Tired of my questions about Rules?...here're two more :)

RAM · February 23, 2009, 02:55:34 PM

First question. In last HY report from NUS (done by sachmle) there's the following:

Research Budget: $3.00 spent
.
.
.
1910 Naval Rifle = $1.00 (HY# 3 of 6)

I find it weird, as there is no such tech in the tech list in the rules sub-forum. I take it as the researched item is the naval gun tech described in the table in the "research" thread. But then it's 1911 tech, not 1910. And it's 4 HYs, not 6... What's more, it should be 0.5$ per HY, not 1...

Am I correct?.

The other question. About building times. Rules say:

The cost of a warship in BP - the physical materials required to construct the ship - is: (light displacement - non-functional miscellaneous weight) / (1000).

Non-functional miscellaneous weight is that which represents cargo capacity in void spaces - oil, coal, or bulk cargo. Miscellaneous weight set aside for troop or passenger quarters, boats, aircraft/hangers/elevators/flight decks, wireless, fire control, and other components is considered functional miscellaneous weight and is included in the cost of construction.

Don't really get it. Let's take my Independencia design.

Displacement:
25.265 t light

Machinery:
Bunker at max displacement = 3.449 tons

So... cost would be (25265- 3500)/1000= 21,765BP?

Guinness · February 23, 2009, 03:05:51 PM

Quote from: RAM on February 23, 2009, 02:55:34 PM
First question. In last HY report from NUS (done by sachmle) there's the following:

Research Budget: $3.00 spent
.
.
.
1910 Naval Rifle = $1.00 (HY# 3 of 6)

I find it weird, as there is no such tech in the tech list in the rules sub-forum. I take it as the researched item is the naval gun tech described in the table in the "research" thread. But then it's 1911 tech, not 1910. And it's 4 HYs, not 6... What's more, it should be 0.5$ per HY, not 1...

Am I correct?.

Naval Gun research at the moment is buried here.

The confusion here I think is the dates changed at some point. According to the archived old gun tech here, the 1910 tech is now the 1907 tech on the table. I hope that clears things up a bit.

Quote
The other question. About building times. Rules say:

The cost of a warship in BP - the physical materials required to construct the ship - is: (light displacement - non-functional miscellaneous weight) / (1000).

Non-functional miscellaneous weight is that which represents cargo capacity in void spaces - oil, coal, or bulk cargo. Miscellaneous weight set aside for troop or passenger quarters, boats, aircraft/hangers/elevators/flight decks, wireless, fire control, and other components is considered functional miscellaneous weight and is included in the cost of construction.

Don't really get it. Let's take my Independencia design.

Displacement:
25.265 t light

Machinery:
Bunker at max displacement = 3.449 tons

So... cost would be (25265- 3500)/1000= 21,765BP?

Rocky may clarify his intent here, but as I understand it, that clause is really meant to cover ships where added misc weight needs to be accounted for, like oilers with oil tanks above the mean waterline. So it's not really meant to apply to design bunkerage as SS understands it. The deduction of that is really already covered by using light displacement for cost calculations. So your ship would still be 25,265t and 25.265 BP. (or 25.265t and 25,265 BP if you use commas and decimal points the wrong way ;) )

RAM · February 23, 2009, 03:10:37 PM

Quote from: guinness on February 23, 2009, 03:05:51 PM

Naval Gun research at the moment is buried here.

The confusion here I think is the dates changed at some point. According to the archived old gun tech here, the 1910 tech is now the 1907 tech on the table. I hope that clears things up a bit.

thought so. Then the tech is the 1907 one, I should only need one further HY to fullfit it (it's 3 out of 6 atm, but in that link it says that the tech is achieved after 4 HYs only), and only spending 0.5$ for the remaining fourth HY, am I correct?.

Another question. Can I start the investigation on the next row (1911) while I still am finishing the previous one?. I guess not, just wondering (for this time and for future times).

About the misc weight things, thanks, I got it now. Just was puzzled when I saw that on the rules. Now that I know that is for oilers, cargo transports, etc, it's much more clear :) Thanks.

Guinness · February 23, 2009, 03:17:41 PM

Quote from: RAM on February 23, 2009, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: guinness on February 23, 2009, 03:05:51 PM

Naval Gun research at the moment is buried here.

The confusion here I think is the dates changed at some point. According to the archived old gun tech here, the 1910 tech is now the 1907 tech on the table. I hope that clears things up a bit.

thought so. Then the tech is the 1907 one, I should only need one further HY to fullfit it (it's 3 out of 6 atm, but in that link it says that the tech is achieved after 4 HYs only), and only spending 0.5$ for the remaining fourth HY, am I correct?.

Another question. Can I start the investigation on the next row (1911) while I still am finishing the previous one?. I guess not, just wondering (for this time and for future times).

The tech itself (ie the rows in the table)is just like any other tech. Cost is $1 per half year, you get rolls after 4, 5 and then 6 halves (although your chances of winning the roll after the sixth half is 100% so it means it is automatically completed). You have to develop the guns themselves *after* developing the gun tech. So for the CSA, I'm researching the 1911 gun tech now. If my roll after 2/1915 succeeds, I'll have attained it, so in 1/1916 I can start developing a gun of up to 16" and 40 calibers, or a 15" 45 caliber, or a 14" 50 caliber, etc. Whatever of those options I might select, I'd still need to research it for two years, and also if I'm going to field it in anything other than a single mount, I'll have to research those mounts too.

Quote
About the misc weight things, thanks, I got it now. Just was puzzled when I saw that on the rules. Now that I know that is for oilers, cargo transports, etc, it's much more clear :) Thanks.

I'm glad I could clear things up there, instead of making them more murky :)

RAM · February 23, 2009, 03:19:53 PM

Oh, Ok I see it now. So the rows are techs, as such. They cost the same as an usual tech, and takes the same time. After having the row researched, you then develop the gun. That is what takes 4 HYs and 0.5$ per HY.

Seems I'm dyslexic or something like that, lol, I had understood it completely wrong :)

thanks again for the answer :)

Borys · February 23, 2009, 03:20:37 PM

Ahoj!

Quote from: RAM on February 23, 2009, 03:10:37 PMAnother question. Can I start the investigation on the next row (1911) while I still am finishing the previous one?. I guess not, just wondering (for this time and for future times).

No, you cannot.

Other questions already answered.
Borys

RAM · February 23, 2009, 03:22:02 PM

yep, assumed so when I was told the rows are techs and have the same rules as the tech tree ones :)

thanks nonetheless for the answer :)

RAM · February 23, 2009, 03:27:58 PM

Oh almost forgot.

Time to develop a gun is 4 HYs. Time to develop a mount, (number of barrels) HYs.

But question is, can I develop a gun and a mount for it in parallel?. I mean, at the same time. I guess so but I'd rather be sure.

And sorry for being a pest with so many questions :)

Borys · February 23, 2009, 03:28:58 PM

Yes, you can develop gun and mount in parallel.
No, you are not a pest. You are ... inquisitive .. :)

Borys

ledeper · February 23, 2009, 03:36:50 PM

While we are at it;24,5 BP is that $8 or $ 9 research? ??? ???

P3D · February 23, 2009, 03:40:57 PM

$9 ;)

maddox · February 23, 2009, 10:52:39 PM

On the misc weight question.

Springsharp isn't very good in simming merchant ships, as all the misc weight is seen as above the waterline, making a ship less stabile. So when designing a 5000 tramp freighter you'll need a lot larger hull than a irl merchant and/ or else waste a lot of weight in things to get the stability ok.

One solution is to use a part of the bunkerage to simulate misc weight. In effect, the weight and space occupied by an coal/oil bunker can be "exchanged" for misc weight.
This is limited to half the weight of the bunkerage. Meaning if a ship stores 1000 tons of fuel in the SS file, 500 tons can be seen as more misc weight.
Of course, this means the ship will get more expensive as it adds 500 tons to the light displacement.

Korpen · February 24, 2009, 01:40:05 AM

Quote from: maddox on February 23, 2009, 10:52:39 PM
On the misc weight question.

Springsharp isn't very good in simming merchant ships, as all the misc weight is seen as above the waterline, making a ship less stabile. So when designing a 5000 tramp freighter you'll need a lot larger hull than a irl merchant and/ or else waste a lot of weight in things to get the stability ok.

One solution is to use a part of the bunkerage to simulate misc weight. In effect, the weight and space occupied by an coal/oil bunker can be "exchanged" for misc weight.
This is limited to half the weight of the bunkerage. Meaning if a ship stores 1000 tons of fuel in the SS file, 500 tons can be seen as more misc weight.
Of course, this means the ship will get more expensive as it adds 500 tons to the light displacement.

The largest problem when simming merchant sips, and especially transports with our guidelines, is that SS do handle volume-critical systems very well. This means that a liner with two decks can carry more misc weight, and hence more people, then an identical ship with 3-4 decks (with almost twice as much space for passengers and cargo).

It also means that when making a SS of any tactical transport (less then 200ton), one got to pretty much ignore the SS misc for passenger capacity, and go by the volume.