Displacement used for building?

Desertfox · July 03, 2011, 04:14:50 PM

I prefer light, just because that's what we have used all these years and we are used to building ships to them. I had to use standard in Wesworld when the Cleito Treaty was in effect and it was a bit more difficult.

As for massive range, I might have to do so, until I am able to build a canal across Central America.

Sachmle · July 03, 2011, 04:55:32 PM

1. I don't think there is a BP equivalent in N4. I believe it's cash and carry only.

2. So I say use SS prices, as Blooded pointed out it will be 33 sim years before the 'inflation' bug bites. Maybe between now and then we'll figure out "HOW" SS assigns that cost and factor out the inflation bit.

Tanthalas · July 03, 2011, 05:00:19 PM

Quote from: Sachmle on July 03, 2011, 04:55:32 PM
1. I don't think there is a BP equivalent in N4. I believe it's cash and carry only.

2. So I say use SS prices, as Blooded pointed out it will be 33 sim years before the 'inflation' bug bites. Maybe between now and then we'll figure out "HOW" SS assigns that cost and factor out the inflation bit.

with no BP equivilent (thank god) im all for the SS price. Who knows it might be accurate if we have runaway inflation going on (aka we are in a world war)

Carthaginian · July 03, 2011, 09:42:44 PM

Remember, Gents... SS price adjusts with inflation automatically.
A 7,800 ton (normal) hull- just an empty hull, mind you) costs L0.268 in 1880 and L2.092 in 1950.
We'll either have to 1.) account for inflation with a complicated mathematical formula, 2.) eat the loss in capability as ships get more expensive, or 3.) go with tonnage as cost in some manner. As the latter is SIMPLE, I vote for that.

Blooded · July 03, 2011, 09:56:44 PM

How do,

I am not sure how it works, I just remember the increases were trivial until 1912 or so.

I need to get my other computer going(which has SS on it) before I can compare, but it seemed to me(way back when) that a 25,000 ton ship with 12x12" guns cost more than a 25,000 ton ship with 8x12" guns. Since Armament(and Machinery) seem to cost the most per ton( in reality), that the SS cost calculation was a better representation of real world dynamics. I cant honestly justify that yet but that sticks out in the memory for some reason. ::) ;)

I cant get the laptop going until tuesday(4th of july weekend), maybe I should just get .net framework and SS on here(the kids computer)but... if someone could do some comparisons... ;) that would be dandy. ;D

Carthaginian · July 03, 2011, 10:05:02 PM

Guys, do we really HAVE to make this like the Sims where you have to simulate pissing?
Isn't there a sane limit for the amount of miniscule details that we can add in before this become less of a game and more of a damn math homework assignment? I don't give a rip WHEN the 1000% cost increase due to inflation begins... I just want to know how it will be dealt with! If the idea is to add ANOTHER complicated mathematical formula, then IT IS THE WRONG IDEA! We're already turning this into an economic exercise moreso than a game.

SO... how ARE we going to deal with this issue?
Are we going to create another complicated rule... or just go with an equally effective, but far simpler solution?

Tanthalas · July 03, 2011, 10:07:25 PM

Sure I dont have a problem with continuing to use light displacement, it worked and it will still work.

TexanCowboy · July 03, 2011, 10:36:02 PM

^ Agree.

Just as long as we get something.

BTW...

I think that, when the time comes around, it might be a better idea to use subsim for submarine design then a table. It gives much better results and it's very, very simple to use; moreso then SS.

Tanthalas · July 03, 2011, 10:38:18 PM

Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 03, 2011, 10:36:02 PM
^ Agree.

Just as long as we get something.

BTW...

I think that, when the time comes around, it might be a better idea to use subsim for submarine design then a table. It gives much better results and it's very, very simple to use; moreso then SS.

whatfor are these undersea boats for, cowerdly weapons for Cowerdly people (note that is a rohinium responce)

TexanCowboy · July 03, 2011, 10:39:38 PM

Ironically, I think there were more casualities on submarines then there ever were on battleships.

Nobody · July 04, 2011, 01:47:49 AM

I agree that light or standard displacement might make sense for building cost and building only, but since I don't believe that many are willing to use several different values for the same ship I would go with normal. Moreover normal has the additional advantage of making designing a ship for a certain displacement much simpler.

Blooded · July 04, 2011, 01:50:08 AM

Is it in SS2 or 3 that you can program a 'Normal' Value? I don't think I have ever done that at all..

Tanthalas · July 04, 2011, 01:54:09 AM

Quote from: Blooded on July 04, 2011, 01:50:08 AM
Is it in SS2 or 3 that you can program a 'Normal' Value? I don't think I have ever done that at all..

ROFL blooded I know you have you just didnt realise it. Normal is the value you put in for tonage in SS2 and SS3, we have just forever ignored it because we were tweaking it to set the light value where we wanted it. Like I said before, light or standard make the most sence to me since the ship comes out of the yards and we pay maintnence on it before we can actualy even use it.