QuoteRoll over BP: 0.0 + 5.5 BP of sheet steel from Japan + 3.0 BP of sheet steel from Italy
As you are not using that AS sheet steel (tin cans, plating & such things) is it not just BP transferee, which we have rules against?
1) The BP's were unused and are hanging around as sheet steel till 1913 H2. I lack the budget to use them. This half..
2) Its a rather safe bet one of the ship projects I am working on will in use up that sheet steal in their hulls. The 3 capital ships I am working on come to mind.
My understanding is we can't roll over BP's or directly transfer them but we can store guns, engines, structural steel and or sell the same between each other. Iberia has 8,500 tons of structurl steel sitting around that it paid nearly $20 for. I don't see how thats against the rules.
Quote from: miketr on August 19, 2008, 01:56:08 PM
Iberia has 8,500 tons of structurl steel sitting around that it paid nearly $20 for. I don't see how thats against the rules.
I do have a real problem with the transfer of any undefined components, as that is de facto BP transfer. So if the structural steel was ordered for a specific ship, then I do not think there is any difference compared buying say the turbines or guns.
But if undefined "structural steel" it is not a finished product, but something that need to be cut, machined, maybe even rolled before being used, something that requires ones own BPs to be in use...
I transfered "undefined" BP from one 1HY to 2HY.
I thought sheet steel is sheet steel - it is cut and bent appropriately on the slip. No?
Borys
I still have to pay $1 plus the stored 1 BP for the finished product... otherwise the $0.5 for 1 BP would be a very large cost savings instead of a 50% markup in base cost let alone the extra I paid for it.
Korpen please explain how you view the current rules for structural steel? Its either a tax of $0.5 per PB to allow it to be stored OR it allows BP's to be used for export in hulls which is a 50% cost reduction over home built stuff which is just dumb...
I would also note several nations have or had in storage turbines and guns and then used them on various projects. I really see no difference.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 19, 2008, 02:37:24 PM
I still have to pay $1 plus 1 BP for the finished product... otherwise the $0.5 for 1 BP would be a very large cost savings instead of a 50% markup in base cost let alone the extra I paid for it.
Korpen please explain how you view the current rules for structural steel? Its either a tax of $0.5 per PB to allow it to be stored OR it allows BP's to be used for export in hulls which is a 50% cost reduction over home built stuff which is just dumb...
I would also note several nations have or had in storage turbines and guns and then used them on various projects. I really see no difference.
I do see a major difference, the turbines are a clearly defined component, that cannot be used as anything else. "Sheet metal" or "structural steel" is not. Just take the difference in hull plating between a 25kton BB and a 500ton DD, the hull plates for the latter will be in the ~10mm range, while for a large ship it is usually more then twice as thick.
Structural steel is even worse, as it consists of tens of thousands of components, in a mix that is pretty much unique for a single ship. There are huge differences in load bearing balks in a BB and a small CL for example.
As for the pert about 0,5€ for 1BP worth of structural steel.
Weill I had missed that change, and I think it is just so dumb I will refrain from saying anything more, in an attempt to at least keep some illusion of politeness.
I have a long standing "issue" with the lack of stability over the rules set. So join the club... I made my plans with those rules in place, assuming they haven't changed in the mean time of course.
If it will make people happy I have no problem with saying the BP's are for my AC's and BB its more than a safe bet thats where it would end up.
I would point out that a steel plate is a steel plate its cut to final form at the shipyard not the rolling mill. Some plates are thicker than others, or wider or longer. Ditto other structural elements. Also turbines and guns have to reformed to fit; you can't just plug them in. The classic of HMS Vangaurd had the turrets refurbished before being used.
Quote from: miketr on August 19, 2008, 03:16:43 PM
If it will make people happy I have no problem with saying the BP's are for my AC's and BB its more than a safe bet thats where it would end up.
As long as they are marked like that along the entire chain, then no problems.
QuoteI would point out that a steel plate is a steel plate its cut to final form at the shipyard not the rolling mill. Some plates are thicker than others, or wider or longer. Ditto other structural elements.
A steel plate is not ONLY a steel plate for constructions either. Not to mention the huge amounts of the ships that is not steel plates, but piping, ventilators, kitchens, machine shops, showers. And I think the final cutting and machining is just as much part of a BP as is the first furnace or iron ore mine.
QuoteAlso turbines and guns have to reformed to fit; you can't just plug them in. The classic of HMS Vangaurd had the turrets refurbished before being used.
But there one can build the rest so it is pretty much just a plug in.
In vanguards case i suspect the fact that the guns were more then 30 years old might have something to do with it...
But largely I dislike all things that whiff of BP transfer.
So in my mind " 4BP steel and components for AC-1912a" would be fine, while "8,5 of construction steel" would be BP transfer and not fine.
Korpen I worked in a Sheet Metal Shop for a summer and helped out at my grand fathers Machine Shop enough to pick some things; if you are going to follow that logic than we can't transfer anything without it counting towards our BP totals. As NOTHING arrives as something that can be just plugged unless because of blind luck. The final assembler has to make various cuts and measurements... Look at the spreads on ships of the same class between different yards. Some of the smaller craft such as large and small torpedo boats had a 20% spread or even more between different yards.
We have a macro level game.. How much pain do we want?
As to Vangaurd, it was for many reasons some to do with changed tech, some to do with raw age, increased protection, etc.
Michael
Thats something I have a problem with - because as an Example the US doesnt build steel at all anymore or at least not in any significant quantity. But yet the US buys I beams in job lots to build things.
Why is there an Objection to BP Transfers - Or more in question why is their an objection to 1" Steel Plates which need to be bent and drilled to fit what ever hull form you want. I can see a limitation on the amount of such plates that can be used to build a ship but they are as much a finished product as the turrets and engines. The US in WWII build 1" STS Steel Plates they were used in everything from the outside hulls of Liberty Ships, to Light Cruisers, and Aircraft Carriers, to the Internal Bulk Heads and Splinter protection on Battle Ships. A good Steel Plate of known quantity is a finished product and you are paying $1 per 1000 Ton of it to have it drilled, and bent to the form you need. All that is usually done at the ship yard and not at the Steel Mill.
I consider the matter closed at this point and will ignore all additional post on this subject from non-mods until rules section is changed.
I play the game to have fun... not to get dragged into rules lawyering...
Please fight the meaning of the economic rules out here and have everyone agree that they know what the rules are even if they don't think they are reasonable. Stop clogging the budget threads...
Michael
The original intention of the rules was to limit BP trade. Of course people started to have clever ideas how to go around it, or set up deals that the net amount of BP changing would be zero.
Of course, the best idea would have been to dispense with the BP concept altogether, but then there were huge discrepancies between shipbuilding capacity (as defined by available slips & docks) and economic power in the original N2verse - where my Orange was IIRC the second behind France (undefined) due to having nowhere else to spend starting Medium Factory Points but on nava infrastructure.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=121.msg4172#msg4172
QuoteThe international standard for foreign trades is $. Whatever currency it signifies. BP is considered the limit of heavy building capacity of a nation, thus cannot be traded.
Old ships can be sold for pure $ or bartered. You cannot trade raw Build Points, You have to exchange a finished product for another finished product, no shipping of structural steel plates overseas that are even made to the wrong specifications, has nonstandard thickness, and generally unknown quality.
Finished products are complete ships, rails, artillery ammunition, or some ship component like guns, machinery and armor plates.
The Nation who ordered the ship provides the money required to lay the ship down, plus whatever profits the money-hungry shipyards and navies insist on.
To keep it simple, the profit goes directly into the military budget of the builder nation.
Hmm, it has been there all along, without me noticing.
So, like stated elsewere - it is enough for me and the buyer/recepient of the BP to declare "these are parts for ship X".
So, GC and Iberia - please state what ships these BP are intended for.
Borys
I've merged Mike's exporting BP thread with the discussion in the Iberian sim report on the topic.
Borys,
And you posted your stuff below it without even reading the post right above it? Stuff that changed the rules in question to a more than minor degree? Goes to smash head into wall again and again...
I am not going to be back for a day or two...
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 19, 2008, 04:29:58 PM
QuoteShip component production cost
1000t costs 1BP regardless of component type
Armor steel: 1000t armor cost $1 (unchanged)
Guns, Machinery, complete gun mounts (turrets, gun+armor+hoists etc.), functional misc. weight: 1000t cost $2 (unchanged)
Shipbuilding 'general steel': 1000t cost $0.5.
All this should be deleted from the rules, as no longer valid. Price of "exported" BP is whatever the two parties arrange between themsleves.
Borys
To clarify, "BP" is not "stuff". BP is "abiilty to make stuff". So it's correct to say that you can't export, import, or stockpile, "Ability to make stuff." It's the "stuff" itself that has to change hands.
So the challenge is to reconcile our in- and out-of-character perspectives on the stuff we're ordering:
-In-character, our avatars have months or years to plan and decide what it is they're exporting/importing/stockpiling, and the BP is churning out specific items as a result of this.
-Out-of-character, you and I have a few days or weeks to figure out what we're doing with our industrial capacity. In the case of sudden "BP sales" as Borys and Charles had recently, we may have just a few minutes to make a bid and may not actually know what we're going to do with it until later. Forward planning can be difficult.
-Out-of-character, however, having an undefined stockpile of "stuff" could allow some awkward power-gaming moments later on. For instance, if in 1915, Gran Colombia suddenly wants to build a bridge between Cuba and Jamaica, it'd seem awfully handy that the 20 BP of stuff I bought from Borys in 1913 turned out to be bridge girders all along.
So - it seems to me that we have to balance these three viewpoints: presumed ability to plan in-character, actual challenges to planning out-of-character, and avoidance of power-gamey "ass-pulls". Does this sound reasonable?
Grabbing back to the Nverse II, HBP (heavy build points) was the abiltity of a country to build specific military goods using the heavy industrial capacity of the country.
This didn't change much.
But if you really have alot of BP's to spare. Selling it as finished goods, like turbines, even barbettes or turrets , or stockpiling these is perfectly normal. If you can find buyers.
Problem is the age of the stuff. You can end up with 1909 turbines stockpiled, but no use for them as your factories are already churning out 1915 turbines...
And don't forget rule one. Play the game, not the rules.
After a nights sleep I am not as cranky and I am sorry for my abrasive response to this issue yesterday.
OK...
From a totally realistic point of view stuff is ordered some time in advance; especially stuff that requires special machining like armor, guns, etc. The "long led items" is the phrase I believe. At the same time we don't want to do economics in advance...
As Rocky pointed out we need to find a balance...
In addition nations export material between each other all the time. Just keep it simple and note the exports as being something specific. Armor, guns, engines, whatever... If you want redo it you have to scrap it which only gets 1 out of 5 so thats not very good.
All stuff should cost $1 and 1 BP to produce; 1,000 tons worth... whatever the exporting nation wants to charge on top of that is up to them...
Do we want consider an install cost? Nation X has to spend an extra $1 per 1,000 tons worth to install it?
Michael
Food for thought; it does not quite reconcile with the pricing chart Borys quotes a few posts up, however.
Quote
1) Any BP exported is labelled as one of:
-Ship components. It costs a flat $1 per 1,000 t of ship components to produce. Unspecified or generic ship components must be "used" in the half-year they are ordered and produced, or become scrap. If a player designates them as being for a specific type and class of ship (i.e., Luchador class armored cruiser), the parts may be stockpiled indefinitely - but only used for building or repairing that specific type and class of ship; otherwise they become scrap.
-Army equipment: Covers any BP associated with mobile units or fixed fortifications. Being primarily guns or vehicles, the cost is higher than ship components: $2 per 1,000 t / 1 BP of equipment. Unspecified or generic army equipment must be "used" in the half-year they are ordered and produced, or become scrap. If a player designates the parts as being for a specific type and class of unit (i.e., Colombian-standard baseline mountain corps, the equipment may be stockpiled indefinitely - but only used to equip or re-equip that specific type of unit.
-Infrastructure parts (ports, slips, docks, railways, airstrips): These cost $0.5 per 1,000 t of parts to produce. No further detail is necessary, and as it is relatively generic stuff unaffected by our tech trees, it can be stockpiled for five years before becoming scrap. Stockpiles can be recycled - the oldest parts are taken out and used, and new parts added.
-Steel sheets: This costs $0.25 per 1,000 t of steel sheets. No further detail is necessary, and can be stockpiled for five years. Stockpiles can be recycled - the oldest steel is taken out and used, and new steel added.
Typically, costs to produce any of the above are paid by the purchaser as part of the sale price, and applied against the cost of building the ship/unit/infrastructure. Alternately, the producer can pay the production cost if being paid with technology or some other non-cash consideration. The producer may also charge extra for profit as he wishes.
Example:
Gran Colombia buys 1,000 t of ship components from Austria. The Austrians charge $1.80. Of that, $1 covers the production cost, which the Colombians apply to the cost of building their shp. The other $0.80 is pure profit for Vienna.
2) Using Steel sheets: Can be converted into ship, army, or infrastructure items, but since this is in addition to the heavy industrial sector's normal production, extra shifts must be paid to do the work.
For each completed and functional BP it has, a nation may pay for one extra shift to convert 1,000 t of steel sheets into ship, army, or infrastructure parts. The nation pays the full cost for the new materials, plus a 25% surcharge (essentially, extra labor and maintenence costs that the factories pass on to the nation). The surcharge is paid in the same turn as the actual conversion, but the player must announce the planned conversion in the preceding turn (so that the private sector has time to hire and train the additional workers, etc).
Example:
In 1/15, Gran Colombia wants to convert 2,000 t of steel sheets into ship components. It announces the planned conversion in 2/14. In 1/15, it then pays $2 for the ship components, plus another $0.50 surcharge. The $2 can be applied against the cost of the ship; the $0.50 surcharge can not; nor can the $0.50 it cost to produce the steel sheet in the first place.
Few comments:
Looks fine, but I would not include "steel sheets" here, it should be included in "ship components". $0.25/BP cost is so cheap that it essentially equals stockpiling BP - raise cost to 0.5/BP and shhould be specified for what purpose they are built.
Second, It's obvious but should be mentioned that traded/stockpiled components have a replacement value equal to their production cost - $0.25(0.5)/BP cost stockpiled steel used for building a battleship would decrease construction cost by $0.25(0.5)/BP.
Starts to look complicated ...
Guys, if you want to stockpile BP's, do it in frequently used but dedicated stuff.
How big the problem is to use those BP's in a general use hull?
In the past it wasn't a problem to spend all BP's, why is it now?
Was the BP increase so large it's seen as an easy way to pay for other stuff?
I assume everyone can pay for the use of their BP's off their base budgets with no trouble. Its when you run into other expenses like BUYING for ship parts that trouble starts and or people want to save their BP's for whatever reason; maybe they don't like their current tech choices.
Michael
I agree with you have to store it as something it make since and the section the rock doctor posted looked fine.
Basically I think of it this way - Most of a ships construction is sheet steel - the Armor is added on over the steel sheets of the hull. The Keel and Ribs of the ship are seperate. So if you want to use stored Steel Sheets to build a ship well lets limit how much you can use of stored stuff on a new ship.
And yes storing Armor Plate from 1900 hundered doesnt look so good with new armor tech comming along soon. :o
As to why its getting so difficult to spend all the BP its not really My Problem was I expected a war to be going on and to be able to war profitteer by repairing lots of ships in my Slips for lots of Cash. To this end I scrapped all those old BB you gave me at one time. And then *sniff sniff* the war ended no more free cash and Im two months away from having 12.69 BP I cant afford to use. Basically even building nothing but ships I didnt have enough $ of free military spending to equal my BP available. At that point I of course went looking for other alternatives especially as I was planning on infrastructure improvements to Two Ports and Two Slips which are $5 and 1 BP investments. Other people had $$$ and not enought BP we were helping each other out. I agree maybe we should have specified more acurately what the BP were being used for but Generally I assumed people were using them to build ships this HY and they would send me the specifications and my Industry would then ship them the parts they had ordered Keel X length, and 100 1" Steel Plates 10' x 10' that sort of thing. After all most of the bending and rivet hole drilling is done at the shipyard. Only modern shipyards order the plates drilled and bent to order.
Think like a politician then. A part of the roleplaying needed in the Nverse.
I don't want it to go into purely beancounting or rulemilking.
Problem of stockpiling sheet steel - what gauge sheet steel you are speaking about? #10? #15? #20? #25? #30? #40? 10mm? 15mm? What size S-beams? A 200t patrol boat will use different ones from a 30000t battleship.
Quote from: ctwaterman on August 20, 2008, 11:34:41 PM
And then *sniff sniff* the war ended no more free cash and Im two months away from having 12.69 BP I cant afford to use.
You do remember that you get cash equal to the amount of BP when you scrap? So scraping do not really make your situation either better or worse (or at least It should not).
Quote from: miketr on August 20, 2008, 11:33:01 PM
I assume everyone can pay for the use of their BP's off their base budgets with no trouble. Its when you run into other expenses like BUYING for ship parts that trouble starts and or people want to save their BP's for whatever reason; maybe they don't like their current tech choices.
That is a major reason I dislike all forms of BP stockpiling from one half to another, it encourage one to place things in a heap if one is waiting for a tech breakthrough (the engine tech in particular).
Also I do not think there is anything wrong with countries not using all the construction capacity every half year, I really like the "use it or lose it"-aspect of BPs navalism is using.
But if people think that such transfers must take place how about the following: One pay 1€ for every BP one wish to sell/stockpile (it is after all goods that is made), but pay normal cost for a ship/whatever when the stockpile is used. Efficiently doubling the cost of the finished product.
This as while stockpiling large amounts of strategic produce might very well make strategic sense, but is should sure as hell not be an economic solution (just the storage costs....)
That said: I would like to get away from the 1 BP = 1000 ton of steel. It is all 1 BP = the capacity to build 1000t of warships.There are after all countries which have BPs, but not much of a indigenous steel industry, the NUS, lacking both ore, and more importantly; coal, comes to mind.
Thanks P3D
Nverse Example
France buys 2000 tons of .8mm steel sheet
The UNK delivers 1/32 sheet.
Difference .1mm
A series of plates equivalent of 25600m² .8mm thick is 1007 tons
same size of plates, but 1/32 thick is 998 tons
Not much difference , but there we go. If the rules are that exact, we stand to have discusions about such things.
Better to use the basic of the Nverse, Springsharp II, to agree on transfered materials.
Korpen, I agree with your equation.
1BP is the ability to build 1000 tons of warship.
Or XXXX tons of this or that with military application.
Yes I do understand that I recieved 12.69 $ with my 12.69 BP worth of scrap however increasing the size of two Ports 1 catagory and two dry docks 1 catagory cost 20$ and only 4 BP. There was litterally no way to spend all the BP with the $ available. I thought producing a product with some of the BP something Tangible would then allow me to utilize some of the other BP to build a few ships of my own.
Evidently I needed to be more specific in what I was producing. ??? Like I said I have no objection to making sure that in the future we specify more clearly what parts of a ship Im building to ship. I took the Sheet Steel off the list I found in the rule sections and paid the $.5 to build X number of BP worth of it and then sold it to the highest bidders. Capitalism and fair trade all around a Product for $. In the future I will take the time to roleplay it a little better.
LOL!
And before the "Great BP Bump!" there was whining about
"too little BP, too much $, and nothing to spend it on".
Now we have the reverse - I guess the economies have to catch up.
France used to dump surplus resources into Le Grande Elephante Blanc - i.e. a canal through the America Istmuth.
In 2/1912 - having too much BP and too little $, I simply laid down two battleships. I will complete them at least 9 months later than I could, due to lack of money. But I have a place to allocate BP to. Had it not been for the sale to GC, I would had sunk those 20BP into them. And, if necessary, laid down a few cruisers.
Like I said - I missed (or forgot about) the "cannot transfer raw BP rule".
I like the "BP represents capacity to manufacture military or para-military hardware".
I do not think BP should have any $ value, apart from cases when ships are built for export, or some finshed/half-finished product is exported. And the price is negotiated between the parties involved.
Borys
I think the current events are an anomaly - from 1/09 until now, there was no "Great BP Firesale", just occasional deals here and there. This is a war-related situation that points out a couple of things:
1) People need to tailor their economic development to fit the kind of stuff they spend on. If the priority is the navy, build new BP, because they use a lot of steel. If the priority is the army, build new IC, because, they're cash intensive.
2) If you scrap or buy heaps of stuff in one shot, it really throws your budget out of whack. If you're going to dabble in trade, be flexible in your plans and have some easy options for spending unexpected windfalls.
Now, with respect to my proposal above:
-It can be made simpler by fixing the cost of ship, army, and infrastructure parts at $1 per 1,000 t or BP; the user will still have to lay out more cash for the army unit or infrastructure, and for certain types of ships, anyway.
-When I use the term "steel sheet", the actual dimensions are irrelevant, because it has no use other than being a convenient size/shape for storage. Call it steel balls, steel ingots, or whatever. To make anything with it, it must be re-cast into ship, army, or infrastructure equipment.
-Between the initial cost of producing the steel sheet ($0.25) and the surcharge for recasting the steel into useful parts (25%), the cumulative cost for "stockpiling" is at least $0.50 per 1,000 t or BP. This is reasonable enough for a few BP per half-year, and adds up to a significant amount (for most countries) if somebody gets ambitious and wants to convert a lot of material at once.
After just following the debate on the Bp subject I totally agree with Rocks point of view:
Quote1) People need to tailor their economic development to fit the kind of stuff they spend on. If the priority is the navy, build new BP, because they use a lot of steel. If the priority is the army, build new IC, because, they're cash intensive.
2) If you scrap or buy heaps of stuff in one shot, it really throws your budget out of whack. If you're going to dabble in trade, be flexible in your plans and have some easy options for spending unexpected windfalls.
I cant see any reason for rule changes as it is one of the challenges in "playing the game",and for me it is a part of the fun of the game in regard of making my sim-reports that I have to make my own choices as how to make ends meet :)
I don't like it, but proposing a simple, fast rule if BP's are made transferable in pure BP sense.
QuoteStorage between years costs $ .2 per BP
1. I don't like the idea of transferring "Pure" BP. Others have pointed out correctly that BP is not a commodity, but the ability of a nation to produce a commodity.
2. Simple is good, complex is bad.
3. Overly simple and unrealistic is worse than complex
4. Here's my interpretation of the bottleneck
QuoteThe financial construction cost of a ship must be paid when either when the ship is laid down, or at the rate BP is spent on the ship.
If this clause is removed, excess BP could be used on ships. The $$ is the total of how much it cost's to build the ship, the BP is how much material is needed. I see know reason why one can't pay them independently, as long as both totals are payed off before ship is complete.
Sachmle, it used to be that you paid the full $ price at keel laying. No longer.
Borys
I agree with Sachmle If I could have used the BP to build ships I would have. But the rule indicating I had to Spend $ at the rate I put BP into the Ships meant I simply couldnt spend the BP at all.
I think my over all objection to the whole Idea of BP is that if we must all spend our own BP every turn then we have NO global economy, no trade each of our countries exists as a buble which is independent from each other.
In the future I intend to not wave my hands at the stuff Im selling. Basically I was in a hurry and didnt take the time to say what do you need. Ok you need X girders, X hull plates, and 1 Ton of Steel Ribbits Size XR14. I ASS U MEd that the people I was selling the material too needed a finished product be that Keels, Hull Plating, Armor, what ever and would be using these products this Year of 1913.
QuoteThe financial construction cost of a ship must be paid when either when the ship is laid down, or at the rate BP is spent on the ship.
Aw, crap...
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 21, 2008, 03:39:32 PM
QuoteThe financial construction cost of a ship must be paid when either when the ship is laid down, or at the rate BP is spent on the ship.
Aw, crap...
Huzzah!! I got a mod ;D ;D ;D
Wait, aw crap...that means it's probably all screwed up for other too..GDI!! >:(
Quote from: ctwaterman on August 21, 2008, 03:24:24 PM
I agree with Sachmle If I could have used the BP to build ships I would have. But the rule indicating I had to Spend $ at the rate I put BP into the Ships meant I simply couldnt spend the BP at all.
I think my over all objection to the whole Idea of BP is that if we must all spend our own BP every turn then we have NO global economy, no trade each of our countries exists as a buble which is independent from each other.
There is no rule requiring one to use all ones build capacity either. If one choose to invest in things that cost allot of money, without any need for BP to be employed, of course one will end up with unused build capacity. But that is a choice one make when making budget.
BP is not a product, it is a capacity and a process and if seen as such much easier to deal with then seeing it as 1000 ton of steel.
Quote from: Korpen on August 21, 2008, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: ctwaterman on August 21, 2008, 03:24:24 PM
I agree with Sachmle If I could have used the BP to build ships I would have. But the rule indicating I had to Spend $ at the rate I put BP into the Ships meant I simply couldnt spend the BP at all.
I think my over all objection to the whole Idea of BP is that if we must all spend our own BP every turn then we have NO global economy, no trade each of our countries exists as a buble which is independent from each other.
There is no rule requiring one to use all ones build capacity either. If one choose to invest in things that cost allot of money, without any need for BP to be employed, of course one will end up with unused build capacity. But that is a choice one make when making budget.
BP is not a product, it is a capacity and a process and if seen as such much easier to deal with then seeing it as 1000 ton of steel.
But other people would be very interested in getting access to that free capacity. Sales of weapons for the army, ships and parts of ships should be available as a choice.
I suggest we try to stick with KISS.
Nations can manufacture ship components or other goods for export available to them from their tech lists at normal costs. Whatever profit the selling nation makes on the transaction is the difference between production cost and sale price. The components must be for a specific project; 1,000 tons of steel for the hull and fittings of 25,000 ton BB named X, or 1,500 tons of steel for machinery or armament of ship X. The components could be fitted into a different project but it must be compatible project; another ship of same type (BB/AC, PC, TB/DD, etc) as the original ship for hull, a ship with the same SHP, Generation (engine year and type) and number of shafts (engine parts could be broken down based upon the number of shafts), etc.
A nation can choose to manufacture bulk steel for export or storage if they wish. Bulk steel costs $0.5 and 1 BP per 1,000 tons of material. This is high grade steel suitable for being converted into any product but it needs final manufacture. This final costs an extra $1.0 by the final manufacture.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 22, 2008, 10:06:19 AM
But other people would be very interested in getting access to that free capacity. Sales of weapons for the army, ships and parts of ships should be available as a choice.
I suggest we try to stick with KISS.
Nations can manufacture ship components or other goods for export available to them from their tech lists at normal costs. Whatever profit the selling nation makes on the transaction is the difference between production cost and sale price. The components must be for a specific project; 1,000 tons of steel for the hull and fittings of 25,000 ton BB named X, or 1,500 tons of steel for machinery or armament of ship X. The components could be fitted into a different project but it must be compatible project; another ship of same type (BB/AC, PC, TB/DD, etc) as the original ship for hull, a ship with the same SHP, Generation (engine year and type) and number of shafts (engine parts could be broken down based upon the number of shafts), etc.
A nation can choose to manufacture bulk steel for export or storage if they wish. Bulk steel costs $0.5 and 1 BP per 1,000 tons of material. This is high grade steel suitable for being converted into any product but it needs final manufacture. This final costs an extra $1.0 by the final manufacture.
Think all of this is needlessly complicated. After some thought I am inclined to think the original rule (that is still in effect, together with Borys addition that contradict it): no sale of structural part of the ship, just of armour (possibly), armament and engines.
This would have very little real effect de facto, as if large parts of ships is going to be built with "imported" BPs, why not just let the seller build the entire ship? The net sum for the ship would be the same, and we would not have to change or add any rules. One can always provide engines and/or weapons for the ship if the contractor does not have what one wants.
Same thing goes for things like repairs.
BUt some rules for the material cost of army corpses wold be very usefull. ;)
Quote from: Korpen on August 22, 2008, 10:38:21 AM
This would have very little real effect de facto, as if large parts of ships is going to be built with "imported" BPs, why not just let the seller build the entire ship?
Because few people will have the desire to build 20 or 30 BP battleships for export. Smaller ships sure...
I am interested in more choices not less for game play and diplomacy... especially as this restriction is rather artificial and more than a little arbitrary.
Look at the IJN's later PDN's and their Kongo BC's. They are the perfect example of ships being built in combo by various nations.
Whats too complexe about... its what we have been doing already (for guns and engines) just extended to hull and fittings. Plus the ability to store steel... I don't see the problem... I am confused in all honesty.
Michael
QuoteThis would have very little real effect de facto, as if large parts of ships is going to be built with "imported" BPs, why not just let the seller build the entire ship? The net sum for the ship would be the same, and we would not have to change or add any rules. One can always provide engines and/or weapons for the ship if the contractor does not have what one wants.
Same thing goes for things like repairs.
I totally agree!
Please explain to me why a system of sales is too complex? If you don't want to deal with it then don't export / import materials... Don't hamstring the rest of us who are looking for more out of the game.
Michael
My opinion is tat BP`s is an abillity not an commodity :) :)
Quote from: ledeper on August 22, 2008, 11:33:29 AM
My opinion is tat BP`s is an abillity not an commodity :) :)
They produce commodities and we are talking about the sale of such objects...
Michael
Okay...questions:
1) I can accept that engines and armament are the kind of thing delivered from the factories represented by BP, to the shipyard.
However, with respect to hull plating and structural members, I'm not so clear on where BP ends and shipyards start. Does BP do everything up to handing the finished products to the shipyard, with the shipyard doing nothing more than rivetting or welding the finished products together? Or - do the shipyards receive some generic forms of steel from the BP, and cut/fit/bend/fold these forms to fit the requirements of the hulls they are building?
2) Getting back to a point P3D made earlier: Do we, in fact, need BP? Or can we actually function strictly with cash?
As we have to buy harbors and slipways (plus what I know of the real thing) material is sent to the yards in rough form. So many beams of given size where it cut and fitted on site. BP's provide the material so they are more important than the yards.
The problem with yanking BP out of the system is it upsets the games current growth... As people have had to sink $ into both IC and BP. I am rather against making such a radical change to the games economics. If we were to do it the next question is what do we do with BP? Poof its gone? turn them in IC? I am not sure we really want to open this can of worms.
I believe that P3D wants to yank slipways out of the rules too... gutting the infrastructure of the game rather totally.
Yes, it'd be a can of worms. But I did want to see what the consensus on this was.
Ok,
Ive been trying to follow this discussion and to be honest I just dont get it.
Lots of people shipped Mines, Guns, Poison Gas Shells, and generic artillary ammunition all sorts of stuff to the Ottomans and nobody screamed about BP Transfer. To be honest I had more objection to Generic Artillary Ammunition then I have to Steel Plates. Because to be honest nobody's artillary ammunition fit into anybody elses guns. Borys and I had a discussion about it but because everyone else was doing it we agreed to do it.
It boils down to this for me - I am here to roleplay and being able to sell something to someone makes the game interesting. I may be the lone heritic when I say I view Springsharp as something I tolerate so that I can play the game I honestly dont enjoy using it but am willing to treat it like any other tool I use like Spread Sheets. Enjoyment may come later when im better at using it :o
Everyone says BP is a capcity but wasted capacity is wasted and in the real world it doesnt happen very often. So my question is do our National Economies exist in Bubbles with no outside impact where we only get to spend our own BP or buy a complete finished product from someone else. I think this is a very artifical and limiting constraint.
As an Example I as Italia wish to repair the the Port of Athens as a very large political bribe to several of the political parties of Greece. What the port of Athens need in game mechanics is 1 BP and 4.75 $ - In Roleplaying needs what the Port of Athens needs is new doors for its 1 Dry Dock some new cranes along its Piers and some railway lines into the port. But If I cant produce say 2 250Ton Capacity cranes, 2 Miles of RR line, 2 large steel doors and then ship them to Greece then I cant repair the port of athens for Greece. I see absoloutely no difference between this and shipping Gun Barrels, Artillary, Ammo, Mines, Armor Plate, or Generic structural members of a ship to order to somebody. Its Capitalism at work. ;)
Quote from: ctwaterman on August 22, 2008, 04:16:13 PM
Ok,
Ive been trying to follow this discussion and to be honest I just dont get it.
Lots of people shipped Mines, Guns, Poison Gas Shells, and generic artillary ammunition all sorts of stuff to the Ottomans and nobody screamed about BP Transfer.
Could be that is due to all those things being finished products, not raw material.
QuoteIt boils down to this for me - I am here to roleplay and being able to sell something to someone makes the game interesting.
Everyone says BP is a capcity but wasted capacity is wasted and in the real world it doesnt happen very often. So my question is do our National Economies exist in Bubbles with no outside impact where we only get to spend our own BP or buy a complete finished product from someone else. I think this is a very artifical and limiting constraint.
I do not see it as wasted as a BP (IMO) is not a separate entity. It is simply own much of primarily military produce ones industrial capacity can create. So a unused BP is not a factory without work, it is simply a factory building ploughshares rather then gun barrels.
Some degree of bubbling is necessary, or things will get perversely complex in a hurry if we start taking all interdependencies into account.
I do not for a second think that blocking sales of raw BPs (or things to that effect, like "sheet steel") would for a second reduce the RP aspect of the game, very much the opposite.
It does encourage selling production capacity to other countries rather then selling them the capacity to produce. I personally think it is much more interesting with debates, negotiations and discussions about building /ordering ships for export/import then simply selling a game mechanic to the highest bidder.
How about this: If BP is the capability of a country to build stuff, "buying" BP would not be buying 1,000 tons of steel but rather leasing said country's industrial capability for that half. It's a rather modern concept but it would be similar to Boeing (US) outsourcing (buying BPs), say the tail of a new plane, to BAE (GB). It would mean that you couldn't sell scrap, but you can always sell the ship before it is scrapped.
As for "storing" BPs, I would say the following: You can store BPs so long as they are no more than 50% of your BP revenue. So if your country produces 9 BPs per half, you can only store 4.5 BPs per half. Anything over that is lost.
Quote from: miketr on August 22, 2008, 12:39:58 PM
I believe that P3D wants to yank slipways out of the rules too... gutting the infrastructure of the game rather totally.
As it is, BP corresponds to the 'Heavy Build Points' of N2verse.
No, in that rules proposition I don't want to get rid of the infrastructure part. Actually, I'd put more emphasis on it but did not have any detailed idea yet. I'd make it clear that 'BP' is shipbuilding capacity by connecting it to "shipyards/dockyards" so to slipways.
production capacity vs. capacity to produce Confused...
Michael
Quote from: Korpen on August 22, 2008, 04:55:14 PM
Quote from: ctwaterman on August 22, 2008, 04:16:13 PM
Ok,
Ive been trying to follow this discussion and to be honest I just dont get it.
Lots of people shipped Mines, Guns, Poison Gas Shells, and generic artillary ammunition all sorts of stuff to the Ottomans and nobody screamed about BP Transfer.
Could be that is due to all those things being finished products, not raw material.
Actually as a Finished Product your 76MM Artillary shell is no more likely to work out of anyone elses 3" Gun then Historical. It just doesnt work even US 5" shells wont fire out of British 5" Guns the calibers or the round and extract diameters all the milling parts are wrong. Sheet Steel or even steel bars is as much a finished product, as the 3" Gun or 6" Armor Plate. One simply requires th Buyer to then to spend more $ to fit it into his hull.
So actually what your objecting to in effect is that the sellers didnt list the steel sheets as 1" STS Structural Steel Plates 10' x 10' long. Or as ive put it before one of the basic building blocks of the ship building industry. That I can understand and its something I can work to resolve. After all I can create a list of what things everyone else views as legitimite finished products and make sure that only those things are sold in the future.
QuoteIt boils down to this for me - I am here to roleplay and being able to sell something to someone makes the game interesting.
Everyone says BP is a capcity but wasted capacity is wasted and in the real world it doesnt happen very often. So my question is do our National Economies exist in Bubbles with no outside impact where we only get to spend our own BP or buy a complete finished product from someone else. I think this is a very artifical and limiting constraint.
Quote
I do not see it as wasted as a BP (IMO) is not a separate entity. It is simply own much of primarily military produce ones industrial capacity can create. So a unused BP is not a factory without work, it is simply a factory building ploughshares rather then gun barrels.
Some degree of bubbling is necessary, or things will get perversely complex in a hurry if we start taking all interdependencies into account.
Actually I dont consider this game complex it hasnt even approached complex. And a few hard and fast rules for what can and cant be traded isnt going to make it so. From my experinece with games and thats over 20 Years worth we could use a few more clear rules. If for no other reason then to make The Rock Doctor, Maddox, and Ithekro life a lot easier in the long term.
Quote
I do not for a second think that blocking sales of raw BPs (or things to that effect, like "sheet steel") would for a second reduce the RP aspect of the game, very much the opposite.
It does encourage selling production capacity to other countries rather then selling them the capacity to produce. I personally think it is much more interesting with debates, negotiations and discussions about building /ordering ships for export/import then simply selling a game mechanic to the highest bidder.
Thats where you and I disagree with you, the Sim reports are a clinical expression of the Spread Sheets. I did indeed sell X BP to Y Individuals. But if we had ever gotten to the story part and or news articles covering the Sim Report you might have gotten the Roleplaying part where finished products were exchanged for $. The Sim report is not a roleplaying tool its an accounting tool to let other players check your math. And all the events covered by the Sim report are still months away 1913.
Well anyway Ive listened and I will get back to just playing the game and maybe get a few stories out before 1913 actually get here I have a meeting in Rome to handle which is in my opinion alot more important then arguing over what a BP is or isnt and what is or isnt a finished product.
QuoteActually as a Finished Product your 76MM Artillary shell is no more likely to work out of anyone elses 3" Gun then Historical. It just doesnt work even US 5" shells wont fire out of British 5" Guns the calibers or the round and extract diameters all the milling parts are wrong. Sheet Steel or even steel bars is as much a finished product, as the 3" Gun or 6" Armor Plate. One simply requires the Buyer to then to spend more $ to fit it into his hull.
If country X orders 75mm artilery shells, the manufactoring firm/country will deliver those at specs, or will have a small "issue".
QuoteNo, in that rules proposition I don't want to get rid of the infrastructure part. Actually, I'd put more emphasis on it but did not have any detailed idea yet. I'd make it clear that 'BP' is shipbuilding capacity by connecting it to "shipyards/dockyards" so to slipways.
BP's were/are the ability of a country to build heavy military material, and warshipbuilding is the Queen of BP usage.
That is why I am opposing any rule that makes us use BP for non military applications.
Of course, it's not forbidden to use that capacity to build other things with that capacity. For France those things include the Great Canal with the ship elevators, the Statue of Liberty in New Orleans, the 2 superliners Mercury and Le Magnifique and so on.
Quote from: ctwaterman on August 22, 2008, 04:16:13 PM
Lots of people shipped Mines, Guns, Poison Gas Shells, and generic artillary ammunition all sorts of stuff to the Ottomans and nobody screamed about BP Transfer. To be honest I had more objection to Generic Artillary Ammunition then I have to Steel Plates. Because to be honest nobody's artillary ammunition fit into anybody elses guns. Borys and I had a discussion about it but because everyone else was doing it we agreed to do it.
Well, that ammo SHOULD had been described as "manufactured to Ottoman specifications". With a lead time of several months. That's what me and Charles agreed upon.*
The gas canisters and mines work the same regardless of who is using them.
* after the last Pacific war I had two corps worth of Dutch calibre ammo lying about - useless to me - so I decided I will actually honour my promise to the Dutch :);
# during the last Pacific war I readied myself to manufacture DKB ammunition, so I can start production quickly;
Borys
QuoteWell, that ammo SHOULD had been described as "manufactured to Ottoman specifications". With a lead time of several months. That's what me and Charles agreed upon.*
Who says the guns weren't supplied with the shells?
Maybe beacuse the pertinent news "said artillery ammunition" and not "artillery with ammunition"?
:D
I also believe that established militaries the world over JUST LOVE getting non-standard equipment with ammunition supplied from half the world away ...
Borys
In the last Crusade I don't think the Ottomans would have refused any aid they could get. And I think they would have liked a lot more.
Where are we on the great BP sale debate?
For me it's a non issue, more Roleplay than Pure Rules.
BP's aren't tangible and have to be used to build , and therefor describe, material.
But if BP's are to be stored/sold, an surcharge has to be payed to do so.
In the end, even raw steel billets are stored somewere and the owner wants to make profit from that dervice.
Hello,
It seems to me that if BP can be stored from the first half to the second half of a year, then that would suggest it is indeed a 'physical' item, not a capacity.
Scrapping also delivers excess BP the next half(or can you use it immediately? I have assumed you must wait one half). This then would suggest it is indeed a 'physical' item as well, not a capacity. Since scrapping a ship does not create a factory it only supplies extra steel to a factory.
With those in mind, I don't mind BP transfers but spelling out what it consists of would help keep people from building 3 1,000 ton DDs from 3 BP. Maybe a limit of 1/6th of a units BP cost(ie. parts) could be foreign manufactured otherwise the additional upkeep penalty would apply. Thus one would have to build 18 1,000 ton dds or one 18,000 ton BB to use up 3 imported BPs.
What say the mob? ;D
Quote from: blooded on August 24, 2008, 10:06:54 PM
It seems to me that if BP can be stored from the first half to the second half of a year, then that would suggest it is indeed a 'physical' item, not a capacity.
The carry over from 1st to 2nd HY represents long lead items, management on an annual basis.
And to make life easier for the Poor Players.
Borys
I'm thinking we Mods will have some concrete decision within a day or two.
...and here it is. It will be incorporated into the Economy rules tonight.
Points 3-6 add complexity to the sim, but only affect those players seeking to make use of foreign BP.
Quote
1) BP is a capacity to produce specific items, those listed anywhere in the rules as having a "BP cost" to them. BP can be used to construct other items as agreed to by the Moderators.
2) BP is not a capacity to generate generic storable steel.
3) When purchasing specific items produced outside his country, a player must declare what those specific items are.
4) The player pays full cash cost for a project even if some of the specific items are purchased from outside the country. Cash paid to other countries for specific items is strictly profit for the supplier.
Example:
Gran Colombia is building a 4,000 t cruiser locally, at a cost of $4. As its own BP is already completely in use, Gran Colombia orders 2,000 t of parts from the Hapsburgers. The Hapsburgers charge $3 for the right to make use of their industry. This $3 is strictly profit for the Hapsburgers - the Colombians must still pay the full $4 cost of the cruiser just as if the parts were all coming from their own BP.
5) Specific items may be stockpiled indefinitely, without cost, but their future usage is restricted:
-Infrastructure components (Hangers, Airstrips, Ports, Slips, Docks, Railways, Undersea Telegraph Cable, Radio Towers) can only be used to build or repair those specific types of infrastructure. Railway gauge must be specified at purchase.
Example: Gran Colombia stockpiles 2,000 t of undersea telegraph cable.
-Army, Ammunition, and Airship components can only be used for a specific nationality, generation (and type, for armies) of unit.
Example: Gran Colombia stockpiles 500 t of ammunition for a baseline GC infantry Corps.
-With respect to ships: specific machinery, armament (plus mountings and their armour) and functional miscellaneous weight (fire control, wireless) may be stockpiled and used where the player sees fit, provided the player is willing to accept that the equipment may not be "current" when installed. Armor and hull components may only be used to build or repair a specific type and class of ship.
Example: Gran Colombia stockpiles a coal-fired 1905 vintage 4000 hp turbine powerplant, and 1,500 t of hull components for a Puerta Espana class protected cruiser.
6) Specific items may be removed from stockpile and scrapped, per warship scrapping rules, at any time.
Sounds good...
I like it.
Have a question on 5:
Quote5)
-Army, Ammunition, and Airship components can only be used for a specific nationality, generation (and type, for armies) of unit.
Example: Gran Colombia stockpiles 500 t of ammunition for a baseline GC infantry Corps.
Let's say there is a specific rifle (ie Mauser 98) that is exported widely and built under license. Could I purchase ammunition for it from someone else so long as it is the right ammo for the rifle?
Yes, although I wasn't looking for quite that much detail for the army/ammo/airship stuff.
I'd say that OTL the easiest to find ammo was the 7mm Mauser.
I suppose we could draw up a list who uses what ... but, like Rock noted, we shouldn't be going down to that level of detail.
Borys
Just an example, but something that could come up with certain warships.
What if we make one great simplification.
We delete BP cost from anything but ships - including army units, ammo, armored vehicles, artillery, infrastructure. Perhaps increasing cost a bit.
BP then would mean the shipbuilding capacity of the nation. The workforce of equipment in the shipyards. In game terms, the 'light tonnage' of vessel construction in the shipyards. Regardless of whatever steel, armor, machinery was bought from abroad, it still needs to be built into the ship , therefore even if it was delivered from abroad, it won't decrease BP cost. This would also mean that 'Vanguarding' old equipment would cost less but won't free up additional capacity.
One could still sell/stockpile equipment, but it won't affect BP (as shipbuilding capacity). OTOH selling ships would allowed. BP would still be necessary for reconstructions, repairs and such - increase BP cost for even small refits.
So BP would be completely decoupled from the heavy industrial capacity. Nations were making more than ten times the steel that was used in shipbuilding.
If later there's a consensus that army and infrastructure expansion must be limited besides simple cost, this limit should be determined by IC somehow, not shipbuilding capacity.
Lets please not attempt to rebuild the wheel in mid game which is what removing or limiting what costs BP would do...
Michael
Yes - let us leave deletion of BP for N4.
Borys
It'd be worth exploring later, but we'll leave it alone for now.
Quote from: P3D on August 26, 2008, 02:50:29 PM
What if we make one great simplification.
I think it is an exellent idea.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2008, 06:24:03 AM
It'd be worth exploring later, but we'll leave it alone for now.
True, if something as major as that would change, it would need to be done with at least a few in-game years delay, so one can plan for it 4-6 years in advance.
Related to equipment purchases: If importing engines for submarines, how large % of a submarine should be considered engines, 10% 15%?
Quote from: Korpen on August 29, 2008, 02:11:15 AM
Related to equipment purchases: If importing engines for submarines, how large % of a submarine should be considered engines, 10% 15%?
I'd really call it spare change - assume the weight of imported diesel engines (which must be paid eventually) is balanced by a barter of steel stuff in the other direction.