New Refit Rules

[Desertfox]

Oh, who in here is the most cost-conscious?
Who is building 17,000t semi-dreadnoughts while everyone else is building 23-25000t super-dreadnoughts? Who is trying to remove some of the need for destroyers by building cheap, merchant standard patrol craft for coastal work rather than using more expensive craft? Who was the first person building destroyers SMALLER than his tech level's max size?

Ummm... That would be me.

Only one planned Battlecruiser stuffed into 15,000 tons (armor? who needs armor?). Multi-purpose 270 ton DDs replacing regular DDs, and then getting replaced by 170 ton Patrol Torpedo Boats. Very few planned full size DDs, replacement plans where for 590 ton DDs. I felt the pinch quite some time ago.

Only way to solve the problem was to merger with Japan. Which BTW would not have had the capacity to build anything remotely like the OTL IJN.

[P3D]

So does like gun elevation increase.

I would define this as "rebuild". "Reconstruction". Or "modernisation".
Borys

A change in gun elevation would have a cost expressed in the tiniest fraction even when rounded up. I did not want to have every minute details of the modernization to be spelled out, but apparently people would like to have another half page detailing the actual state of every ship.
Refit includes all regular maintenance and small modernizations (and they do add up).

Reconstruction should be limited to stuff that involves additional yard work, installing and/or replacing thousand tons of steel.

I can repeat what was said earlier. If you want to keep ships to soldier on without the maintenance, you can do that, but
a/ engine won't be as reliable and capable of the same speed as before
b/ everyday stuff breaking down, in need for replacement reduces habitability somewhat
c/ worn-out guns will limit both armor penetration and the training time available.

The 10-year refit/maintenance call is also there to reflect time that ships spend in drydocks between the overhauls. See how much time HMS Hood spent in the docks every year. This again is to ease administration burden, to get the ship done with all the dock visits once.

We can introduce an 'overhaul' which cost less (or downgrade 'refit' to mean just as much). However, then someone have to define the cost of all the minor modernization work.

Basically, after a 'refit' your ship has the capability as a new, worked-out ship with similar specs. Most probably those specs (guns, armor, speed, range) would be inferior to newer and bigger ships, but still.

A basic 'overhaul' would make the ship as capable as it was 10 years ago.

Does anyone have cost figures for like changing gun elevation, or installing AA armament, depth charges? Or like modernizing the turrets?
Guess we have to ask around another forum.

[Borys]

We can introduce an 'overhaul' which cost less (or downgrade 'refit' to mean just as much). However, then someone have to define the cost of all the minor modernization work.

Basically, after a 'refit' your ship has the capability as a new, worked-out ship with similar specs. Most probably those specs (guns, armor, speed, range) would be inferior to newer and bigger ships, but still.

A basic 'overhaul' would make the ship as capable as it was 10 years ago.

Yay!

Does anyone have cost figures for like changing gun elevation, or installing AA armament, depth charges? Or like modernizing the turrets?
Guess we have to ask around another forum.

The "overhaul" = "as good as new" = 10%
The "refit" = "as good as new" + "new knuckle duster and alu hub caps" = 25%?

Borys

[P3D]

Problem is that it is very difficult to justify the costlier method with 100-150% price increase. What numbers would be represented in the actual battle sim? I'd rather have some numbers for actual refit and overhaul cost before changing the rule.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
10% basic for "as good as new" + 10% "latest FC, radio, radar" + specific BP and $ of changes?

Borys

[Korpen]

So does like gun elevation increase.

I would define this as "rebuild". "Reconstruction". Or "modernisation".
Borys

A change in gun elevation would have a cost expressed in the tiniest fraction even when rounded up. I did not want to have every minute details of the modernization to be spelled out, but apparently people would like to have another half page detailing the actual state of every ship.
Refit includes all regular maintenance and small modernizations (and they do add up).

Reconstruction should be limited to stuff that involves additional yard work, installing and/or replacing thousand tons of steel.

I can repeat what was said earlier. If you want to keep ships to soldier on without the maintenance, you can do that, but
a/ engine won't be as reliable and capable of the same speed as before
b/ everyday stuff breaking down, in need for replacement reduces habitability somewhat
c/ worn-out guns will limit both armor penetration and the training time available.

The 10-year refit/maintenance call is also there to reflect time that ships spend in drydocks between the overhauls. See how much time HMS Hood spent in the docks every year. This again is to ease administration burden, to get the ship done with all the dock visits once.

We can introduce an 'overhaul' which cost less (or downgrade 'refit' to mean just as much). However, then someone have to define the cost of all the minor modernization work.

Basically, after a 'refit' your ship has the capability as a new, worked-out ship with similar specs. Most probably those specs (guns, armor, speed, range) would be inferior to newer and bigger ships, but still.

A basic 'overhaul' would make the ship as capable as it was 10 years ago.

Does anyone have cost figures for like changing gun elevation, or installing AA armament, depth charges? Or like modernizing the turrets?
Guess we have to ask around another forum.

Ok, most such things i took for granted was included in the general upkeep of a ship.
More frequent replacements of barrels and engine parts I included in the extra cost of wartime upkeep, and that that reason it cost twice as much as active service to compensate for the extra wear. This need for general dry-dock visits was the reason I kept most of my dry-docks open during the war (although barrel replacement does not require a drydock). And more then one of my ships had fired more then 200 shells during the conflict.

What I am interested in is what the function of this rule, what is it supposed achieve?
If just to compensate costs, why not raise general upkeep?

And I still think then years in service are a very short time unless the ship has had an extremely active service, and they that extra wear is covered by the extra cost of war time upkeep.

I think the wording should be changed to "recommended refit every 10-15 years, or the ship might suffer degraded combat ability".

Hm, was there anyone but me who refitted a large ship under the 25% BP rule?

[P3D]

I did it in N2-verse.

[Carthaginian]

Since an 'active' warship generally spends about half it's time in a port*, fixing normal 'wear and tear', P3D, I see no need for 'normal wear and tear' to necessitate a 10 year 'refit'.

Why not just leave thing as they were?
Instead of making things more simple, all your changes are making them more complex. Complex ruins the game for those of us that are more in it for 'fun' than painstaking historical accuracy. I mean, why not give a little bit of license in the name of overall simplicity and fun?

Haven't we had enough rule changes as it is?


*admittedly, this is form the experience of my friends in the Navy and not a book, and most of them were on subs, but they averaged about 6 months at sea for every 6 months in port.

[Korpen]

Since an 'active' warship generally spends about half it's time in a port*, fixing normal 'wear and tear', P3D, I see no need for 'normal wear and tear' to necessitate a 10 year 'refit'.

Why not just leave thing as they were?
Instead of making things more simple, all your changes are making them more complex. Complex ruins the game for those of us that are more in it for 'fun' than painstaking historical accuracy. I mean, why not give a little bit of license in the name of overall simplicity and fun?

Haven't we had enough rule changes as it is?


*admittedly, this is form the experience of my friends in the Navy and not a book, and most of them were on subs, but they averaged about 6 months at sea for every 6 months in port.

I would like to add that I think most of the recent rule changes have been for the better.

[Ithekro]

I was refitting purchased warships at 25% so they would meet Rohirrim standards and bring them up to service levels (the later Confederate purchased ships), plus 25% refits on old ships in reserve to bring them up to date in fighting terms (the older Armored Cruisers and Battleships that were used late in the Anahuac War).

I did minimal refits on the older Confederate purchased protected cruisers (7%) just to switch some light guns and trim them out/clean them up for service as there was a rush to get them out to sea during the war.  They served well for ten years, but were never ideal for any task other that patrol.

Most other ships that have been worked on have gotten rebuilds (Eomer, Arcadias, Brytta) to fit them with better engines and weapons (or weapon mounts).

[P3D]

The exact details of what the maintenance/refit covers was not really determined.
The more frequent 10-yearly maintenance was also to account for time not only the ship using drydock time, but also for the time the ship is not available for the fleet. As experience showed in N-verse, 15 year is too long time period, people would delay refits and just scrap ships at the end of it, while they are available all the time during that 15 years.
One of the main reasons I wanted cutting this time to 10 years would make sure people would repair ships. Keeping a record that which actual ship is available is just too much administrative pain, and 1 out of 5-6 usually would not be, even in wartime.
People would argue that all the repairs would be timed so that when war happens all their fleet is right after the timely overhauls.
A universal 2-year refit to represent this unavailability would be justified to represent this (or one year every 5 that must be spent in docks).
We can also have a record of  'actual' ship age, with wartime years wearing down the ships fast, counting double, but there are ones who thinks that would be unnecessary burden. An dispense with 'mobilized' status, as most of the expenses are personal, staying the same regardless of it is war or peace.

[Carthaginian]

As experience showed in N-verse, 15 year is too long time period, people would delay refits and just scrap ships at the end of it, while they are available all the time during that 15 years.

One of the main reasons I wanted cutting this time to 10 years would make sure people would repair ships. Keeping a record that which actual ship is available is just too much administrative pain, and 1 out of 5-6 usually would not be, even in wartime.

SO...

Basically you're saying "I did this to force people to refit their ships rather than scrap them after they became useless?"

So, it all comes out.

It's not about accurate repair times, or anything like that.
It's just to make sure that people didn't just use ships till they became useless, and then decide to scrap them. Instead, you make them repair them every 10 years and thus extend their lifespan or risk not having the 'perform perfectly' *very subjective and totally based on your whim* when they go into an operation.

Seems this IS to force us to spend money on old ships and ensure use of repair/refit rules outside of wartime instead of just building a class of ship, using it till obsolete, and then scrapping and building a new class.

[Borys]

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!!!

[Borys]

Ahoj!
So - everybody happy with "overhaul" = "as good as when built" - every ten years, for 10% of $, takes 6 months in drydock?

And we can murder one another over the cost of making CHANGES to ships tommorrow?
:D

Borys

[Ithekro]

*sigh*

I'm not sure it this is a forced procedure like people are making it out to be, but more a method of keeping people from using ships and saying they are just fine even if the ship is 20 years old and never spent a day in drydock.  Being part of a maintainance department for a building for a time I could see the effects of age on things.  Normal wear, even if things are maintained, will degrade things to the point they have to be replaced.  And that is not just simple things and wear parts like on cars.  That's the the kind of stuff that requires you to take out a wall, or remove electrical systems, or replace solid engine pieces.  When you are done (assuming you can find the exact parts you need from when the item was built) the building, car, or ship, is back to a state that is was originanlly.  However such thing are usually not regular maintenance (since you don't replace things normally, you just keep them clean, full, lubricated, or whatever).  Things get old.  Things wear out.

Now the cost of all this...well that is the question.  Should it be reflected in the Maintenance upkeep or saved up for a refit?

Of course the question is, what value is a coutry trying to get out of its warships?  Do they want them to last for their entire hull life and be viable as the day they were built?  Or do they want new and exciting warships and to hell with the old stuff?  In the building analogy I was using, the later was true.  The building (now about 40 year old) was starting to show signs of falling apart.  It would require a rebuild to get it fully fuctional and looking good.  No one wanted to pay for that, but everyone wanted to build a new building, even though they could affort to rebuild the existing one, and could not yet afford to build the new one.  So the old building limps on and on while people attempt to raise money to build a new building.  The maintenance is still being paid for, but the building degrades more and more.  One wonders how long until it actually falls apart.