I have three requests for the moderators and the group as a whole:
1. Please delete, or exile to a "Dead Rules Forum", all rules that are not in effect. It will make it easier for all, especially new players, to figure out what they can/must do.
2. Please consider adopting a fixed schedule for major rule changes - say, at the end of every second or third sim-year - so we can plan out to that time period with some confidence that our planning will remain legally valid when it's done.
3. Please stop tinkering with things. We are too far along in the sim to be constantly futzing about with its basic mechanics. If something's good enough, leave it alone, even if it isn't necessarily "logical".
Thank you.
J
Ahoj!
I am working on #1.
If somebody notices something contradicting in two differernt places, please point it out to me.
The next round of tweaks will be in 1912. The pricing issue will be hopefully set in stone.
Borys
Just asking for a clarification, as i read it it is no possible to sub-trade a tech one have recived (from another player) and started implementing untill after one have implemented it fully. Am I correct?
Ahoj!
If I understand the question correctly - country X acquires technolgy Y from country Z. And - after digesting it for 1HY (or leaving on backburner), country X wants to sell tech to country A.
Correct?
I can see arguments for both sides - anybody care to chip in with their views?
Borys
I can actualy see it as quite propable that this would happen with some techs. (note im not saying im for or against it) examples would be plans for aircraft, engines, heck even guns.
Quote from: Borys on January 13, 2008, 02:33:33 PM
Ahoj!
If I understand the question correctly - country X acquires technolgy Y from country Z. And - after digesting it for 1HY (or leaving on backburner), country X wants to sell tech to country A.
Correct?
Correct
Quote
I can see arguments for both sides - anybody care to chip in with their views?
Borys
Well I am against it, as i see tech transfers as something more then just handing over a pack of blueprints and say "good luck".
If a country do not really have the means or understanding of a certain tech is feels strange to me if they would be able to aid someone else with that tech. If the 2nd hand receiver had any questions, they would not be able to get an answer as the giver cannot provide any expertise.
QuoteIf I understand the question correctly - country X acquires technolgy Y from country Z. And - after digesting it for 1HY (or leaving on backburner), country X wants to sell tech to country A.
From my perspective, the tech should be fully digested before it can be transferred on again; it's not as if Country Z could have sold it before
it had figured it all out.
I agree w/ Rocky and Korpen, fully degestion before selling it to anyone else.
I was under the impression one couldn't deliver something unless they had knowledge of it. That would mean that while a deal could be brokered before one has a tech, the delivery of said tech would not happen until one actually has that tech fuctional.
Quote from: Korpen on January 13, 2008, 03:02:05 PM
Quote from: Borys on January 13, 2008, 02:33:33 PM
I can see arguments for both sides - anybody care to chip in with their views?
Borys
Well I am against it, as i see tech transfers as something more then just handing over a pack of blueprints and say "good luck".
This is eactly the argument I saw for allowing such practices.
Ther mood seems to be "nay", and I'm OK with it.
Should this point be added/made expressly clear in the Rules section?
Borys
Tech transfers are in the Nverse a lot more common than in real life.
Normaly, a country doesn't want to see its "cutting edge" weapons or defensive systems in enemy hands.
Especialy by underhand deals from an "ally" to a "neutral" or even worse directly to an "enemy".
But it seems the Nverse leaders are a bit more pragmaticaly.
Still, technology not understood completely isn't easy to sell/trade.
If done, it's a small boost in research time, or worse, a setback as the data is false and ment to be a dead end.
Quote
We are revising slightly to tie weight to ship type, rather than ship displacement.
-Ships built to BB/AC rules require 250 t for FC.
-Ships built to DD/TB rules require 25 t for FC.
-Everything else equipped with FC, including protected cruisers, requires 100 t.
If a ship is built pre-1912 and is in conflict with the above, we will grandfather it; if you have already posted a 1912 design which is in conflict, we will have to ask you to revise the design.
FC weight will continue to be part of a ship's miscellaneous weight until you achieve the second level of Fire Control tech (1912) and, in the case of existing ships, then refit those ships. We will amend the tech tree shortly to clarify this.
Could you clarify the rule as 'ships laid down before 1912'?
About FC, the tech itself gives enough advantage on its own. If you want to spare that 50/100/250t with a tech, link it to the ship architecture techs instead.
Going for simplifications, what about having reports only once a year?
I'll make that clarification.
I'd prefer to stick with the next FC tech level determining the FC weight - it's not only a technical breakthrough with the FC equipment, but also better knowledge of how to effectively and efficiently design it into ships. It also avoids situations in which a navy has some ship types that would require miscellaneous weight, and others which do not.
As for sim reports, as noted, we're open to ideas. What do you see as an advantage in this? Just less number-crunching?
Hello,
I just laid down 2 single turret monitors (ala Arkansas/Drudge?) with 12"/35 guns(recycled) at about 3,000 tons. I used the 100 Ton FC. As I figured they wouldn't need 'full' BB FC with just one turret, and only one smallish mast. Is that OK?
If the 'Alabama' is OK, I had further plans for double twin monitors(12"/40 recycled)at about 5,000 tons. Would twin BB turrets require 250 Ton FC?
What about the twin turret mini BBs of Korpen and mine(I had planned on 250 Ton FC on 8,000 tons, I think Korpen was planning on 100 Ton FC on 6,000 tons).
Thanks for your time.
They are capital ship guns right? Don't they need the fire control to reach out and touch someone at captial ship gun ranges?
Ahoj!
My two cents ...
In all of the above cases, I'd suggest:
- coastal bombardment vessels (especially those with 12"/35 guns) go with 100 tonnes FC;
- ship to ship vessels - if wishing to fire at longer ranges - go with 250 tonnes FC.
Borys
250T for BBs FC...
That's too much for old BBs built before 1900. They use just single range finders on the blockaus.
250T FC is for range finder on the mast...did we consider a tripod mast ?
Jef ;)
Ahoj!
Pre 1910 BBs do NOT have FC, so no need to worry :)
- the Mk.I "Eyball" does not need misc. weight.
Rangefinding, Fire Control and Gunnery
(development takes twice as long as a normal tech)
1908: centralized FC, early directors - 12kyd
1912: primitive FC computers -18kyd
1918: Central director stations, long base-length RF - 24kyd
1928: Search radars, spotting planes, electromechanical FC computers - 30kyd
Borys
Hello,
Thanks for the info. I will leave the 35 calibre guns with 100 ton FC and alter the twin turret 40 cal to 250 ton FC.
Hopefully this wont affect Korpen too much. His two ships will be 'grandfathered' I suppose(twin 13.5"/45).
BTW, I meant 'Arkansas/Conqueror' not 'Drudge'. Conqueror had a normal hull with a low freeboard for the gun.
Gotta Go.
Ahoj
All I wrote is IMHO.
Borys
I think I could handle 100 t for a monitor with a single heavy turret. If somebody wants to use 100 t for a two-turret monitor (or, I suppose, pre-dread), I might not veto it, but it might come back to haunt them in a battle.
I can agree on that point there the change of things bitting one in the foot later.
Quote from: blooded on April 17, 2008, 08:59:35 AM
Hopefully this wont affect Korpen too much. His two ships will be 'grandfathered' I suppose(twin 13.5"/45).
I hope so, as they were laid down in 1911.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 17, 2008, 08:54:24 PM
I think I could handle 100 t for a monitor with a single heavy turret. If somebody wants to use 100 t for a two-turret monitor (or, I suppose, pre-dread), I might not veto it, but it might come back to haunt them in a battle.
Would that posibillity apply to the two 1911 ships (i hope not as they should be "'grandfathered")?
This is only an issue with ships laid down after 1/1/12.
Found this about tripod mast weight.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/cagvtrip.htm
QuoteWeight. - The comparison of weight given on page 5, enclosure (B) [not reproduced], is from the latest information available as regards the wieght of the foremast on H.M.S. HOOD. No absolutely accurate weights are available, but it can be safely said that the totoal weight of the tripod mast, including struts, mast, topmast, spotters' tops, defense, platform, etc., but not including the decks below the searchlight platform, os at least 100 tons. The increase in the size of the spotters' top, due to increasing the size of the range finders, increasing the diameter of the struts, and making the revolving hood for the 15" rangefinder and 15" director tower power-driven.
The total weight of about 23 tons for a single cage-mast for Battleships 49 to 51 given on page 5 of enclosure (B) [not reproduced], contemplates light plating for the sides of the spotters' top and director tower. For special treatment steel side plating the total weight would be increased about 4 tons. This weight provides for 3" x 1/4" tube, whereas in the old design of cage-mast the tube was 3" x 1/8".
I had some numbers that what sized fleet could be supplied from a naval base of given size, but when I looked at the rules, it was missing. Why was it deleted, when e.g. tenders do have such numbers listed?
Don't know. I'll have a peak.