Tech Tree Revision Comments

[snip]

Attached is the revised tech tree as it stands right now. There have been some major changes here. Please note that any techs past 1920 are not to be considered final at this time.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I've been wondering when Wireless could be considered part of a ship's original construction, versus having to pay for a refit of it later.
Looking around, I found this : http://www.jproc.ca/rrp/nro_his.html

Which I read as meaning in our terms that it was developed 1899-1900, and in full service after.  So I'll pay to refit my earlier vessels.   

Oh, and I need to copy and post a section of an article that was in the latest Naval History about magnetic torpedoes. :)

"By 1899, Marconi was able to operate radio equipment at ranges of 30 miles or more. This demonstration enabled him to raise money and the British Marconi Company was formed. Two years later, an American subsidiary was born and it dominated the British and American marketplace until the formation of the Radio Corporation of America in 1919. Many different sets were being developed for communications, however, Marconi's sets proved to be superior and were by far, the most widely fitted sets on ships. At this stage, it should be noted that the Royal Navy was already looking at three distinctly separate uses for wireless communications.

The first use was to communicate from ship to ship with special emphasis on scouting and reporting on the position of the enemy. During the annual manoeuvres of 1899 and 1900, the value of wireless in this role was clearly demonstrated. As more and more equipment was installed aboard ships, the problem of mutual interference became critical as the sets lacked selectivity. The problem posed by the interception of messages by other than the intended addressee was soon recognized with the attendant requirement to use some form of secret code. These problems still exist today even with the proliferation of radio channels and the adoption of high speed fully automatic encryption systems.

The second use was to send and receive messages to a ship when it was within range of a land based station. Messages to and from the ship would be relayed to the telegraph network and then to their ultimate destination. A third use for wireless was to broadcast messages to ships at sea within a 1000 mile range of Poldhu, England."

[snip]

So I've realized I made a little bit of a mistake in the Capital Ship architecture tech for what I would like to do. I will admit this is fully a self-serving change, hence why I'm asking here. Currently, Quads sit in the 1914 tech. This locks the start of the creation of quad turrets to 1916 at the earliest, which means with the way turret design rules work no ships could be designed with quads until 1920. This is at odds with OTL as the Normandie's were laid down in 1913. What I would propose is to break quad turrets into two parts based on the Capital Ship Architecture tech. Below is how just that portion of the tech would work.

1910: Quad Turrets (two twin mounts in a single turret)
1914: Quad Turrets (True quad mount)

The 1910 version now represents the sort of quads employed on the Normandie class and allows for laydown at a closer to historic date. It changes the earliest laydown from 1920 to 1916 [1914 if the additional change I have proposed here is acceptable]. Does this change seem ok to everyone?

[Kaiser Kirk]

From the lazy self serving point of view ...i.e. I've finished my prebuild and was logging on to post my fleet list... I'd prefer if spending mod points to start with Quad turrets wasn't an option. 
We could move that particular capital ship arch to 1911, which would mostly resolve it. My preference is to leave it 1914.
As a defense, we can observe that while the Normandies were laid down, that doesn't mean the turrets would have worked properly in that time frame.

Well I thought about it a bit more and did some looking and have concluded I was wrong.
My concern, that someone could start with the tech is invalid, only up to and including 1909.
So, your proposing research 1910, 1911. Quad turrets available for design work beginning 1912, 6 mo/barrel ...1912/13....so yes, 1914 is earliest it would be fielded, which fits history.


As for the "twin in single turret vs true quad " Looking at Sigfried Breyer's discussion of the Normandie class, he says the turrets were to have a central divider, but be triggered by one fire control officer, and says they were probably meant to be fired in pairs as the substructure supporting them was inadequate for salvos.  Sounds like twin mounts in a single turret :)


As a related issue :  I've long viewed the beam of the Normandies as suspiciously narrow, it was not unheard of for period ships to be structurally weak- like the Invincible who deformed at drydocking, or Renown who was structurally reinforced after gunnery trials. I still haven't found a cross-section drawing, but I suspect their TDS system was the simple 1-1.5m wing passage with a thin bulkhead like Provence.  So just because the Normandies were designed with a narrow beam, doesn't mean they would be successful vessels, or not need significant tonnage allocated to interior reinforcements (which is also how the wing turret examples Walter cited worked- lots of heavy internal reinforcement).  I view as significant that the follow on Lyon class with the same weapons was to be 22feet/7m wider. I hazard that was both to provide a stronger cross-section, and provide room for the TDS.

I will also note that just because something was fielded OTL, doesn't mean it was fully researched. The British Quads seem to have been rushed a bit, and what I understand really weren't fully servicable for quite some time, more so than a simple shake down. For that matter, Invincible had electrically driven turrets which apparently failed repeated "frequently prevented a single round from being fired for months".

[snip]

Sorry, I forgot I posted this.

I've actually got the plans the MN had posted online a while back. Little large to attach here.

[snip]

So I have a couple things I want to work on with this, but none of these reside in "early" techs so if we need to talk about these a little beyond 8/1 I think that would be ok. I've put what the revised text would look like in quotes where applicable.

Naval Artillery: Add a level for Automatic guns, in a couple varieties. This is done because we have automatics in other trees

1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Automatic guns up to 50mm
1935: Automatic guns up to 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm

Capital Ship Architecture: I think the DP batteries being broken up so much is a little wierd and I think the levels could be consolidated a little bit. Im not 100% happy with the below, but it would only involve the 1926 tech and up.

1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns
1926: Improved Torpedo Defence Systems.
1932: DP Secondary batteries. De-Capping plates
1940: Improved DP Secondary batteries. Advanced Torpedo Defence Systems.
1946: Automatic Secondary Guns

Aircraft/Seaplane Carrier Architecture: Add Slanted Decks at the top of the tree.

1942: Advanced Deck Parks. Advanced Air-Launched Torpedoes. Advanced Anti-Ship Dive Bombs. Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs with 100% of the airgroup.
1946: Slanted Flight Decks. Simultaneous takeoff and landing operations.

Cruiser Architecture: Expansion of the tree to work with developments in Capital Ships. Also the introduction of Box armor schemes.

1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns. Cruisers under 3000 tons may have cross-sectional hull strength > 0.75
1925: Armored Box armor layout.
1932: DP Secondary Batteries
1938: DP Main Batteries
1942: Automatic Main and Secondary Batteries.

Destroyer Architecture: Again, keeping up with developments in the other trees.

1928: Type H, I, J MTB
1932: DP Main batteries
1940: [Something here, Im not sure what]

Mine Warfare: This should probably be extended as well.

Rangefinding, Fire Control and Gunnery: Extended again to match the rest of the trees.

1930:  Electromechanical FC computers - 30km
1935: Early RADAR-Assisted FC - 35km [Requires 1930 Remote Sensing Devices]
1940: Improved RADAR-Assisted FC - Up to the maximum firing range of the main battery. [Requires 1937 Remote Sensing Devices.

Remote Sensing Devices: Again Extended

1930: Primitive search RADAR
1937: Improved Search RADAR
1945: Advanced Search RADAR

Aircraft and Countermeasures: My idea here is to change the flavor text of these techs to take "Up to Historical" and tie it to some characteristics rather than a year. This is to allow for the more fluid development of various types. It's completely a flavor change and will have no effect on what the levels actually do.

Signals/Intelligence: Extended into the 40s.

1920: Primitive mechanical encoding/decoding machines etc.
1927: Improved mechanical encoding/decoding machines
1935: Primitive mechanical cipher breakers
1942: Advanced mechanical encoding/decoding machines. Improved Mechanical cipher breakers.
1945: Primitive Electronic encoding/decoding machines. Advanced Mechanical cipher breakers.

[Guinness]

I have comments, but given my position of admin emeritus/website stucky, feel free to take them with lots of salt and/or ignore willfully.

So I have a couple things I want to work on with this, but none of these reside in "early" techs so if we need to talk about these a little beyond 8/1 I think that would be ok. I've put what the revised text would look like in quotes where applicable.

Naval Artillery: Add a level for Automatic guns, in a couple varieties. This is done because we have automatics in other trees

1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Automatic guns up to 50mm
1935: Automatic guns up to 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm

I recommend slightly different language. Maybe "automated loading assistance"? But this was really only interesting in the context of AA batteries. See below.

Capital Ship Architecture: I think the DP batteries being broken up so much is a little wierd and I think the levels could be consolidated a little bit. Im not 100% happy with the below, but it would only involve the 1926 tech and up.

1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns
1926: Improved Torpedo Defence Systems.
1932: DP Secondary batteries. De-Capping plates
1940: Improved DP Secondary batteries. Advanced Torpedo Defence Systems.
1946: Automatic Secondary Guns

I will stipulate that this has been and continues to be confusing, but I think DP belongs in the "light cruiser" tech. Specifically, I see the evolution of gun mounts for guns under 21cm belonging together. So once you've developed a DP 12cm mounting, it can get mounted on any ship.

Also, I think loading automation for guns under 21cm belongs on the same progression.

Aircraft/Seaplane Carrier Architecture: Add Slanted Decks at the top of the tree.

1942: Advanced Deck Parks. Advanced Air-Launched Torpedoes. Advanced Anti-Ship Dive Bombs. Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs with 100% of the airgroup.
1946: Slanted Flight Decks. Simultaneous takeoff and landing operations.

"Angled decks." This is a rare place where the Queen's English and American English agrees.

Cruiser Architecture: Expansion of the tree to work with developments in Capital Ships. Also the introduction of Box armor schemes.

1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns. Cruisers under 3000 tons may have cross-sectional hull strength > 0.75
1925: Armored Box armor layout.
1932: DP Secondary Batteries
1938: DP Main Batteries
1942: Automatic Main and Secondary Batteries.

Also see above. Way back in the day I understood the intention of the "architecture" techs to be to govern attributes commonly applied to those ship classes. So BB/AC architecture governed large caliber mounts and heavy armored schemes. The light cruiser tech governed lighter mounts. And the DD rule mostly governed how big a DD could be (otherwise we'd end up with a bunch of USS Omaha clones running about in 1910).

Destroyer Architecture: Again, keeping up with developments in the other trees.

1928: Type H, I, J MTB
1932: DP Main batteries
1940: [Something here, Im not sure what]

Same issue.  ;)

Mine Warfare: This should probably be extended as well.

Rangefinding, Fire Control and Gunnery: Extended again to match the rest of the trees.

1930:  Electromechanical FC computers - 30km
1935: Early RADAR-Assisted FC - 35km [Requires 1930 Remote Sensing Devices]
1940: Improved RADAR-Assisted FC - Up to the maximum firing range of the main battery. [Requires 1937 Remote Sensing Devices.

This is fine I think, except the "up to the maximum range of the main battery part". Most WWII capital ships could routinely fire beyond the range they could spot. You'd have to site a (heavy) radar aerial very high in the ship. This is why, even after BBs were shipping radar they still needed aircraft spotting. Unfortunately one of the Friedman volumes I don't have in my collection is his magnus opus on US radar and fire control, but this http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.php says that main battery guidance sets could range out to 40k yards. Newer sets were more precise. I doubt the early sets would have resulted in many hits at that range. Mark 3 had a range accuracy of 40 yards, and couldn't range splashes beyond 20k yards.

Remote Sensing Devices: Again Extended

1930: Primitive search RADAR
1937: Improved Search RADAR
1945: Advanced Search RADAR

Needs (IMNSHO) some more description of what one gets with improved and advanced.

Aircraft and Countermeasures: My idea here is to change the flavor text of these techs to take "Up to Historical" and tie it to some characteristics rather than a year. This is to allow for the more fluid development of various types. It's completely a flavor change and will have no effect on what the levels actually do.

This turns in to quicksand quickly, which is why the rules were written the way they were originally. Aircraft development was so rapid, varied, and parallel...

I suppose you could do a couple of things. For instance, a more detailed tree of ICE development (or maybe just "aircraft engine" development), coupled with a tree of structure and aerodynamic development?

Signals/Intelligence: Extended into the 40s.

1920: Primitive mechanical encoding/decoding machines etc.
1927: Improved mechanical encoding/decoding machines
1935: Primitive mechanical cipher breakers
1942: Advanced mechanical encoding/decoding machines. Improved Mechanical cipher breakers.
1945: Primitive Electronic encoding/decoding machines. Advanced Mechanical cipher breakers.

This ship has sailed, but this was one of the "secret" tech tree categories. Originally these weren't published, and players had to "discover" them either by asking the mods, or being granted a step on that tree (and knowledge of the whole tree) via game play. Back then you'd see research money dedicated toward "secret" or "REDACTED" in reports. Unfortunately at some point a player published their tree with the secret stuff and the cat was let out of the bag. :-(

All that written, I don't this tech was just about decoding. It also needs to cover some ideas about information theory, pattern recognition, etc. In many cases the codes weren't broken, but enough information could be gathered from the use of specific codes for useful intelligence to be gained.

On DD/PC/BB tech

I think some rewording is possible. I may even have tried to do this at some point.

My proposal: Make DD's about how you can build ships to the DD rules. Mainly size and TT limitations. You might limit whether guns have dedicated hoists (on DDs only) here. Make it clear that otherwise the gun mounts are governed by PC tech.

On the PC tech, make it only about gun mounts <8". Fold all the DP stuff in there. You could say along the way, for instance, that guns larger than 7" have to be mounted in turrets on barbettes, or something to that effect if you'd like. I think this tech could be simply "gun mounts for guns below 21cm".

On the BB/AC tech, make it only about gun mounts >8".

Reword each of them to make clear that the three may all have to be considered together when designing a ship. For instance a BB's secondary armament is governed by the PC tech.

[snip]

Thanks for the thoughts, a couple responses.

Regarding DP Guns: While I understand your point, I think it's a little late to correctly and fairly pull off the kind of shift you propose. While the original intent may have been as you describe, I think it's evolved to cover all aspects of the ship rather than just its main armament. Would an addition to each level of [Automaticly granted if 1932 [Type 1] OR [Type 2] completed] covers some of the concerns? Or, would it be better to staple DP guns to the Aircraft and Countermeasures tree at this point?

This is fine I think, except the "up to the maximum range of the main battery part".

An easy correction to 40k.

This turns in to quicksand quickly, which is why the rules were written the way they were original. Aircraft development was so rapid, varied, and parallel...

I suppose you could do a couple of things. For instance, a more detailed tree of ICE development (or maybe just "aircraft engine" development), coupled with a tree of structure and aerodynamic development?

I really don't want to add more complexity to the air stuff, as I'm really trying to keep the non-naval stuff limited. My thought with changing the descriptions of the techs is that it then becomes easier (IME) fluff to a nations air forces. Seeing as all the matters for the rules is "I have X Air Points in Y region and Z tech level", I don't know if the flavor text matters as much as it did.

[Walter]

Naval Artillery: Add a level for Automatic guns, in a couple varieties. This is done because we have automatics in other trees

1925: Advanced Capped Shells
    1930: Automatic guns up to 50mm
    1935: Automatic guns up to 100mm
    1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm

Looking at this, where do the heavy AA MGs end and the Automatic guns begin? The 2-pdr Mk II was designed ~1915 and it is only a tiny step from 40mm to 50mm so does it make sense to have the 50mm level? To me it looks like a useless step and it is probably better to have the 1935 level as the first automatic gun entry.


With DP or Auto gun + mount, as Guinness kinda indicated, just one tech should determine what can and cannot be done with the DP guns and automatic guns. It really depends on caliber of the guns, but is weird that a capital ship cannot use automatic 12cm guns as secondaries until the 1946 tech is researched while a cruiser can have the exact same guns as both main and secondaries with its 1942 tech. With the DPs it is the other way around where you can 12cm DP guns on a capital ship with the 1932 tech but you cannot have the 12cm DP guns as main batteries on your cruiser until you have the 1938 tech (but you can have the 12cm DP guns as main batteries on a destroyer). Makes no sense to me and probably makes things more complicated than they have to be.

"Angled decks." This is a rare place where the Queen's English and American English agrees.

Actually when I saw "Slanted Flight Decks", I kinda thought that it would be something that is not quite true "Angled decks" which would be 1950s.

[snip]

To hit a couple things. Im starting to think that I went about this the wrong way and that DP and Autos should be part of the Naval Artillery tree instead. As a quick draft, I get this. Changes bolded.

Naval Artillery
Baseline: Muzzle-Loading cannon. Primitive Breechloaders. Solid Shot. Primitive High Explosive Shells
1880: Breach loading guns. High Explosive Shells.
1895: Quick-Firing guns. Semi-Armor Piercing Shells
1900: Smokeless Powder.
1905: Improved Smokeless Powder. Armor Piercing Shells
1910: Capped Shells. Automatic AA guns up to 50mm (Requires 1914 Aircraft tech)
1915: Shells can be 10% over SS default
1920: Improved Capped Shells Shells can be 20% over SS default
1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Dual-Purpace Guns Less than >130mm
1935: Dual-Purpace Guns Less than >155mm, Automatic guns up to 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm

That then makes the Architecture techs look as follows.

1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns
1926: Improved Torpedo Defence Systems.
1932: De-Capping plates.
1940: Advanced Torpedo Defence Systems.

1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns. Cruisers under 3000 tons may have cross-sectional hull strength > 0.75
1925: Armored Box armor layout.
1936: DP Main Batteries

Destoyers Unchanged.

I still want to keep main battery DP guns for cruisers behind its own tech wall as in OTL you don't see that come up until later than DP guns. [eg. The 5/38 entered service in 1934 while the Atlantas didn't come around for another 6 years.] Does that look better?

[Walter]

I still want to keep main battery DP guns for cruisers behind its own tech wall as in OTL you don't see that come up until later than DP guns. [eg. The 5/38 entered service in 1934 while the Atlantas didn't come around for another 6 years.]

I disagree with the idea that the cruiser tech needs that DP entry. The thing is that various early 1930s destroyers used the 5/38 DP as main guns when it was designed so why can't a cruiser, which is bigger and more spacious than a destroyer, not use the same gun as its main guns? Granted you won't have anything like an Atlanta around (unless you use the single purpose Mark 22 twin mount but then it would not be an AA cruiser even though the guns are DP) but you should be able to build a small cruiser that is something like an oversized Faragut with 10 5/38 guns or so in single DP mounts as its main guns. To me, if cruisers must need that 1936 level for DP main guns, then the much smaller, more cramped destroyers definitely need to abide to that tech level as well.

Does that look better?

Uhm... "Less than >130mm" = Less than greater than 130mm? Looks kinda odd to me... The same with the "Less than >155mm". :)

With the DP guns, you could have it like this to avoid having Atlanta type AA cruisers too early...

1930: Dual-Purpose Guns Less than 130mm, DP single gun mount, twin gun mount are SP only
1935: Dual-Purpose Guns 131-155mm, DP twin gun mount

[snip]

My concern is not necessarily Atlanta style ships, because those can't do the same sort of jobs as a more traditional cruiser, but having ~150mm DP cruisers showing up way early. A different approach, just showing Arty and Cruiser techs.

Naval Artillery
Baseline: Muzzle-Loading cannon. Primitive Breechloaders. Solid Shot. Primitive High Explosive Shells
1880: Breach loading guns. High Explosive Shells.
1895: Quick-Firing guns. Semi-Armor Piercing Shells
1900: Smokeless Powder.
1905: Improved Smokeless Powder. Armor Piercing Shells
1910: Capped Shells. Automatic AA guns up to 50mm (Requires 1914 Aircraft tech)
1915: Shells can be 10% over SS default
1920: Improved Capped Shells Shells can be 20% over SS default
1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Dual-Purpace Guns Less than and including 130mm
1935: Dual-Purpace Guns Less than and including 155mm, Automatic guns less than and including 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm

1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns. Cruisers under 3000 tons may have cross-sectional hull strength > 0.75
1925: Armored Box armor layout.
1939: DP Main Batteries larger than 130mm

I think that addresses both concerns.

[Kaiser Kirk]

This is really to much for me to digest right now, a flurry of changes is a beginning of the weekend thing, not a weeknight "fit in" when I'm already busy.

Pretty sure I have issues with the Radar assisted 1935 FC, but would have to go look up stuff.  Pretty sure it's 5 years+ early. You need smaller wavelengths and that took time to come about, as I recall the Brits were still working on it in 1940 when the Dutch brought an improved protype with them. Still like I said, I'd have to go do more work. Oh, and I have that book Guinness was referring too. It's dense.
I think the Scout Cruiser design I put out has armored box, since it's not a hard concept to come up with and there was no rules on it. Hmm, yes, it does.

I'll do more comments no later than this weekend unless something comes up.

[Kaiser Kirk]

1)  On Research - Is it intentional that the cost of researching a 1910 tech in 1910 is $1, to be paid $0.25/$0.25/$0.25/$0.25 ? 
Because that's what the formula on the  research page and the results of calculator seem to indicate.

Which means my $7 research dollars can research up to 28 techs / half year. Which was a nuance of the revised rules I hadn't noticed before.


2) Sorry I haven't followed up on the Radar stuff.
My available time has been going into setting up for 1910.

I did some quick looking, the first RN set in use was on KGV in 1940, while the US had a demo set on USS New York in 1939, and entered production in May 1940.

However, looking at Friedman, these early sets were 50cmwhich was  primarily rangefinding assitance- it couldn't do aspect/deflection and rate of change.

About 1942 you had 10cm sets- the Dutch brought a prototype with them in 1940, which could be used for fire control, though it seems not full Blindfire. It's notable that the US proximity fuses entered use in 1942 as well.
Blindfire, need to do more reading but 1943/44.

Anyhow, I'll revisit that later and make a better timeline.

[snip]

1)  On Research - Is it intentional that the cost of researching a 1910 tech in 1910 is $1, to be paid $0.25/$0.25/$0.25/$0.25 ? 
Because that's what the formula on the  research page and the results of calculator seem to indicate.

Which means my $7 research dollars can research up to 28 techs / half year. Which was a nuance of the revised rules I hadn't noticed before.

I see what happened here. The number that calculator puts out is the cost per half to complete the tech in six turns. That was the baseline we were working with during the development of the ruleset. It seems that figure never made it into the actual text of the rules. I will modify the rules and ask Guinness to modify the calculator to reflect this. Apologies for the confusion.