.jpg)

Ajax class (1876)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/AjaxBrasseysDrawing.jpg)

Italia class (Italy, 1876)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Lepanto_Brassey%27s.png/640px-Lepanto_Brassey%27s.png)

Colossus class (1879)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Colossus_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1896.jpg/640px-Colossus_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1896.jpg)

Admiral class (1880) No proper image on wiki with its armor layout... but it is just the small main belt rectangle bit between the turrets and below the dotted line of the foot of the funnels...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/HMS_Collingwood_Diagram_Brasseys_1888.jpg/640px-HMS_Collingwood_Diagram_Brasseys_1888.jpg)

Victoria class (1885) same issue as the Admiral class, only main belt which is the part below the turret and going back to just behind the engines
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Victoria_Class_Battleship_Starboard_elevation_and_Deck_plan.jpg/640px-Victoria_Class_Battleship_Starboard_elevation_and_Deck_plan.jpg)

Trafalgar class (1886)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Trafalgar_class_battleship_Starboard_elevation_and_Deck_plan.jpg/640px-Trafalgar_class_battleship_Starboard_elevation_and_Deck_plan.jpg)

Royal Sovereign class (1889)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Royal_Sovereign_class_diagrams_Brasseys_1906.jpg/587px-Royal_Sovereign_class_diagrams_Brasseys_1906.jpg)

Centurion class (1890)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Centurion_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1896.jpg/640px-Centurion_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1896.jpg)

Renown (1893) No image but similar armor layout to Centurion class

Majestic class (1893)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Majestic_class_diagrams_Brasseys_1902.jpg/640px-Majestic_class_diagrams_Brasseys_1902.jpg)

Formidable Canopus class (1898) No stern armor. Seems to be the last in the BB book until AoN. (*)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Formidable_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1906.jpg/640px-Formidable_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1906.jpg)


A few others on wiki while looking for Images of the above...

Ruggiero di Lauria class (Italy, 1881)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Ruggiero_di_Lauria_class_line-drawing.png)

Re Umberto class (Italy, 1884)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Re_Umberto_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1896.jpg/640px-Re_Umberto_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1896.jpg)


Now, when looking at the proper armor scheme of Monmouth, I noticed that it did not have any stern armor either... what you see aft is I believe the protected deck (based on the '2"Deck (slopes)' bit and that only 'Belt (bow)' is mentioned)...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Monmouth_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg/579px-Monmouth_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg)


There may be more of them from other navies but that would take a lot more time and there is no guarantee that images are available of their armor schemes.

... so based on those, the "Traditional layouts must also possess End Belts" does not seem to be the case OTL for a significant period of time (~25 years) and the lack of end belts automatically means that " End Belts must provide reasonable protection for the waterline" is not the case either.



(*) BB book indicates that Canopus has no stern armor, but the Brasseys image shows that it does... oddly enough the BB book shows that Formidable should have stern armor and the Brasseys image does not... wiki's Formidable page says "The Formidables' armour scheme was similar to that of the Canopuses, although, unlike in the Canopuses, the armour belt ran all the way to the stern" which means that the Brasseys images are switched around and it should be the image of the Canopus class and not the Formidable class.

Taking a look at those drawings, one thing I notice is that almost all of them (sans the Casemate ships, which sort of fall outside of our period) all have some sort of armor that covers the full length of the hull. Would making the following bolded alteration adequately cover this?

--Traditional Armor Layouts for Capital Ships must have at least a 90mm Upper Belt. This belt must provide reasonable protection for the portion of the freeboard above the main armor belt. Traditional layouts must also possess some form of armor protection along the entire length of the ship. This can be in the form of End Belts and/or For/Aft armor decks. This armor must provide reasonable protection for the ends of the ship.

Quotesans the Casemate ships, which sort of fall outside of our period

True, but if they did fall into our period, they would fall under the capital ship infrastructure tech.

Quoteone thing I notice is that almost all of them ... all have some sort of armor that covers the full length of the hull.

I could be wrong, but I think they all have deck armor 'covering' the ends.

QuoteWould making the following bolded alteration adequately cover this?

I think it does.

Ok, so unless there is any further requests within 48H of this post, I will make that modification to the text in the rules thread.

What's going on with the Ciao Duilo style ships is that they were really "protected" battleships.
They had an armored deck - I think twinned, with many compartments backing. As I recall there was both cork and bunker coal backing it.

That style of armor- and the couple very large guns - went out of fashion when Quick Firing guns came on the scene.
All of a sudden, a casement or protective deck only ship had a substantial liability in that most of the vessel could be ventilated and be mission killed.
The helpless ship could then be closed on and sunk at close range with the larger guns - like the single 9.2" you saw on British ACRs.

However, quick firing guns were also about the same time period as steel armors- which rapidly improved.
This allowed much thinner armors to be effective, freeing up weight to extend the armor over more of the vessel to save it from
the quick firing. Thus the End and Upper belts common during the period we start in.

With the extension of range that fire control brought, there was a shift away from the effective range of many of the QF weapons - not to mention the confusion a plethora of splashes would cause - and so the practicality of All or Nothing Armor if what one expected was very long range combat.

So it been a little while, and some stuff has been happening. Right now, I'm still trying to figure out what to do with Green. Right now, I'm leaning on a little more significant plan than I originally put forward. Right now, there is a couple issue with the map that creates some less than dynamic gameplay. What I'm toying with is a redraw to eliminate these bottlenecks to allow for a more dynamic diplomatic and military scenario. IF these changes take place, it will result in one player needing to move, and some revamp of some national maps and/or reports. I've already reached out to the affected parties of those potential changes but wanted up update the group as a whole on what the holdup is. Ultimately I wanted to get things rolling faster, but I think taking the time to get this right will help ensure longevity.

Haven't heard anything so I guess the North is safe. :)

One other thing I was thinking of was what the relations of our nations would be with the various non-player nations you listed. I would like to know if it is allowed from the start to have established trade routes between the Northern Kingdom and various non-player nations.

Quote from: Walter on November 04, 2017, 12:25:52 PM
Haven't heard anything so I guess the North is safe. :)

One other thing I was thinking of was what the relations of our nations would be with the various non-player nations you listed. I would like to know if it is allowed from the start to have established trade routes between the Northern Kingdom and various non-player nations.

Good point.
I've been assuming it is.
Historically the Arabs and Persia and Rome traded down the Swahili coast and the Indian coasts. Rome even had a trade port in SE Asia which they think they've found, while a island near the Tanzania/Mozambique border is thought to be the furthest south spot on the African Coast.
If you examine my OOB, I specify ships assigned to rotate on a Swahili coast and a Javan station, meant to indicate a long and powerful Parthian presence in those areas to protect mercantile interests. I'd have claimed ports and put in drydocks...but that would be frowned on at this stage of things :)

Out of curiosity, what was Darman playing, and what work had he done with it?

Darman was slated to play the Dark Green nation on the map. Sweeden+Germany+Poland-Lithuania etc. Nothing that is stuck is done.

Assuming I've been accepted as the grandmaster of Vilniusunionen, please create the relevant sub-fora (Army, Navy, Air Force, Government) for me.

The above is done.

Thanks.

I've started populating a bit, but don't get attached to the names just yet; I'm still wavering between Swedish and Polish as the military's operating language.

QuoteI've started populating a bit, but don't get attached to the names just yet; I'm still wavering between Swedish and Polish as the military's operating language.

Why not use both for extra names available? :)

Everybody's sick, Mrs. Rock in particular, so I've not had much downtime of late.

I wish that is not serious.
Familly first   :-* 

Cruisers could wait in the harbor...

Jef  ;)

Quote from: Jefgte on November 29, 2017, 04:01:21 PM
I wish that is not serious.
Familly first   :-* 

Cruisers could wait in the harbor...

Jef  ;)

We went to the hospital twice as Mrs. Rock had a heck of an asthma attack.  Well, more of an asthma siege.  Two weeks later, she's still using an inhaler and we're awaiting word on whether she developed pneumonia as a consequence.  The rest of us only have colds.

That's not good to hear. Lets hope for the best.

Seconding Walter.

She's doing better.  I'll see if I can pick things up this week.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 10, 2017, 06:06:13 PM
She's doing better.  I'll see if I can pick things up this week.

Awesome.
If I'm not sent down to the So Cal fires to do mapping, then I'll be able to finish some N7 projects in the upcoming week.
Of course, I've thought that before....

QuoteShe's doing better.  I'll see if I can pick things up this week.

Cool !!!

New cruisers could left harbor for training...

Wake up guys :P

Once again, Navalism is going to sleep ....   :-[

Holidays being what they are, I understand it and am guilty myself.

I have been vacating, and getting yet older.

So,

We are half way through February.
I have an idea of what I want to do in 1910-1914 or so,
but I've had lots of other things to keep me busy, so I haven't been writing ahead.

The question is, when do we think we will "go live" and start posting regularly ?

I'm busy too but I can post regulary.

;)

Kinda neglecting things a bit ever since I got my new PC in December. I really should be posting my report. I want to go on posting news bits, but I am kinda waiting on others to post news of their own to see if Northern reactions are needed with what is being posted with the news.

I thought we had stopped posting until the Swedes and Spainards got up to speed.  Which is fine.

I had a couple draft posts I just didn't finish and put up as a result. I've got lots of draft stuff I put on the back burners.

I've had enough other things that I just check back here about once a week, but it would be nice to have a
idea/agreement on when we start to GO-  as of March 1...or 15...or April 1...or 15  or whatever it will be. 
That way I can plan on being back and having 1910 ready to post up.

Sorry, February sort of kicked me in the everything. The normal crush of championship swim meets and an unexpected staffing changeup in my department at work (leaveing me as the sole IT person for the last little bit of the month) coupled with lots of family drama surrounding a wedding (mine, in case you were wondering). Most of the month I was just drained of the will to do anything fun. Things are almost put back together on that end, so time to sort stuff out here.

Winter was such a slog.

I'm trying to find some protected cruiser and monitor sims I recall doing but clearly never posted.

One's ability to focus on Springsharp is enhanced by cracked ribs that make any kind of physical labor or commuting problematic.

Okay, so that's the Vilniusunion warship set-up.  I've still got 37,000 t of auxiliaries and river gunboats to design, but am not quite sure what those units will be just yet.

Jef has kindly noted that my torpedo-boats are dreadfully slow, so I'll revamp them later.

Are we doing the "Auxiliaries cost 1/4 displacement" thing here?  Makes a difference to my plans.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 21, 2018, 07:43:04 AM
Are we doing the "Auxiliaries cost 1/4 displacement" thing here?  Makes a difference to my plans.

Sorry to hear about the ribs, my stepfather just did that, quite painful.

As for your question, yes the cost is quartered.
Though I should note that Snip wanted to simplify things, so most support vessels are a bit handwaved. Vessels like tenders/colliers/oilers are not required, but simply have tonnage devoted to generic fleet supply.  Transports are not needed. Deployable land points are assumed to represent a package including troops and transport. Think of a US Marine "MAU"- Marine Amphibious Unit. There's no need for net tenders or fleet tugs. That doesn't mean you can't produce them, or have 'example' designs, just that Snip didn't want to demand you detail them.

On Torpedo boats - the 1905 destroyer tech onwards has them built in.
Which didn't help me since I wanted lots in the 1800s and built several hundred.
https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7048.0.html (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7048.0.html)
Which are indeed relatively slow- it's really hard to make them fast. That trial speed is a savior for vessels that small. There is a reason the doctrine of the time envisioned night attack harbor strike as a prime use, and they can certainly be effective against fleet trains as an interdiction force. Still, I'm having to build new ones to replace the older ones already.

The passage is down at the bottom of the naval construction rules :
Special Circumstances

Mercantile Standards/Auxiliaries

A ship in government service may be built to mercantile standards if armament and armor take up no more than 2% of the ship's weight at normal displacement.  Such ships could include colliers, transports, survey ships, and others.

In this case, the cash and BP cost of construction is quartered.  This also pertains to upkeep, future repair, refit, and scrapping of the vessel.  The time required to build, refit, repair, or scrap the ship remains unchanged, however.

Moderators have may require a ship to be built to normal military standards if they believe that the intent of a design is to produce a cheap warship.

Thanks, Kirk.

I updated the TBs.  Looks like most gained 4-5 knots after I adjusted some generous freeboards, so that's okay-ish.

Good to know about the auxiliaries; maybe I'll plug those last remaining BP into coast guard stuff of some sort.

The whole rib thing is highly over-rated and I do not recommend it as a means of taking time off.

Okay, I think I'm done with navy building.  Here's how it breaks down:

1890-94:

7 x PD
3 x AC
8 x CL
2 x MT
50 x TB
1 x Icebreaker

1895-1900:

5 x PD
2 x AC
8 x CL
2 x MT
50 x TB
3 x Icebreakers
Some patrol stuff

1901-07:

2 x DN
2 x SDN
2 x AC
6 x CL
1 x MT
40 x TB
16 x SS
3 x icebreakers
Some patrol stuff

1908-09

2 x DN in progress
1 x AC in progress
2 x CL
8 x TB
12 x SS
10 x large patrol craft
Some small patrol stuff

I sense that I am missing info on creating provinces and assigning economic power, but I have not been able to find it.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 21, 2018, 01:30:59 PM
I sense that I am missing info on creating provinces and assigning economic power, but I have not been able to find it.

I'm not sure where it is, and I'm commenting as lunchtime is expiring.

You take the map and divide your country up into 3, 4, 5, or 6 regions. Each must be at least 1/6th to 1/3rd of the total number of countries. Originally they were supposed to be about the same size, but I think that language dropped out. I have 113 provinces and 5 regions with an average size of 22, but may adjust a tad.

You then assign forts (land or sea), land points, IC & BP to the entire province.
Snip did not want us to say "Kiel has 5 sea forts, and Strausbourg has 2 Land forts", they are generic to the province.

Looking at your fleet list, I wonder if you are are aware that the earlier periods, the ships cost less BP to build ? It's hard to tell because there are no tonnages and you may have opted for a small fleet so you could devoted your points and BP elsewhere.  I just know I have far more vessels :
10 x PD/CDBB, 6xDN/SDN, 10x AC, 30x various cruisers, 56 DD, 312 x TB, 5x SS and some miscellaneous. That's not a great many more than what you field, and maybe they are all smaller, or maybe I put more points into naval BP, but I suspect it could be explained if you're paying full cost for the early years.

Secretly I think I should have choked back a little on the early builds, but I don't usually get to play with ships in this period, and I didn't want just single copies.

I saw the thing about reduced cost and did factor it into the build plan, hence the absurd number of pre-dreads built in the early years...well, that and the much smaller size of ships at that time.  My recollection is that I'm on the light side for existing ship-building by design, although it's been months since I looked at that.

Good to know about fort assignment; I had them very specific.

Region-creation will be amusing.  Gonna see if I can correlate the provinces with 1700-era borders to start with.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on March 21, 2018, 02:08:43 PM
You then assign forts (land or sea), land points, IC & BP to the entire province.
Snip did not want us to say "Kiel has 5 sea forts, and Strausbourg has 2 Land forts", they are generic to the province.

Oops, I meant generic to the region.
Provinces<Region<Nation

So revised :
You then assign forts (land or sea), land points, IC & BP to the entire province region.
Snip did not want us to say "Kiel has 5 sea forts, and Strausbourg has 2 Land forts", they are generic to the province region.

I didn't go with traditional kingdoms, as the historic record is fuzzy on their borders. Plus, in order to keep the Western Civ history similar, Parthia had to be run over several times and those interior divisions destroyed.  For example, I consolidated my mountainous western border as one region, my coastal provinces as another region, my arid steppelands as another region, the traditional national core as another region, and my eastern mountains/desert as the last region.
Anyhow, I did not assign any coastal forts to my arid steppelands..

But sea level change?

So I guess I'm working on a spreadsheet for 1/1/10.  Anything I need to know?

A) Sea level rise, at it's most pessimistic, is unlikely to aid the Oxus valley area.  Though Parthia as a whole is far greener than current Iran, that's simply because the central government survived Ghengis Kahn and Tamberlin and the turkic tribes, allowing for the works of a hydraulic empire to be rebuilt and the persistence to someone to police the exploitation of the forests and grazing lands.

B) I presume you've got Snip's turn sheet?
   b1) otherwise you can download and delete from one of our turns.... or I can try to find my blank
   b2) when I posted my turn, I included a note on the problems encountered :
"Differing from Snip's sheet, you'll see I found it useful to simply have my OOB added as a tab, and sum that and link it to the naval sheet.I had some issues with my wanting to put in figures in tons, and the sheet wanting them in BP. "

Other than that, it should be fairly straightforward.
Go ahead and read up on the Colonization rules and economics. You may want to go overseas, or try to conquer some of the Golden Horde's land
Also ....hmmm that thought drifted off...oh yeah the "I love/hate you and here is why" thread in meeting room could use Vilnus's grace.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on March 23, 2018, 06:46:26 PM

A) Sea level rise, at it's most pessimistic, is unlikely to aid the Oxus valley area.  Though Parthia as a whole is far greener than current Iran, that's simply because the central government survived Ghengis Kahn and Tamberlin and the turkic tribes, allowing for the works of a hydraulic empire to be rebuilt and the persistence to someone to police the exploitation of the forests and grazing lands.

B) I presume you've got Snip's turn sheet?
   b1) otherwise you can download and delete from one of our turns.... or I can try to find my blank
   b2) when I posted my turn, I included a note on the problems encountered :
"Differing from Snip's sheet, you'll see I found it useful to simply have my OOB added as a tab, and sum that and link it to the naval sheet.I had some issues with my wanting to put in figures in tons, and the sheet wanting them in BP. "

Other than that, it should be fairly straightforward.
Go ahead and read up on the Colonization rules and economics. You may want to go overseas, or try to conquer some of the Golden Horde's land
Also ....hmmm that thought drifted off...oh yeah the "I love/hate you and here is why" thread in meeting room could use Vilnus's grace.

A)  Nice.  I've got some details like historical canal/waterways to consider.  I think Kiel's a given, but stuff like the Russian canal systems are probably not a thing here.

B)  I copied Snip's turn report, so am started there.

C)  I will check that thread.

Colonization will be something to think about.  My interior position is perhaps not conducive to overseas adventures.  Are the lands without specific NPC-coloring basically independent or unorganized little statelets?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 23, 2018, 07:50:35 PM

A)  Nice.  I've got some details like historical canal/waterways to consider.  I think Kiel's a given, but stuff like the Russian canal systems are probably not a thing here.

B)  I copied Snip's turn report, so am started there.

C)  I will check that thread.

Colonization will be something to think about.  My interior position is perhaps not conducive to overseas adventures.  Are the lands without specific NPC-coloring basically independent or unorganized little statelets?

B) I could swear there was a discussion on Kiel and it was approved as there.  My understanding is the other stuff should be as historic-ish. I say -ish, because Russia didn't survive to build them,  Anyhow, I believe Snip's design is KISS, so we won't be nitpicking the existence of internal infrastructure is not on the agenda.

I should note, that the "vision" is that all the starter nations are developed states, with developed infrastructure, and can be presumed to have the critical transport links. That greatly aides places like Turkey, Spain, Persia, where they now are well served by railroads.

Also, the call was made that none of us are missing strategic resources.  So the Iberians and Norse have oil somewhere and don't have to write storylines about starting Libyan or North Sea wells early.

D)
Snip deliberately split the ownership of England so that you would have "safe" access to the Atlantic either through the Channel or the North Sea, depending on if you were fighting Norse or Rome.

I have suggested that we each should start with a small colony somewhere, which got the green flag for discussion, but I neglected to bring it up to y'all.
I have also suggested that colonies with natural harbors be cheaper to develop - and made a map of Africa's- but that has not resolved.

The Lands with shading, like Russia, are coherent states. There are empty encyclopedias for them. Your neighbor to the east is the "Golden Horde", which the Norse, Vilnus, Byzantium and Parthia have been battling for centuries.   You can wrest concessions from them.  As I recall, all such NPC nations have 10 Land Points.

Snip's design is not in favor of us invading each other, and wants to keep land wars in Europe to a minimum, to focus on the naval. The side effect is you'll want substantial ...like 3:1 odds to invade folks successfully. So the 10pts of the Golden Horde would require 30 deployable points from you.  Then once conquered, you have to hold the territory.

The unshaded areas simply require a deployable point to hold them.
Parthia invested in large deployable force, I've got a multi-stage plan for what I'm going to seize :)

Good to know, thanks.

I picked up 74 deployment points, so I'm ready to rock and roll in that respect.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 24, 2018, 07:47:26 AM
Good to know, thanks.

I picked up 74 deployment points, so I'm ready to rock and roll in that respect.

74 deployment points !?!
You mean Parthia is only TIED* for largest army?
Oh the shame !

*I presume you wound up with the same 150land points to make the 2:1 Land:Deployment ratio, but if you chose to allocate even more to Land you take the crown.

I think I have 160, but don't quote me.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 24, 2018, 02:06:29 PM
I think I have 160, but don't quote me.

Oh the horror !
Parthia's land forces aren't the largest.... destruction is nigh !

Actually, I expect our minimal relations are quite good, and the Byzantines have likely expended considerable effort to ensure we don't become closer. 
However we'll have to work all that out.

Trivia fact #1- The Hapsburgs did entertain the notion of allying with the Persians against the Ottomans

Trivia fact #2- my dad's architect is from Venezuela, from a family of Polish Expats. He actually has his family's signet ring, in old Baltic Amber - He was *shocked* I knew about the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth....much of which came from my time as Bavaria here, when I was carving it up with Russia.

Trivia fact #3- (real life) in the forest I work in, landslide presence is normally done by Aerial photos followed by Ground Truthing. In my last harvest plan, I kept finding slides completely missed by the Aerial photos...since the earliest was the 1940s when the stand was 70 years old. So there was a big ground truthing effort by California Geologic Survey, which is to be compared to the modern up to date LiDAR just flown... yeah the resolution is severely disappointing in fairly large areas, I think the ability of the laser to penetrate stems of trees is very limited...and we have tall dense trees. So useful for larger features, but not definitive.

Speaking of landslides - not more than a couple of miles from my place is the site of a ghost village evacuated in the 1990s due to landslide risk.  A few weeks after the place was finally depopulated, a good chunk of it slid into the river.  The same clay layer responsible for that landslide has also been the source of others that have killed 70+ people in the past century.

QuoteOh the horror !
Parthia's land forces aren't the largest.... destruction is nigh !

Yes, something needs to be done about that. Go and recruit many new troops for many new units! ;D

Ok, something is off because I only have 24 deployment points, under 174 total non-naval points.

Romans get homesick easily?

I'm mulling history stuff, will see about posting some 17th/18th century stuff later on today when I'm not hobbling around after Mrs. Rock.

Quote from: snip on March 25, 2018, 11:17:04 AM
Ok, something is off because I only have 24 deployment points, under 174 total non-naval points.

Snip, the way you set it up, we all started with  80 land and 24 deployment points for 104.

However, you limited it so you could have a max of 1 deployment for 2 non-deployment.
So to get to 74 deployment points, we had buy 50 deployment points but also have at least +68 (2x74=148 required)  land points as well.

However there's no reason you couldn't have just bought +70 land points and not bought deployment to go with them.
That gives you a large defensive army for your many fronts, but with very limited offensive capability, which makes you ... the French !

With my unhealthy obsession with quad turrets, this is likely true.

Colonizations/invasions/puppetry/concessions:  Are these plugged into turn reports, posted as news, or other?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 27, 2018, 06:02:17 PM
Colonizations/invasions/puppetry/concessions:  Are these plugged into turn reports, posted as news, or other?

Hasn't been totally clarified.
My impression has been it's something we'll announce in the news, enact through Snip, and then address in subsequent turn reports.

So, I have some things I plan to do in HY1, 1910, I have drafts of my news. I'm waiting for us all to be ready to go before I devote time to wrapping them up and posting.
Unfortunately things are heating up right at Easter, I'm busy all week and then gone all weekend, so I can' t think of moving forward until next week.

I've got a couple of ideas as well. They don't seem completely stupid now that the general desire to avoid player-vs-player conflict has been articulated.

Well, I'm looking at some stuff and it seems the thoughts I had for Rome back during the initial setup period (over 18 months ago) are not really holding well for what seems to be shaping up in the history thread. The Rome I originally created is nowhere near the continental powerhouse the history seems to indicate it should be. Im going to take a little time here and draw up an alternative plan to get a Rome that probably fits better with the Continental power aspect. This will mostly involve shifting points away from Naval things and into land points, so a slimming of the Roman navy to get a more powerful army. This won't result in an increase in the deployment points available on turn one. I will post it when finished and put it to a vote as to if I can work off that one or not.

If you were to give all the other nations 10 extra modification points as a bribe, we will vote in favor of your planned change. ;D

Is Darman back or just popping by?

Unless I hear otherwise from him, just popping by is what I know

So here is the rework I mentioned above. Based on the work on the Last General War, where Rome sits right now is off. The Rome I originally created was a more naval focused power, with a big battleline and some first-in-class technology. This came at the cost of a smaller value of land points. The Rome our history does not fit that mold, but rather that of a major land power. So I took a look back at my startup and attempted to rectify this. Major thoughts below.

--Rome is a land power first and foremost. Rome is also bordered by four other major European nations and needs to be able to defend long land borders. This needs to be reflected in the general land-sea resource balance. (More Land Points at Startup)
--As such, the Imperial Roman Navy "knows" it cant go toe-to-toe with a major navy like the Norse. It needs to look/lean more Jean Eucole. (Less tonnage into Battleships. More into Armored Cruisers, commerce warfare, and Light Torpedo Platforms.)
--While being a major land power, projecting that power over distances larger than the channel is still a major difficulty (Baseline amount of Deployment Points)
--Defence of the English Channel is the foremost mission of the IRN. (Add coastal defenses to augment ships)

As such, I propose the attached modification. Major changes below.
--Shift in resources from providing for a larger navy to proving a larger army (-30 Startup BP, +3 points)
--Reduction in cutting edge naval tech (1908 Destroyers changed from On Time to At Start, +5 points)
--A Major increase in total land points (Additional investment of 8 points, +80 Land points for a total of 180)
--Sharp reduction in naval shipyard capacity (27.15 BP reduction in available Slips and Drydocks)
--Slight reduction in total naval tonnage (about 3BP reduction in resources spent on startup navy)
--Change from 10 Fortification Points to 10 Coastal Defence Points

With regard to specific ship details, the below are a summary of the changes. They rely on some planned resims as many of the current hulls are inadequate for the roles or years they would be forced into. I relied on OTL French naval construction as a guideline as France is the best analog to Rome's situation.
--Reduction in total tonnage spent on Capital Ships
----Reduction in number of Battleship Hulls
----Increase in number of Armored Cruisers
--Increase in total tonnage spent on Cruisers
--Increase in total tonnage spent on Light Ships
--Some change in total tonnage spent on Auxiliaries (An error was discovered in my original spreadsheet that makes a direct comparison impossible here until I fix it there)

I feel this creates a Rome which is more geared to the role our history points to. It creates a unique setup from which to undertake our Colonization in the Age of Steel scenario. Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.

Generally seems fine; that said, you might need battlelines to hold the channel or to establish a bastion in the Adriatic.

It'd be interesting to see Rome develop two differing battleship types for those different environments, like the Russians with their different geographic operating areas.

The reduced naval infrastructure makes sense.  I'm pretty certain I really overkilled mine.

When are we going to begin actual play?

I would like more feedback on my proposal before things go. I don't think Walter/Kirk/anyone else, have looked at it.

...Looking at & studying...

;)

Snip, if those suggestions concerns only Rome Empire - its ok. If you suggets to change the rules in general - I don t think it will be good idea.

QuoteI would like more feedback on my proposal before things go. I don't think Walter/Kirk/anyone else, have looked at it.

Not really anything to comment on... though your lack of fortification points suggests no new Hadrian's Wall? :)

Also "Breast"... I think you either got a dirty mind or you meant "Brest". ;D

QuoteSnip, if those suggestions concerns only Rome Empire - its ok. If you suggets to change the rules in general - I don t think it will be good idea.

It only affects the Roman stuff that is available at the startup.

Quote from: snip on April 07, 2018, 02:16:59 PM
I would like more feedback on my proposal before things go. I don't think Walter/Kirk/anyone else, have looked at it.

Sorry, I flaked this past weekend.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about the concept.

I get that ROME was supposed to have a large army, and be a land power. 
I appreciate that you're only adding Land and fortification points, not deployment.
IT is both consistent with your previously expressed vision, and not a matter of power projection.

I am inclined to accede to this portion of the proposal.

However, we all had the mutual disadvantage of creating our nations blind.
My brand new latest and greatest armored cruisers are already outclassed by older battlecruisers of Byzantium and Rome and the Norse....at least.
Meanwhile my battleships are slow but massive... and my army is *not* the largest...and would have been if I hadn't tinkered to put more ships in the fleet.

Likewise, the Roman Navy was crafted with only a guess as to what the other nations would field.
While I would accept minor tinkering-  deleting a couple scout cruisers and adding an armored cruiser for example, I reduced my army and tinkered with my cruisers before I went "final".

I am uncomfortable about you changing the nature of the force with potential benefit of hindsight.
This is especially true since you're discussing dropping only 3BP of naval force- you can keep your original navy roughly intact, this is not a required change.

So this is not forced by budgetary considerations, but rather a changing viewpoint on what Rome should have.
I don't see why Rome should have the advantage of reformatting her navy after seeing the opposition. What if that means Jefgte wants to change to better address the NEW Roman navy, or even in response to the current Parthian.

While I'm interested in counterpoints, I am currently inclined to recommend against the naval changes.
While that will mean you enter the "live" part of the game with a fleet that doesn't meet your perceived needs, this will both be incentive to build, and a reminder that most of our navies will be going rapidly obsolescent anyhow.

I would also observe that part of the naval guidelines was a fairly equal number of hulls per period.
this was complicated by the time periods being different, some vessel types not really existing in some periods, and the "noise" of small craft like MTBs, gunboats, minesweepers, etc.
but the way I see your revised naval list :

                             BB         CR         DD
Pre 1895               8            5          10
1895-1900            3            5          20
1901-1907            8           24         30
1908-1909            1

So, if the proposal moves forward, I would submit that the cruisers at the very least  need to change.  I would think moving some BBs/ACs to 1895-1900 from pre-1895 would be reasonable to balance that.  The destroyers, well some should be built in 1908/1909, but they were a new class early on, not reasonable to insist on even numbers.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 07, 2018, 02:00:47 PM
When are we going to begin actual play?

I would hope we'd pick a date a couple weeks from the "now" and peg that as the start.

Thanks for the reply Kirk, I appreciate your feedback. Let me throw back some thoughts and questions.

--I'm glad the general and non-naval stuff makes sense and is acceptable. Its a better fit for our history.

--On the naval side, the plan has evolved a little bit. I've attached a new sheet, but note it does not incorporate some feedback I will hit later in this reply. I'm using it as my reference going forward. Please keep in mind that the ships referenced with Type serve as a general indicator of technology generation, general setup, and size.

--Regarding BP spending and Infrastructure: As you note, most of the BP reduction comes out of the reduction in infrastructure. This would allow me to keep approximately the same BP's worth of fleet size. However, this reduction in infrastructure does make some aspects of the fleet comp not make sense. For example, under the new plan, Rome only possesses three Drydocks over 150m. I would find it strange then that a nation would have two battleships in active service and two on the ways that would require one of those three Drydocks for service, especially when only one of those docks exists on the Med. I realize that this is not without historical precedent, and is probably more an OOC issue than a strict IC one. A more extensive rework of the infrastructure could be proposed, but then we start getting into a lack of numbers for slips and docks to build the navy of that size. While it's not something we are strictly tracking at startup, I know others tried to hold to it so I don't want to throw it to the wind.

--Capital Ship Tradeoffs: The new plan trades its massive amount of battleships (roughly two every 4 years until Dreadnaughts hit 2 every 2) for a larger number of armored cruisers. Importantly, the four proper "modern" Dreadnaughts are no longer in the plan, leaving the Roman battleline with only some 6x340mm* armed ships of the same generation as some 10 gun monsters . On Armored cruisers, you noted even the most modern of these ships have been effectively obsoleted by Battlecruisers. There are two places where I can see the Armored Cruiser plan drawing some deserved flack. First is the fleshing out of the Pre-Argonauta types. This was left really sparse in my original plan, and with a renewed emphasis on the Jean Eucole side of things, I felt this development would be beneficial. Second is the addition of a single Von Der Tann Type Battlecruiser. This was intended as a "capstone" armored cruiser, to put a nice bow on the program heading into the Dreadnaught era. I recognize that this is a new addition that could represent a counter to some ships as they exist now. I would be more than happy to modify this into a Super-Argonauta instead.

--Cruiser Tradeoffs: Really the only major shift I see here is the addition of the Guichen Type Commerce Raiders. If the addition of those two is too radical, even with only one being somewhat modern, its something I would be more than happy to drop. The number of more conventional light cruisers actually drops with this plan (in my original plan, aside from the Destroyer Leaders all of my Cruisers are Fleet Cruisers), so I trade better numbers of conventional cruisers for slightly more capable units and a ton of third-class cruisers. Again if its to much change I'm ok with reverting.

--Light Ship Tradeoffs: The loss of the 1000t E class Destroyers from the original plan was used to feed increased numbers of various older and smaller torpedo craft.

--On Hull Numbers: There are definitely some numbers that need to be played with there. The intent with the 1906ish classes that are produced in greater numbers would be for those ships to be constructed over a larger period. I should change this by breaking up those bigger blocks into a 1906ish and 1908-1909 blocks.

Two Questions for you Kirk (and anyone else if they care to answer):

--Does the potential for resims or the adjustment of numbers bother you more?
--Are there any points where, without the final characteristics of the ships involved, that you feel I'm trying to provide myself an advantage with this plan?

Some closing thoughts:

--Im more wed to the general idea of this plan (More ACs and Torpedo stuff, fewer battleships) than I am too specific details (eg, I don't really care that I build a Leon Gambetta Type AC, but that the leadup to Argonauta makes sense from a development standpoint).
--Some adjustment to my original starting plan is going to be needed with the 1000t Destroyers going away. I see no reason this cant be accomplished by a 1908 750t Destroyer with the leftover tonnage going to MTBs and subs. This would be the absolute minimum level of modification.
--If I had to pick a proverbile hill to die on, it would be the expanded Armored Cruiser lineup. This is the one place where modification of numbers just will not cut it and some new designs will be necessary for getting something that makes sense.
--I will make an effort to provide a rework with current designs slotted into it rather than historical analogs for the majority of ships. I will give Kirk a chance (call it 24-48h) to reply to this post before posting it.

*The Improved ETVIII Type is intended to be an Emperor Trajan VIII class Battleship (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7056.0.html) with improved armor protection and a TDS with no change in armament.

Quote
Two Questions for you Kirk (and anyone else if they care to answer):

--Does the potential for resims or the adjustment of numbers bother you more?
--Are there any points where, without the final characteristics of the ships involved, that you feel I'm trying to provide myself an advantage with this plan?

Because I'm commuting to training, I'm gone 12 hour days this week, and the powerpoint onslaught is turning my brain to goo.

Answer :
A) It was the adjustment of numbers and type, as I failed to register the indication that you planned to resim. I thought you were just shuffling the numbers of your already proposed & vetted vessels. I wasn't thrilled about that, but I was open to listening.

Had I registered you were actually creating a fleet of resimed vessels I would have been very much against the proposal.

B) I don't think you are consciously going, 'gee I need to redo this to get a starting advantage', I think a great deal better of you than that.  You've worked quite hard trying to get this up and running and create a level playing field.

You indicated that this rebuild is a reaction "As such, the Imperial Roman Navy "knows" it cant go toe-to-toe with a major navy like the Norse."   Initially you chose to build a battleline. Now you recognize that won't cut it, so you want to have another go with a different look. 

Worse, you're going to alter your vessels after knowing what's out there.  How is that fair?

IF we were to take that approach, then we should have done the prebuild as an iterative approach, with everyone posting their 1894 ships, then the 1895, then the 1896 etc.

Quote from: snip on April 10, 2018, 11:38:57 PM
Thanks for the reply Kirk, I appreciate your feedback. Let me throw back some thoughts and questions.

Okey Dokey :)

Quote
--I'm glad the general and non-naval stuff makes sense and is acceptable. Its a better fit for our history.

--On the naval side, the plan has evolved a little bit. I've attached a new sheet, but note it does not incorporate some feedback I will hit later in this reply. I'm using it as my reference going forward. Please keep in mind that the ships referenced with Type serve as a general indicator of technology generation, general setup, and size.


--Regarding BP spending and Infrastructure: As you note, most of the BP reduction comes out of the reduction in infrastructure. This would allow me to keep approximately the same BP's worth of fleet size. However, this reduction in infrastructure does make some aspects of the fleet comp not make sense. For example, under the new plan, Rome only possesses three Drydocks over 150m. I would find it strange then that a nation would have two battleships in active service and two on the ways that would require one of those three Drydocks for service, especially when only one of those docks exists on the Med. I realize that this is not without historical precedent, and is probably more an OOC issue than a strict IC one. A more extensive rework of the infrastructure could be proposed, but then we start getting into a lack of numbers for slips and docks to build the navy of that size. While it's not something we are strictly tracking at startup, I know others tried to hold to it so I don't want to throw it to the wind.

Types : I think I understood, and am on the same page.

Infrastructure:
For me, there are a a number of problems here
First, Rome is spending 62.1 in naval facilities, while Parthia is making do with 26.6.  Now perhaps I will find I need more facilities, and while you do have more coastline, I hope you can see that I think there is room for reallocation.

Second, simply deleting the  2 x 90m drydock at Taranto would "pay" to upgrade 4x 150m facilities by 45m each.

Third, the 'cost' of a 195m slipway and a 195m drydock at startup is exactly the same in BP, which is all that matters at this point. I had stopped building slipways in previous sims, as drydocks are far more cost effective, and I built none here.  You can simply redesignate the longer slipways, that would give you 7 more drydocks 150m+

Fourth, this your new plan, so the 'problem' of insufficient long drydocks is one you have newly created. You could have chosen to "pay" for the larger army just by deleting 1 IC, and freeing the 3 mod point that way. So I find it problematic for it to be used to justify the new fleet composition. 

Quote
--Capital Ship Tradeoffs: 

--Cruiser Tradeoffs:   

--Light Ship Tradeoffs: The loss of the 1000t E class Destroyers from the original plan was used to feed increased numbers of various older and smaller torpedo craft.

Tradeoffs : Responsibly responding to the first two categories will take brainpower and time I lack right now.

Quote
--On Hull Numbers: There are definitely some numbers that need to be played with there. The intent with the 1906ish classes that are produced in greater numbers would be for those ships to be constructed over a larger period. I should change this by breaking up those bigger blocks into a 1906ish and 1908-1909 blocks.

In setup, you indicated a desire for a relatively even flow of hull types. Originally you wanted an even flow of tonnage, but Walter and I pointed out the issues with that.  Indeed, looking at your original spreadsheet, you were tracking that at one point.

Simply shifting some of the cruisers into different time blocks would pretty much fix the problems. I have a series of Protected Cruisers (I think) that mainly varied by engine year.  Moving one vessel from each of the  "8" year battleships/acs into the "3" would give you a 7/5/7 flow.

Quote
Some closing thoughts:

--Im more wed to the general idea of this plan (More ACs and Torpedo stuff, fewer battleships) than I am too specific details (eg, I don't really care that I build a Leon Gambetta Type AC, but that the leadup to Argonauta makes sense from a development standpoint).
--Some adjustment to my original starting plan is going to be needed with the 1000t Destroyers going away. I see no reason this cant be accomplished by a 1908 750t Destroyer with the leftover tonnage going to MTBs and subs. This would be the absolute minimum level of modification.
--If I had to pick a proverbile hill to die on, it would be the expanded Armored Cruiser lineup. This is the one place where modification of numbers just will not cut it and some new designs will be necessary for getting something that makes sense.
--I will make an effort to provide a rework with current designs slotted into it rather than historical analogs for the majority of ships. I will give Kirk a chance (call it 24-48h) to reply to this post before posting it.

A) At this juncture I am now quite against the general idea. With all due respect, it comes across as hindsight.  This appears to be a decision made with consideration of what the other players were fielding. That's not how I understood this was set up.
B) I agree
C)  I'm sorry Snip, but I think minor fleet changes and design fiddling should be OK until we go live, but what you're asking for is quite a bit more than that.
D) Thank you for the time. I'll check back in tomorrow. Hopefully more alert.

Having had a bit of time to sit on it, and with Kirk's feedback, I think the minimal plan presented above is a better call than my original proposal. While it will still need some fine tuning, on the whole, it still puts Rome in a more "realistic" place relative to our history. Rather than going full Jean Eucole, the emphasis is placed on a strong battleline with swarms of light craft for non-decisive engagement coastal defense duties. This can be done with minimal modification to the original startup plan.

The minimalistic plan.

--Changed the E Class to a more advanced 750t Destroyer (Basically existing D Class with 1908 engines) to compensate for the loss of tech. Savings pushed into more light torpedo craft of various generations.
--Elimination of the Excursor class Armored Cruisers. This class was going to need to be altered anyway due to rule changes regarding armor, so I just got rid of it here. Tonnage went to more light ships. Alternatively, some of this tonnage could be put into a single unit 1899 AC. Probably something looking like a Gueydon or Prinz Adalbert. Ether option is fine with me.
--Changed all the slips to Drydocks. Also made changes to various lengths (more 195m docks for the battlewagons) and eliminated some smaller ones (more long docks mean more small ships can be built in one facility). I've left the 2ish BP that popped out of this unassigned for now, but would probably put it into more of the small patrol boats (Custody and Vigil) if it was not reinvested in infrastructure.

Thoughts and comments welcome.

EDIT: The proposed revised E-Class Destroyer. The D-Class hull is updated with more gun firepower and 4000 more SHP. Zoom.

Quote
E-Class, Imperial Roman Republic Destroyer laid down 1908

Displacement:
   750 t light; 781 t standard; 848 t normal; 902 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (259.20 ft / 252.62 ft) x 26.25 ft x (11.48 / 11.95 ft)
   (79.00 m / 77.00 m) x 8.00 m  x (3.50 / 3.64 m)

Armament:
      4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 45.0 cal guns - 30.86lbs / 14.00kg shells, 175 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1906 Model
     2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      1 raised mount aft - superfiring
     2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
      4 - 1.77" / 45.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 250 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
     4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 137 lbs / 62 kg

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 24,000 shp / 17,904 Kw = 31.28 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 121 tons

Complement:
   78 - 102

Cost:
   £0.101 million / $0.405 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 25 tons, 3.0 %
      - Guns: 25 tons, 3.0 %
   Armour: 5 tons, 0.6 %
      - Armament: 5 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 488 tons, 57.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 191 tons, 22.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 98 tons, 11.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 40 tons, 4.7 %
      - On freeboard deck: 40 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     158 lbs / 72 Kg = 5.2 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
   Metacentric height 0.9 ft / 0.3 m
   Roll period: 11.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.64

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.390 / 0.398
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.63 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 15.89 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 71 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 78
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 2.40 ft / 0.73 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  15.58 ft / 4.75 m,  15.58 ft / 4.75 m
      - Forward deck:   20.00 %,  15.58 ft / 4.75 m,  15.58 ft / 4.75 m
      - Aft deck:   45.00 %,  6.56 ft / 2.00 m,  6.56 ft / 2.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  6.56 ft / 2.00 m,  6.56 ft / 2.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      10.17 ft / 3.10 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 194.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 92.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 4,053 Square feet or 377 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 33 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 130 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 1.76
      - Overall: 0.56
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

--On Deck (40t)
----20t 8x450mm Torpedos [Two twin tube mounts per side]
----10t Short-Range Wireless
----5t Improved spray protections for Torpedo tubes
----5t Construction Reserve.

Quote from: snip on April 11, 2018, 10:49:52 PM
Having had a bit of time to sit on it, and with Kirk's feedback, I think the minimal plan presented above is a better call than my original proposal.

Thank you for considering my points. It's very difficult thing to do, and so I want to aknowledge it.

Quote
The minimalistic plan.

Sounds like a very reasonable way to go about making the necessary adjustments.

Quote
Thoughts and comments welcome.

EDIT: The proposed revised E-Class Destroyer. The D-Class hull is updated with more gun firepower and 4000 more SHP. Zoom.

A glance at the excel sheet left me believing it dandy.

With the number of smaller docks you can crank out bunches of your Destroyer designs :)
I know that when I tried projecting future builds and thus dock needs, I did consider the following :

I) Length needed for combinations of ship classes (more than 1). The rules require 10m between hulls.  I have a number of 110m docks, I have a few 230m docks. The latter also can hold my largest ACR  with some room to spare...or 2 cruisers. So I spent a little more than I needed to fit my large ship, but gained the ability to multi-task better.   Allowed me to get better multi-use out of them.  Though the way speed seems to be going in this version, I'll have to lengthen them within the decade... argh.

II) The fast construction time of the light units meant I could build more per facility. After launch, a dock is ready in 1 month. IF Start time->Launch is 5 months, +1 month to clear,  For ships up to 3,500 tons, you can lay a hull every half year. (3.5 mo + 9 = 12.5 mo until completion. *.4 = 5 months to launch).

III) My pro-drydock attitude comes from my time in Wesworld, trying to figure out how to do refits while tons of slips sat generally unused. I simply lacked the resources to need them. So when I built some new spots, I built drydocks.  Same plan for the Bavaria I took over, and the Italians I started here.  For Parthia, I projected out a couple ideas of future fleets and the build rates needed, then added some extra capacity for repairs/refits.  I think I have the least, we'll see how much I underestimated by !
My thoughts are that I apparently suck at destroyer designs.  My best ones are 31 at trials.

My 1908 750tonner has a similar gun outfit, and is 3 (!) knots slower.
There are some obvious design reasons - it's supposed to be oceanic, and able to use mercantile ports around the Indian Ocean. So it has higher seakeeping, a higher freeboard aft, range, and is part coal fired. All expensive in terms of performance, but I didn't realize how much so.

I am curious what a torpedo launcher spray protection is....What is that ? A box for the torpedoes? Hinged freeboard adjacent to the torps ? At 5 tones that is a sheet of metal 1/4" thick, 10ft high and 120feet long. Depending on what it is, you may be overpaying.

Also, 450mm torpedoes weigh 2t each. You have 8, that's 8x2 = 16t.  You have 20 allocated.

Snip, after the deleted post "I'm not a dog..."

I suggest to do modifs & adjustments in Army, Fortifications, Shipyards... in the 1910H2 report with eventualy 10 BP bonus.

Byzantine did'nt made readjustments & modifs in the present or past SS (exept to correct bullets...)

Jef

Quote from: Jefgte on April 14, 2018, 05:40:40 AM
Snip, after the deleted post "I'm not a dog..."

I suggest to do modifs & adjustments in Army, Fortifications, Shipyards... in the 1910H2 report with eventualy 10 BP bonus.

Byzantine did'nt made readjustments & modifs in the present or past SS (exept to correct bullets...)

Jef

Questions : 
1) What do you mean by "modifs & adjustments"
         - do you mean move things from one province to another?  That seems reasonable.
         - OR do you mean reallocate the points in those categories , so you wind up with different army/fort/shipyard numbers ?  Which I do not agree with.

2) what do you mean by a 10 BP bonus ?

Are you suggesting that we should each get another 10BP in terms of industry, for a start value of 34 not 24?   (Or 38 and 28 if you bought BP).   That would be an interesting discussion.
OR free infrastructure (docks/ slips/ army/ forts)
OR free naval units
OR something else like another 10 Mod Points?

And if one of these.....Why ?

I think he is referring to me making those modifications in H2 as opposed to pre-start. Which does not make sense ether.

These 10 BP bonus point w'll be affected exclusively to make correction.
- rework lenghts & qty of the slips & docks
- more forts.
- increase Army
- rebuilt 2 (or more) class of ship or add auxiliaries

Byzantine exemple
- I rework lenghts & qty of the slips & docks => probably 1BP
- more forts => probably 2BP
- I increase Army => probably 3BP
- I re SS AC4 class & add 0 auxiliaries => probably 4BP

So an "official hindsight adjustment"
We made our nations blind, here's 10BP (I'd add $10 to pay for things as well) to adjust to what the neighbors did?  Interesting.

Quote from: Jefgte on April 15, 2018, 04:05:56 PM
These 10 BP bonus point w'll be affected exclusively to make correction.
- rework lenghts & qty of the slips & docks
- more forts.
- increase Army
- rebuilt 2 (or more) class of ship or add auxiliaries

Byzantine exemple
- I rework lenghts & qty of the slips & docks => probably 1BP
- more forts => probably 2BP
- I increase Army => probably 3BP
- I re SS AC4 class & add 0 auxiliaries => probably 4BP

Ah, that does make more sense. I have no strong feelings one way or another.

On another note, I will try to get a finalized revision up this week.

Quote from: snip on April 15, 2018, 11:41:27 PM
Ah, that does make more sense. I have no strong feelings one way or another.

After thinking about it, I don't see a problem.
There's probably a "range" of acceptable numbers - for example, 200BP would be too much, while 1BP would be irrelevant.

the suggested 10BP is big enough to correct an oversight, but not enough to distort things.

...Working on possible Navy update:

You have 12x380t TBs - You think that they are too small, You could update the class to 500t - cost 1.44BP.

A class of 6x3800t scout cruisers use 4'' guns - You could rebuilt them to 4200t with 6'' guns & better range  - cost 2.4BP

A neighbourg use cruisers raider - you could modify a class of cruiser to hunt them -

=> Armament, speed, range, armor, misc weight could be modified
=> LD date could'nt be changed

I didn't really design with a strong eye on anybody, so I'm not super worried about 10 BP to revise stuff.

That said, if I receive it, I'll use it.

Quote
A class of 6x3800t scout cruisers use 4'' guns - You could rebuilt them to 4200t with 6'' guns & better range  - cost 2.4BP

A neighbor use cruisers raider - you could modify a class of cruiser to hunt them -

I was expecting the refit rules would apply and we'd only have the BP cost. 
With this clarification, I'm a little concerned about adding tonnage to existing designs. I'll have to think on that, but I had been thinking we would just modify designs.


I just went and played with my 1899 scout cruiser, and it would be spiffy with 1911 engines ! 
...which brings up another question - are the modifications the same tech date as the original, or "current" ? 
Perhaps the 10BP is the scrap yield from the pre-1880 ships...

Edit : Also, if the modifications are not '1910' or '1911', then do they get the same cost modifier as the original ship?
I.e. would it be cheaper to upgrade an 1899 vessel versus a 1902 ?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 18, 2018, 06:00:26 PM
I didn't really design with a strong eye on anybody, so I'm not super worried about 10 BP to revise stuff.

That said, if I receive it, I'll use it.

I think that's Jef's point.
Since none of us had a chance for an iterative process, now that we're starting to look at the "opposition" we may find we built some class that is really overmatched, or just not appropriate.

QuoteI think that's Jef's point.
Since none of us had a chance for an iterative process, now that we're starting to look at the "opposition" we may find we built some class that is really overmatched, or just not appropriate.

It is...
Look at Iberian Oquendo class (4 ships) - LD 1905 - 18712t - 5T2x12"- 25kts
How Byzantine could build AC4 class (2 ships) LD 1908 - 16350t - 4T2x10" - 27kts ...?
AC4 must be reSS with 4T2x 12"- 25kts (similar to HMS Invincible)

That is probably the same problem for Roman with Argonauta class
LD 1905 - 15000t - 6T2x210 - 24kts.

Honestly Snip, could we allow 40x12" - 25kts to clean the Mediterranee?

Note; Olekit is not our enemy & we have cordiale relation.  :-* :-* :-* :-*

Jef  ;)

QuoteI just went and played with my 1899 scout cruiser, and it would be spiffy with 1911 engines ! 
...which brings up another question - are the modifications the same tech date as the original, or "current" ? 
Perhaps the 10BP is the scrap yield from the pre-1880 ships...

Edit : Also, if the modifications are not '1910' or '1911', then do they get the same cost modifier as the original ship?
I.e. would it be cheaper to upgrade an 1899 vessel versus a 1902 ?

For me, it's just modifications of SS with the same techno date.
Cruiser LD in 1899 could be modified with 1899 technos.
If you want to rebuilt with 1911 engines, you must do it in 1911 report

Quote from: Jefgte on April 19, 2018, 03:31:34 PM
It is...
Look at Iberian Oquendo class (4 ships) - LD 1905 - 18712t - 5T2x12"- 25kts
How Byzantine could build AC4 class (2 ships) LD 1908 - 16350t - 4T2x10" - 27kts ...?
AC4 must be reSS with 4T2x 12"- 25kts (similar to HMS Invincible)

Actually, in that case the encyclopedia entry is interesting.
Olekit has engaged in "flavor" - having the first in class laid down in 1905 in text. With a 28 month build, it could be finished in 1907.  However the SIM laydown is 1906, and so would not be ready until 1908- which is when he says they enter service.

If you think about it, before your vessel was laid down, it would have to be designed, and then budgeted and ordered- probably in 1907.
Consider what the Germans knew about Invincible while she was still building.  Not much.
So it is fully reasonable that you would proceed with your 1908 class. 

Also, at least from Parthia's perspective, I've been using Logi's ballistics calculator to get an idea of expected gun performance. Snip will probably use something entirely different, so it just
gives me a reference point.

In 1907 the Parthians were designing the Asbar class. They were expecting their new 1904 255L50 BL breechloading rifle to fire a 243kg shell at 830m/s ....and at a long combat range of 6,000m penetrate  267mm of belt armor. 

So if Parthian spies got the full design specs for Olekit's cruiser, they would see the Parthian cruiser was faster, with a equal or higher ROF, and could defeat the Iberian belt + protective deck (200+55) at current battle ranges.  That stops being the case in 1910, with 1908 fire control, they can't quite penetrate at 10,000m, but I doubt Olekit can penetrate the Parthian 195mm belt + 60mm deck.

This is the same situation your cruisers would be in- slightly worse than the larger Iberian ship, but not dramatically worse. The Iberian ship is 20% heavier, and fires larger shell at ~20 rpm, while the Parthian fires ~24-32.  If the Iberian could bring the Parthian to battle, either could be victorious.

Question :
My Asbar 1908 class of ACR has the same speed and main battery weaponry of your class, but slightly less displacement and armor.
It's a case where we both had the same idea of how those vessels could evolve.

So lets say you go back with your 10BP and add 1,500 tons to each of yours. Your ships get 280-305mm guns, slightly more armor or speed.
I spend my 10BP elsewhere.
We post up our revisions.  Now I see my ACR go from being almost equal (and so not needing changes) to your ACR to clearly less.
Do I then get to go back and change my 10BP allocation ?   

Quote
Almirante Oquendo  1905   1908   active
Almirante Gravina    1906    ---    will be comissioned H1 1910
Almirante Núñez      1907    ---     will be comissioned H1 1910
Almirante Ben Aicha 1908    ---     building

Okendo, Spain AC laid down 1906

That's a good point, Kirk.  We can't slide into a cycle of revise-review-revise during set-up.  There'd be no stop.

I think snip's minimal plan - drydocks, dumping a CA class, and revising a DD class - is the best choice at this point.  One can only be so optimized pre-game; gaps will have to be addressed once we get going.

So, finalized plan attached. Couple tweaks.

--I realized that I could no longer build MTBs pre-start. So that class was eliminated.
--There is also going to need to be some Misc Weight adjustments on the Larui class cruisers because they cannot use triple torpedo tubes. I will fix this at some point soon.
--I distributed remaining BP across the spectrum of light units and adjusted some numbers. In short, I gain a lot of Destroyers across the age spectrum and lots of older TBs and such. I provided a numbers comparison on the spreadsheet.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the proposed plan.