New Refit Rules

[Carthaginian]

Yeah. The Mobile is the last larger cruiser class that I'll build for a long time. The Murfreesboro was intended to replace most (about half) of the older ships, but my disproportionately low population handicaps me considerably with the way that ships are upsizing. 3 old cruisers can only be replaced by 2. That's why my destroyers SHRANK rather than growing. Unfortunately, some ships just have to get bigger, and that's hurting a lot.


Breed you dumb SOB's... BREED!!!
LOL

[Ithekro]

More IC, more IC!  Just keep building inifrustructure.  Population growth seems to be every 2 years, so 1910 should show an increase.  Stories and other beneficial items to the sim tend to also gain some sort of bonus for countries.

[Carthaginian]

IC only does so much.
I need population increases in order to get more money per IC. I've done several IC posts about population increase attempts since 1908. Hoping to see it pay off in 1910.

[Sachmle]

... who the hell else has 'protected cruisers' with 4' of freeboard aft and .5" decks that can only do 20 knots?!?

I do, I do!! ;D

[Ithekro]

I did...of course they were Confederate built.

[maddox]

I have such cruisers, and even the equivalent of DD's just reaching 20kts. And a lot of them either. The Chardon class is extensive.

[Korpen]

First I think the present rules are a big step forward, as the reduced BP cost at least give some incentive to refit ships.

I think we are in some confusion in what these refits are about, are we talking about refits that are to be the equal to half-time modifications, or just major maintenance operations?
If the former, then 15-20 years in between them seems to be the lower time span in between them and 20% cost, while high imo, is within reasonable limits.
If just major maintenance then the cost should be far lower, as most of that is checking things and see how worn they are, the things that break or get predictably worn (worn out guns, dirty boilers, fouled bottoms and such things) should be covered by the normal upkeep.
Then ten years of active service should be a guideline, not a demand.

But for a ship to suffer significant reduced combat capability after only ten years seems very short indeed, even 15 is a bit short. Especially if she have spent time in the reserve and therefore is less worn.
The reason that modifications were made more often then 15-20 years had as far as I know less to do with and degradation of the ships capabilities in absolute terms, and more to do with the march of technology around them, possibly leading to a degradation of capability in relative terms.

[Carthaginian]

So I think we are mostly in agreement that 10 years is too often, and that 20% is too expensive, for a 'refit.' It should be adjusted to some degree... 10% every 10 years and 6 months (flat) should be enough for 'freshening' the vessel.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I feel agreement with Carthaginian's proposal.

I understand this "every 10 years refit" to be a general lookover of all mechanism, replacement or repair of anything broken, or anything which looks that it can break down soon.

But it is not in any way a modernisation/rebuild - no buldging, no change of weapons (apart from pompoms or smaller, with which we should not bother with anyway) , no change of machinery.

Ships fightng value will decrease naturaly, with ageing.

Borys

[P3D]

Well-maintained battleships usually underwent two refits/major overhaul in their life, roughly every 10 years. These refits also represent miscellaneous small repairs when they occupy the drydocks. I can repeat myself that with the current rules the ratio of total lifetime upkeep+refit cost of the ship versus purchase cost is agreeing with the only historical figures we were able to dig up, so I see no reason to change.

[Carthaginian]

Well-maintained battleships usually underwent two refits/major overhaul in their life, roughly every 10 years. These refits also represent miscellaneous small repairs when they occupy the drydocks. I can repeat myself that with the current rules the ratio of total lifetime upkeep+refit cost of the ship versus purchase cost is agreeing with the only historical figures we were able to dig up, so I see no reason to change.

P3D,

Refits like you are suggesting didn't become necessary till the Washington/London Treaty period. Hell HMS Invincible kept her RML's her entire career, along with her original engines. Most BB's of the late 1890's and early 1900's were the same. The entire Great White Fleet kept original guns and engines (the items you say we are replacing for 20%) their whole careers, well into WWI. Hell, the Japanese kept Mikasa in service with NO MAJOR OVERHAULS until WWII.

You are trying to force something on us that simply didn't happen IRL. 'Life-extension' refits are a product of the building prohibitions of the 20's... that's why you used a Nelson for your figures... because Dreadnought-era ships DID NOT get these kinds of refits, only the ships that made it into the Treaty-era did.

P3D, the outcry over this should be an indication that it kills the enjoyment of the game. Realism is one thing, but we are in a fictional world with fictional nations and fictional situations. Tailoring the conditions a bit to preserve enjoyment of the game (and simplify things, as you are claiming to do while constantly changing the rules to the point no one can keep up) isn't a bad thing.

In this case, too MUCH realism is worse than not enough.

[Ithekro]

American pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers did get refits during their careers, though not the massive ones.  First was to change the pole mast to a cage mast.  I think there were minor other things they did to correct flaws in the designs.  Then during the Great War the ships were refitted again (sort of) by having most if not all of their lighter guns removed.  I believe most of these were shipped out in convoys (to arm the freighters with from my understanding).  Some ships did get engine refits.

[Carthaginian]

American pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers did get refits during their careers, though not the massive ones.  First was to change the pole mast to a cage mast.  I think there were minor other things they did to correct flaws in the designs.  Then during the Great War the ships were refitted again (sort of) by having most if not all of their lighter guns removed.  I believe most of these were shipped out in convoys (to arm the freighters with from my understanding).  Some ships did get engine refits.

Yes, they had normal wear and tear corrected. Some got cage masts.
This is a 'refit.' They are not worth 20% as they didn't make the ships more combat effective, just kept them operational.

Some got new boilers, many had guns over 4" removed.
THIS IS NOT A REFIT- it's a 'rebuild' under our rules. THIS is what SHOULD cost 20% of a ship's purchase price.

[Ithekro]

I'm not seeing this aspect.  Please explain how that is baised?

[Carthaginian]

I'm not seeing this aspect.  Please explain how that is baised?

A small country with a short coastline needs few ships.
They can maintain  2 or 3 capital ships, and can get away with it. They don't need a large fleet core. Thus, they don't have a lot to refit.
A larger country must maintain a larger navy, and thus a larger core battleline. They have to, simply put, 'cover more ground.'

By charging 20% every 10 years, you are strangling the larger country to keep it's navy going, while allowing the smaller country less penalty. As a large country that has a tiny population, I feel the pinch FAR more. Orange has a similar population, but only 1/3 the area to cover. It only needs about 1/3 the fleet I do. I'm trying to maintain a two-ocean fleet on a shoestring budget not much bigger than Orange's.

Maintaining a realistic navy for your country's area cannot be done under these new rules, unless you are Rohan/France/MK, or you are a tiny nation.
It just gets too expensive to keep ships floating. Nations like the DKB, NS, Japan and the Netherlands will feel htis pinch even more with the vast distances their nations cover.