1/16: Bonuses, Rule Updates

[P3D]

Why would the MTBs have to use ICEs? The Swiss Turbinias as designed have been using steam turbines for a while now. They are MTBs but dont use ICEs.

Lemme guess...

a/ MTBs by definition are petrol/diesel powered
b/ you can achieve significantly higher speeds and longer ranges with ICE engines
c/  no one was building turbine-powered small fast crafts after WWI due to the above reasons (what was the range/payload of Turbinia?)
d/ all the Turbinias were scrapped after the war N3verse (they are not on the reports)

...


I'd like to mention I had one rendering too, which devolved from planned ship class to a mere plan/study due to the war. (Hint, hint  ;))

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1171.52

I apparently can get access to ProE so I might be able to do some photorealistic renderings in the future.

[Korpen]

-"Improved Capped Shells" has been deleted, until such time as there is significant battle experience to justify further development.

Think that shell development should not necessarily require all that much battleuse, after all weapon development can happen without it, and some of us do quite allot of test firings. Rather then removing it bump it forward a year  and/or make it a double time tech.

[The Rock Doctor]

So what would "Improved Capped Shells" actually mean?

[Korpen]

So what would "Improved Capped Shells" actually mean?

Thicker and better caps, improved fuses and stiffness of the shell.
Example would be British Greenboy, or Russian 1907 shell families. Would expect around a 20-25% increase in performance against KC armour.

[Guinness]

I've update the ship design guidelines to include the destroyer speed bonus concept. Also there is the little calculator I whipped up. It's not terribly well tested though, so let me know if you see any problems with it.

[Korpen]

I've update the ship design guidelines to include the destroyer speed bonus concept. Also there is the little calculator I whipped up. It's not terribly well tested though, so let me know if you see any problems with it.

I got one major problem with it, it uses the engine % of normal weight, rather the light weight.
That gives short legged ships a serious advantage over longer ranged ships, twice over. Given the same engine weight the ship with less fuel (and hence lower normal displacement) will be faster in springsharp due to the smaller hull (given identical light displacement). No need to give the ship an extra bonus on top of that, given identical engines, I think the engine based bonus should be identical.

From a user perspective it would not be more complicated, if it would be possible to instead of engine weight % had a box for engine weight and one for light tonnage.

But see the post I made in the thread about this.

[Korpen]

I feel Miketr deserve to get some bonus for starting all the design competitions. :)

[miketr]

LOL  I will take my bonus in the reduce work load it created and that allowed me to get my $5 for Ottomans.  I am covered...

[Carthaginian]

The whole point of the techs was to make people develop things and not get 'something for nothing.' By changing something that matters this much- especially by deleting it entirely- just as those who actually put EFFORT into researching it JUST AS THE TECHS WOULD BEGIN TO BEAR FRUIT, you're making a rather unfair ruling.

Aircraft are about to become something important. By removing the IC tech and its involvement with aircraft, you are easing the load on people that have ignored it, and penalizing those who put effort and forethought into aircraft development, and development of ships with high-output diesels.

Now, not only do those that ignored the ICE tech get something for nothing, those that payed attention and actually put forth $20 or so worth of effort WIND UP WITH NOTHING. We loose the advantage over the people that ignored the rules.

I see this as highly unfair. Either the techs should be left alone, or those being robbed of their expended effort should be compensated.

[Korpen]

Now, not only do those that ignored the ICE tech get something for nothing, those that payed attention and actually put forth $20 or so worth of effort WIND UP WITH NOTHING. We loose the advantage over the people that ignored the rules.

Think you exaggerate to a large extent, as the only country that would really benefit from this change would be the RRC, and they got a very new and green player.
Other then they almost all countries got the 1910 ICE tech and cannot really be called backwards (think rocky mentioned that the CSA, Habsburg, Maoria, RRC and Iberia was the ones without it), and most of them hardly got any subs or aircrafts. The great majority of countries have invested enough in it to not be behind, even if they have not been going for it full throttle.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I had to research the 1910 level. I made researching the 1914 tech a priority and just completed it. I find this change very annoying as a result. 

Had I known it would be converted to MTB tech I would have put my research in other techs or perhaps into guns and mountings. For that matter I may not have bothered to trade for the electric propulsion tech, as the RP point of that was to chain diesel aux propulsion units with steam plants. I have a limited number of tech choices I can make, and this effectively retroactively changes them.

As for the utility of the tech, granted operations in the Adriatic are suited for MTBs, and had they been available in 1906, Bavaria might not have any destroyers or have wasted time on the techs to build said destroyers- the MTB would be more efficient in that case.

However, I've already invested in those techs, and built the destroyers, so going forward I rather expect that if I want MTBs, I will acquire them on the open market. Unless of course I am stuck with the tech. 

[miketr]

Now, not only do those that ignored the ICE tech get something for nothing, those that payed attention and actually put forth $20 or so worth of effort WIND UP WITH NOTHING. We loose the advantage over the people that ignored the rules.

Think you exaggerate to a large extent, as the only country that would really benefit from this change would be the RRC, and they got a very new and green player.
Other then they almost all countries got the 1910 ICE tech and cannot really be called backwards (think rocky mentioned that the CSA, Habsburg, Maoria, RRC and Iberia was the ones without it), and most of them hardly got any subs or aircrafts. The great majority of countries have invested enough in it to not be behind, even if they have not been going for it full throttle.

Iberia just bought the 1910 ICE tech.... and was adding the 1910 aircraft also...  still Iberia was just now starting its "airforce".  This does make my catch up taks a little easier... I don't know how much easier but a little.

Michael

[Carthaginian]

Now, not only do those that ignored the ICE tech get something for nothing, those that payed attention and actually put forth $20 or so worth of effort WIND UP WITH NOTHING. We loose the advantage over the people that ignored the rules.

Think you exaggerate to a large extent, as the only country that would really benefit from this change would be the RRC, and they got a very new and green player.
Other then they almost all countries got the 1910 ICE tech and cannot really be called backwards (think rocky mentioned that the CSA, Habsburg, Maoria, RRC and Iberia was the ones without it), and most of them hardly got any subs or aircrafts. The great majority of countries have invested enough in it to not be behind, even if they have not been going for it full throttle.

The big issue here is that ICE was also connected to aircraft.

Without maintaining your ICE tech at the modern level, your aircraft were limited in HP as well. TO find out which nations did not keep both or either one current, all one must do is go back through tech reports.

Iberia was one of them, indeed, which was 6 years or research behind on the two techs needed to build 'modern' aircraft (assuming that all techs matured at 60%). Gran Colombia was another. Orange was another. NUS is another. So was Peru. That's a lot of nations- many of whom are connected- who are getting a large chunk of research they have fallen behind on suddenly become immaterial. You can't argue with this- it's all there to see in the tech reports.

There is also the issue that such nations as which researched these techs early and often, so to speak, are now out in the cold. We get no remuneration for our efforts, and get to watch competing nations catch up for half the price and time that it took us to get here.

Either give us retroactive techs to make up for our wasted effort (hell, I'd even let the mods pick WHICH techs) or don't change the rules... but it winds up as grossly unfair.

[miketr]

I wouldn't make the 60% needed / 6 years assumption for the simple reason people are willing to sell tech and in large amounts for some time...  Iberia had just bought the 1910 ICE 1915 H2 and I will have it by the end of 1916 H1.

Michael

[Carthaginian]

I was making based on how long the people that researched the tech were LOOSING.
Thank you for showing even more so how, by removing the ICE tech, catching up with with nations that maintained the techs on the old schedule is easier for nations that fell behind.