1922 Rules Change Discussion

[Jefgte]

Modifs on a ship - Refurbishement & Rebuilt

Cost in BP is the difference in weight between the 2 SS, the old & the new multiply by 1.5
Cost in $ is double of the weight for the work in the shipyards.

The  difference of the 2 SS, the old & the new must be the calculation reference.

OLD - 4400t
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
  Armament: 82 tons, 1.5 %
  Armour: 632 tons, 11.6 %
     - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
     - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
     - Armament: 61 tons, 1.1 %
     - Armour Deck: 531 tons, 9.8 %
     - Conning Tower: 40 tons, 0.7 %
  Machinery: 1 782 tons, 32.8 %
  Hull, fittings & equipment: 1 794 tons, 33.0 %
  Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 029 tons, 18.9 %
  Miscellaneous weights: 110 tons, 2.0 %

NEW - 4614t
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
  Armament: 82 tons, 1.5 %
  Armour: 796 tons, 14.7 %
     - Belts: 164 tons, 3.0 %
     - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
     - Armament: 61 tons, 1.1 %
     - Armour Deck: 531 tons, 9.8 %
     - Conning Tower: 40 tons, 0.7 %
  Machinery: 1 636 tons, 30.1 %
  Hull, fittings & equipment: 1 939 tons, 35.7 %
  Fuel, ammunition & stores: 815 tons, 15.0 %
  Miscellaneous weights: 160 tons, 2.9 %

Difference between the 2 SS is -51t so the ship tonnage is the base of the calculation
(this is really the work made on the ship & not a fixedprice)
That mean for these SSs
214tx1.5=321t - 0.32BP
214tx2=428t - 0.428$
We could maintain the global cost work for the ship: 20% of tonnage of the ship.

Global cost
0.32BP
0.428$ + (4400tx0.2=0.88$) = 1.308$[:b]

[Kaiser Kirk]

Hmm, well let's see what it currently costs :

Refurbishment
Base cost : 20% original cost :$0.88
New External Armor belt : 164 tons :  $0.164, 0.164BP
New Machinery : 1,636 tons : $3.272, 1.636BP
Non-Func Misc : +50 tons : $0.025

While tonnage is increased 5% can't tell if that's the fuel or not. Guessing not.
Let's pretend draft was increased, so still just a refurbishment :
Cost : $0.9228

Total : $5.268, 1.8 BP.

So...there is a very large difference between the proposed approach and the current rule. The current rule discourages massive changes to ships as uneconomical $ wise. For $ rich, BP poor nations, or those with constraints on dockyards, this may still be worth it. Otherwise we see an echo of the real world, where massive upgrades on existing ships generally were not done- with the exception of the treaty years.

With the new approach, the 0.32BP doesn't cover the machinery change, which doesn't make sense to me. Indeed, the entire cost of $1.308 doesn't cover the new machinery tonnage. 

[Jefgte]

New Machinery : 1,636 tons : $3.272, 1.636BP

That's not new machinery but the conversion of the boilers from coal to oil. The cost is nearly 0 in BP but about 0.3$

[Kaiser Kirk]

You go from 1,782 to 1,636 tons of Machinery.  

Perhaps that is unintentional , however, from the little bit you posted, it appear you're ripping boilers out (which shouldn't cost that much), or replacing the old with the new.

[Jefgte]

You go from 1,782 to 1,636 tons of Machinery

OK, for the conversion of the boilers from coal to oil, the coal weight machinery must be choose for the calculation.


That give a difference between the 2 SS "Distribution of weights at normal displacement"
+95tons
Calculation for these SSs
4614t - 4400t = 214t + 95t x 1.5 = 463t : 0.46BP
309t x 2 = 618t - 0.618$
We could maintain the global cost work for the ship: 20% of tonnage of the ship.

Global cost
0.46BP
0.618$ + (4400tx0.2=0.88$) = 1.498$


Jef

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'd like to see :

A) The old RR rules and Merchant Marine rules returned to common use.  I've been waiting to subsidize merchants for 6 game years, missed some of my prime building years already.

B) Deck thickness calculator
I think as we work on the Combat aspects, the need to determine where in a ship things fall will come up.
After that is adopted, it would be nice to have a calculator commonly available so we can specify deck armor inside and outside of the citadel. In wesworld I use one Red Admiral provided, here Logi might have one, etc. However, before folks start doing it by their own methods unofficially, and then get ticked if it doesn't effect combat.. I'd suggest a common one.

C) Some basic logistic rules.
I'd suggest : 1 Brigade takes X GRT or Y std tons misc weight.   Take M hours to unload at docks,  N hours to lighters, and O hours opposed, etc.
Also, Moving 1 brigade over double tracks moved 150mile/day and  takes 20% of the track capacity.  So a Corp takes 2 days to move 150miles by double track rail.
On single tracks it gets worse, as the corp takes about 6 days, but that could be simplified to be each brigade is 50% of a single track's capacity.
A corp would take about 12 hours to load on train and 12 hours to unload. So tack a day onto each trip.

Supplies and % of raillines or dock space can be figured as well.  Unloading over the beach is hard, and autos aren't quite up to long logistical routes yet.

Right, y'all can go work on these problems for me :)

[miketr]

The problem for hit locations is as always generic charts vs. customs ones for ships.  Custom charts would, IMHO, add an unacceptable degree of complexity for doing naval battles.  Having a location chart for each class of ship to track is going to be PITA.

A better generic chart would be very helpful I think.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

I was thinking of a simple bow-stern chart, and some way of figuring out if the MB, UB, Upper hull, or superstructure is hit.  Right now end belts and upper belts, as well as any variation in deck thickness is all irrelevant.

[P3D]

Hit chance locator is about the only place where the differences between individual ships  - beyond guns and armor thickness - can be accounted for. If one bothers with it.
The best I could come up with would be a hit chance table generator in excel.

[Delta Force]

I've noticed that the amount of horsepower that SS says a large ship will need quickly starts to get far above historical levels. I simmed a ship with the dimensions and weight of the Nagato class and it took it 85,000 horsepower to get up to 27 knots (75,000 with transom stern), the historical ship had 80,000 horsepower. That's a fairly large discrepancy in terms of percentage. An Admiral class ends up taking 167,000 horsepower to reach 31 knots (146,000 with transom stern simmed), while historically it needed only 144,000 horsepower. The Courageous class takes 112,000 horsepower to get up to 32 knots (99,000 with transom stern simmed), while historically it only needed 90,000. It seems that to properly sim a large ship capable of speeds above around 30 knots or so you need to use transom stern. Otherwise they require massive amounts of horsepower above what was required historically.

Also, I was thinking that perhaps a new technology for steam turbines could be added, allowing each shaft to have up to 45,000 horsepower. A few ships of this era were planned to have up to 180,000 horsepower with four shafts, like the Lexington class ships.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I think there oughta be a rule that...

'First of Class' vessels take 10% more to construct - time, $, and BP.
Alternately, make the lead ship 100%, but allow follow on vessels to be cheaper.  I prefer charging more for the first.

Later ships in the class can vary in the 'final details' that don't have to be finished prior to lay down- from construction rules : These exceptions are technologies that have limited physical impact on the ship, or affect components installed late in the construction of the ship:

[Guinness]

that's not a terrible idea Kirk.

[ctwaterman]

I know of several different rules where prototypes of new ships cost more in some cases significantly more then the 2nd and 3rd and so forth.

It discourages one of designs but many BB still end up one of designs especially for the small poorer nations.

Charles

[miketr]

I played a game that in its older rules had the first ship / design paying 100%  Each ship after the first got a 1% reduction down to 75%.  Current rules for this game have first ship costing 120%.

Lets just consider that you would need to build 25 ships to get the first reduction.  How many of us have one ship of the exact same class?  Most likely you are looking at DD's.   And even then we don't build all that many of them, sure some of us build a lot of a class.  Most of our cash is in BB's though, the big heavy metal or cruisers.

If you assume 1% reduction in cost it takes till the 6th unit to get a cumulative reduction of 20% and after that you are a head.  Otherwise a flat 20% increase in lead ships cost is better.  Even then I really don't want more expensive ships, its just more cost for the sake of cost.

Over all I am not thrilled with the idea for a reduced cost, it adds some cost to the game in book keeping terms but who cares if my 20th DD is 80% cost.  Most of my cost is on my BB's / AC's.  Just saying is all.

What I want are more rules that are useful.  Commerce raiding rules, trade rules, more detailed amphibious / expeditionary warfare rules, more detailed army rules.  These are all useful.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

It's a concept that occurs to me while doing DDs.  There has to be some reason most nations tended to build in classes stretching over years.  Similar operating parameters are one, but easier maintenance, working out kinks, etc. We have no design 'cost', nor efficiancy/maintenance savings.

The idea of declining cost is one way to go, though it might be a pain to track individual costs if they vary by 1%. Blocks might be better. Tiny alterations in cost just aren't 'worth' it, but if I know DDs 9-16 will cost 80% while a new class would cost 100%, I may choose to stick with the older design.

Anyhow, just an idea I tossed out.

My want list still includes - Merchant marine & Railroad building rules to be revamped and/or reinstituted. List of strategic resources and who has which- like the oil code . And stuff. Stuff being very important y'know.