Random thoughts, as y'all are rebooting

[Carthaginian]

If one state (Read: USSR) want to build submarines out of titanium and was willing to pay the price, why should that not be allowed?
As it has been done there is no doubt that it is possible.
Such things are subject to the judgment of the player in his or her capacity as leaders of the state.
I much prefer a use of the "carrot" give economic incentives (or disincentives) then to use the "stick" and outright ban things or place hard artificial limits on things one does not want.

This argument is somewhat skewed- the Soviet Union's economic situation at the time that the three classes of submarine to use titanium as a primary hull material- the Alfa class, the Papa class and the Mike class (inner hull only)- shows how unsuccessful and inefficient an economy run on such principles. It's citizens traded the equivalent of Monopoly money internally, and the nation had an entirely separate banking system (and indeed currency) for use with other nations. The practicality of such a system is shown in how well it works in the Soviet Union today.

Oh... wait... there is no Soviet Union today.
Well, I rest my case. :)

So while I guess that you could theoretically run a nation-state in such a manner, you would only be as successful as the example you cite... and as the Soviet Union no longer exists, and has not existed since about 20 years after most of the vessels in question were put into service, we see how successful such an economic decision might work out in our world as well. ;)

No, pricing something so far out of reach that it is economically unfeasible with the intent of producing the same net result as forbidding it outright is simply an unnecessary complication. Keep the rules simple and just forbid turbines till a historically appropriate date.

[P3D]

Actually, the unknown secret of the Soviet Titanium is that it was from Hungary.

Hungary had a Bauxite mine with very high level of TiO2 content. A Hungarian Engineer developed a process to extract that Titanium. The Soviets decided they liked it, and with some help within the Hungarian government (it is not much past '56 after all) they took the intellectual rights, pilot plant, and all the Bauxite produced in the mine in question, and processed it as their own - some of it ending in the SR-71 program.

There was some pretty successful effort expended to suppress the operation. The operators of the mine did not know why the Soviets were buying up the bauxite from that one and only mine - Hungary had its own alumina refineries to process the rest (with electricity imported from Ukraine SSR).
A retired Mining Engineer had told the story recently to a newspaper, that's why I am aware of it.

[Korpen]

This argument is somewhat skewed- the Soviet Union's economic situation at the time that the three classes of submarine to use titanium as a primary hull material- the Alfa class, the Papa class and the Mike class (inner hull only)- shows how unsuccessful and inefficient an economy run on such principles. It's citizens traded the equivalent of Monopoly money internally, and the nation had an entirely separate banking system (and indeed currency) for use with other nations. The practicality of such a system is shown in how well it works in the Soviet Union today.

Oh... wait... there is no Soviet Union today.
Well, I rest my case.

So while I guess that you could theoretically run a nation-state in such a manner, you would only be as successful as the example you cite... and as the Soviet Union no longer exists, and has not existed since about 20 years after most of the vessels in question were put into service, we see how successful such an economic decision might work out in our world as well.

I think you completely missed my point. It is not about whether or not something is the financially ideal thing to do, but that the rules should not forbid a player to run a sovjet-style economy (or extreme laissez-faire were taxation is seen as worse then murder for that matter), but allow for such actions with all their consequences.

No, pricing something so far out of reach that it is economically unfeasible with the intent of producing the same net result as forbidding it outright is simply an unnecessary complication.

Again you completely miss the point; if you look at what I said you will see that it is not about "pricing something so far out of reach", in fact it is the opposite!
From 1903 (engine year) there are never under any circumstances advantageous to ever build a ship with VTE engines, they are simply too expensive compared to turbines. Even with a 100%increase in cost for the engine turbines would still be cheaper the VTEs from 1906, but the difference would not be so huge.

Keep the rules simple and just forbid turbines till a historically appropriate date.

That is totally unconnected to the rest of the argument.   

[Carthaginian]

Even with a 100%increase in cost for the engine turbines would still be cheaper the VTEs from 1906, but the difference would not be so huge.

In Springsharp THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Ships are abstractly priced... there is no difference between turbines and VTEs or diesels. This makes your proposal moot- unless you'd care to expand on some kind of pricing system for how turbines are much cheaper.

Sooooo... since your entire argument is based on something that Springsharp doesn't actually do, you'd simply be charging more for a ship with turbines than you would for a basically identical ship with VTEs- making the VTE the only logical choice until your 'pricing penalty' winds up becoming a moot point.

Korpen, sometimes "Good enough is, whereas perfect is a pain int he ass and generally not worth the damn effort."

[Korpen]

In Springsharp THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Ships are abstractly priced... there is no difference between turbines and VTEs or diesels. This makes your proposal moot- unless you'd care to expand on some kind of pricing system for how turbines are much cheaper.
Sooooo... since your entire argument is based on something that Springsharp doesn't actually do, you'd simply be charging more for a ship with turbines than you would for a basically identical ship with VTEs- making the VTE the only logical choice until your 'pricing penalty' winds up becoming a moot point.

Ok, I think we have a different starting view on this issue; You are talking about the weight of the ship, in which case there is no difference in cost.
However, I have been talking about capability, in which case there is a huge difference.
Design a 21kts BB in 1905 with turbines, then change to VTE engines, increase size until you got a CS of 1,0 again. How much larger did you have to make the ship? THAT size increase is what I am talking about when I say that turbines are much cheaper.

[Carthaginian]

In Springsharp THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Ships are abstractly priced... there is no difference between turbines and VTEs or diesels. This makes your proposal moot- unless you'd care to expand on some kind of pricing system for how turbines are much cheaper.
Sooooo... since your entire argument is based on something that Springsharp doesn't actually do, you'd simply be charging more for a ship with turbines than you would for a basically identical ship with VTEs- making the VTE the only logical choice until your 'pricing penalty' winds up becoming a moot point.

Ok, I think we have a different starting view on this issue; You are talking about the weight of the ship, in which case there is no difference in cost.
However, I have been talking about capability, in which case there is a huge difference.

How do you propose making the surcharge work in relation to the cost of the ship?
I'll piddle with a 1905 battleship over the next few nights (as I have to go into work for tomorrow- time and a half, baby!) and try to see just how big a difference it makes- but South Carolina and Dreadnought show that ships with mature VTE's can have similar capabilities on the same (or even less) tonnage than a first gen Turbine ship.

[Korpen]

How do you propose making the surcharge work in relation to the cost of the ship?

By looking at engine weight, divide it in half and add that number to the weight of the ship for cost calculation. So a 3000ton turbine engine would add 1500ton to the ship for deciding what is cost to build.
Combined with using normal tonnage that makes fuel consumption more of an issue it would hopefully make VTE-engines a viable choice until at least 1910.

[Carthaginian]

Korpen... really, are you just adding more rule complications for the sake of adding them?
That just makes it more difficult to calculate the cost of a ship.

If you want to prohibit turbines, then prohibit turbines.
Too much beancounting ruins the sim. Stacking rules upon rules upon rules does away with the fun part of this. Either a simple rule or no rule should be the goal. This adds nothing to the 'realism' part of the sim- as every navy DID switch to turbines in all major ships AS SOON AS THEIR INDUSTRY MATURED SUFFICIENTLY... almost like flipping a light switch. Most did do 'development' classes- smaller ships tested turbines and then larger ones featured them- but as fast as reliable turbines could be built, they began installing them.

I see no point in creating another need for a calculator when a simple 'yes or no answer' rule can accomplish the same goal.

[Korpen]

Korpen... really, are you just adding more rule complications for the sake of adding them?
That just makes it more difficult to calculate the cost of a ship.

If you want to prohibit turbines, then prohibit turbines.
Too much beancounting ruins the sim. Stacking rules upon rules upon rules does away with the fun part of this. Either a simple rule or no rule should be the goal.
I see no point in creating another need for a calculator when a simple 'yes or no answer' rule can accomplish the same goal.

Oh, rules philosophy!
It looks a bit like we are abit on the opposite ends of the spectra about how design rules should be structured. You (and correct me if I put words in you mouth now) prefer the rules to put strict limits on what one may do and the freedom to act exist only on the conditions of the rules (the D&D approach). Basically a lot of rules governing what you may input, or not.

Personally I want the rule to have a minimal impact on what you may or may not do, but rather focus on the effects of ones choices. So if one wants to run a soviet-style government, have turrets on cruisers or use turbines in everything from 1903 I think one should be free to do so.

[Jefgte]

...Personally I want the rule to have a minimal impact on what you may or may not do, but rather focus on the effects of ones choices. So if one wants to run a soviet-style government, have turrets on cruisers or use turbines in everything from 1903 I think one should be free to do so.
...

Yes, I agree, a military governement could be possible with great effort on the armament.

The result could be a coalition of Democratic Countries vs this "dictatur".



Jef  ;)

[Carthaginian]

Korpen... really, are you just adding more rule complications for the sake of adding them?
That just makes it more difficult to calculate the cost of a ship.

If you want to prohibit turbines, then prohibit turbines.
Too much beancounting ruins the sim. Stacking rules upon rules upon rules does away with the fun part of this. Either a simple rule or no rule should be the goal.
I see no point in creating another need for a calculator when a simple 'yes or no answer' rule can accomplish the same goal.

Oh, rules philosophy!
It looks a bit like we are abit on the opposite ends of the spectra about how design rules should be structured. You (and correct me if I put words in you mouth now) prefer the rules to put strict limits on what one may do and the freedom to act exist only on the conditions of the rules (the D&D approach). Basically a lot of rules governing what you may input, or not.

Personally I want the rule to have a minimal impact on what you may or may not do, but rather focus on the effects of ones choices. So if one wants to run a soviet-style government, have turrets on cruisers or use turbines in everything from 1903 I think one should be free to do so.

Uhm... yes, you put words in my mouth.

I want a ruleset like the 10 Commandments - a short list of "thou shalt not's" with a few "thou shalt's" tacked on to ensure some things do get done. I hardly want something that looks like the 2nd Ed. of D&D where there is a rule for whether or not your pants leg gets wet if you piss into the wind (roll 1D20, on a critical failure you piss your pants).

I want something that will keep people from saying 'the Rules say I can build HMS Hood in 1905, if I pay triple' because this will take a lot of the fun out of the sim for people that want plausible ships to be built above all else. Only someone acting out of complete hindsight would immediately design a ship which had turbines, high speed and large guns immediately upon that technology becoming available- it took Great Britain TWENTY YEARS to piece together the requisite technology and proof of concept to field the Dreadnought.

You want to be able to do it overnight- then tack on the 'price penalty' which you say will dissuade people from abusing such a thing. I submit to you that it will do no such thing- only allow some people to leapfrog those who choose to roleplay a more natural progression of technologies by engaging in the kinds of economic practices that- in the real world- bring on economic ruin followed by national collapse- but which will have no penalties here.

I think there should be concrete rules for the following things:
1.) the years turbines are allowed on each type of ship
2.) the years that centralized fire control is introduced
3.) the years that submarines and aircraft become viable
4.) The years that aircraft carriers become viable
5.) the years that radar may be mounted on ships and then aircraft.

That is about all the "thou shalt not's" I think we should have.

How, pray tell, would you have your 'pay extra' system handle that... or do we need another style of rule to cover these kinds of things- giving us more to remember?

[Valles]

Provided that those 'years of introduction' are kept relevant to events, experiences, and developments as played out in Navalism, rather than dictated arbitrarily by false parallels drawn with OTL, I could live with either approach quite easily.

[Carthaginian]

Provided that those 'years of introduction' are kept relevant to events, experiences, and developments as played out in Navalism, rather than dictated arbitrarily by false parallels drawn with OTL, I could live with either approach quite easily.

As long as we have a GENERAL IDEA from the outset how things will develop, I have no problem with there being 'event centered' technology introductions in the game... though I will counter that such a system allows for much possible abuse, and that SOME form of grounding in OTL will be necessary.

[Valles]

'Tech a was first fielded in year x, and improvement b was fielded in year y, a difference of i years, therefore, we will need to wait i years from the dice mediated introduction of a in game' should be workable.

[Carthaginian]

'Tech a was first fielded in year x, and improvement b was fielded in year y, a difference of i years, therefore, we will need to wait i years from the dice mediated introduction of a in game' should be workable.

This I can agree with.