www.navalism.org

Now, I know that all ships need maintenance, and that they are refitted for a reason, but since we have suddenly had this 'everything before 1897' rule thrust upon us out of the blue, is it possible for an initial reprieve? Perhaps state that everything that is due for a refit (i.e. built prior to 1897) has already received that refit?
This would at least allow us to adjust to the new requirements.

Also, is a maximum of 10 years between refits really necessary?
If this is how often ships really need major work, then it would seem that every navy in the world would be sitting in port due to upkeep expense. How about 15 years like previously planned? That would put everyone back on schedule, at least.

Also, the tonnage times seem arbitrary, to say the least. They follow no pattern that can be seen. They seem to favor those that build monster ships and penalize those that try to build realistic, budget-minded ships. How about a more proportional refit time table.

Also, cost should be less than 20% of the ship's total price if you're just 'freshening up'... 20% represents a pretty major bit of work. Perhaps only 10% would be a more reasonable figure. After all, a full SLEP -a rebuild in our game terms- on the U.S.S. Mobile Bay only cost $50 million for a $1 billion ship... 20% for a REBUILD rather than a refit.

I agree (notes he already did his refits in H209) it is sort of a wham expence though.  I know I set my fleet up with the 15 year rule in mind, and im sure others did the same thing.

Ahoj!
Seems sensible - ony ships built in 1909 or later need a refit every 10 years?
Borys

Quote from: Carthaginian on December 18, 2007, 11:11:54 AM
Now, I know that all ships need maintenance, and that they are refitted for a reason, but since we have suddenly had this 'everything before 1897' rule thrust upon us out of the blue, is it possible for an initial reprieve? Perhaps state that everything that is due for a refit (i.e. built prior to 1897) has already received that refit?
This would at least allow us to adjust to the new requirements.

Also, is a maximum of 10 years between refits really necessary?
If this is how often ships really need major work, then it would seem that every navy in the world would be sitting in port due to upkeep expense. How about 15 years like previously planned? That would put everyone back on schedule, at least.

Also, the tonnage times seem arbitrary, to say the least. They follow no pattern that can be seen. They seem to favor those that build monster ships and penalize those that try to build realistic, budget-minded ships. How about a more proportional refit time table.

Also, cost should be less than 20% of the ship's total price if you're just 'freshening up'... 20% represents a pretty major bit of work. Perhaps only 10% would be a more reasonable figure. After all, a full SLEP -a rebuild in our game terms- on the U.S.S. Mobile Bay only cost $50 million for a $1 billion ship... 20% for a REBUILD rather than a refit.

I wanted to keep rules simple, that's why the arbitrary tonnage values (not if I liked them very much). Any suggestions are welcome.
About 1897: no one was doing any refit despite ships approaching 15-years age. Ships finished BEFORE 1897 were already approaching their 13-14 years, and were due to refit soon. I think fleet refits can be finished before 1912 (and when the new engine tech is developed :P).

Borys:

That's definately better.
Would let us plan for refits more efficiently.

Also, what about the timeframe/cost issues?
Is 20% every 10 years REALLY necessary? If we refit that often, shouldn't it be a bit cheaper? Like I said, REBUILDS are that expensive in real life!

Quote from: P3D on December 18, 2007, 12:04:07 PM
I wanted to keep rules simple, that's why the arbitrary tonnage values (not if I liked them very much). Any suggestions are welcome.

            >500t - 1 month (not much armor to get in the way)
  500t - 1000t - 3 months
1001t - 3000t - 6 months
3001t - 6000t - 9 months
6001t - 12,000 - 12 months
<12,000t - +1 months per additional 3000t

Perhaps some mods or more experienced players might like to chime in, but any kind of 'system' beats 'arbitrary'.

Quote from: P3D on December 18, 2007, 12:04:07 PMAbout 1897: no one was doing any refit despite ships approaching 15-years age. Ships finished BEFORE 1897 were already approaching their 13-14 years, and were due to refit soon. I think fleet refits can be finished before 1912 (and when the new engine tech is developed :P).

Damn right- they COULDN'T BE MADE USEFUL ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY IT!
Why refit a damn armored cruiser IF IT CAN BE CAUGHT BY A BATTLESHIP?
It makes piss-poor economic and military sense. Instead, you move it to second-line duty for it's last 2-3 years of service and build a replacement for it. We weren't refitting those ships because they weren't worth the effort. But instead of letting us get that last little bit of cushion out of them, you slapped a very arbitrary and extremely unfair fiat on us and said 'You aren't throwing good money after bad, so I will penalize you and force you to do it.'

Also, changing the refit cost/times has really screwed our fleet planning over. A 20% charge on a REFIT every 10 years is unreasonable. Like I pointed out... REBUILDS cost this much in real life. $10% is more than enough for a REFIT, $20% + 5% BP for a REBUILD, and $30% + 10% BP for a RECONSTRUCTION. If refits are MORE OFTEN, they should be CHEAPER... not more expensive.

Quoteno one was doing any refit despite ships approaching 15-years age.

Quotethey COULDN'T BE MADE USEFUL ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY IT!

If there's a rule requiring people to do something by a certain date, they'll rarely do it any earlier than they have to. 

In my case, I had similar thinking to Carthaginian, and intended to delete those vessels within a year or two of the earlier 15 year figure.  Although the refit rules tripped me up somewhat, I think the increase in BP offset it somewhat - my ability to replace the old relics is (once I finish my army upgrades) considerably better than it was.

Rohan was selling older units and scrapping others while refitting/rebuilting only what it considered to be the most useful of the aging warships (the Theodens).  They will probably get to rebuilding the remaining battleships and combat cruisers in the next several years to keep them around.  The torpedo boats and destroyers?  scrap.  protected cruisers?  probably scrap, or perhaps a rebuild to maintain numbers (since belted cruisers take time when one is trying to flesh out one's capital ship fleet).

Refits are much more affordable as you don't have to spend any BP on it, unlike in the previous ruleset. And it partially reflects all maintenance a ship is undergoing periodically.

I compared the current rules to the RN upkeep cost available.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1474.0

There's an excel sheet attached. With current rules and 'active' status total lifetime cost ratios (maintenance+repair/total) corresponds well to the RN figures - battleships are more costly to maintain, so it's not true that the rules favor big ship in this case, but the other way around.
Now keep in mind that we have no upkeep cost defined for naval bases whatsoever (should we?). Assume the relatively high wartime maintenance cost represent base maintenance.

Ahoj!
OK - let us split this discussion.
1 - Refit dates - would everybody be OK with units completed pre-1909 requering a refit after 15 years, and all vessels finished  afterwards after 10 years?
The Times have  changed, the Earth has been Renewed, Much that Once Was is Now Lost, the Planets Arranged themselves in an Nasty Way and They Don't Build'em Like They Used to.

2 - refit costs; I have nothing to say about them yet, as I haven't digested them yet. I never refitted anything, I just scrapped it or kept it afloat "past end date" at reduced effectiveness until the replacement is ready.

Borys

Exactly.

Since we were having to build new battleships, armored/battle cruisers, and protected cruisers anyway to keep up with the march of progress, we all decided that refitting most of the old ships was a real waste- ESPECIALLY when it had a BP cost and we had limited BP. The upping of BP would have partially compensated for this, but honestly the ships in question were out-gunned, out-runned and just plain out-classed by more modern ones even if they were reconstructed, much less after simply being refitted.

We, thus, elected to use the new BP increase to construct more modern warships instead of refitting older ones. It may be 'cheaper' to refit, but not nearly as productive.

Quote from: P3D on December 18, 2007, 01:11:30 PM
Refits are much more affordable as you don't have to spend any BP on it, unlike in the previous ruleset. And it partially reflects all maintenance a ship is undergoing periodically.

I compared the current rules to the RN upkeep cost available.

There's an excel sheet attached. With current rules and 'active' status total lifetime cost ratios (maintenance+repair/total) corresponds well to the RN figures - battleships are more costly to maintain, so it's not true that the rules favor big ship in this case, but the other way around.
Now keep in mind that we have no upkeep cost defined for naval bases whatsoever (should we?). Assume the relatively high wartime maintenance cost represent base maintenance.

You compared them to a Nelson class?
No wonder your $ figures are so high?
Adjust for inflation, much?

P3D, our budgets are, simply, just not anything like those of the British Admiralty in WWI or WWII. Hell yeah, they could afford it. A 8x13.5" gun battle cruiser also cost them LESS than my 6x13.5" battleship! You're trying to make us get $10 worth of effectiveness out of a $1 bill.

I'm sorry, but they are just TOO EXPENSIVE- whether they cost BP or not.
We don't have a lot of money here... and either the refits need to be made more affordable OR required less often, or you're never going to see them used- at least not until tech development stabilizes a bit around 1920.

Another issue I have is that I can't really find where 'refitted' ships were supposed to be 'front line' ships prior to WWI. In fact, even during WWI, the emphasis was on 'newer is better' and old ships were given a minimum "fixin' up" and put into second-line service.

The only time REFITTING became of supreme importance was after the Washington/London Treaties forced a slow/halt to BB production. Suddenly, you couldn't just put old ships on coastal duty and build new ships... you had to scrape, scrounge, and struggle to get every ounce of effectiveness out of your old ships. Ships that should have long been retired were sent into combat in WWII because of this development- bulged, rebuilt and reconstructed into totally new classes of ships in many cases. This was because of NECESSITY- there had been no new construction, so all the old hulls had to be folded, spindled and mutilated to get them into a useful condition for service.

Had the Treaties never came about, refitting would have been far less important in the 30's-40's.

If it is too expensive then don't build it! In whatever currency unit you express cost figures, the ratios will remain the same.

You still have the same option, keep the old units in commission without any refit, accepting a decrease in performance (speed, habitability, accuracy, penetration power), or refit them so they would be able to take on their counterparts. I see not a single reason to have any grandfather clause for older ships. Everyone should have enough money to refit their fleet.

CSA needs about $50 to refit all ships finished before 1903. Looking at the CSA budget, there's around $8 available, that would be enough to repair the fleet in 3 years.

I'd note that the CSA has largest heavy industry compared to its economy size, that might be one of the reason you find your fleet too large to maintain while building new battleships  - 1BP for every $6 revenue compared to $7-8 for other countries, having the fourth largest heavy industry but a smaller economy. Building ships for export is a good idea.

Quote from: P3D on December 18, 2007, 01:47:31 PM
If it is too expensive then don't build it! In whatever currency unit you express cost figures, the ratios will remain the same.

Then don't make rules saying "I'm going to take away your last few useful years and force you to."
Pick a rule and stick with it.

Quote from: P3D on December 18, 2007, 01:47:31 PMYou still have the same option, keep the old units in commission without any refit, accepting a decrease in performance (speed, habitability, accuracy, penetration power), or refit them so they would be able to take on their counterparts. I see not a single reason to have any grandfather clause for older ships. Everyone should have enough money to refit their fleet.

Why not? You made up a grandfather to FORCE refits.
And the point is they CAN'T take on 'counterparts' any more because technology has rendered the newer counterparts too superior. The only thing you can do is refit old ships to take on other old refitted ships. And that wastes money which could be built on new ships.

Quote from: P3D on December 18, 2007, 01:47:31 PMCSA needs about $50 to refit all ships finished before 1903. Looking at the CSA budget, there's around $8 available, that would be enough to repair the fleet in 3 years.

I'd note that the CSA has largest heavy industry compared to its economy size, that might be one of the reason you find your fleet too large to maintain while building new battleships  - 1BP for every $6 revenue compared to $7-8 for other countries, having the fourth largest heavy industry but a smaller economy. Building ships for export is a good idea.

Not my fault... I got orders out for people to breed like rabbits to make up for the fact that I somehow have the LOWEST population per surface area of any civilized nation. I'm also building the hell out of IC to try and catch up... but my population hinders this. I need population growth, but don't see any.

And I'll be damned if I build for other nations an thus allow myself to fall behind. Piss on it all, I have the smallest fleet related to coastline of ANYONE. The fact that I got shorted one battleship when I started doesn't help things one bit. Instead of ships the size of theVirginia as Swampy had laid down, i was forced to settle for one. This set me back by 4 years on BB construction.

I'm building some units for other nations, but I'm not going to sit back and let a very substandard fleet become an even worse problem. I have shitty cruisers... who the hell else has 'protected cruisers' with 4' of freeboard aft and .5" decks that can only do 20 knots?!? Te reason I'm having to build so much and have so many ships replaced is I inherited a piss poor fleet and didn't know enough about SS to fix it when I came in!

So, my choices according to you are 'run out of money' or 'keep crappy ships while building modern ships for everyone else.'

What a damn choice.

If it all you have, run with it.  Your fleet is very healthy compared to what it was building against, but no longer.  This was a problem most historical fleets had.  Build new stuff, but keep the old stuff in service until  you have enough new stuff to replace the old stuff and increase the fleet size as what was once expected.  This didn't work out for most countries and they woould eventually leave some ship types behind on in favor of larger (or smaller) types and just keep the old ships in service until they aged out at around 30 years old.  Look at American cruiser construction after the Dreadnoughts started to be built....nothing.  None, zip, zero, nada where laid down after 1905 until the Omaha-class in 1918 and the plans for the Lexington-class in 1916.  Those that existed soldiered on into the 1920s and a few into the 1930s before being decommissioned.

Yeah. The Mobile is the last larger cruiser class that I'll build for a long time. The Murfreesboro was intended to replace most (about half) of the older ships, but my disproportionately low population handicaps me considerably with the way that ships are upsizing. 3 old cruisers can only be replaced by 2. That's why my destroyers SHRANK rather than growing. Unfortunately, some ships just have to get bigger, and that's hurting a lot.


Breed you dumb SOB's... BREED!!!
LOL

More IC, more IC!  Just keep building inifrustructure.  Population growth seems to be every 2 years, so 1910 should show an increase.  Stories and other beneficial items to the sim tend to also gain some sort of bonus for countries.

IC only does so much.
I need population increases in order to get more money per IC. I've done several IC posts about population increase attempts since 1908. Hoping to see it pay off in 1910.

Quote... who the hell else has 'protected cruisers' with 4' of freeboard aft and .5" decks that can only do 20 knots?!?

I do, I do!! ;D

I did...of course they were Confederate built.

I have such cruisers, and even the equivalent of DD's just reaching 20kts. And a lot of them either. The Chardon class is extensive.

First I think the present rules are a big step forward, as the reduced BP cost at least give some incentive to refit ships.

I think we are in some confusion in what these refits are about, are we talking about refits that are to be the equal to half-time modifications, or just major maintenance operations?
If the former, then 15-20 years in between them seems to be the lower time span in between them and 20% cost, while high imo, is within reasonable limits.
If just major maintenance then the cost should be far lower, as most of that is checking things and see how worn they are, the things that break or get predictably worn (worn out guns, dirty boilers, fouled bottoms and such things) should be covered by the normal upkeep.
Then ten years of active service should be a guideline, not a demand.

But for a ship to suffer significant reduced combat capability after only ten years seems very short indeed, even 15 is a bit short. Especially if she have spent time in the reserve and therefore is less worn.
The reason that modifications were made more often then 15-20 years had as far as I know less to do with and degradation of the ships capabilities in absolute terms, and more to do with the march of technology around them, possibly leading to a degradation of capability in relative terms.

So I think we are mostly in agreement that 10 years is too often, and that 20% is too expensive, for a 'refit.' It should be adjusted to some degree... 10% every 10 years and 6 months (flat) should be enough for 'freshening' the vessel.

Ahoj!
I feel agreement with Carthaginian's proposal.

I understand this "every 10 years refit" to be a general lookover of all mechanism, replacement or repair of anything broken, or anything which looks that it can break down soon.

But it is not in any way a modernisation/rebuild - no buldging, no change of weapons (apart from pompoms or smaller, with which we should not bother with anyway) , no change of machinery.

Ships fightng value will decrease naturaly, with ageing.

Borys

Well-maintained battleships usually underwent two refits/major overhaul in their life, roughly every 10 years. These refits also represent miscellaneous small repairs when they occupy the drydocks. I can repeat myself that with the current rules the ratio of total lifetime upkeep+refit cost of the ship versus purchase cost is agreeing with the only historical figures we were able to dig up, so I see no reason to change.

Quote from: P3D on December 19, 2007, 11:19:14 AM
Well-maintained battleships usually underwent two refits/major overhaul in their life, roughly every 10 years. These refits also represent miscellaneous small repairs when they occupy the drydocks. I can repeat myself that with the current rules the ratio of total lifetime upkeep+refit cost of the ship versus purchase cost is agreeing with the only historical figures we were able to dig up, so I see no reason to change.

P3D,

Refits like you are suggesting didn't become necessary till the Washington/London Treaty period. Hell HMS Invincible kept her RML's her entire career, along with her original engines. Most BB's of the late 1890's and early 1900's were the same. The entire Great White Fleet kept original guns and engines (the items you say we are replacing for 20%) their whole careers, well into WWI. Hell, the Japanese kept Mikasa in service with NO MAJOR OVERHAULS until WWII.

You are trying to force something on us that simply didn't happen IRL. 'Life-extension' refits are a product of the building prohibitions of the 20's... that's why you used a Nelson for your figures... because Dreadnought-era ships DID NOT get these kinds of refits, only the ships that made it into the Treaty-era did.

P3D, the outcry over this should be an indication that it kills the enjoyment of the game. Realism is one thing, but we are in a fictional world with fictional nations and fictional situations. Tailoring the conditions a bit to preserve enjoyment of the game (and simplify things, as you are claiming to do while constantly changing the rules to the point no one can keep up) isn't a bad thing.

In this case, too MUCH realism is worse than not enough.

American pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers did get refits during their careers, though not the massive ones.  First was to change the pole mast to a cage mast.  I think there were minor other things they did to correct flaws in the designs.  Then during the Great War the ships were refitted again (sort of) by having most if not all of their lighter guns removed.  I believe most of these were shipped out in convoys (to arm the freighters with from my understanding).  Some ships did get engine refits.

Quote from: Ithekro on December 19, 2007, 12:00:35 PM
American pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers did get refits during their careers, though not the massive ones.  First was to change the pole mast to a cage mast.  I think there were minor other things they did to correct flaws in the designs.  Then during the Great War the ships were refitted again (sort of) by having most if not all of their lighter guns removed.  I believe most of these were shipped out in convoys (to arm the freighters with from my understanding).  Some ships did get engine refits.

Yes, they had normal wear and tear corrected. Some got cage masts.
This is a 'refit.' They are not worth 20% as they didn't make the ships more combat effective, just kept them operational.

Some got new boilers, many had guns over 4" removed.
THIS IS NOT A REFIT- it's a 'rebuild' under our rules. THIS is what SHOULD cost 20% of a ship's purchase price.

I'm not seeing this aspect.  Please explain how that is baised?

Quote from: Ithekro on December 19, 2007, 12:14:18 PM
I'm not seeing this aspect.  Please explain how that is baised?

A small country with a short coastline needs few ships.
They can maintain  2 or 3 capital ships, and can get away with it. They don't need a large fleet core. Thus, they don't have a lot to refit.
A larger country must maintain a larger navy, and thus a larger core battleline. They have to, simply put, 'cover more ground.'

By charging 20% every 10 years, you are strangling the larger country to keep it's navy going, while allowing the smaller country less penalty. As a large country that has a tiny population, I feel the pinch FAR more. Orange has a similar population, but only 1/3 the area to cover. It only needs about 1/3 the fleet I do. I'm trying to maintain a two-ocean fleet on a shoestring budget not much bigger than Orange's.

Maintaining a realistic navy for your country's area cannot be done under these new rules, unless you are Rohan/France/MK, or you are a tiny nation.
It just gets too expensive to keep ships floating. Nations like the DKB, NS, Japan and the Netherlands will feel htis pinch even more with the vast distances their nations cover.

Before you go too far into crying poor remember there are other nations that have far worse military demands and even smaller budgets to work with.  I sympathies to your problem as I don't see it possible to build Battleships on my budget, but we are going to have to just tough it out.  I think what you are really finding out is that your military is oversized for your economy.

Michael

Quote from: miketr on December 19, 2007, 01:29:42 PM
Before you go too far into crying poor remember there are other nations that have far worse military demands and even smaller budgets to work with.  I sympathies to your problem as I don't see it possible to build Battleships on my budget, but we are going to have to just tough it out.  I think what you are really finding out is that your military is oversized for your economy.

Michael

Mike,

If if can be done in RL, it SHOULD be able to be done in the sim.
It's not that our militaries are too big- it's that the penalties imposed on them are.

Either the economy needs to be adjusted to allow for a realistic sized military or the upkeep cost needs to be decreased proportional to our economies. The simplest solution is to shrink the refit cost a bit and continue with the game.

Yes, your nation is hard-hit.
I'm complaining on your behalf as well.


And my military is NOT oversized for my economy... hell it's not adequate to defend my nation. With the new refit rules, it'll become impossible to field a fleet that can cover my defensive needs. Shit... what's YOUR situation, with your extremely inadequate fleet? Don't you think it's a bit oppressive to have to pay that kind of money when you don't have enough ships to cover your empire, and due to it will never really be able to?

Something needs to be done.
Making the refit cost smaller is the easiest thing.




ADDENDUM:

Oh, who in here is the most cost-conscious?
Who is building 17,000t semi-dreadnoughts while everyone else is building 23-25000t super-dreadnoughts? Who is trying to remove some of the need for destroyers by building cheap, merchant standard patrol craft for coastal work rather than using more expensive craft? Who was the first person building destroyers SMALLER than his tech level's max size?

I'm cutting as many corners as possible, and STILL falling short on money.
There's a problem other than 'my military is too large' if that's the case. Something about the system is screwed up.
Perhaps it's the insane population gap?

I think the perceptual problem here is the use of the word "manditory".  I never viewed refit rules as manditory, just something one should do if one wants a ship to stay at the front line, or at least be as viable as she was when she was designed.  Most places I've seen have 25% cost life-time extention programs for their sims.  These are to replace all the fitting on a ship so it can function as it would normally.    I think it was refit every 10-15 years in service.  A rebuild sometime between 15-20 years of service, and  reconstruction after 25-30 years of service (if one still wanted to operate that vessel).  These were if one wanted to keep the ships as first rate.  If they didn't they could skip the refits and other things, or just do one rebuild or reconstruction sometime around the ship being 10-20 years old and hope the ship holds together for another 10-20 years  When ships were not refitted, their parts wore out and things didn't function like they should.

However I do have to ask what our maintenance rules are paying for?  Just upkeep of men and machine?  If so, then the ships shouldn't degrade all that much without a refit, but some things just don't work as well as they would if they were new.  Most refits and rebuilds in the pre-Treaty era would be to make a ship into something else, or a reconstruction to alter the ship radically from what it once was (see several ironclad-ish and 1870s battleships that survived into the 20th century...especially Russian ships).

Having the refits be manditory is not exactly the case (suggested is likely a better word).  However no one was refitting their ships because they didn't have to, so I suppose that is where the "manditory" came from.  If you want your ships to not perform up to specs. than don't refit them, or just wait a few years and rebuild the vessel.  If the ship is still not worth it, at best it is second line (reserve) quality and should not be used like a first line vessel anymore, even if it is being paid for at first line levels.

Also there is a phrase missing "in service" because it is easier to know what a ship was laid down rather than when it was commissioned into service.  Ships laid down in 1897 will probably not have been in service since 1897.  By 1909 then will probably have been in service for 10 years, depending on what type of ship it is.  The Bregos that Rohan just sold are not yet 20 years in service.  The first one was only laid down 20 years ago in 1889.

Remember while your resources are stretched at the same time your possible enemies have the same problem.  The economics cut everyone the same way.  Yes I would like a budget much larger than it is, my military situation is a nightmare as I have said as much several times.  So while you believe you lack the resources for a larger force what type of threat do you actually face?   

If anything in the game is broken my money, no pun intended, is on the army costs.  I think there massively out of wack.  Look at your army costs compared to your navy, its 3 to 1 between the two. 

I have fairly good budget data on the German Empire and an actual budget for A-H.  Let me run some numbers compared to historic....

Michael

Quote from: miketr on December 19, 2007, 04:57:41 PM
Remember while your resources are stretched at the same time your possible enemies have the same problem.  The economics cut everyone the same way.  Yes I would like a budget much larger than it is, my military situation is a nightmare as I have said as much several times.  So while you believe you lack the resources for a larger force what type of threat do you actually face?   

If anything in the game is broken my money, no pun intended, is on the army costs.  I think there massively out of wack.  Look at your army costs compared to your navy, its 3 to 1 between the two. 

I have fairly good budget data on the German Empire and an actual budget for A-H.  Let me run some numbers compared to historic....

Michael

Might that not have quite a bit to do with the fact that most of us seems to have far larger armies then historically?
But that armies are more expensive then fleets is not something i have any real problem with, but that might be due to me having the smallest army of any PC countries (I think).
I do not see any real need to change the cost of ground forces.

I think i agree with Itheriko on the pint about "mandatory", if you intend to replace a ship after around 15 years, there is not much point in spending large amounts of money to refit it after ten; it is throwing good money after bad.

Looking at the Swedish navy, most ships built in the 1900-1915 period did not get any major refits until the late thirties, so after around 20 years after commission. And they were not worn out rust buckets by then either.

The numbers are based on historical ratios. Land forces cost all the money you had plus an arm and leg.

Some price data for Austria-Hungary and others

1913 Naval budget 74 million Krone (no ship laid down save some TBs)
1914 Navy size 260,000t
Army 574M Krone

comparison:
UK: 2,207,000t(1914)
1913 Naval Budget 1052M Krone
1913 Army Budget 589M Krone

Cost figures for battleships:
Battleships
Erzherzog class 10600t, 26.5M
Radetzky 14500t 42M
Tegethoff 80M

Novara cruiser 3500t, 10.4M
Huszar class, 400t, 1.5M
Tatra class, 850t, 3M
200t TB 0.7M
250t TB 1M
Pola coaler 12000t, 7M
Chameleon minelayer 1000t 2.56M

Quote from: Borys
Dave Bender helped me with corps rising cost. The 1912 army expansion, which added two corps districts - 2 Active, 2 Reserve, 1 Landwehr, 5 corps in total, cost 1 billion/miliard Marks. So, the best equipped army in the world at that date paid 200M marks per corps. This of course buys you the heavy artillery, bridging trains, Pioniere battalion, etc, etc.

Bayern cost 50M mark so the corps are rather on the cheap side in Navalism.

The 1912 expansion did not add 5 corps to the German OOB.  The Germans had for years been planning on making a mobilization only Corps formations of random units lying around which is what the Landwehr and Ersatz Corps were.  The Ersatz Corps wasn't even officially formed till August 18th 1914 and was disbanded on September 18th. The early drafts of the S Plan called for 3 mobilization only or Kriegs Corps to be formed out of various garrison units and misc units.  26 Corps formations and 20 unassigned reserve infantry divisions.  Looking just at corps were 15 corps created between 1905 and 1914?  Yes but were the corps created from scratch?  No, see below.   

There infantry battalions in many cases were already standing and were not raised in the 1912 expansion.  What had been happening since the 1897 expansion of the army was new technical formations had been raised, signals, machine gun, engineer, etc. and they took away battalions from the line regiments to find the manpower for these new logistics formations.  The 1912 only added ONE new Regiment formation, the 182th based at Freiberg and 13 artillery regiments.  What the 1912 expansion did besides the above units was restore the various infantry battalions (11 I believe from Borys) looted since 1898, formed a number of HQ units, Corps, Division and Brigade, a lot more MG sections, logistics support, etc.  All told 136,000 men added to the OOB, which was not finished at war start. 

The expansion provided a HQ for the Landwehr (the landwehr units were already around), 2 active corps HQ's, some infantry divisions but none of them were created from scratch in true sense; mostly the support units that allow the corps to function but not the bulk of there manpower.  The first totally new corps the Germans added were Reserve Corps XXII to XXVII and Corps Zastrow in October 1914 out of the war volunteers.  All new infantry regiments, MG, HQ's (but not all as brigade HQ's were some times upgraded to a Corps HQ) and artillery stolen from various sources.

At best you can make a claim for 3 corps but I think thats pushing it personally.  Especially when you consider the mobilization size of the German army.

I was working on this post when I saw yours.  I will finish the navy part when I get some free time.

German Naval Budget 1913-14 467,300,000 Gold Marks; 1 GM converts to 0.0489 pounds sterling.  So in pounds the German budget was, £22,850,970.  Source Luxury Fleet by Holger H. Herwig.  Now to factor out the expansion of the navy, this is going to be rough only.  Baden and Bayern were laid down that year, they cost 50,000,000 a ship, the previous class were 45 million.  The 12" gun BC's were over 55 million a ship.  Now the problem is the Germans did payment as go type setup.  Build the ship to X point and you get paid till that point.  So it wasn't paid in one lump sum.  Using some rough estimates on the costs per year we knock off about 166 million GM, so the upkeep budget is 300 million GM or £14,670,000.

German Army Budget for 1913 was £80,938,522; however, that includes the 1912 army budge to expand the peace time army by a fair degree.  The 1911 budget was 39,955,932; the previous budgets back to 1906 are fairly close to that value so it's basically upkeep of the army plus misc projects.  Source The Arming of Europe and the making of the First World War by David G. Herrmann.

Now the German army at mobilization had 40 Corps level formations, with roughly 2 divisions per corps. 1 Guard Corps, 3 Bavarian, 21 Regular Army, 12 Reserve Corps, 1 Guard Reserve Corps, 1 Bavarian Reserve and 1 Landwehr corps.  Source Imperial German Army 1914-1918 by Hermann Cron.  In game terms its one elite formation, 24 regular and 15 reserve with no specialist warfare formations all line infantry.

In game terms the German navy as of 1913 was...  I need more time to assemble this part.

Michael     

In game terms the German army would cost...

Assuming 5/3 units...


Grade, Cost, #, total cost
elite   2.5   1   2.5
active   1.25   24   30
reserve   0.25   15   3.75
         36.25


From www.german-navy.de

The 1913 navy was about, 1.1 million tons, max displacement on 298 ships.  Assuming ships 10 years old or older in reserve you looking at an upkeep of 17.  If we hammer down the displacement by 20% because max load vs. light we are still looking at an upkeep of 13.675

A ratio of 13.675 to 36.25  or .377 to 1
The historic ratio was 14,67 to 39.955 or .367 to 1

I am impressed...  almost a perfect match, I wasn't expecting that.

Michael

Ahoj!
Yes, I now know that the 1912 corps grouped existing Regiments, even Divisions, only adding HQs, Divisional and Crps troops.  I am not sure if I was aware of that when I passed on this info to P3D.
At that point in time P3D and I were grasping about for any sort of ballpark estimates of army funding requeriments. 200M Marks per corps may be off by 100% - but it was still better than nothing.

BTW - that British army budget - that's about 5-6 Advanced Elite and 6 Baseline (or Advanced?) Reserve Corps in Navalism terms.
Borys

Can we all just agree to disagree with the refit rules?  I suppose it comes down to two tlhings:
1)How extensive is a refit by definition?
2)To what extent do ships degrade without a refit in the allotted 10 years?

If the answer to 1) is; Scrape the hull, new paint, replace normal wear and tear items like belts, hoses, etc... and no real material work like upgraded boilers or relineing guns then:
A)What are the HY mantenance costs paying for?
B) Why so damn expensive?
If the answer to 2) is; Less then 25% battle effectiveness then I'll wait and just replace the old PC's and TBs with new ones. If it's more than 25% degradation then I'll put them in reserve and wait it out until I can replace them.  It's about the same price for new ships which will be 2 or more times better than the old ones even after a refit.

Relining guns and replacing worn-out boiler parts is included in the refit cost. So does like gun elevation increase.

Quote from: P3D on December 20, 2007, 10:42:32 AM
So does like gun elevation increase.

I would define this as "rebuild". "Reconstruction". Or "modernisation".
Borys

Refit, like a decadal spring cleaning? Just keeping the ships working at the "old top spec".

Or

Refit like the bulging and AA suiting of the Revenge class?

I am for
the former

The decadal spring cleaning.   Shouldn't warant 20% cost.

10% at best, and then the ship is as good as new. But no changes to the structure can be made
(no changes  in the SpringSharp file.)

QuoteOh, who in here is the most cost-conscious?
Who is building 17,000t semi-dreadnoughts while everyone else is building 23-25000t super-dreadnoughts? Who is trying to remove some of the need for destroyers by building cheap, merchant standard patrol craft for coastal work rather than using more expensive craft? Who was the first person building destroyers SMALLER than his tech level's max size?

Ummm... That would be me.

Only one planned Battlecruiser stuffed into 15,000 tons (armor? who needs armor?). Multi-purpose 270 ton DDs replacing regular DDs, and then getting replaced by 170 ton Patrol Torpedo Boats. Very few planned full size DDs, replacement plans where for 590 ton DDs. I felt the pinch quite some time ago.

Only way to solve the problem was to merger with Japan. Which BTW would not have had the capacity to build anything remotely like the OTL IJN.

Quote from: Borys on December 20, 2007, 11:18:39 AM

Quote from: P3D on December 20, 2007, 10:42:32 AM
So does like gun elevation increase.

I would define this as "rebuild". "Reconstruction". Or "modernisation".
Borys

A change in gun elevation would have a cost expressed in the tiniest fraction even when rounded up. I did not want to have every minute details of the modernization to be spelled out, but apparently people would like to have another half page detailing the actual state of every ship.
Refit includes all regular maintenance and small modernizations (and they do add up).

Reconstruction should be limited to stuff that involves additional yard work, installing and/or replacing thousand tons of steel.

I can repeat what was said earlier. If you want to keep ships to soldier on without the maintenance, you can do that, but
a/ engine won't be as reliable and capable of the same speed as before
b/ everyday stuff breaking down, in need for replacement reduces habitability somewhat
c/ worn-out guns will limit both armor penetration and the training time available.

The 10-year refit/maintenance call is also there to reflect time that ships spend in drydocks between the overhauls. See how much time HMS Hood spent in the docks every year. This again is to ease administration burden, to get the ship done with all the dock visits once.

We can introduce an 'overhaul' which cost less (or downgrade 'refit' to mean just as much). However, then someone have to define the cost of all the minor modernization work.

Basically, after a 'refit' your ship has the capability as a new, worked-out ship with similar specs. Most probably those specs (guns, armor, speed, range) would be inferior to newer and bigger ships, but still.

A basic 'overhaul' would make the ship as capable as it was 10 years ago.

Does anyone have cost figures for like changing gun elevation, or installing AA armament, depth charges? Or like modernizing the turrets?
Guess we have to ask around another forum.

Quote from: P3D on December 20, 2007, 12:29:19 PM
We can introduce an 'overhaul' which cost less (or downgrade 'refit' to mean just as much). However, then someone have to define the cost of all the minor modernization work.

Basically, after a 'refit' your ship has the capability as a new, worked-out ship with similar specs. Most probably those specs (guns, armor, speed, range) would be inferior to newer and bigger ships, but still.

A basic 'overhaul' would make the ship as capable as it was 10 years ago.

Yay!

Quote from: P3D on December 20, 2007, 12:29:19 PMDoes anyone have cost figures for like changing gun elevation, or installing AA armament, depth charges? Or like modernizing the turrets?
Guess we have to ask around another forum.

The "overhaul" = "as good as new" = 10%
The "refit" = "as good as new" + "new knuckle duster and alu hub caps" = 25%?

Borys

Problem is that it is very difficult to justify the costlier method with 100-150% price increase. What numbers would be represented in the actual battle sim? I'd rather have some numbers for actual refit and overhaul cost before changing the rule.

Ahoj!
10% basic for "as good as new" + 10% "latest FC, radio, radar" + specific BP and $ of changes?

Borys

Quote from: P3D on December 20, 2007, 12:29:19 PM

Quote from: Borys on December 20, 2007, 11:18:39 AM

Quote from: P3D on December 20, 2007, 10:42:32 AM
So does like gun elevation increase.

I would define this as "rebuild". "Reconstruction". Or "modernisation".
Borys

A change in gun elevation would have a cost expressed in the tiniest fraction even when rounded up. I did not want to have every minute details of the modernization to be spelled out, but apparently people would like to have another half page detailing the actual state of every ship.
Refit includes all regular maintenance and small modernizations (and they do add up).

Reconstruction should be limited to stuff that involves additional yard work, installing and/or replacing thousand tons of steel.

I can repeat what was said earlier. If you want to keep ships to soldier on without the maintenance, you can do that, but
a/ engine won't be as reliable and capable of the same speed as before
b/ everyday stuff breaking down, in need for replacement reduces habitability somewhat
c/ worn-out guns will limit both armor penetration and the training time available.

The 10-year refit/maintenance call is also there to reflect time that ships spend in drydocks between the overhauls. See how much time HMS Hood spent in the docks every year. This again is to ease administration burden, to get the ship done with all the dock visits once.

We can introduce an 'overhaul' which cost less (or downgrade 'refit' to mean just as much). However, then someone have to define the cost of all the minor modernization work.

Basically, after a 'refit' your ship has the capability as a new, worked-out ship with similar specs. Most probably those specs (guns, armor, speed, range) would be inferior to newer and bigger ships, but still.

A basic 'overhaul' would make the ship as capable as it was 10 years ago.

Does anyone have cost figures for like changing gun elevation, or installing AA armament, depth charges? Or like modernizing the turrets?
Guess we have to ask around another forum.

Ok, most such things i took for granted was included in the general upkeep of a ship.
More frequent replacements of barrels and engine parts I included in the extra cost of wartime upkeep, and that that reason it cost twice as much as active service to compensate for the extra wear. This need for general dry-dock visits was the reason I kept most of my dry-docks open during the war (although barrel replacement does not require a drydock). And more then one of my ships had fired more then 200 shells during the conflict.

What I am interested in is what the function of this rule, what is it supposed achieve?
If just to compensate costs, why not raise general upkeep?

And I still think then years in service are a very short time unless the ship has had an extremely active service, and they that extra wear is covered by the extra cost of war time upkeep.

I think the wording should be changed to "recommended refit every 10-15 years, or the ship might suffer degraded combat ability".

Hm, was there anyone but me who refitted a large ship under the 25% BP rule?

I did it in N2-verse.

Since an 'active' warship generally spends about half it's time in a port*, fixing normal 'wear and tear', P3D, I see no need for 'normal wear and tear' to necessitate a 10 year 'refit'.

Why not just leave thing as they were?
Instead of making things more simple, all your changes are making them more complex. Complex ruins the game for those of us that are more in it for 'fun' than painstaking historical accuracy. I mean, why not give a little bit of license in the name of overall simplicity and fun?

Haven't we had enough rule changes as it is?


*admittedly, this is form the experience of my friends in the Navy and not a book, and most of them were on subs, but they averaged about 6 months at sea for every 6 months in port.

Quote from: Carthaginian on December 20, 2007, 01:11:09 PM
Since an 'active' warship generally spends about half it's time in a port*, fixing normal 'wear and tear', P3D, I see no need for 'normal wear and tear' to necessitate a 10 year 'refit'.

Why not just leave thing as they were?
Instead of making things more simple, all your changes are making them more complex. Complex ruins the game for those of us that are more in it for 'fun' than painstaking historical accuracy. I mean, why not give a little bit of license in the name of overall simplicity and fun?

Haven't we had enough rule changes as it is?


*admittedly, this is form the experience of my friends in the Navy and not a book, and most of them were on subs, but they averaged about 6 months at sea for every 6 months in port.

I would like to add that I think most of the recent rule changes have been for the better.

I was refitting purchased warships at 25% so they would meet Rohirrim standards and bring them up to service levels (the later Confederate purchased ships), plus 25% refits on old ships in reserve to bring them up to date in fighting terms (the older Armored Cruisers and Battleships that were used late in the Anahuac War).

I did minimal refits on the older Confederate purchased protected cruisers (7%) just to switch some light guns and trim them out/clean them up for service as there was a rush to get them out to sea during the war.  They served well for ten years, but were never ideal for any task other that patrol.

Most other ships that have been worked on have gotten rebuilds (Eomer, Arcadias, Brytta) to fit them with better engines and weapons (or weapon mounts).

The exact details of what the maintenance/refit covers was not really determined.
The more frequent 10-yearly maintenance was also to account for time not only the ship using drydock time, but also for the time the ship is not available for the fleet. As experience showed in N-verse, 15 year is too long time period, people would delay refits and just scrap ships at the end of it, while they are available all the time during that 15 years.
One of the main reasons I wanted cutting this time to 10 years would make sure people would repair ships. Keeping a record that which actual ship is available is just too much administrative pain, and 1 out of 5-6 usually would not be, even in wartime.
People would argue that all the repairs would be timed so that when war happens all their fleet is right after the timely overhauls.
A universal 2-year refit to represent this unavailability would be justified to represent this (or one year every 5 that must be spent in docks).
We can also have a record of  'actual' ship age, with wartime years wearing down the ships fast, counting double, but there are ones who thinks that would be unnecessary burden. An dispense with 'mobilized' status, as most of the expenses are personal, staying the same regardless of it is war or peace.

Quote from: P3D on December 20, 2007, 01:28:07 PM
As experience showed in N-verse, 15 year is too long time period, people would delay refits and just scrap ships at the end of it, while they are available all the time during that 15 years.

One of the main reasons I wanted cutting this time to 10 years would make sure people would repair ships. Keeping a record that which actual ship is available is just too much administrative pain, and 1 out of 5-6 usually would not be, even in wartime.

SO...

Basically you're saying "I did this to force people to refit their ships rather than scrap them after they became useless?"

So, it all comes out.

It's not about accurate repair times, or anything like that.
It's just to make sure that people didn't just use ships till they became useless, and then decide to scrap them. Instead, you make them repair them every 10 years and thus extend their lifespan or risk not having the 'perform perfectly' *very subjective and totally based on your whim* when they go into an operation.

Seems this IS to force us to spend money on old ships and ensure use of repair/refit rules outside of wartime instead of just building a class of ship, using it till obsolete, and then scrapping and building a new class.

Ahoj!
So - everybody happy with "overhaul" = "as good as when built" - every ten years, for 10% of $, takes 6 months in drydock?

And we can murder one another over the cost of making CHANGES to ships tommorrow?
:D

Borys

*sigh*

I'm not sure it this is a forced procedure like people are making it out to be, but more a method of keeping people from using ships and saying they are just fine even if the ship is 20 years old and never spent a day in drydock.  Being part of a maintainance department for a building for a time I could see the effects of age on things.  Normal wear, even if things are maintained, will degrade things to the point they have to be replaced.  And that is not just simple things and wear parts like on cars.  That's the the kind of stuff that requires you to take out a wall, or remove electrical systems, or replace solid engine pieces.  When you are done (assuming you can find the exact parts you need from when the item was built) the building, car, or ship, is back to a state that is was originanlly.  However such thing are usually not regular maintenance (since you don't replace things normally, you just keep them clean, full, lubricated, or whatever).  Things get old.  Things wear out.

Now the cost of all this...well that is the question.  Should it be reflected in the Maintenance upkeep or saved up for a refit?

Of course the question is, what value is a coutry trying to get out of its warships?  Do they want them to last for their entire hull life and be viable as the day they were built?  Or do they want new and exciting warships and to hell with the old stuff?  In the building analogy I was using, the later was true.  The building (now about 40 year old) was starting to show signs of falling apart.  It would require a rebuild to get it fully fuctional and looking good.  No one wanted to pay for that, but everyone wanted to build a new building, even though they could affort to rebuild the existing one, and could not yet afford to build the new one.  So the old building limps on and on while people attempt to raise money to build a new building.  The maintenance is still being paid for, but the building degrades more and more.  One wonders how long until it actually falls apart.

Quote from: Carthaginian on December 20, 2007, 02:39:27 PM
SO...
Basically you're saying "I did this to force people to refit their ships rather than scrap them after they became useless?"

No. I did this so people would have to pay at least a minimal attention to periodic upkeeps, as the 15-year rule was apparently not working at all, people were just building new shiny ships and completely neglecting upgrades.

QuoteSo, it all comes out.

Your only problem is that the CSA just cannot afford the navy you wish to have, as it needs to maintain a heavy army against its neighbors. You rather blame the stupid rules changes (TM) and dictatoristic moderators than make hard choices in your build scedule.
As I look at the numbers, I see that the CSA is the most heavily industrialized nation, having 6$ income for each BP. You'd have only 19-20BP to be in line

Nevermind that the new rules allows you to build a bigger fleet than before, and you just don't have the money too fully utilize your oversized heavy industry (but keep building BPs instead of IC to change the equation).

QuoteIt's not about accurate repair times, or anything like that.
It's just to make sure that people didn't just use ships till they became useless, and then decide to scrap them. Instead, you make them repair them every 10 years and thus extend their lifespan or risk not having the 'perform perfectly' *very subjective and totally based on your whim* when they go into an operation.

Besides make up rules reflecting the effect *totally subjective and totally based on my whim* is to declare that ships which do not get their periodic upgrades are totally useless and would sink on the second day leaving port (or something).
Otherwise people won't bother.

QuoteSeems this IS to force us to spend money on old ships and ensure use of repair/refit rules outside of wartime instead of just building a class of ship, using it till obsolete, and then scrapping and building a new class.

It is to force people to get their ships periodically out of the OOB because otherwise they won't do so - their full force somehow will be available when the war starts.

The difference between upgrade and limited modernization is very hard to quantify.

Quote from: P3D on December 20, 2007, 04:12:54 PM

Quote from: Carthaginian on December 20, 2007, 02:39:27 PM
SO...
Basically you're saying "I did this to force people to refit their ships rather than scrap them after they became useless?"

No. I did this so people would have to pay at least a minimal attention to periodic upkeeps, as the 15-year rule was apparently not working at all, people were just building new shiny ships and completely neglecting upgrades.

To be honest I fail to see what the problem with that is .

After all, considering the pace of progress, a 10-15 year old ship is highly obsolete, so spending lots of money on a ship that have already been used up and basically is awaiting scarping is not worth it.
And the upkeep we are paying for shold include periodic upkeep and dry-dock visits, but IMO there is no huge need so go into great detail about it.
As technological progress gets less radical (I think we are around the peak at the moment), older ships will have greater usage, and so will see more upgrading and refiting.

I hope people does not take things here too personally, by and large I think the mods have done a very good job on the rules, and the latest updates were a great improvement that those responsible should have a lot of credit for.

There will always be thing about rules to discuss, and I think it is a good thing that is discussed every now and then, so that we can get it out of the system and move on.

Once again I cant say for anyone else, but for me refits are almost a waste.  ill begin replacing my out of date cruisers in H1-10.  gona post the replacement later tonite (once i finish the pic)

Quote from: Desertfox on December 20, 2007, 12:19:45 PM

QuoteOh, who in here is the most cost-conscious?
Who is building 17,000t semi-dreadnoughts while everyone else is building 23-25000t super-dreadnoughts? Who is trying to remove some of the need for destroyers by building cheap, merchant standard patrol craft for coastal work rather than using more expensive craft? Who was the first person building destroyers SMALLER than his tech level's max size?

Ummm... That would be me.

Only one planned Battlecruiser stuffed into 15,000 tons (armor? who needs armor?). Multi-purpose 270 ton DDs replacing regular DDs, and then getting replaced by 170 ton Patrol Torpedo Boats. Very few planned full size DDs, replacement plans where for 590 ton DDs. I felt the pinch quite some time ago.

Only way to solve the problem was to merger with Japan. Which BTW would not have had the capacity to build anything remotely like the OTL IJN.

Well I think we are looking at different solutions to similar problems.
I am building max size destroyers as I want to be able to both redeploy them between oceans, and use them for extended operations, something smaller destroyers, no matter their range or relative seakeeping, is not able to do (the reason why accommodations is fairly good on Dutch ships). So I am building 750 ton destroyers as that is cheaper then building two 500 ton ships to do the same job.

Carthaginian: You are not the only one who has been building small cheap patrol boats to reduce the wear and tear on the destroyers, I got loads of gunboats for that purpose.

So...what was the point of this arguement again?

That the word manditory was used for refits every 10 years?

That some people flat out don't want to refit their fleets because they have ships they believe are useless to keep in service and would rather replace them with newer ships?

Questions of my own:  What period of history are we in?  Predreadnought -Dreadnought era.  A time when most old ships were rapidly becoming obsolite.  What time period were there a lot of refits and rebuilds to keep fleets functional for longer?  Ironclad-predreadnought era and Washington treaty era.  The former because of serious shifts in weaponry while the vessels were not all that old, or a lot of experiments with armor and weapons layout.  In the later, because new ship construction was restricted.  In the early Dradnought era we have a huge increase in industry and ships grew rapidly in speed, armor, and firepower.  The predreadnought era ships could not be modified enough to compete with the newer ships and were thus given second tier and third tier duties until their hulls aged out.  Some got refits, but this seems to be more to take stuff off the ships and make them less useful or useful in a different roll than it was originally designed for. 

So the question becomes: Why do nations refit ships?  And when don't they refit ships?  Is it cheaper to refit an older warship to keep it in service, or build a new one that can do the job much better than the old one?  Is is worth refitting or rebuilding?  Rohan looked at the Bregos and said they were not worth refitting and they were not what the Mark wanted for coastal defense so they were sold.  The Theodens were seen as workable for the second line forces and thus are being rebuilt with more modern weapons and engines.  The old destroyers and torpedo boats are extremely outdated and the older protected cruisers are just worn out.

QuoteIt is to force people to get their ships periodically out of the OOB because otherwise they won't do so - their full force somehow will be available when the war starts.

This is a valid concern.  Even an aggressor with a timetable is going to have vessels out of service, because stuff breaks.  

However, an alternative might be to state, up front, that 10% (or whatever) of a fleet is out of service for refits/repairs/trials in any given time.  The mods can roll dice for each category of ship to determine which battleship, which cruiser(s), etc., happen to be out of service when the balloon goes up.  

QuoteAfter all, considering the pace of progress, a 10-15 year old ship is highly obsolete, so spending lots of money on a ship that have already been used up and basically is awaiting scarping is not worth it.

I agree - but in my mind, this is a temporary situation largely due to the switch from VTE to turbines.  A 1905 turbine-powered ships is likely to see a life in excess of 10-15 years (unless Foxy gets to it first), in which case she's bound to need refurbishment eventually.

QuoteI hope people does not take things here too personally, by and large I think the mods have done a very good job on the rules, and the latest updates were a great improvement that those responsible should have a lot of credit for.

I agree.  

QuoteNow the cost of all this...well that is the question.  Should it be reflected in the Maintenance upkeep or saved up for a refit?

My viewpoint is coming round to this:

Maintenence = Keeping the ship operational with the technology originally installed in her.  

Refit/rebuild/refurbishment/pimp-my-dreadnought = Replacing old technology with new technology.  New wireless, new guns, new engines, new waffle irons, whatever.

In combat, we would see a difference between similar ships that have and have not been refitted.  One would have better wireless, better fire control, higher-performance guns, etc, than the other.

I do not have a hard suggestion on the specific cost of a refit, but am leaning towards a minimum cost in $/BP/time, plus whatever specific weapons/armor/miscelleneous weight is updated.

I like the roll idea Rocky.  While it would take time on this end of things, it would only need to be once once per side involved (because after that ships are likely going to be in port to get repaired....unless you are Swiss, then you keep your damaged ships going back into the fight even if she can't realistically fight anymore).

Rock Doctor,

I have looked over the posts you have made on refits and costs in Wesworld... the stickied one. Is that the standing refit cost table? I think it's fair and equitable. I also accept the roll idea as far as which ships would be out of service at the begining of the war for maintenance.

What I do not accept- Ithekro, P3D and everyone else- is the fact that the rules were changed, and the only SOLID explanation we've gotten is:

Quotepeople were just building new shiny ships and completely neglecting upgrades.

This is a time period where that was POLICY, dammit. Anyone who could afford to build new was doing so. Older ships were being mothballed faster than any time in history save the end of WWII, and newer ones coming online faster than at any other time save the beginning of WWII.


Ithekro:

QuoteThe predreadnought era ships could not be modified enough to compete with the newer ships and were thus given second tier and third tier duties until their hulls aged out.  Some got refits, but this seems to be more to take stuff off the ships and make them less useful or useful in a different roll than it was originally designed for.

This is PRECISELY what I'm arguing about. P3D is saying 'You need to upgrade, not build new ships. Thus, I will change a 15 year lifespan to 10 years, then kill of ships that might have 2-3 more years of useful service with a GM fiat, and thus impede the laydown and construction of new ships to take their place.
Borys' suggestion of a 10%/6 month 'maintenance call' is all we'd need to keep a ship in service at it's nominal operating capacity. We should NOT be charged the cost of a REFIT for ships that the RN rode hard and put up wet for a decade.. we are NOT doing that kind of work every time we pull our ships into a yard.

QuoteCarthaginian: You are not the only one who has been building small cheap patrol boats to reduce the wear and tear on the destroyers, I got loads of gunboats for that purpose.

Not so much wear and tear as to eliminate them.
I'm trying to sell/phase out as many as possible.
Destroyers for the fleet, and sloops for the coast.
Really, it's the only way to afford a fleet big enough for most of us to cover our coasts or necessary SLoC.

My take on all of this is: Carthaginian's main original point was that before the rule change his line of thinking is: "I have ships that are marginaly useful, at best, that I will be replacing soon, but can't right now. Since they don't "Need" refit until they're 15 y/o they're still ok for patrol/coastal protection. Now all of the sudden, without warning, they're overdue for a refit and even more useless, I still can't afford to replace them yet, and now I have to find $ to refit them or pay the penalty. How is this fair?"  Sound about right? I'm I missing the point?

Also, P3D, you do good work, and alot of it, this whole thing is way out of hand by now, but no reason to take the "Well fine, I'll take my ball and go home" approach.  Take a few days, calm down, and think about it.  I'm sure Carth's not trying to personnaly blame you for everything, he's just upset by circumstance. Maybe if there had been some discussion before on "what a refit covers" and a warning of the new rule comming up this would not be happening.  And always remember "Rule #1, Play the game, not the rules."

It might be useful to come up with rules (or at least a common proceedure) on what happens to ships that don't get their refits.  Then it is just a matter of "is it worth it to refit this ship, or just leave it alone" choices.  My imaginations says that the problems will not be too bad in the 10-15 years of service period.  Slightly worse from the 15-20 year period, and then worse still at 20 and then again at 30 years in service without a refit.

Things like speed reductions, greater inaccuracy, perhaps lower crew moral during peacetime, and a roll for a possible critical hit at the start of a battle to simulate something not working correctly.  This added to Rocky's 10% suggestion to see if the ship didn't just break down at harbor and needs repairs/refit in order to even leave the harbor.  Most of these would be minor annoyances early on, but would start to accumilate over time.  After 30 years in service with no refit the hull might start to rebel against the ship in places and the ship may only be able to maintain her cruising speed without complaint from the engines.  Of for some reason the ship makes it to 60 year without a refit, the ship is rusting out, the hull is warping, and likely has several serious problems with the machinary and superstructure.  The guns probably don't work, or if they do, they work poorly.  The ship has been maintained, but stuff is just worn out from 60 years of being used.  If it passes every roll and is still serviceable in wartime...wow.  (Its like some of the older ships in the Mexican Navy or some of the few remaining World War II ships still serving in foreign navies, though most of those have had refits or rebuilds).

Quote from: Ithekro on December 21, 2007, 02:06:22 AM
It might be useful to come up with rules (or at least a common proceedure) on what happens to ships that don't get their refits.  Then it is just a matter of "is it worth it to refit this ship, or just leave it alone" choices.  My imaginations says that the problems will not be too bad in the 10-15 years of service period.  Slightly worse from the 15-20 year period, and then worse still at 20 and then again at 30 years in service without a refit.

Things like speed reductions, greater inaccuracy, perhaps lower crew moral during peacetime, and a roll for a possible critical hit at the start of a battle to simulate something not working correctly.  This added to Rocky's 10% suggestion to see if the ship didn't just break down at harbor and needs repairs/refit in order to even leave the harbor.  Most of these would be minor annoyances early on, but would start to accumilate over time.  After 30 years in service with no refit the hull might start to rebel against the ship in places and the ship may only be able to maintain her cruising speed without complaint from the engines.  Of for some reason the ship makes it to 60 year without a refit, the ship is rusting out, the hull is warping, and likely has several serious problems with the machinary and superstructure.  The guns probably don't work, or if they do, they work poorly.  The ship has been maintained, but stuff is just worn out from 60 years of being used.  If it passes every roll and is still serviceable in wartime...wow.  (Its like some of the older ships in the Mexican Navy or some of the few remaining World War II ships still serving in foreign navies, though most of those have had refits or rebuilds).

I LOVE IT, mental note stop maintnence on 1 ship just so I can have a Harbor Quean

Quoteadded to Rocky's 10% suggestion to see if the ship didn't just break down at harbor and needs repairs/refit in order to even leave the harbor. 

I didn't quite mean "the ship broke down as it was poised to sortie on Mission X" but rather, "the ship entered drydock for three months of work, and two weeks later, with her machinery strewn all over the place, a war started."  But you get the idea. 

An actual "stuff breaks at the last moment" roll might be appropriate as well, as it introduces some fog-of-war, but the odds of this happening would be somewhat lower, I'd think. 

QuoteI have looked over the posts you have made on refits and costs in Wesworld... the stickied one. Is that the standing refit cost table? I think it's fair and equitable.

I'll repost this here, substituting in Swampy's revision of the actual table, which appears further down that thread.  Note that "cost" in Wesworld is strictly measured in "warship materials" - BP; there is no currency/money.  Note also that I have some concerns over costs associated with armament, which seem steep:

QuoteModifying warships

There are a number of tasks that can be done to improve a warship. These are grouped into five categories, with increasing complexity, cost, and infrastructure requirements. The most complex task in a warship improvement project determines the overall cost and infrastructure requirement.

Cost is both the percentage of original building time required to do the work, and the percentage of the light displacement that must be spent in warship materials.

Infrastructure requirements are, in order of complexity:

None (N): The ship can anchor anywhere and do the task itself - provided it has miscellaneous weight to carry the materials needed.

Tender (T): The ship and a tender or repair ship can anchor anywhere to do the task - provided the ships have the miscellaneous weight to carry the materials needed.

Port (P): The ship must be anchored at a military facility containing at least one Port, Slip, or Drydock. The ship is considered to be tied up at a pier - it does not use a drydock.

Drydock (D): The ship must be in a drydock long enough to accommodate it.

Level 1: Manual Refits (Cost = 5%)

-Changes (number/quantity/type/location) to searchlights: N
-Changes to ship?s boats: N
-Changes to guns of 65mm and smaller not served by hoists: N
-Cosmetic or temporary changes to superstructure (ie, a fake funnel): N

Level 2: Minor Refits (cost = 15%)

-Changes to radar: P
-Changes to guns of 65mm and smaller served by hoists: T
-Changes to depth charge racks and throwers: T
-Changes to torpedo carriages: T
-Changes to gun directors: T
-Minor changes to superstructure (enclosing a bridge, adding a searchlight platform): T

Level 3: Major Refits (cost = 25%)

-Changes to catapults and/or above-decks seaplane hangers: P
-Changes to deck mount or turret armor: P
-Changes to conning tower armor: P
-Changes to external armor belts: P (upper), D (ends, main)
-Changes to underwater torpedo tubes: D
-Changes to sonar: D
-Changes to guns of 66mm-195mm not involving barbette alterations: P
-Refurbishment of internal fittings for life-extension purposes: P

Level 4: Partial Reconstruction (cost = 50%)

-Changes to bunkerage (type or quantity): P
-Replacement of superstructure: P
-Changes to internal belt armor: P (upper), D (ends, main)
-Changes to deck armor: P
-Changes to guns of 66mm-195mm involving barbette alterations: P
-Replacement of secondary barbettes with powerplant machinery: D
-Changes to guns 196mm and larger not involving barbette alterations: P
-Change to powerplant (type and output): D
-Change to bow form: D
-Change to trim of ship: D
-Change to torpedo bulkheads: D

Level 5: Total Reconstruction (cost = 75%)

-Changes to guns 196mm and larger involving barbette alterations: D
-Replacement of main barbette with powerplant machinery: D
-Insertion or removal of section of hull amidships: D
-Reshaping of stern: D

Note

There may be a scenario in which the most complicated task in a job is something requiring the use of a port - yet the job also includes a lesser task that requires the use of a drydock. For example, removal of submerged torpedoes (a 25% task) and a change to internal armor (a 50%) task. In this case the ship would have to spend 25% of its original build time in drydock, and the remaining 25% could either be spent in drydock or just in the port.

Is a little more complex than "20%=refit, ship works like new" but I like it.  Sometimes K.I.S.S. doesn't work.

Not nice.

BTW - shouldn't overhauls get moe expensive with ship age?
10% at 10 years, 15-20% at 20, and so on?
Borys

I think we had that discussion here at some point.  It was probably inconclusive.

Quote from: Borys on December 21, 2007, 07:27:06 AM
Not nice.

Sorry  :'(

Hey, I'm no Font of Ultimate Enlightement!
You like some things, I like other!
Lemme give you a hug!
Borys

Quote from: Borys on December 21, 2007, 07:44:28 AM
Hey, I'm no Font of Ultimate Enlightement!
You like some things, I like other!
Lemme give you a hug!
Borys

No hug, will send Bear Cavalry if you try.  I forgot my sarcasm sign on the last post.  I expect difference of opinion, if not it gets boring.  I like stimulating thought in others, so I expect to disagree often. ;D

I was thinking about it last night and came up with something (remembering that the original 10% suggestion was for the ship being tired up at port having work done).

At the start of a conflict:
All ships take a roll on a D20.
If the result is a 20 the ship is stuck in port for 3-90 days (3xD30) while work is being done to her. 
If the result is a 1 then the ship is stuck in port for 93-180 days (3xD30+90) while work is being done on her.

Now add to the previous:
If the ship has been in service for over 10 years and has not had a refit, have 1% equal 1 year of age  (if the vessel has had a refit during its life the age starts from when it finished its last refit).  Round up to the next 5% for the roll on the D20.

For ships 11-15 years old:
If the result on the D20 is a 2, than the ship has something important break down and will be in port for six months with some sort of repair fee needed to get her back in service.

For ships 16-20 years old:
If the result is a 2 or 3, than the ship has something important break down and will be in port for six months with some sort of repair fee needed to get her back in service.

For ships 21-25 years old:
If the result is a 2, 3, or 4, than the ship has something important break down and will be in port for six months with some sort of repair fee needed to get her back in service.

For ships 26-30 years old:
If the result is a 2, 3, 4, or 5, than the ship has something important break down and will be in port for six months with some sort of repair fee needed to get her back in service.

This pattern continues for ships over 30 years old except that results of 6 or greater (if the number is acceptible in relation to the ship's age) will result in a more serious breakdown that will require her to be serviced for a year and need a larger percentage of funds to repair. (likely a rebuild)

If somehow the ship survives to be over 60 years old without a refit, a result of 11 or greater (if the number is acceptible in relation to the ship's age) will result in structural failure.  The ship can be brought back into service, but will require reconstruction.

Sounds like an excellent plan, Ithekro.
It codifies things nicely without adding too much complexity.

Hello,

Just a quick comment, I have many distractions at the moment.

I like the random 'out of commision' ideas. This fits in well with RL history[(such as 1/3 rule for german subs in WW2-1/3 in port(being worked on),1/3 on station, 1/3 going to or returning from station or many times I have seen reports of 25% of early armored forces being down for maintenence at any given time- in June 1941 i've heard that upto 85% of USSR armor was down due to lack of spares and neglect)] but it will suck if you have just refitted everything and then a critical unit is down for repair(but it would still be realistic).

One more suggestion, this should also apply to any rushed projects and rushed repairs( ie, Prince of Wales hunt for Bismarck- turrets non functional basically at 50% combat efficiency shortly into the fight )

At the risk of starting WW7 here, should ships that have been refit not have to go through a new shakedown/sea trials period before they return to service? If so, how long? I really don't want to start another arguement, but I believe RL ships did do this after any real time in a drydock to check that all the new stuff works right.

Shake it, baby!

I assume there'd be a truncated shakedown period - a third or quarter of the usual shakedown requirement, maybe.  However, it's nothing something that needs to be actively monitored except during war time.