Nationbuilding Setup Proposal

[snip]

Perhaps period is not the correct choice of wording here. What about the number of hulls per year (not individual designs mind you, units of a class would be assumed to be distributed over the whole production run)?

[olekit24]

I'm really not sure that thousands of ships, built in <1895 will be useful in 1910 as warships. So, then, i'd concentrate on modelling ships of the period of 1895 - 1906, and they will be the main power of the fleet. I'll have several hulls built before 1895 - just to scrap them in H1 1910 and several hulls of design after 1906 in slipways - just to finish their building in 1910 - 1911.

[Walter]

One thing I forgot to add: With periods and based off the British numbers, 'closeish' would be roughly a 4:8:8:1 ratio with a +/- of 2 or so for the periods except 1908-09 which should probably have a +/- of 0.5-1 at most.

Perhaps period is not the correct choice of wording here. What about the number of hulls per year (not individual designs mind you, units of a class would be assumed to be distributed over the whole production run)?

With production run, things are being made more complex as you would need to know how long it takes to build a ship and then it could be built in two or three or more batches so it could probably span up to 3-4 years in total even if it only takes 1 year to build one ship.

To me the problem with using number of hulls and 'closeish' is that it does not take into account that in the 1895-1909 period, ships become bigger and more complex and require more materials. They become longer and thus bigger slips/docks are needed and because they are bigger it takes longer to build them and it takes longer until they are launched/floated out and it takes longer for an occupied slip/dock to be available again for the next ship to be laid down.

Another thing it does not take into account is availability of the ship types. With MTBs, I have for the four periods the next: 0-0-50-0. They can't be built in the <1895 period or the 1895-1900 period. As I do not spend extra points on the 1908 DD/TB/MTB tech, I just have the one 40 ton type to play with so it is a 1906 design and for simplicity all are dumped there but those 50 hulls would in reality be spread out over the 1906-1909 period.

Submarines is another one that are only available as of 1902. I used the British submarines as a guideline but since there was a gap between the British 1907 D-class and the British 1911 E-class that means I only have submarines listed in the 1901-1907 period and none in the 1908-09 period.

... and speaking of the submarines, I just realized that I messed up there as my classes are slightly off as I suddenly remembered that my A-class is actually the OTL Holland class and that my B-class is actually the A-class etc...

I'm really not sure that thousands of ships, built in <1895 will be useful in 1910 as warships.

Well, you never know how desperate navies can be. :) The <1895 can still be useful as warships but just not for their original intended purposes (for example a battleship or armored cruiser could still be using its guns to support amphibious landings on an enemy beach).

[Kaiser Kirk]

I wound up making a spreadsheet to track both my costs, and my hulls by period.  I also used this to get an idea of how many production facilities I might need. Way complex than I'd like.

Anyhow, in the discussions, I advanced various tonnage/period notions, Walter had his ideas, the end result was Hulls - not my choice.
That's what still written in the pdf. "It is expected that players will make a reasonable effort to spread the number of hulls constructed over the whole of the time period in question." 

At the end I found myself with not enough hulls in 1908-09 and too many in 1901-1907 for many of the reasons outlined by Walter - tech, availability, and hull sizes.....and the number of years in the period.   I shifted things around to help, and then noted the effect of the differing lengths of the periods. At which time I figured out the Hulls/ Year (excluding <100t), which worked nicely to show the numbers were reasonable (I think).

At this point, I could go back, add a field for type, and figure out hulls/ architecture, but I'd like not do that.  I've already gone back and padded <1894 and 1895-1900 with those small gunboats, bringing my hulls/year to 7.7, 7.7, 8 and 8.   I think I've met and exceeded the written statement of a "reasonable effort".  So I'd prefer to just use what's written.

In regards to when I "count them" ... I do it by the period they are laid down in - as constrained by the # of facilities I have for that, and presume it's all prepaid, if needed by timely scapping of older ships to boost it.   

[Walter]

Not including the auxiliaries and a few obsolete ships, I am at 5.5 - 26 - 37.7 - 21.5 for each period when it comes to hulls per year. The 5.5 is caused by the Fenrir's lay down year of 1882, though if I were to add the few old obsolete 'main line' ships to the list that list, it would be as low as 0.53.

The 37.7 spike of 1901-1907 is caused by the large number of submarines and MTBs added to the fleet. I kinda match the RN's submarine stuff so like the OTL RN there will not be any listed in the 1908-9 period and ,as mentioned, I only have the one MTB design of the 1904 DD/TB/MTB tech which makes it a 1906 design (and similarly the submarines are essentially 1902 and 1907 designs and there are no 1908-1911 designs as the earliest the 1910 tech would be available is 1912). Now if I were to spend 6 points on the 1908 DD/TB/MTB tech, then I would add a bunch of the 'B' type MTBs to the 1908-1909 period but to me it is too expensive to do that so I will settle for those 'B' type MTBs after game start.

Now without the Submarines and the MTBs, it would be 19.9 ships per year for the 1901-1907 period. Ignoring the Fenrir, the <1895 ships per year would be 15.8. So ignoring those extreme cases, 15.8 - 26 - 19.9 -21.5 is actually not too bad in my opinion.

Rough ratios of hulls per type per period are:
BB/AC/BC: 1-1-3-1
PC/CL: 2-2-1-1
DD: 4-8-7-3

Put those three categories together and it is about a 3-5-5-2 ratio which to me makes sense. Compared to the ships of the 1895-1909 period the <1895 ships are obsolete or becoming obsolete and while some may still be around, numerous ships would have been scrapped already so a lower value for <1895 can be expected. At the same time, there are not enough years in the 1908-1909 period to expect the same amount of hulls as the previous two periods. I consider that to be reasonable enough and to me that what Kirk is doing is going way beyond that what I consider reasonable.

[snip]

I'm personally satisfied with both these efforts.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Questions :

1) If I build an 1894 vessel.... hmm, this question was aimed at if they received a free overhaul before 1910, but that overhaul requirement seems to be gone, except for a reference under refurbishment.

2) If I build an 1894 Battleship, and then in 1905 add radios, rip off the 45mm deck guns and put on 60mm deck guns, then come back in 1907 and add fire control... all of those fall under "Basic Refit". My presumption is I need to pay for the costs of those refits in my 1901-1907 costs.

3) I've noted some vessels which appear to have been refurbished with new engines, I presume that cost would need to be paid for ?

[snip]

Questions :

1) If I build an 1894 vessel.... hmm, this question was aimed at if they received a free overhaul before 1910, but that overhaul requirement seems to be gone, except for a reference under refurbishment.

2) If I build an 1894 Battleship, and then in 1905 add radios, rip off the 45mm deck guns and put on 60mm deck guns, then come back in 1907 and add fire control... all of those fall under "Basic Refit". My presumption is I need to pay for the costs of those refits in my 1901-1907 costs.

3) I've noted some vessels which appear to have been refurbished with new engines, I presume that cost would need to be paid for ?

1) Yes, Overhauls died. Please point out where that language is so I can kill it.

2) Yes.

3) Yes.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Refurbishments
A refurbishment is a more comprehensive refit which allows for replacement of obsolete or
undesired fittings as well as overhauling any original equipment that remains. Since a ship can
get by on overhauls through its entire career, a refurbishment is never mandatory. However, a
ship that is refurbished is likely to be more effective than a ship that is merely overhauled.

[Jefgte]

Rough ratios of hulls per type per period are:
BB/AC/BC: 1-1-3-1
PC/CL: 2-2-1-1
DD: 4-8-7-3

Correct ratios

:)

[snip]

So a further question for the group. Do we want to provide some ability to pre-purchase 1910 techs? My thought would be below.

Techs dated 1910 cost 9 points but are not considered available until 1/1/1910

Do note I had this idea in conjunction with my thoughts on quads, detailed here. Any objection?

[Walter]

Considering the rules, I would think that it should cost 10 points for consistency, so 1906 = 2 points, 1907 = 4 points, 1908 = 6 points, 1909 = 8 points and 1910 = 10 points.... but that is just my opinion.

[Kaiser Kirk]

So a further question for the group. Do we want to provide some ability to pre-purchase 1910 techs? My thought would be below.

Techs dated 1910 cost 9 points but are not considered available until 1/1/1910

Do note I had this idea in conjunction with my thoughts on quads, detailed here. Any objection?

No. The cap at the 1908 was sufficient.
I don't want to go back and relook at my builds and mod points and start changing things now.

[Kaiser Kirk]

So Question came up in the Roman ship thread :

Oil and other strategic resources - are they as historical , or is everyone assumed to have enough?

IF everyone "has enough" it removes a driver for colonies and border conflicts.

IF they are as historical, then Rome has the Galacian oil, Byzantium has the Rumanian oil and some Northern Iraq, Sweden the limited German oil, The Norse....well offshore drilling doesn't exist in the North Sea, and Iberia has Libya, but that oil wasn't found until much much later.  The Parthian Empire would have an embarrasment of riches, with the Baku oil and the Caucus fields, the Persian oil the British depended on, the Iraqi fields, the future Kuwait/Saudi/other Arab fields.

Then the additional question - can we presume that the "colonies" has the historical resources, so the Norse can go conquerer ...err liberate Venezuala and confidently address that need. ?

[Walter]

everyone assumed to have enough

This is what I will assume, but enough is not enough. Enough is never enough. More is great... Lots more is even greater. ;D