www.navalism.org

This thread is for discussion on changes to the technology system.

Some examples would be changing the cost of outdated technologies, changing the way the limit on technologies researched per half is derived, etc. It would be good to keep in mind that suggested changes should not be significantly more complex than the vanilla N3 system

The N3 ruleset, the actual tech tree excluded:

QuoteResearching each technology will cost $1 each half-year.

However, the amount of money a country can invest in research is limited by its industrial capacity, expressed in BP - build points. The maximum is one-third of the country's BP, rounded up to the nearest whole dollar.  This includes research from scratch, developing naval guns and mounts, and digesting technology acquired by tech trade or industrial espionage.
E.g. A country with 12.5BP can spend $5 on research. A country with 18BP can spend $6.

Normal research would take 2-3 years to finish. After 24 months of active research (with funding), the success chance is 20%, rising to 60% after 30 months and 100% (automatic completion) after three full years.  Research projects may be paused for one or more half-year, and resumed later without penalty.

If you want to keep research secret, it costs about twice the time. success chance is 20% after 48 months, raising 20% every six months thereafter.  So-called "Double-time" technologies such as Fire Control work on the same timetable even if done in the open.

To "digest" technology that was obtained from another country, $0.25 must be spent for two half-year turns. Doing this in secret doubles the cost.  One can not begin digesting technology from another country until the half-year after they successfully completed developing it.

Every technology has a year indicating the EARLIEST date research can be started.

You cannot skip technologies by tech transfer, e.g. researching right away the 1909 Ship propulsion technology after you bought the license, when you do not even have the 1905 technology. You have to get that technology first - and that would take only a year to finish.

Once 15 years has passed since a technology's 'first researchable' date, it is considered to be common knowledge. After that point, it may be researched by any nation as though it were being digested from another nation. Or in other words, $0.25 must be spent on that tech for two half-year turns. Techs that require double the time to research may not be digested in this way, nor can techs be digested this way in secret. Otherwise, all other normal research rules apply.

REMEMBER - TECHNOLOGY BECOMES AVAILABLE IN THE FIRST HALF YEAR AFTER SUCCESS IN RESEARCH (OR COMPLETING DIGESTION)

QuoteRESEARCHING NAVAL GUNS

Gun technology allows the development of better and better guns of the same caliber, represented in gun barrel length from thirty to sixty calibers, as represented in the table below in different colors.  It also allows for movement to larger bore diameters.  The numbers are the approximate muzzle energy in million lbs x ft^2/s^2.  If someone wants to use ahistorical designs, a good correlation for muzzle energy as a function of gun barrel length and bore diameter for guns of the 1900-1945 period is:

ME=0.04 x L x D^3

Where E is expressed in million lb.ft^2/s^2
L length of barrel in caliber
D diameter of barrel bore in inches

One may also opt to use period-appropriate historical guns if they prefer.

You can develop a gun, if:
- you have the relevant gun technology (the row)
- you already have a gun design not more than two spaces away (moving up/down and left/right) in the table above.

(http://puu.sh/7EcbF.png)


Costs

For guns larger than 8.27"/210mm, it takes two years to research, at a cost of $0.50 per half-year.
For guns no larger than 8.27"/210mm, the research time is the same, but the cost is halved to $0.25 per half-year.

There is no need to research single deck mounts (+/- hoists) and casemates for guns of 8.27"/210mm and smaller.  Turrets and multi-gun deck mounts for these weapons require six months per gun barrel, at a cost of $0.25 per half-year.

For any type of mount with a gun larger than 8.27"/210mm, six months of development is required per barrel, at a cost of $0.50 per half-year.

Guns and their mountings may be researched simultaneously.

A nation may acquire gun and/or gun mount licences from another nation.  The development time of this equipment is halved (with the half-year costs being unaffected), and the weapons may then be used as the basis for future development of new weapons.

One possibility is that instead of limiting the amount one can spend on research, you make the cost of subsequent research projects.  For example, if my nation is researching a new naval gun and mount and the cost is $3, and I want to start another research project, this time on engines for $1, then for every additional research project you pay more money, so the engine project would end up costing $2 every turn.  My third project would cost $2 more and the 4th would cost $3 more. 
Thoughts?

I was thinking of something like that as well, although with the original research budget idea still applied and a greater cost increase for every additional tech (2, 4, 6, 8, etc).

The increase in cost comes from hiring additional researchers but I would think that your nation would have a fixed team for research to begin with. Perhaps a fourth or a fifth of the BP for research instead of a third to determing how much your baseline research team can research for normal cost.

Another thing (and separate from the above) might be to be allowed to spend less than $1 on a tech's research although you would still have to spend a minimum of $4 and a maxiumum of $6 on the tech and rolls for success would be affected as well.

I think there are really two pressing issues with the research system:

1) It is tied to BP, which is ASB.
2) Naval Guns and especially their mounts is FAR too pricey.

I like the suggestions of gradual increase in research costs. I think that and also, removing the BP limit tie and replacing with high IC/Pop regions fixes the first issue.

To prove the second issue: A eight-barrel 2-pdr (Pom-Pom) mount takes 4 years and $2 total to develop. One could get quadruple 18" mount in 2 years for the same price. Makes any sort of "mg" infeasible. The price of a mount and gun is comparable to the price of research a technology and covers roughly the same amount of time. I find this is ASB territory... Maybe, reduce naval gun/mount cost by half?

Could possibly also have a sliding scale for guns/mounts, where larger units cost more and smaller units cost less?

It already does, large guns cost double that of small guns. The problem is the general price of gun/mounts are too high IMO. Perhaps a revision to $0.1 (small) and $0.25 (large) would be better. What do the other old-timers (since we've experienced the system first-hand) think about the matter?

Yes, the cost of the guns and the mount meant that I held back on those when I played Japan, giving priority to other techs.

That could work, but what about keeping the costs a little higher (.25 small and .5 large) but adding in that researching the gun grants one mount for it outside of the single M&H allowed under the current rules. (ie, a player chooses an 11" gun gets a twin turret when it is researched, but would still have to do a trip separately) and then each additional mount after that costs .1 and .25 per half?

Quote from: snip on March 23, 2014, 11:36:31 AM
That could work, but what about keeping the costs a little higher (.25 small and .5 large) but adding in that researching the gun grants one mount for it outside of the single M&H allowed under the current rules. (ie, a player chooses an 11" gun gets a twin turret when it is researched, but would still have to do a trip separately) and then each additional mount after that costs .1 and .25 per half?

So you get the mount and hoist for the gun for free, plus one other mount of your choice? 

Yes. I figure that if you are going to all the trouble to develop a gun, you can adapt a single M&H from the test stands and it would make little sense to develop a gun without a proper mount for it.

I can definitely agree to that. 

I think I can agree to that as well.

It prevents proliferation of guns without limiting mounts types too heavily. Historically there has always been far and away more mounts than guns. I honestly doubt it was as big a drain on research resources as N3 rules would have us believe.

Quote from: Logi on March 23, 2014, 12:33:57 PM
I think I can agree to that as well.

It prevents proliferation of guns without limiting mounts types too heavily. Historically there has always been far and away more mounts than guns. I honestly doubt it was as big a drain on research resources as N3 rules would have us believe.

If I remember right, a few of us in one of the sims made an agreement to trade materials for ships that we had researched but our trade partners had not researched yet.  Don't know how legal the agreement may have been, but we never really got to test it out because the sim didn't last long at all. 

Depends. Complete ships? Covered under the rules of "foreign built". Portions of the ship? Illegal.

For good reason too, I can't think of a major case where ships were built in domestic parts using foreign components. Usually at that point the ship itself is built in foreign ports.

Quote from: Logi on March 23, 2014, 12:46:58 PM
Depends. Complete ships? Covered under the rules of "foreign built". Portions of the ship? Illegal.

For good reason too, I can't think of a major case where ships were built in domestic parts using foreign components. Usually at that point the ship itself is built in foreign ports.

It only covered guns and mounts. 

In any case, I think Snip's suggestion works fine. Don't forget there is still the licensing clause in gun/mount research. Hence other nations can still share gun/mount technology at half cost.

Perhaps we should discuss the specific costs of the gradual research cost increase proposal?
I think specifically, that it could be something like Walter's suggestion but using the IC/Pop limit instead of BP.

I'm going to make an example with a 300 IC /100 Pop nation (my template US). Only 200 IC is useable for research hence ~$410 -- 50% tax --> $210 available for use (including research). Then the US can research ~14 techs. That's out of a total player usable cash of $305 or ~68.8% of usable income.

Ideally I think ~8 technos for very wealthy nation (like US) is a good area. Hence maybe $2, $4, $8 --> powers of 2. In that case US is limited to ~6 technos, close to 7.

So are we going to separate guns and mounts from research tech on the tech lines?

As far as I know despite what it said on the tech tree, they had always been separated de facto. No one really paid much attention to it, I most certainly didn't.

If there is no disagreement, we can make it formal.

I think the gradual cost is nice. Does not let the big nations run away with tech, but keeps them ahead. I would argue with a tiered cost system as Logi proposes, we could do away with any limit on research spending, as it will then become limited by how much of the overall budget it is allowed to take up on a per-player bais. Want a high-tech military over all branches? Be ready for it to be small, as you will be paying lots to keep that tech advantage. Player choice is better then hard coding IMO.

I would like to propose the following amendments to the naval tech tree. Mostly these are to account for the start of the sim and moving a few bits around for better spacing. Changes in Bold

Quote
1890: Engine Year 1890, Simple and Complex Reciprocating Engines.
1895: Engine Year 1900
1902 : Engine year 1905, Max. non-VTE power 5,000 HP/Shaft,
        Direct-drive Turbines
1905: Engine year 1909, Max. non-VTE power 12,000 HP/Shaft
1909: Engine year 1912, Max. non-VTE power 20,000 HP/Shaft
1913: Engine year 1916, Max. non-VTE power 35,000 HP/Shaft
1917: Engine year 1920, Max. non-VTE power 40,000 HP/Shaft, Engine year = year laid down.

To quantify the level available at game start & for pre-start ships.

Quote
1880: Main guns in twin turrets, secondaries in casemate
1890: Mixed main armament or AQY with double turrets+casemates
1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs)
1905: Improved turret hydraulics, Torpedo Bulkheads, triple turrets
1908: Superfiring turrets (unrestricted firing arcs), "All or Nothing" Protective Schemes
1912: Quadruple turrets, Sloped external belts
1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns

Adds an intermediary level between AQY and improvements to overall technology, while dealing with spacing a bit better. 1902 Level would have both options researchable simultaneously (think 1910 reserves), but you only need one to advance. Also removes a "theory" item from under the Armor tech and sticks it with Architecture, which makes more sense IMO.

Those are the only two I have for Naval, will record my thoughts on Land/Air next.

No superfiring turrets in 1902. That's too early => 1908 yes

Jef

Would be about 1905/1906 before a ship could be layed down with them. Also, with the tech, you are accepting that you will only be able to fire your A turret over the front 30⁰ arc. Doing so with B will most likely kill the crew in A. About the time of USS South Carolina OTL, so works well in my book.

A proposal for startup technology. Each nation starts with any technology with a 1890 or earlier date. Technologies for the 1891-1899 period become available 3 years after the date which they would be researched normally (assuming no successful roll, so 1895 engine tech on a 1898 ship for example) at a price of $6 (flat cost of development if completed) OR the maximum amount that would be invested by the first turn in 1900. Any tech dated 1900 or later must start research after game start.

Quote...If you wish to propose a modification to the rules, please do so in the tech thread...

Of course, I did:

"Historical ship"

Jef  ;)

Quote from: Jefgte on March 26, 2014, 02:27:37 AM

Quote...If you wish to propose a modification to the rules, please do so in the tech thread...

Of course, I did:

"Historical ship"

Jef  ;)

Im going to have to disagree with this proposal. Incorporating such commits bias in favor of those who want to redo OTL navies to the T and unfairly punishes those who wish to take a different path. Any historical ship that can be simed under our tech rules can be allowed in the game at such a time it meets the rules requirements and has a valid springsharp. If you wish to propose a modification to the Capital Ship Architecture tech to allow MMB ships earlier, I would be open to discussing such a proposal.

At the same time it might be interesting to look at the option of experimental ships. Currently our rules lack any semblance of the intermediate between heretic ideals (to the navy) and full-blown navy-wide adoption.

Perhaps if there was some sort of defined experimental clause, that would meet the desires of those who want to play a hard historical game and those who prefer more a more sandbox game.
A possible suggestion would be a player can build limited amounts (1-2 ships of the same class) where the tech is ~5 year advanced but paying double or even triple the cost in $ and 50% more costly in BP.

Quote from: Logi on March 26, 2014, 08:27:13 AM
At the same time it might be interesting to look at the option of experimental ships. Currently our rules lack any semblance of the intermediate between heretic ideals (to the navy) and full-blown navy-wide adoption.

Perhaps if there was some sort of defined experimental clause, that would meet the desires of those who want to play a hard historical game and those who prefer more a more sandbox game.
A possible suggestion would be a player can build limited amounts (1-2 ships of the same class) where the tech is ~5 year advanced but paying double or even triple the cost in $ and 50% more costly in BP.

The only amendment I would make to that would be that you would need to be researching said tech(s) at the time, or you must start research of the tech one turn before the ship completes. Just to make sure we do not get tons of one-offs flying out of the gates early with no real impact on design practice or tech level. An example using my proposal from above for a modified Capital Ship Architecture: The US is currently 2 turns into researching the 1902 tech for Superfiring turrets. In 1903, the Frigate USS Brandywine is layed down with a super firing arrangement of her B turret. Or something like this, with some storyline fluff: The Norfolk Shipyard begins construction of the Cruser USS Morgantown in September of 1901. Unlike her sisters, she is equipped with direct-drive turbines. The Navy begins investigating turbines shortly after (in January 1902) it becomes apparent the Morgantown cannot be altered back to VTEs.

QuoteThe only amendment I would make to that would be that you would need to be researching said tech(s) at the time, or you must start research of the tech one turn before the ship completes.

I was thinking of that as well when I read the proposal. I would think that the number of experimental ships should be limited to 1 for what is being researched.

QuoteThe Navy begins investigating turbines shortly after (in January 1902) it becomes apparent the Morgantown cannot be altered back to VTEs.

Actually it can be altered. It's more like the Navy does not want to spend the money on altering her.  :)

I think the amendment is fine, I guess the only question now is if this would solve Jefgte's issue with the tech rules.

Quote from: Walter on March 26, 2014, 08:50:35 AM

QuoteThe Navy begins investigating turbines shortly after (in January 1902) it becomes apparent the Morgantown cannot be altered back to VTEs.

Actually it can be altered. It's more like the Navy does not want to spend the money on altering her.  :)

The idea there is that the Morgantown completes in early 1902, so construction is mostly done by the time they catch on.

QuoteThe idea there is that the Morgantown completes in early 1902, so construction is mostly done by the time they catch on.

Doesn't matter, it can even be done when it is completed. like I said, it's more like the Navy does not want to spend the money on altering her. (cause it is going to cost a lot to convert her bacK)

Amendment to the amendment. As opposed to "or you must start research of the tech one turn before the ship completes" I think it should be "or you must start research of the tech one turn after construction commences."

Quote from: snip on March 23, 2014, 03:37:14 PM
I would like to propose the following amendments to the naval tech tree. Mostly these are to account for the start of the sim and moving a few bits around for better spacing. Changes in Bold

Quote
1890: Engine Year 1890, Simple and Complex Reciprocating Engines.
1895: Engine Year 1900
1902 : Engine year 1905, Max. non-VTE power 5,000 HP/Shaft,
        Direct-drive Turbines
1905: Engine year 1909, Max. non-VTE power 12,000 HP/Shaft
1909: Engine year 1912, Max. non-VTE power 20,000 HP/Shaft
1913: Engine year 1916, Max. non-VTE power 35,000 HP/Shaft
1917: Engine year 1920, Max. non-VTE power 40,000 HP/Shaft, Engine year = year laid down.

To quantify the level available at game start & for pre-start ships.

Quote
1880: Main guns in twin turrets, secondaries in casemate
1890: Mixed main armament or AQY with double turrets+casemates
1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs)
1905: Improved turret hydraulics, Torpedo Bulkheads, triple turrets
1908: Superfiring turrets (unrestricted firing arcs), "All or Nothing" Protective Schemes
1912: Quadruple turrets, Sloped external belts
1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns

Adds an intermediary level between AQY and improvements to overall technology, while dealing with spacing a bit better. 1902 Level would have both options researchable simultaneously (think 1910 reserves), but you only need one to advance. Also removes a "theory" item from under the Armor tech and sticks it with Architecture, which makes more sense IMO.

Are there any more comments on these changes?

No comments here but one question: 1902 superfiring is for main armament or does it include secondaries as well? I ask since the Henri IV had one superfiring secondary and it was a 1897 ship.

Quote from: Walter on March 28, 2014, 09:06:02 AM
No comments here but one question: 1902 superfiring is for main armament or does it include secondaries as well? I ask since the Henri IV had one superfiring secondary and it was a 1897 ship.

I guess we could include weird things like Superfireing secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets (think Kersarge) with the 1890 tech. That would make the tree as follows. Main guns are defined as the largest caliber carried on the ship, intermediary guns are anything between the main caliber and 155mm guns, secondaries are 80-155mm, tertiary are <79mm.

1880: Main guns in twin turrets, secondaries in casemate, tertiary in casemate or deck mounts.
1890: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]
1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs) [Pick one or both]
1905: Improved turret hydraulics, independent gun elevation, Torpedo Bulkheads, triple turrets
1908: Superfiring turrets (unrestricted firing arcs), "All or Nothing" Protective Schemes
1912: Quadruple turrets, Sloped external belts
1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns

Quote from: snip on March 27, 2014, 09:42:00 AM
Amendment to the amendment. As opposed to "or you must start research of the tech one turn before the ship completes" I think it should be "or you must start research of the tech one turn after construction commences."

I don't think I heard any particular disagreement on this point so I've edited it into the OP.
Edit: Maybe I need some rest... that didn't say what I thought it said.

I'm ok with the suggested amendment.

I wanted to dig up a few of my old proposals that I think still have some life in them. From here (http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5881.msg77533.html#msg77533) and here (http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5881.msg77460.html#msg77460) respectively, with some modifications.

The first proposal is a modification to the drive techs. Right now, they do not have any differences and I think there needs to be some way of making them more unique as opposed to flavor. Numbers are flexible and the current ones are just ment to demo the concept. Also adds Hydrolic Drives.

Quote1906 Electric Drives: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 20% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization (effects number of torpedo hits to sink).
1910: Hydrolic drives: Allows for Hydrolic drives. Takes an additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912 Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Provides a 10% bonus to range.
1912 Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric, Hydrolic or Geared drives (Bonus and penalties stack).

The second is with regard to research flowing more naturaly. I will just quote my previous thoughts on the subject.

Quote from: snip on September 16, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Regarding research, I present the following regarding cost of research. This would allow for research to be conducted more organically wile still using the N3 tree for speed of start. Instead of having a year that tech can be researched from, it is possible as long as you have the previous technology. It is however much more expensive. The formula is Cost= (Base cost)*(e^(year difference from listed tech)). This also makes it cheaper to catch up on outdated technology.

In this case, the base cost is what we have already discussed.

What do you guys think about both these items?

Another proposal to simplify the gun table by reworking it into less columns, a more even progression of boar (2" increments) and eliminating redundant ones (the 8" and 9") while allowing for guns greater then 18".

I'm okay with the change to the engine techs.

On first glance, I'm not in favor of the research cost because it requires a calculator. I don't think most of us have the e-table memorized.

Again on first glance, the gun tech modification seems fine.

Quote from: Logi on April 01, 2014, 01:57:03 PM
I'm okay with the change to the engine techs.

On first glance, I'm not in favor of the research cost because it requires a calculator. I don't think most of us have the e-table memorized.

Again on first glance, the gun tech modification seems fine.

e could be changed to a integer, honestly I cannot recall why I used e to begin with.

Considering that the 8" and 9" are no longer in the table, does that mean I can keep the 200mm gun at 45 cal or do you want me to bring it down to 40 cal?

Quote from: Walter on April 01, 2014, 04:03:02 PM
Considering that the 8" and 9" are no longer in the table, does that mean I can keep the 200mm gun at 45 cal or do you want me to bring it down to 40 cal?

The guns less then 10" are all covered with that column.

... guess I need a pair of glasses...

Quote from: Walter on April 01, 2014, 04:29:02 PM
... guess I need a pair of glasses...

I noted it as 10">, so in plain English Less then or equivalent to 10"

Yes and I did not see that. That is why I need a pair of glasses.

... although '>' actually means 'bigger than' and not 'less than' (or 'or equivalent to'). I may need glasses but do not need my mathematica books. ::)

Quote from: Walter on April 01, 2014, 04:44:49 PM
Yes and I did not see that. That is why I need a pair of glasses.

... although '>' actually means 'bigger than' and not 'less than' (or 'or equivalent to'). I may need glasses but do not need my mathematica books. ::)

Meh, best I could do without gunking up the table. The general idea is there, which is what matters.

Quote from: snip on April 01, 2014, 04:54:25 PM

Quote from: Walter on April 01, 2014, 04:44:49 PM
Yes and I did not see that. That is why I need a pair of glasses.

... although '>' actually means 'bigger than' and not 'less than' (or 'or equivalent to'). I may need glasses but do not need my mathematica books. ::)

Meh, best I could do without gunking up the table. The general idea is there, which is what matters.

If I remember correctly then "10>" ought to mean 10 is the largest number covered in the column. "10<" would mean all other numbers are larger than 10.   

I implicitly insert an x on the other side so:

10>x and 10<x.... as such my definition is the same as Darman and Snip.

---

I've looked over the suggestions again:

Regarding the modified Gun Table. You should probably have >= 18" rather than >18" so 18" guns are included. Other than that, everything seems fine.

You probably used e because it provides the exponential/regressive curve desired.
To keep the desired form of curve without the complexity --> Maybe something like:
Cost = (Base cost)*(year difference from listed tech)^2 ...... if Year Difference > 0
Cost = (Base cost)*(1/year difference from listed tech) ....... if Year Difference <= 0

There is a 18" column, it is separate to account for the British 18"/40 Mk1 (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_18-40_mk1.htm). This would allow that gun to be created at a historical time. The x>18" column is intended to cover larger guns that some may choose to design that are larger then 18", it is intended as a catchall for oversized weapons.

Quote from: snip on April 01, 2014, 01:44:31 PM

Maximum Bore Diameter Tech >18" 18" 16" 14" 12" 10"> 35 1885 - - - 3200 2000 1100 40 1895 - - - - 3000 1700 45 1902 - - - 4200 3300 2100 50 1907 - - 5200 4700 3600 - - 1911 - 6500 5800 5100 - 2500 55 1915 9700 7100 6400 5500 3900 - - 1921 10300 8200 7200 5900 4200 2800 60 1928 10900 9500 7800 - - - -

...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

QuoteCost = (Base cost)*(year difference from listed tech)^2 ...... if Year Difference > 0

... so if you start 1 year earlier, you get (1)*(1)^2 = 1 so cost would remain the same...

QuoteCost = (Base cost)*(1/year difference from listed tech) ....... if Year Difference <= 0

... including '0'? If you start at the exact time of the tech (0 years), you get (1)*(1/0) =
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/TI86_Calculator_DivByZero.jpg)
Another thing is that it is smaller than 0 so the numbers will be negative.... you will get (1)*(1/-1) = -1 so one would actually be getting $1 for researching it instead of paying $1 for it... Don't mind researching stuff to get money though. 8)

Quote from: Jefgte on April 03, 2014, 01:31:40 AM
...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

Outside of the historical guns, they would be governed by the 10" column. I think there are enough historical weapons in secondary calibers that we do not need to explicitly define what is ok for each one, and suitable historical "close enough" approximations could be found for ahistorical weapons. Seeing as we never had anything for less then 8" anyway, I did not see it as a problem.

Quote from: Jefgte on April 03, 2014, 01:31:40 AM
...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

Could one not be able to figure out the cross section of the lower diameters relative to a 10" bore, scale the lowest pressure by that, then derive MV for a given shell weight?   

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 03, 2014, 09:51:36 PM

Quote from: Jefgte on April 03, 2014, 01:31:40 AM
...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

Could one not be able to figure out the cross section of the lower diameters relative to a 10" bore, scale the lowest pressure by that, then derive MV for a given shell weight?

I would see no reason why not, but as I said before I feel there are enough historical light guns that we can approximate the viability of any ahistoric ones if necessary.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 03, 2014, 09:51:36 PM
Could one not be able to figure out the cross section of the lower diameters relative to a 10" bore, scale the lowest pressure by that, then derive MV for a given shell weight?   

We can already do so, in fact me and Nobody separately made ballistic tools that did precisely that. Granted his required a few more inputs than mine which was intended to be minimalist.

@Walter
Opps! I'll have to revisit that later then.

One of the things I've found is that the fun odd calibers kinda pass out of favor with the Washington treaty. Guns got lighter and more powerful with better shells, but 10, 9.4, 9.2, 7.5, 7, 6.75... all fell out of favor when the limits became 8 and 6. If there's going to be a formula, it would be nice to have an 'accepted' way of deriving smaller weapons.

Quote from: snip on April 03, 2014, 10:26:04 PM

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 03, 2014, 09:51:36 PM

Quote from: Jefgte on April 03, 2014, 01:31:40 AM
...and what about all smaller calibers
8", 7", 6", 5", 4, 3, 2, 1 & MGs

Jef

Could one not be able to figure out the cross section of the lower diameters relative to a 10" bore, scale the lowest pressure by that, then derive MV for a given shell weight?

I would see no reason why not, but as I said before I feel there are enough historical light guns that we can approximate the viability of any ahistoric ones if necessary.

QuoteOpps! I'll have to revisit that later then.

Slightly modifying it how about...

c = cost
b = Base cost
y = number of year tech's being researched earlier/later than listed. Earlier being negative, 0 being the exact year and later being positive numbers.

If y<0: c=b*(y^2+1)
If y=0: c=b
If y>0: c=b*(1/y))

With techs being started earlier, the y^2 will make sure that any negative values will become positive. I added the +1 to it so that when you start 1 year earlier, it'll become c=b*2 instead of the original c=b*1.

I thought about adding +1 to the other formula as well, but I thought it would perhaps be better that when you start a year later with the tech, it still costs the same as when you start researching it at the listed year.

Seems fine to me.

Quote from: snip on April 01, 2014, 01:44:31 PM
Another proposal to simplify the gun table by reworking it into less columns, a more even progression of boar (2" increments) and eliminating redundant ones (the 8" and 9") while allowing for guns greater then 18".

Maximum Bore Diameter Tech >18" 18" 16" 14" 12" 10"> 35 1885 - - - 3200 2000 1100 40 1895 - - - - 3000 1700 45 1902 - - - 4200 3300 2100 50 1907 - - 5200 4700 3600 - - 1911 - 6500 5800 5100 - 2500 55 1915 9700 7100 6400 5500 3900 - - 1921 10300 8200 7200 5900 4200 2800 60 1928 10900 9500 7800 - - - -

Doing some further tinkering with this. I want to make sure that the progression is smoother and more consistent. I made sure that the techs are spaced 5 years apart. This allows for the development of the tech and guns based on it (amusing 3 year research and that gun development is started the next half) before the next level becomes available. Thoughts?

"Thoughts?"

Yea, many. Not sure where to Start.

First of all. Diesels should have a much bigger range advantage. About 100%. Penalty is more difficult. The first generation of Diesel engines was actually lighter than a same power steam plant, but very limited in power.

About the guns: The heavy (e.g. 16" L50, L55 and L60) come much too early. Heck the 16"/50 was as good as it ever got until the 1940s (Iowa & Montana). Also you need to define where, say a 15" gun, fits into. Is it a 16" or is it a 14"? Neither category really fits them.
BTW the original table was created by P3D, I think. Who also provided the formula he used to create those values from the caliber and length.

Quote from: Nobody on April 09, 2014, 12:35:56 PM
About the guns: The heavy (e.g. 16" L50, L55 and L60) come much too early.

With a 4-5 year lead time before they can be built onto ships, it comes out about right in comparison to historical dates. For the 16"/50 Mk2 (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.htm), we have a design date of 1916 and a approximate service entry date of 1923 (had the ships these armed been completed). Under my table, the Mk2 would be designable under the 1915 tech, so the gun itself could not be researched until 1918 (assuming the tech takes the full three years and is started as early as permissible under N3 rules), the gun would then be developed with serviceable mounts by 1920, which depending on the ship has it in service around the same timeframe as projected for the Mk2 sans-WNT. Even moving this up by a year via an early roll still places it approximately in the ballpark of OTL projected service entry. The longer guns have no effective OTL analog, and as such I feel we just have to trust the table when it comes to there inclusion. Other examples of approximate OTL development-to-service timelines that mesh with the table under the previous assumptions can be found in the American 14"/45 Mk1, British 13.5" Mark V, as well as other guns.

Quote from: Nobody on April 09, 2014, 12:35:56 PM
Also you need to define where, say a 15" gun, fits into. Is it a 16" or is it a 14"? Neither category really fits them.

Maximum Bore Diameter dictates that 15" guns are governed by the 16" column. Using the same method as above, this places both the 15"/42 Mark I and 38 cm SK L/45 within a year to 18 months (hull dependent) of there OTL service entry dates.

Quote from: Nobody on April 09, 2014, 12:35:56 PM
Diesels should have a much bigger range advantage. About 100%. Penalty is more difficult. The first generation of Diesel engines was actually lighter than a same power steam plant, but very limited in power.

My numbers were mostly meant to illustrate the concept, I think the longer range bonus could work out. I presumed in my example that a single source was being used for the powerplant, perhaps adding some sort of caveat to account for diesel's meant for cruise only? For example, Weight penalty only applies for diesels with a SHP of greater then X?

Dunno if this helps- lacking any definitive text, if you do searches you can find a googlebooks doc on the different efficiencies the USN found for various power plants- turboelectric, geared and fixed. Jupiter trials?  In books about the panzerships and subs you can find discussions about relative values of diesels.  My understanding is the mature marine diesels generally had lower power:weight but much better range.

I believe the times I've tried to SS designs with modifiers I used *something* like this :
Turboelectric: -10% SHP, +12% range
Direct drive: -11% range
Diesel : -25% SHP +50% range
Note that lowever SHP means lower speeds and changed seakeeping.

Darned if I know if those are accurate, those are simply my memory of what I came up with several years ago.

Requoting a few proposals with some minor changes to some. Note the text within the quotes is the most up to date proposal and may be different with that in the quote.

Capital Ship Architecture

Quote from: snip on March 28, 2014, 09:21:55 AM
Main guns are defined as the largest caliber carried on the ship, intermediary guns are anything between the main caliber and 155mm guns, secondaries are 80-155mm, tertiary are <79mm.

1880: Main guns in twin turrets, secondaries in casemate, tertiary in casemate or deck mounts.
1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]
1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs) [Pick one or both]
1905: Improved turret hydraulics, independent gun elevation, Torpedo Bulkheads, triple turrets
1908: Superfiring turrets (unrestricted firing arcs), "All or Nothing" Protective Schemes
1912: Quadruple turrets, Sloped external belts
1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns

Drive Shafts. Note I have included some of the recommendations. All techs in this tree are optional in the sense that previous ones are not prerequisites for later techs, sans direct drives which everyone gets. This proposal treats the SS default figures for both range, weight and SHP as those for direct drives.

Quote from: snip on April 01, 2014, 10:28:21 AM
1890: Direct Drives: The basic drive option. No bonus or penalty.
1906: Electric Drives: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 25% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization (effects number of torpedo hits to sink).
1910: Hydraulic Drives: Allows for Hydraulic drives. Takes an additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912: Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Provides a 10% bonus to range.
1912: Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 75% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric, Hydraulic or Geared drives (Bonus and penalties stack). [Note: Might add to this to account for cruise-only engines]

Quote...1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]

Cool, I could have Masséna BBs.

Jef

Quote from: Jefgte on April 11, 2014, 10:03:07 AM

Quote...1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]

Cool, I could have Masséna BBs.

Jef

As long as they were layed down in 1894 or later.

Well, the originall one was laid down in 1892...

... but if Jef were to go for it, he would not mind changin it to 1894. :)

Quote from: Walter on April 11, 2014, 10:52:42 AM
Well, the originall one was laid down in 1892...

... but if Jef were to go for it, he would not mind changin it to 1894. :)

Well, I forgot about prototyping, so one example could be layed down earlyer then that.

Quote from: snip on April 11, 2014, 08:21:04 AM

Drive Shafts. Note I have included some of the recommendations. All techs in this tree are optional in the sense that previous ones are not prerequisites for later techs, sans direct drives which everyone gets. This proposal treats the SS default figures for both range, weight and SHP as those for direct drives.

Quote from: snip on April 01, 2014, 10:28:21 AM
1890: Direct Drives: The basic drive option. No bonus or penalty.
1906: Electric Drives: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 25% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization (effects number of torpedo hits to sink).
1910: Hydraulic Drives: Allows for Hydraulic drives. Takes an additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912: Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Provides a 10% bonus to range.
1912: Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 75% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric, Hydraulic or Geared drives (Bonus and penalties stack). [Note: Might add to this to account for cruise-only engines]

I know in N3 we used SS2, and in N5 it was to be SS3, but I confess to being unsure which you are using here.
In SS2, the allocation of Misc weight had a far different effect than large engine mass, being "placed" higher in the ship it had different effects on seakeeping than large engine weights placed low.
I don't know how the SS3 below decks weight models out.
Personally, when I've tried these things, I prefer to simply
1. Fit the engine in. Note current SHP.
2. Downsize the engine to 70% (if diesel) of SHP.  Note top speed, seakeeping results.
3. Return engine size to original.
Note differences on misc notes, and when put in encyclopedia, note in appropriate locations "real" numbers.
It's not too hard, and should result in a better modeled result.

Oh, and twin+ screw turbo-electrics were apparently more maneuverable, as they could put full reverse on any desired screw(s), allowing them to turn tighter, avoiding collisions, torpedoes and bombs better.

Oh, and I think Carrier rules should require you to add height to freeboard to account for hanger heights. I don't recall that being adopted, but makes a heck of a difference in what a carrier can hold, resulting in more realistic vessels in my opinion.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 12, 2014, 04:32:13 PM

Quote from: snip on April 11, 2014, 08:21:04 AM

Drive Shafts. Note I have included some of the recommendations. All techs in this tree are optional in the sense that previous ones are not prerequisites for later techs, sans direct drives which everyone gets. This proposal treats the SS default figures for both range, weight and SHP as those for direct drives.

Quote from: snip on April 01, 2014, 10:28:21 AM
1890: Direct Drives: The basic drive option. No bonus or penalty.
1906: Electric Drives: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 25% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization (effects number of torpedo hits to sink).
1910: Hydraulic Drives: Allows for Hydraulic drives. Takes an additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912: Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Provides a 10% bonus to range.
1912: Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 75% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric, Hydraulic or Geared drives (Bonus and penalties stack). [Note: Might add to this to account for cruise-only engines]

I know in N3 we used SS2, and in N5 it was to be SS3, but I confess to being unsure which you are using here.
In SS2, the allocation of Misc weight had a far different effect than large engine mass, being "placed" higher in the ship it had different effects on seakeeping than large engine weights placed low.
I don't know how the SS3 below decks weight models out.
Personally, when I've tried these things, I prefer to simply
1. Fit the engine in. Note current SHP.
2. Downsize the engine to 70% (if diesel) of SHP.  Note top speed, seakeeping results.
3. Return engine size to original.
Note differences on misc notes, and when put in encyclopedia, note in appropriate locations "real" numbers.
It's not too hard, and should result in a better modeled result.

Oh, and twin+ screw turbo-electrics were apparently more maneuverable, as they could put full reverse on any desired screw(s), allowing them to turn tighter, avoiding collisions, torpedoes and bombs better.

Oh, and I think Carrier rules should require you to add height to freeboard to account for hanger heights. I don't recall that being adopted, but makes a heck of a difference in what a carrier can hold, resulting in more realistic vessels in my opinion.

We are using SS3 so the Weight allocation issue is not the same as in SS2.

QuoteOh, and I think Carrier rules should require you to add height to freeboard to account for hanger heights. I don't recall that being adopted, but makes a heck of a difference in what a carrier can hold, resulting in more realistic vessels in my opinion.

I disagree with that. To me a hangar is a structure build on top of the hull with the flight deck as the roof of the hangar. As for what a carrier can hold, I am pretty sure a carrier with the freeboard you want can hold as many planes with a carrier with a freeboard at the main deck level so that does not change a thing.

If you want to sim the miscellaneous weight of the planes as "Hull - Above water" instead of "Above deck", you could just tell us that. ;)

I wasn't suggesting using decks for simming the aviation aspects (planes and stuff) that we normally do as misc weight.

As you may recall, many have found the miracle of small carriers with oversized aviation outfits via misc weight. It's much easier to field 40 planes w/1600 tons than 80 planes on 6400 tons. Yet in OTL, there were economies of scale with larger carriers- as well as better operations, etc. My observation from with playing around with SS2 has been much of this disparity vanishes if you raise the freeboard to take in the hanger heights.

Admittedly, just because I have an idea, doesn' mean it's a good one :)

I'm in total agreement with you, Kirk.  At the very least, the basic freeboard needs to be higher than ~6 metres as most of those small carriers tend to have. 

As Snip stated, we are using SS3. This is stated in the short introduction in the OP of the 'Rollcall and Other Misc. Statistics' thread.

I believe the maneuverability of twin-screw+turbo-electric should be something handled on the combat sim side of things. Whilst I, personally, am receptive to a modifier in that regard, we'll need some numbers and figures to formalize any notion of difference.

Regarding the issue of SS3 and carriers. I don't know what effect SS3 has on these considerations, since they seem to be rooted in SS2 issues. Since we are starting in 1900, we are still quite a ways off from carriers, we can postpone this issue.

In addition I think these restrictions for carriers (as currently discussed) far more under the design guidelines, which itself is a living document that we can change at a later date to accommodate for experience in SS3.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 12, 2014, 04:32:13 PM
Personally, when I've tried these things, I prefer to simply
1. Fit the engine in. Note current SHP.
2. Downsize the engine to 70% (if diesel) of SHP.  Note top speed, seakeeping results.
3. Return engine size to original.
Note differences on misc notes, and when put in encyclopedia, note in appropriate locations "real" numbers.
It's not too hard, and should result in a better modeled result.

I forgot to address this point separate of my response to the SS2vsSS3 weight distribution issue. Please understand that I am not knocking this as a inferior method, I think it is the only solution when using SS2 given the way it allocates misc weight, simply outlining my concerns as it relates to having a level playing field. When it comes to modifying the output of a SS report, from the perspective of a moderator, I can see several issues that using misc weight minimizes or removes. First is simply the manor in which information is presented. When it comes to misc weight, it is clear that there is X tonnage marked off for some use and is easy to check what it could be used for. In addition, there already exists somewhat of a standard in accounting for the exact makeup of misc weight so it is easy to spot the breakdown. With your proposal, I see several ways that the accounting could be noted. Seeing as beyond the standard report most have a individual way of formatting things, I feel that these multiply methods of noting such might lead to the information sometimes being missed when reviewing a sim. Also, by altering one of the inputs of the Springsharp report in a manor that does not have a trackable value in the final report (ie, differing engine years) to obtain the desired result it does open up an avenue where a individual with a desire to game the system could cheat to gain an advantage (note I am not saying anyone would, just that it could happen). By moving away from a value that can be clearly seen in the report and re-inputted into a resim of a design under scrutiny for being borderline leagle, there is then a window for disagreement and I would prefer to keep modifications to things that minimize the possibility for disagreements.

Just a note vis a vis engine weights etc. I saw it pointed out in a different forum that American engines tended to be slightly more powerful for their size, and English-made engines were slightly bigger for the same power.  Its really only relevant when simming historic ships and you get slight variations in displacement.  As long as we are all dealing with the same issues then its equitable.   

I agree with Snip on the issue of accounting. The more non-obvious (easy to overlook) the modifications to the report, the more likely people will make a mistake on their report. If one much fiddle with the engine size, SHP, or year, it's easy to see how a simmer could make a mistake.

Quote from: snip on April 14, 2014, 09:13:18 AM
I forgot to address this point separate of my response to the SS2vsSS3 weight distribution issue.

You didn't need to. My concerns were rooted in SS2.  I have rather limited time to peruse threads and comment and either missed or forgot it was SS3.  I really haven' simmed ships in SS3 to see what the difference between +500tons below deck misc weight and +500tons below deck engine weight have on the vessel.   However, even if there is a viable difference, I could concede that keeping it simply and replicatable might be the best course. :)

As far as differences in wights and tonnage go, or advantages/disadvantages to be gained, as long as its the same for everyone, that is the key. 

Leaving the whole issue of carriers design guidelines and what-not, here are the current proposals. Look over them, if there is no objection I will close this topic.

You all have until April 18 11:59 pm UTC (7:59 pm EST or 4:59 pm PST) to object. That's a 4-day (86-hour) window.

Currently Active Proposals

Research Cost as modified by distance from Stated Year
c = cost
b = Base cost
y = number of year tech's being researched earlier/later than listed. Earlier being negative, 0 being the exact year and later being positive numbers.

If y<0: c=b*(y^2+1)
If y=0: c=b
If y>0: c=b*(1/y))

Gun/Mount Research
For guns larger than 8.27"/210mm, it takes two years to research, at a cost of $0.50 per half-year.
For guns no larger than 8.27"/210mm, the research time is the same, but the cost is halved to $0.25 per half-year.

When a gun is first researched, the player can pick ONE free mount (outside of the single-deck provision).
There is no need to research single deck mounts (+/- hoists) and casemates for guns of 8.27"/210mm and smaller.  Turrets and multi-gun deck mounts for these weapons require six months per gun barrel, at a cost of $0.1 per half-year.

For any type of mount with a gun larger than 8.27"/210mm, six months of development is required per barrel, at a cost of $0.25 per half-year.

Guns and their mountings may be researched simultaneously.

A nation may acquire gun and/or gun mount licences from another nation.  The development time of this equipment is halved (with the half-year costs being unaffected), and the weapons may then be used as the basis for future development of new weapons.

Gun Technology Chart



Tech Tree Modifications

Capital Ship Architecture

Quote from: snip on March 28, 2014, 09:21:55 AM
Main guns are defined as the largest caliber carried on the ship, intermediary guns are anything between the main caliber and 155mm guns, secondaries are 80-155mm, tertiary are <79mm.

1880: Main guns in twin turrets, secondaries in casemate, tertiary in casemate or deck mounts.
1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]
1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs) [Pick one or both]
1905: Improved turret hydraulics, independent gun elevation, Torpedo Bulkheads, triple turrets
1908: Superfiring turrets (unrestricted firing arcs), "All or Nothing" Protective Schemes
1912: Quadruple turrets, Sloped external belts
1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns

Drive Shafts. Note I have included some of the recommendations. All techs in this tree are optional in the sense that previous ones are not prerequisites for later techs, sans direct drives which everyone gets. This proposal treats the SS default figures for both range, weight and SHP as those for direct drives.

Quote from: snip on April 01, 2014, 10:28:21 AM
1890: Direct Drives: The basic drive option. No bonus or penalty.
1906: Electric Drives: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 25% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization (effects number of torpedo hits to sink).
1910: Hydraulic Drives: Allows for Hydraulic drives. Takes an additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912: Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Provides a 10% bonus to range.
1912: Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 75% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric, Hydraulic or Geared drives (Bonus and penalties stack). [Note: Might add to this to account for cruise-only engines]

All looking good to me. I have another thought on gun tech tho, do we want to add some sort of prevision that makes it cheaper or faster to research longer guns of a boar that you already have? IE, researching as 14"/50 is cheaper and/or takes less time if you have a 14"/45?

The boar agrees. ;D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Wildboar_in_Anamalai_hills.jpg/640px-Wildboar_in_Anamalai_hills.jpg)

Would make sense as you already have the baseline of the gun. I think the same could be said of the turrets. If I have a twin 14" turret and going research a triple.

One thing I never looked at and thought about... if I have a 12"/35 cal gun and twin turret for it, do I need to research a new twin turret if I were to introduce a new 12"/45 cal gun? (i.e. do I consider the turret as a 12" turret or do I consider it to be a 12"/35 cal turret?)

Quote from: Walter on April 15, 2014, 09:11:10 AM
Would make sense as you already have the baseline of the gun. I think the same could be said of the turrets. If I have a twin 14" turret and going research a triple.

One thing I never looked at and thought about... if I have a 12"/35 cal gun and twin turret for it, do I need to research a new twin turret if I were to introduce a new 12"/45 cal gun? (i.e. do I consider the turret as a 12" turret or do I consider it to be a 12"/35 cal turret?)

Im going to disagree on turrets. On the question of moving to longer guns, the ammunition handling mechanisms, layout, balancing, and many other things are so finely tuned that modifying them so drastically was to my knowledge never done (replacing the guns is different then boaring out the existing ala the Italian jobs IMO). Therefor, I would consider all turrets to be directly associated with the gun they were developed for and not interchangeable. However, there could be a similar discount for making a turret for a longer gun of existing layout (twin, trip quad).

Looks like the time has past and this is now locked.