'kay, folks, I'm seeing a few different posts about rule changes and ambiguities people didn't know about.
Since we're in a bit of a post-war lull anyway, please - take a couple of hours and read the rule set. All of it. If you see something that doesn't make sense, or seems broken, advise me of it in this thread, and I will work to resolve the problem as best as possible.
I am not keen to reinvent the system or introduce new rules, but if there are a cluster of problems, it makes more sense to me to resolve them together than in isolation.
I back up rocky in this.
Some rules need updating, some rules need removal, and others streamlining.
We as moderators are watching this, but won't go into rash actions that will prove diasadvantaging later on.
Mikes rules questions
1) Do we really want to spend BP's to build airfields? Well into WW2 many aircraft could get by with just a clear and level field. I have been to the rhinebeck aerodrome and the field is just grass... In WW2 the Germans in Northern France based their fighters out of like fields. Sure some aircraft need the firmer runway but those are the multi-engine aircraft and or the firmer runways decrease the numbers of accidents.
My main worry is with such high BP requirements airfields would get very expensive in terms of industrial capacity and how would you forward base aircraft where they are needed? Perhaps you are not building airfields but a logistical base of machine ships that can be moved but slowly? Would even concrete airfields really use BP's?
2) A question on ship building of civilian stuff. "Cheap patrol ships/AMC/troop transports/CVE/etc. built to merchant standards.
The ships costs 1/4th of the total SS price to build. The Springsharp indicated weight of non-VTE machinery, armament and armor is to be paid from BP. Plus $ at rate of 1$ per 1000 tonnes of machinery, armament and armour.
So, if a 1000 tons merchant hull has 200 tons of armor, weapons and turbines included, the 200 tons (in this case 20%) of the indicated pricetag has to be paid from the military budget BP and $,
PLUS the 1/4$ of the Springsharp indicated pricetag for the ship."
I just want to confirm that a ship built to civilian standards costs ¼ of the listed cash AND BP. Guns, armor, whatever are full cost of course.
3) If P3D gets a chance make a new picture of the chart for naval guns to reflect the current rules would be helpful.
4) Charles thinks that units can be kept at Elite by having them alternate readiness between mobilized and active. I believe the intent of the troop grade section is if you don't pay the mobilization cost every half the unit looses its elite status. If that is the case perhaps a better phrasing of the rule to clear its meaning up.
5) Any reason we removed the amount of tonnage harbors could support?
6) Charles has asked me several times about when will the MISC cost of non standard items like radio and fire control become part of the assumed part the ships general cost?
7) I really, really, really want something other than handwaving for size of our civilian fleets. Also rules to cover expanding them, repair, otherwise its whim of the moderator as to the effects of raiders and that will varry wildly from mod to mod. Also the repair / expansion cost should odds are line up in some way the costs listed in question #2. At the same time how to consider the civilian production capacity of nations if at all to build cargo ships if they are going to cost BP? Without making it something for players to attempt to game to steal more BP's...
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 20, 2008, 09:08:47 AM
Mikes rules questions
1) Do we really want to spend BP's to build airfields? Well into WW2 many aircraft could get by with just a clear and level field. I have been to the rhinebeck aerodrome and the field is just grass... In WW2 the Germans in Northern France based their fighters out of like fields. Sure some aircraft need the firmer runway but those are the multi-engine aircraft and or the firmer runways decrease the numbers of accidents.
My main worry is with such high BP requirements airfields would get very expensive in terms of industrial capacity and how would you forward base aircraft where they are needed? Perhaps you are not building airfields but a logistical base of machine ships that can be moved but slowly? Would even concrete airfields really use BP's?
Aircraft rules are in progress. But I have to agree, unless you want to have a few 100 aircraft take-offs and landings a week, a good maintained grass field can cope with aircraft up to a certain weight.
No BP's needed there, just money and manpower.
On the other hand, you need heavy capacity to maintain the aircraft, and the investment of a BP can represent the increased load on the industrial base of a country to maintain Hi-Tech machines like airplanes.
Quote2) A question on ship building of civilian stuff. "Cheap patrol ships/AMC/troop transports/CVE/etc. built to merchant standards.
The ships costs 1/4th of the total SS price to build. The Springsharp indicated weight of non-VTE machinery, armament and armor is to be paid from BP. Plus $ at rate of 1$ per 1000 tonnes of machinery, armament and armour.
So, if a 1000 tons merchant hull has 200 tons of armor, weapons and turbines included, the 200 tons (in this case 20%) of the indicated pricetag has to be paid from the military budget BP and $,
PLUS the 1/4$ of the Springsharp indicated pricetag for the ship."
I just want to confirm that a ship built to civilian standards costs ¼ of the listed cash AND BP. Guns, armor, whatever are full cost of course.
We're working on a a more uniform and simpler setup.
Quote4) Charles thinks that units can be kept at Elite by having them alternate readiness between mobilized and active. I believe the intent of the troop grade section is if you don't pay the mobilization cost every half the unit looses its elite status. If that is the case perhaps a better phrasing of the rule to clear its meaning up.
Quote5) Any reason we removed the amount of tonnage harbors could support?
Quote6) Charles has asked me several times about when will the MISC cost of non standard items like radio and fire control become part of the assumed part the ships general cost?
1912 was seen as the cut off date for Marconi. Just implementing it.
Retrofitting ships with marconi and/or other modern tools still will consume misc weight.
New ships, if the appropriate tech is available, could be equipped with those new technologies from the start without the limitiation. But that's not hardwired in the rules yet.
Will be made more clear asap.
Quote7) I really, really, really want something other than handwaving for size of our civilian fleets. Also rules to cover expanding them, repair, otherwise its whim of the moderator as to the effects of raiders and that will varry wildly from mod to mod. Also the repair / expansion cost should odds are line up in some way the costs listed in question #2. At the same time how to consider the civilian production capacity of nations if at all to build cargo ships if they are going to cost BP? Without making it something for players to attempt to game to steal more BP's...
This is also being hammered out,
Proposed idea atm.
Merchant Fleets can be seen as a part of the IC of a country. Increasing the merchant fleet will cost $ then, just like building factories to increase the IC of a country/colony.
Mike - I thought this belonged here; hope you don't mind that I moved it.
1) It's been debated a bit already, let's continue discussing it.
2) We need to clarify the "civilian/mercantile standard" construction rules; we also need to weed out references to SS dollar costs, which vary by year.
3) That would be helpful.
4) I agree with Mike in this regard, and support clarifying the rules in this manner. Sorry, Charles.
5) I don't know. Discuss.
6) Good question, and one to resolve very soon.
7) Further work would be useful; there have been some ideas presented on this that can be looked at once more.
Ah! Didn't see this thread when looking at the aviation section. That said, I don't think we will need to consider BPs for airplanes even to build the planes. Right now ALL planes are stick and fabric, and will be that way for at least another 20 years.
Some BP should go into them flyign thingies ...
Quote from: Borys on August 20, 2008, 03:00:55 PM
Some BP should go into them flyign thingies ...
Let's say 100kg motor for 100 aircraft, total of 10t, i.e. 0.01BP. Spare change.
;D - Charles was just panicking over the cost of his Army and was looking for anyway to save a few bucks. Ive already decided it was a cheesy loophole and just decided to reduce the number of Elite Units to an affordable number. Of course that was before a newly active nation slapped up a fortified wall along my Border. I have no objection to pluging what was clearly a loophole.
Question does anyone know where Tan built the two Fortress Lines I have in my Army OOB. I havent found a post anywhere yet that indicates where he put them. Other then a vague indication that they are probably in northern Italy either along the French Border or more likely along the Existing Bavarian Border.
Perhaps his old news posts might reference something...
Mike listed seven points of contention above, and I commented on them as well. Let me add where in the rules I plan to address them:
1) Airfield/Aircraft BP - in the aircraft rules, of course. Not resolved yet. Airship/hanger BP might need to be thought about as well.
2) Civilian/Merchant standard ships - in the Ship Construction Rules, which I am working to re-word (for clarity) at present. Please note the proposal from Maddox in the relevant thread in the Naval Discussion Forum.
3) Gun Tech Table - this will be added into a single naval/land/air tech rules post
4) Morale and Army Upkeep - will be clarified in the Army Units rules post.
5) Port support capacity - Once determined, any changes will be made in the Naval Infrastructure rules post.
6) Miscellaneous weight costs/when unnecessary - recommended weights will be added to the Design Guidelines post. When the weight is no longer part of the Misc. Weight total will be appended into the tech rules post.
7) Merchant Marine - I gather there is general opposition to "more rules", but I will develop, in conjunction with any interested players, moderator guidelines for the size and distribution of MM, the effects of losses from raiders, and a point or two about using MM for military purposes. The outward impact on you guys will be kept as limited as possible.
I started separate tech threads so that stuff could be found faster. There is few enough threads that they fit on a single screen and there's no need to get to the next page.
While we're mucking about in the innards of the game, I'd like to once more advance a request for a proper torpedo boat tech, as well as, ideally, some sort of reference for figuring out the timing and costs of weird ideas not directly covered by the existing tech trees, like rockets, bombs, or cryptography.
Hello,
I have been gathering information on The Coastal Defenses of Hawaii, and came across the emplacement costs of nearly every Battery. I noticed that the cost is approximately 25% or so in comparison to our costs(it varies quite a bit though). Also our cost system will be no longer valid due to the inflation rates, which will make CD systems cost even more in comparison to ships.
Would it be beneficial to post the Hawaii CD costs?
Also we never really came up with a system for Rail Artillery costs.
A Torpedo Boat tech would be good, I will second that.
Hello,
I had another thought, early submarines seemed to take quite a while to build. It might be a good idea to increase (double?) the build time.
Another clarification is needed regarding Subs. The old rule was to use existing models as basis. After miketr's 'Model Chart' the idea was to use that as the basis. My question is can we still use both rules or only the 'new' chart.
I had planned on building RL designs(as others have still been doing). Only resorting to 'stock models' if I could find no RL example.
Yes, please, post the Hawaii cots. Like I've written before, some of that artillery was moved around on 3" gauge railways.
Borys
Hello,
Early CDs of Hawaii
1906 Recommendations:
Queen Emmas point: 2x12" guns,16x12" mortars
Puuloa: 2x12" guns
Waikiki: 2x 12" guns
Honolulu: 4x 6" guns
Estimated Costs: $3,254,000(of which 2,544,000 was for the purchase
of land,guns,and emplacements)(The rest for mining defense, power plants, searchlights,
and fire control)
Changes to the above: 2x 14" gun at Waikiki(-2x12"),split 12" mortars(1/2 to diamond head), two batteries 3" guns covering minefields,
Puuloa Battery dropped.
Est. Cost Reduction: $318,660
Actual(figures do not include guns):
Fort Kamehameha(Queen Emma):sand and coral ground-1907:
Battery Selfridge: 2x12" 1895M1 Guns on M1901 Disappearing Carriages($440,000)
Battery Jackson: 2x6" M1908 Guns on M1905M11 Disappearing Carriages($86,000)
Battery Hawkins: 2x3" M1903 Guns on Pedestals($22,200)
Battery Hasbrouck: 8x12" M1908 Mortars in 2 four gun pits($274,161)
Fort Armstrong:reef?(honolulu mining station)1909
Battery Tiernon: 2x3" M1903 Guns on Pedestals, concrete mining wharf,
mine storehouse, loading room, cable tank, mine casemate(control)($20,000)
Fort DeRussy(Waikiki):expensive land-1908
Battery Randolph: 2x14" M1907 Guns on Disappearing Carriages($428,893)
Battery Dudley: 2x6" M1908 Guns on M1905M1 Disappearing Carriages($75,000)
Fort Ruger:Diamond Head-1909
Battery Harlow: 8x12" M1890M1 Mortars in 2 four gun pits($274,161)
Land Defense Project: 1910
Fort Ruger:Diamond Head-1914
Battery Birkhimer: 4x12" M1890M1 Mortars on M1896 carriages($190,000)
Battery Dodge: 2x4.72" Guns on Pedestals($15,000)
Battery Hulings: 2x4.72" Guns on Pedestals($15,000)
--
Battery S.C. Mills: 2x5" M1900 Guns on M1903 Barbette Carriages w/steel shields($30,560)
Ford Island: 1915
Battery Adair and Boyd: 2x6" Armstrong Guns in cut and cover construction($59,000 and $44,600)
Bishops Point: 1914
Battery Barri: 2x4.72" Guns on Pedestals,casemated($29,043)
Battery Chandler: 2x3" Guns on Pedestals,casemated($26,923)
1915 RecommendationS:
6x12" long range guns($1.100,000)
Fort Kam...: 1917
Battery Closson: 2x12" m1895M1 Guns on High Angle m1917 barbette carriage(over $300,000)
Fort Weaver: 1921
Battery Williston:: 2x16" m1919M11 Guns on High Angle m1919 barbette carriage($121,549) very simple design
plotting room($65,271)
Here are the early emplacements, I'll post others when I can.
Something I have asked for before:
Rules on the cost of fitting oil firing in old coal burning boilers.
I'll add something to the refit rules underway. What do you suggest?
Hello,
OK, using SS to come up with our emplacement costs, show a wide variation. The early 6" Guns are close, early 3" cheaper, 12" Mortars are 10x higher for SS, 12" guns around 2x, 14" around 3x more expensive. after 1914 SS cost go much higher
whereas Hawaiian CD costs go down(already owned land-simplier construction?).
I have wanted to emplace my old 12" guns in CDs, but it was too expensive. Since I have plenty of BP it was almost as cheap to build a monitor, then I would have a mobile gun.
1906 Recommendations: 6x12" guns,16x12" mortars/ 4x 6" guns
Estimated Costs: $3,254,000
Springsharp: $7,924,000 Navalism: $19.81
Changes to the above:-4x12"/add 2x 14"/add 4x 3"
Est. Cost Reduction: $318,660
SS: $271,000 Navalism: $0.5
Fort Kamehameha-1907:
Battery Selfridge: 2x12" ($440,000) SS:706,000 N3:$1.76
Battery Jackson: 2x6" ($86,000) SS:88,000 N3:$0.22
Battery Hawkins: 2x3" ($22,200) SS:11,000 N3:$0.03
Battery Hasbrouck: 8x12" ($274,161) SS:2,822,000 N3:$7.06
Fort Armstrong:(honolulu mining station)1909
Battery Tiernon: 2x3" ($20,000) SS:11,000 N3:$0.03
Fort DeRussy(Waikiki):-1908
Battery Randolph: 2x14" ($428,893) SS:1,120,000 N3:$2.8
Battery Dudley: 2x6" ($75,000) SS:88,000 N3:$0.22
Fort Ruger:Diamond Head-1909
Battery Harlow: 8x12" ($274,161) SS:2,822,000 N3:$7.06
Fort Ruger:Diamond Head-1914
Battery Birkhimer: 4x12" ($190,000) SS:1,796,000 N3:$4.49
Battery Dodge: 2x4.72" ($15,000) SS:55,000 N3:$0.14
Battery Hulings: 2x4.72" ($15,000) SS:55,000 N3:$0.14
--
Battery S.C. Mills: 2x5" ($30,560) SS:65,000 N3:$0.16
Ford Island: 1915
Battery Adair and Boyd: 2x6" ($59,000 and $44,600) SS:88,000 N3:$0.32 each
Bishops Point: 1914
Battery Barri: 2x4.72" ($29,043) SS:55,000 N3:$0.14
Battery Chandler: 2x3" ($26,923) SS:14,000 N3:$0.04
Recommendations:
6x12" long range guns($1.100,000) SS:3,849,000 N3:$9.62
Fort Kam...: 1917
Battery Closson: 2x12" (over $300,000) SS:1,283,000 N3:$3.21
Fort Weaver: 1921
Battery Williston:: 2x16"($121,549+$65,271) SS:4,257,000 N3:$10.64
I will track down any Rail Art costs that I can find.
Hello,
Not sure if it was added or changed, but we need a rule saying the max dock length is based on overall size not waterline.
----------
Also, I think Borys had created this and it should be added officially, Having it also include slips?.
"Just like we forbid more than 4 shafts, we could live with a rule on DD breadth -
Type 0, Dry-dock 70 meters/230 feet (B=12/38), cost $4
Type 1, Dry-dock 120 meters/393 feet (B=20/66), cost $12 +1 BP
Type 2, Dry-dock 170 meters/557 feet (B=28/93), cost $16 + 2 BP
Type 3, Dry-dock 220 meters/721 feet (B=37/120), cost $21 + 3 BP
Type 4, Dry-dock 270 meters/885 feet (B=45/148), cost $27 + 4 BP
Type 5, Dry-dock 320 meters/1049 feet (B=53/175), cost $34 + 5 BP
Or classify designs of 6:1 or 5:1 as "oddballs, moderator aproval"."
-------
Maybe Floating Drydocks should be a little bit cheaper? I have not found any RL costs on them. They suck up alot of BP.
-----
Taken from the Repair ship section.
"The Misc.Weight + Fuel represent the workshops, shower rooms, stores, etc.
*The fuel is needed for Springsharp, to prevent the Misc.Weight from turning the ship over."
I like the idea of this and I used it, but because we pay for light displacement only, the fuel load makes the ship much cheaper than it should be. That would also apply to Tankers and Long Range Vessels(fuel does cost but very little compared with other needs of a ship). Normal would have been more accurate and fair, although it is probably way too late for that. Maybe a limit on fuel load percentage?
-----
Perhaps Civilian ships should have a drastically reduced Survivability rating. Due to being slow and somewhat large my C1 5,000 ton normal (1500 Light)Collier has a rating of 24,000 lbs(760x 4" shells) and 5.3 Torps. MY C3 15,000 ton Normal (4600 Light)Collier has a rating of 77,000 lbs(5,734.3 x 3.0 ") and 9.6 Torps.
Uboats sunk many smaller vessel strictly with the bow gun. and even the RL large C2 class AKs would not survive more than 2 torpedos and a half dozen shells, usually. Perhaps 1/4 of the normal rate for torps and 1/20th or more vrs. shells?
QuoteOr classify designs of 6:1 or 5:1 as "oddballs, moderator aproval"."
No need, just have a 6:1 limit on Slips. So a 170 meter long 5:1 ship would need a Type 3 instead of a Type 2.
Many thoughts have been brought up about DD speed. Could we make it official that top speed is 3 knts or so faster than SS?
------
I believe Wesworld uses .80 strength or so to make Light cruisers, any interest in that?
-----
I was told 12:1 was maximum length could this be official? 6:1 minimum unless approved?
----
Block Coeffient- perhaps 0.40 minimum for DD type, 0.45 for CL, 0.5 for CA , 0.55 for BC? With a max of 0.65 for BBs? Monitors and merchies maybe 0.7 max?
Quote from: blooded on August 25, 2008, 09:55:54 AM
Many thoughts have been brought up about DD speed. Could we make it official that top speed is 3 knts or so faster than SS?
Only on very new ships with unfouled bottoms and engines/boilers in mint condition.
------
QuoteI believe Wesworld uses .80 strength or so to make Light cruisers, any interest in that?
Not from me I have to admit.
-----
QuoteI was told 12:1 was maximum length could this be official? 6:1 minimum unless approved?
Aboutish, a % either way ain't a problem. For oddballs, approval is needed.
QuoteBlock Coeffient- perhaps 0.40 minimum for DD type, 0.45 for CL, 0.5 for CA , 0.55 for BC? With a max of 0.65 for BBs? Monitors and merchies maybe 0.7 max?
.38 is the SS cutoff on function. For the rest, common sence is asked for, nothing else.
I think we are doing just fine with 1.0 Overal Strenght cruisers ...
Indeed, at some point DD lenght was clarified as overal lenght.
I've come across a referrence that the drydock at Rosyth in Scotland had a notch on the landward side to accommodate the bow of the Hood.
No, please don't get any ideas - we build to the limit anyway ...
I second the 6:1 and 12:1 idea.
Although as a BBW lover, I'd prefer 5,5:1, and I could live with 10:1 at the other end of the scale.
I see Desertfox's idea as having much merit. Of course, where to draw the line - what about a 160m ship with 5:1 lenght-beam ratio? So it boils down to moderators' discretion.
Borys
When SS says speed, what condition is the ship assumed to be in? Ie, light displacement, standards, etc?
Frankly, it seems that SS makes torpedo craft both slower than they should be (which we all know), but also shorter legged. So I think if we're going to grant a 10% speed bonus, we might also consider a 10% range bonus.
I'm still unconvinced though. SS speed may be slow for a ship in trials conditions, but I suspect that if we think of it as the speed in an actual seeway (at least for torpedo craft), it's probably pretty close to accurate.
Quote from: guinness on August 25, 2008, 10:14:05 AM
When SS says speed, what condition is the ship assumed to be in? Ie, light displacement, standards,
All springsharp measurements are for "Normal" weight. How that differs (if at all) from trial conditions very much depends on which country we are talking about, as the load on trials varied allot.
Quote from: Borys on August 25, 2008, 10:11:16 AM
I think we are doing just fine with 1.0 Overal Strenght cruisers ...
No changes of this type n the middle of the game... if we ever get to the point of N4 then yes... 0.75 over all would be fine for PC tech. But this would be too massive of a change to make in mid game.
Quote from: Borys on August 25, 2008, 10:11:16 AM
I second the 6:1 and 12:1 idea.
Although as a BBW lover, I'd prefer 5,5:1, and I could live with 10:1 at the other end of the scale.
I have built one class of DD thats 12 to 1... I have a slower design thats 10 to 1 that I could plug in instead. I just need to know what the rules are.
As to DD's speed and range issues. We all agree that they are too slow. A 10% bonus to TB/DD top end speed would resolve the issue, IMHO.
Michael
Slip/Dock Breadth: I have no desire to regulate this; if you build a particularly fat ship, consider using the next largest slip available.
Cruiser hull strength: I'm not convinced we need this to drop below 1.00.
Minimum/Maximum L:B Ratios: As a design guideline, anything is possible - but strange/unpleasant Moderator effects may be associated with ships that have really, really slender and delicate hulls above 12:1. I'm not sure low L:B ratios offer enough advantages to outweigh sluggish performance and awkard layouts.
Block Co-efficients: I'll point to Maddox' comment. 0.38 and above, common sense.
Floating Dock Cost: Can be examined if any real life into can be dredged up.
DD speed: Has been discussed before. Can be considered.
Civilian Ship Survivability: SS Design notes do mention that stats should be adjusted downward. I prefer to leave reports in their original form, and Mods can, when gleefully smashing your ships, account for this in the damage rolls.
Use of Fuel for misc. weight: I personally feel this should be limited to 50% or so of the overall load, since some of the "cargo" is going to be above water.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 25, 2008, 10:51:13 AM
Slip/Dock Breadth: I have no desire to regulate this; if you build a particularly fat ship, consider using the next largest slip available.
Cruiser hull strength: I'm not convinced we need this to drop below 1.00.
Minimum/Maximum L:B Ratios: As a design guideline, anything is possible - but strange/unpleasant Moderator effects may be associated with ships that have really, really slender and delicate hulls above 12:1. I'm not sure low L:B ratios offer enough advantages to outweigh sluggish performance and awkard layouts.
Block Co-efficients: I'll point to Maddox' comment. 0.38 and above, common sense.
Do not feel any need to say any more here, as it seems Rocky took the words outh of my mouth. :)
Just because I got really curious, I went and looked up the length and beam ratios for a bunch of different battleship and battlecruiser classes that were built between 1900 and the WNT.
If anything, this tells us that Borys's fetish for fat BBs isn't totally unreasonable. At any rate, here's all the data, for you perusal. All the data is from online sites, as I don't have my Jane's BBs of the 20th century at work. Length is mostly overall, but with most of these ships it doesn't matter much. Beam is unbulged, including the Revenges. Fair warning though: I did all the L/B calculating with a calculator, so there could be transcription errors.
At any rate, here they all are. As we can see, as time went on and speeds increased L/B ratios tended to increase as well:
|
| Maine(II): | 5.45 |
| Virginia: | 5.79 |
| Connecticut: | 5.95 |
| South Carolina: | 5.65 |
| Delaware: | 6.09 |
| Florida: | 5.91 |
| Wyoming: | 6.03 |
| New York: | 6.0 |
| Nevada: | 6.12 |
| Pennsylvania: | 6.27 |
| New Mexico: | 6.43 |
| Tennessee: | 6.41 |
| Colorado: | 6.41 |
| South Dakota (1): | 6.51 |
| Lexington (as BC): | 8.38 |
|
| UK: |
| Duncan: | 5.72 |
| King Edward VII: | 5.81 |
| Swiftsure: | 6.75 |
| Lord Nelson: | 5.58 |
| Dreadnaught: | 6.43 |
| Bellerophon: | 6.38 |
| Neptune: | 6.42 |
| Orion: | 6.60 |
| King George V: | 6.72 |
| Iron Duke: | 6.92 |
| Agincourt: | 7.54 |
| Queen Elizabeth: | 7.14 |
| Revenge: | 7.09 |
| Invinicble: | 7.22 |
| Indefatigable: | 7.38 |
| Lion: | 7.9 |
| Tiger: | 7.77 |
| Renown: | 8.82 |
| Hood: | 8.26 |
|
| Germany: |
| Wittlesbach: | 5.52 |
| Braunschweig: | 5.81 |
| Deutschland: | 5.74 |
| Nassau: | 5.43 |
| Helgoland: | 5.87 |
| Kaiser: | 5.94 |
| Konig: | 5.94 |
| Bayern: | 6.0 |
| Von Der Tann: | 6.45 |
| Moltke: | 6.22 |
| Seydlitz: | 7.04 |
| Derfflinger: | 7.25 |
| Mackensen: | 7.34 |
| Ersatz Yorck: | 7.47 |
|
| France: | |
| Republique: | 5.58 |
| Liberte: | 5.52 |
| Danton: | 5.62 |
| Courbet: | 5.94 |
| Bretagne: | 6.17 |
| Normandie: | 6.23 |
| Lyon: | 6.59 |
|
| Italy: |
| Alighieri: | 6.32 |
| Cavour: | 6.03 |
| Andrea Doria: | 6.03 |
| Caracciolo: | 6.81 |
|
| Austria: |
| Viribus Unitis: | 5.44 |
|
| Russia: |
| Borodino: | 5.26 |
| Evstafi: | 5.24 |
| Pervozvanny: | 5.74 |
| Gangut: | 6.77 |
| Imperatritsa Mariya: | 6.14 |
|
| Japan: |
| Mikasa: | 5.92 |
| Katori: | 5.40 |
| Satsuma: | 5.38 |
| Settsu: | 6.27 |
| Fuso: | 6.96 |
| Ise: | 6.80 |
| Nagato: | 6.39 |
| Kongo: | 7.65 |
Great job!
Although I giggled at the "fetish" refferences - makes me look like a pervert or something :D
But the SMS Viribus Unitis seems to be the fatest of the dreadnaughts ...
Borys
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 25, 2008, 06:54:05 AM
I'll add something to the refit rules underway. What do you suggest?
Hm, I have no data to back anything up, but it seems that it could be done fairly cheap.
So ho about 10% of engine cost if done at general refit, twice that if done on its own, and the max fuel load must remain the same or increase?
Very interresting & usefull job
Thanks Guinness
Jef ;)
QuoteNo region can have more than 1 BP per 4 functional IC. Any BP in excess of this ratio is inoperable.
Why the change from total to region? Mainly asking as such a change will cost me two BP per half.
My understanding is that this was always intended to be the case.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2008, 08:53:43 AM
My understanding is that this was always intended to be the case.
Its going to cost me half a BP in Portugal... The inbalance dates from the great BP expansion and I have worked since then on putting more IC's in my overseas territories.
I would request a wavier till end of 1915 for people to work to get their budgets in line with the rules. Thats 3 halves.
Michael
I'm agreeable to that.
An alternative, as Merchant Marine rules are drafted, is that having X amount of merchant shipping allows a nation leeway for a BP. The Netherlands, Iberia, and other large maritime states likely have large enough merchant marines to supply BP in this predicament from elsewhere in their empires.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2008, 09:08:58 AM
I'm agreeable to that.
An alternative, as Merchant Marine rules are drafted, is that having X amount of merchant shipping allows a nation leeway for a BP. The Netherlands, Iberia, and other large maritime states likely have large enough merchant marines to supply BP in this predicament from elsewhere in their empires.
That would be an easy solution, I like the easy ones. :)
And to be honest, that was the way i thougt it worked since we began...
Quote from: miketr on August 27, 2008, 09:01:36 AM
I would request a wavier till end of 1915 for people to work to get their budgets in line with the rules. Thats 3 halves.
Michael
It is five halves to end of 1915, and horribly enough, that would not be enough for me to get the 4,5 IC I would need in the low countries even if spending all my civilian IC on increasing it....
With 3,3 IC per Pop, I think the Low countries is the most industrialised region in the game.
Quote from: miketr on August 27, 2008, 09:01:36 AM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2008, 08:53:43 AM
My understanding is that this was always intended to be the case.
Its going to cost me half a BP in Portugal... The inbalance dates from the great BP expansion and I have worked since then on putting more IC's in my overseas territories.
I would request a wavier till end of 1915 for people to work to get their budgets in line with the rules. Thats 3 halves.
Michael
I think that excess BP gained to the Big BP Boom should simply be rectified "as soon as possible". With no penalties.
Borys
Maybe you can only use half of the affected BPs. That way it keeps it fair to the players who do have enough ICs per BP.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2008, 08:53:43 AM
My understanding is that this was always intended to be the case.
Yes.
DF - it was not their fault they gained that BP ...
Borys
I bet somebody's typing, "No, but one could argue that they had time to do something about it".
Anyway - no, there will not be penalties just yet. I like the idea that a Merchant Marine provides some "connectivity" between regions, and reckon that a reasonable first suggestion is:
"For ever million tonnes of Merchant Marine, one BP can be exempt from the regional 4:1 IC/BP ratio - provided the national total is still at least 4:1"
Mike and I have been dabbling on the side in Merchant Marine rules. From Mike's initial number crunching, all indications point to both Netherlands and Iberia being "safe" for now.
As an aside, I also like the idea that this provides out-of-game value to Merchant Marines and creates more in-game interest in its preservation.
And yes, I've been editing various items in the Rules Forum. Not trying to change rules, but to clarify them and incorporate the results of recent decisions or discussions that we've had.
Ship Construction/Upkeep is, obviously, still up for discussion. I also intend to edit Fortifications, as there are some ambiguities in it.
BP limit should be regional not global. Communication distances are just too large. The original intention of the rules was that you cannot build more BP if you are over the limit but existing BP functions fine.