Changelog

[snip]

Changes made to the rules over time will be documented here.

[snip]

8/10/17: Initial posting of ruleset completed. Some pending modification regarding the extension of some tech trees is being discussed.

[snip]

9/20/17: Added language on armor layouts.

Armor Layouts: The following detail some specifics of the allowed armor layouts.
--All Capital Ships must possess a Main Belt and an Armored OR Protected Deck. They must use either a Traditional or All-or-Nothing layout.
--Traditional Armor Layouts for Capital Ships must have at least a 90mm Upper Belt. This belt must provide reasonable protection for the portion of the freeboard above the main armor belt. Traditional layouts must also possess End Belts, tho these have no minimum thickness requirements. End Belts must provide reasonable protection for the waterline.
--All-or-Nothing Armor Layouts for Capital Ships become available after researching the 1910 Capital Ship Architecture tech. Designs constructed to an All-or-Nothing standard have no minimum requirements regarding Upper or End Belts.
--Armor Layouts for Cruisers may have any combination of Belts and Protected OR Armored decks OR Boxes over Magazines, Engines, or both.
--Ships built to Destroyer Standards may have Belt or Deck armor intended for splinter protection.

[snip]

9/28/17: Altered language of Armor layout rules slightly.

From

--Traditional Armor Layouts for Capital Ships must have at least a 90mm Upper Belt. This belt must provide reasonable protection for the portion of the freeboard above the main armor belt. Traditional layouts must also possess End Belts, tho these have no minimum thickness requirements. End Belts must provide reasonable protection for the waterline.

To

--Traditional Armor Layouts for Capital Ships must have at least a 90mm Upper Belt. This belt must provide reasonable protection for the portion of the freeboard above the main armor belt. Traditional layouts must also possess some form of armor protection along the entire length of the ship. This can be in the form of End Belts and/or For/Aft armor decks. This armor must provide reasonable protection for the ends of the ship.

[Kaiser Kirk]

4/11/20

The package of rule changes, updates and tech changes agreed on were amended into the existing rules.
Updates:
Nations : All nations receive +5 homeland IC.

Canals - Changed costs, added revenue.

Map
Port Symbols : Port Symbols added to maps.   Single islands and island chains presumed to have port facilities. 

Arability : Shading for Arability added to base map.  Effects cost of constructing IC

Resource Points : Resource points will be disclosed by Moderator after provinces are claimed. Resource points effect amount of $ generated by IC.

Colonies & Regions
Rate of IC development : not more than $5/province/HY.

Colonial regions defined in scope.
Coastal regions with Port Facilities to have different development costs than Interior regions. Where it can be demonstrated by the player that unaltered rivers allow Hog Island class freighters to access, port facilities exist at the head of navigation.

Formalized colonial expansion process: Addied a guideline to how the moderator will handle colonial expansions.


Technology
Merged Night Fighting & remote sensing.

Modified Amphibious technology to impose limits on rate and size of offensive deployments.

Merged Army & Artillery

Smoothed the Aircraft & countermeasures tree.

Rule Clarifications
Added clarifications to gun research regarding caliber/ME,  shell types

[Kaiser Kirk]

6/23/20

Cruiser tech rules updated, effective 1913.0

updates to Ship Design Guidelines and Gun Research

Addition of 'Ship design best practices'  commentary  section.

[snip]

Added Sailing rig rules to the Ship Design Guidelines.

Hulls and Sails

Hull Materials: The 19th Century saw rapid changes in materials that ships hulls were constructed off.  In less than 50 years the worlds battlefleets moved from hulls of Wooden Hulls, to Ironclad, Iron hull and finally steel construction.  These different materials have different abilities to take the load of the ships weight.     

Sail vs. Steam: As the 19th century progressed there was a transition of warships from sail propulsion, to steam backup and finally to all steam propulsion.  The switch over to steam comes because of two reasons.  First is that ships can steam all the time in all weather conditions.  The second is that rigging is a fire hazard and source of possible debris to block the ships deck.  Of course a ship with sails does not need to go to port to coal and doesn't require the ship engine to be maintained.  So sailing ships will remain common in civilian service for a great deal of time.

To simulate the weight of a ships sail gear and the ballast to counter the torque effects the mast has on the hull misc. weight will be used.  A portion will be below the waterline misc. weight and the other as above the deck misc. weight both found on the Weapons tab for SpringSharp3.

There are two types of sail plans that ships can follow. The Full Rigged Ship (3 masted ship) or Brigantine / Brig (2 masted ship).

A full rigged ship can do up to 2/3 of SS hull speed (not ship engine speed but speed based on hull) Displacement costs being 1.5% misc weight above hull for Full Rigged Ship and 6.5% misc weight below deck.  On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 480 total misc tons.

A Brigantine can do 1/2 of SS hull speed.  Displacement costs being 1% Misc Weight above hull and 4% misc weight below deck.  On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 300 total misc tons.

[Kaiser Kirk]

10/3/21

1. Updated Canal rules to change return from $0.25 to $0.50, and specify route measurement is round trip.
2. Updated Fire control description under Ship Design Guidelines
3. Updated Gun description under Ship Design Guidelines.
4. Added Aviation Ship Design section.  Added Misc Weight location as discussed on final draft.
5. Moved Hydrophone rules to Ship Design/ Misc Weight.

6. Revised Colonization and Concessions to reflect how it's worked since my announcement ~1913. 
Granted, this is well after it matters, but reflects how it's been done after determining the planned system impractable.