See the attached document and add any feedback to this thread.
What is Land points and Deployment poinst? Have not found any definition...
Read the document posted under the Ruleset Revision thread
QuoteEach nation will start with 480 BP of naval ships and infrastructure.Ships constructed
have their costs modified as shown below. It is expected that players will make a
reasonable effort to spread the number of hulls constructed over the whole of the time
period in question.
○ Pre 1895: 60%
○ 1895-1900: 75%
○ 1901-1907: 90%
○ 1908-1909: 100%
It is expected that players will make areasonable effort to spread the number of hulls constructed over the whole of the time
period in question.Is there a max BP % fixed for each period ?
ex: Total BP fleet => 100%
1890-1895 => 20%
1895-1900 => 20%
1901-1907 => 40%
1908-1909 => 20%
There is not a BP max or min. As stated in the document, try and keep the number of hulls distributed across the whole of the period.
I've put a lot of time into trying to get a consistent number of hulls. I was actually just writing this up for my own post.
There's a couple of problems.
The first of course is turbines- and other technology, the ships post 1904 are much more desirable.
The second is time.... say 1889-1894 is 6 years, 1895-1900 is 6 years, 1901-1907...7years, 1908-09...2 years. Odd to cram 7 years of building hulls into 2 years.
The third is that a hull can be 12000 tons in 1894 and 20000 tons in 1907... you should have less later.
For Hulls, I'm excluding Torpedo Boats and MTBs:
1889-1894 : 38
1895-1900 : 38
1901-1907 : 52 - which seems a big spike
1908-1909 : 16 -which makes 1908 look way shy
-----
144
So, what I've found myself doing is hulls/ year.
For me that's looking like :
1889-1894 : 6.3
1895-1900 : 6.3
1901-1907 : 7.4
1908-1909 : 8
Now, if anything 08-9 is the spike, That last number is easy to adjust up and down by building fewer 750t destroyers. Likewise if I need to drop the 01-07 52 hulls number, I just won't build either some 500t DDs or some 250t Minesweepers, because I want to build my protected cruisers in this time frame.
Well, it really depends on what is happening with the spikes. There is a difference between building twenty 500 ton destroyers and one 10,000 ton armored cruiser or between thirty 750 ton destroyers and one 22,500 ton battleship. Also what is happening in 1909? It is possible that there are some ships laid down in 1909 that are still under construction at the end of the year that causes the 08-9 spike when looking at the years individually.
Personally I would look at tonnages. Using your 08-9 hulls per year, it is extremely easy to work on eight 750 ton destroyers per year but it is impossible to properly work on eight 25,000 ton battleships per year as they require 35 BPs per half year. The best you could probably do with our startup values is 5-6 25,000 ton battleships per year without any other types of ships.
Walter explain better than mee the problems.
We could add in the rules,
"1 class per year & class must be alterned".
Ships under 250t could be built simultaneously as other class.
ex:
...
1894 : DD
1895: SC
1896: AC
1897: BB
...
Like I made in my building Plan.
Jef
Quote from: Walter on March 03, 2017, 09:25:13 AM
Well, it really depends on what is happening with the spikes. There is a difference between building twenty 500 ton destroyers and one 10,000 ton armored cruiser or between thirty 750 ton destroyers and one 22,500 ton battleship. Also what is happening in 1909? It is possible that there are some ships laid down in 1909 that are still under construction at the end of the year that causes the 08-9 spike when looking at the years individually.
Yep there's ships still building at the end of 1909, I'm counting those hulls. But 1909 isn't the spike, 1901-1907 is, and that's due to a bunch of destroyers and minesweepers.
Quote
Personally I would look at tonnages. Using your 08-9 hulls per year, it is extremely easy to work on eight 750 ton destroyers per year but it is impossible to properly work on eight 25,000 ton battleships per year as they require 35 BPs per half year. The best you could probably do with our startup values is 5-6 25,000 ton battleships per year without any other types of ships.
No no no. I asked specifically if we were to average tonnages out, and Snip has repeatedly gone with hulls. Further, that's why I specifically checked if simplifiying things and having all class dates of all 1894, 1900, 1907, 1909 tonnages (which I'm not winding up doing because of tech) was ok - as the BP in those years would have been way beyond what could be produced that year. We are not bound to a BP amount per year, we ARE bound to hulls - Snip just posted :
QuoteThere is not a BP max or min. As stated in the document, try and keep the number of hulls distributed across the whole of the period.
To further clarify here, the hull numbers dont need to be exact between given periods but should be closeish. Im also not as worried about the overall hull number as I am about the numbers for given types as defined in the rules (eg, if you try and pile all your Destroyers into 1906+, we will have a problem, while having a couple more hulls post-1906 than pre-1906 is not). I'm intentionally trying to avoid hard limits so as to allow for some construction freedom. If we end up needing some sort of hard limits, Im open to adding them later.
Quote from: snip on March 03, 2017, 12:34:11 PM
Im also not as worried about the overall hull number as I am about the numbers for given types as defined in the rules
With all due respect, shortly after I finish figuring out my builds is not when I like to see a change in what's required. Hulls and Types of Hulls are different things.
Its my fault for not being clear. My apologies.
QuoteTo further clarify here, the hull numbers dont need to be exact between given periods but should be closeish.
Between periods... To me the issue with that is that you have only 2 years for 1908-9 compared to 7 years for 1901-7, 6 years for 1895-1900 and many, many years for <1895. Ships become bigger and bigger as well in the 1895-1909 time period. It is a lot easier to build ten 10,000 ton battleships and armored cruisers <1895 or 1895-1900 but a lot harder to build ten 20,000 ton battleships and battlecruisers in 1908-9.
The Royal Navy is a good example. Looking at wiki, these are the numbers of battleships, battlecruisers and armored cruisers per class laid down between 1889 and 1909 (with 1889-1894 representing the <1895 category we have being a 6 year period like 1895-1900) and for simplicity assuming that all ships were laid down in the year of the first ship to be laid down of that class unless the ships of the classes were laid down 1910 or later (after all, we do not include 1909> ships in our numbers either)...
1889-1894 (20 ships, average 3.33 ships per year)
8x Royal Sovereign class BBs
3x Centurion class BBs
9x Majestic class BBs
1895-1900 (40 ships, average 6.67 ships per year)
6x Canopus class BBs
8x Formidable class BBs
6x Duncan class BBs
6x Cressy-class ACs
4x Drake-class ACs
10x Monmouth-class ACs
1901-1907 (37 ships, average 5.29 ships per year)
8x King Edward VII class BBs
2x Swiftsure class BBs
2x Lord Nelson class BBs
1x Dreadnought BB
3x Bellerophon class BBs
3x Invincible class BC
3x St. Vincent class BBs
6x Devonshire-class ACs
2x Duke of Edinburgh-class ACs
4x Warrior-class ACs
3x Minotaur-class
1908-1909 (6 ships, average 3 ships per year)
1x Neptune BB
2x Colossus class BBs
1x Orion class BB
1x Indefatigable class BC
1x Lion class BC
... so based on the hulls needing to be closeish spread between the given periods, the RN
should have laid between 20 and 40 battleships, battlecruisers and armored cruisers in the 1908-9 period (though looking at the 1895-1900 and 1901-1907 periods 35-40 would be much more realistic as being 'closeish')... but seeing how short a period 2 years is, I am not at all surprised that they did not. They build more than six times the amount of BBs/BCs/ACs in the 1901-1907 period.
Even if you were to make it into a 6 year period by multiplying those 6 ships by 3, you'd end up with 18 ships which is still less than half the number of ships for the 1895-1900 and 1901-1907 periods.
Hulls overall like Kirk is doable and is something that can be realistically achieved. Hulls per given types as defined in the rules... not so much... If Britain, one of the most powerful nation in that time period if not
the most powerful nation in that time period, could not get anywhere near 'closeish' with the number of hulls per period (especially the 1908-9 period), then does it make any sense that we do it? To me it does not.
What I want out of this is to make sure we have a natural spread of the ships in service over the whole of the pre-start period. What I don't want to have happen is a nation that has a bunch of modern 750t+ Destroyers and no older ones. However, I do want to stay away from hard limits unless its strictly necessary. If you guys have better thoughts on handling this, Im open to hearing them
I understand that but you are looking at it from the 1908-9 period. I am looking at it from the <1895 period. With 'closeish' I read that if my ship type per the rules has 20-40 ships in the <1895 period, 20-40 ships in the 1895-1900 period and 20-40 ships in the 1901-1907 period, I then must have 20-40 ships in the 1908-1909 period as well. With 'closeish', Britain should have laid down between 20 and 40 battleships, battlecruisers and armored cruisers in the 1908-1909 period... but they did not.
Perhaps period is not the correct choice of wording here. What about the number of hulls per year (not individual designs mind you, units of a class would be assumed to be distributed over the whole production run)?
I'm really not sure that thousands of ships, built in <1895 will be useful in 1910 as warships. So, then, i'd concentrate on modelling ships of the period of 1895 - 1906, and they will be the main power of the fleet. I'll have several hulls built before 1895 - just to scrap them in H1 1910 and several hulls of design after 1906 in slipways - just to finish their building in 1910 - 1911.
One thing I forgot to add: With periods and based off the British numbers, 'closeish' would be roughly a 4:8:8:1 ratio with a +/- of 2 or so for the periods except 1908-09 which should probably have a +/- of 0.5-1 at most.
QuotePerhaps period is not the correct choice of wording here. What about the number of hulls per year (not individual designs mind you, units of a class would be assumed to be distributed over the whole production run)?
With production run, things are being made more complex as you would need to know how long it takes to build a ship and then it could be built in two or three or more batches so it could probably span up to 3-4 years in total even if it only takes 1 year to build one ship.
To me the problem with using number of hulls and 'closeish' is that it does not take into account that in the 1895-1909 period, ships become bigger and more complex and require more materials. They become longer and thus bigger slips/docks are needed and because they are bigger it takes longer to build them and it takes longer until they are launched/floated out and it takes longer for an occupied slip/dock to be available again for the next ship to be laid down.
Another thing it does not take into account is availability of the ship types. With MTBs, I have for the four periods the next: 0-0-50-0. They can't be built in the <1895 period or the 1895-1900 period. As I do not spend extra points on the 1908 DD/TB/MTB tech, I just have the one 40 ton type to play with so it is a 1906 design and for simplicity all are dumped there but those 50 hulls would in reality be spread out over the 1906-1909 period.
Submarines is another one that are only available as of 1902. I used the British submarines as a guideline but since there was a gap between the British 1907 D-class and the British 1911 E-class that means I only have submarines listed in the 1901-1907 period and none in the 1908-09 period.
... and speaking of the submarines, I just realized that I messed up there as my classes are slightly off as I suddenly remembered that my A-class is actually the OTL Holland class and that my B-class is actually the A-class etc...
QuoteI'm really not sure that thousands of ships, built in <1895 will be useful in 1910 as warships.
Well, you never know how desperate navies can be. :) The <1895 can still be useful as warships but just not for their original intended purposes (for example a battleship or armored cruiser could still be using its guns to support amphibious landings on an enemy beach).
I wound up making a spreadsheet to track both my costs, and my hulls by period. I also used this to get an idea of how many production facilities I might need. Way complex than I'd like.
Anyhow, in the discussions, I advanced various tonnage/period notions, Walter had his ideas, the end result was Hulls - not my choice.
That's what still written in the pdf. "It is expected that players will make a reasonable effort to spread the number of hulls constructed over the whole of the time period in question."
At the end I found myself with not enough hulls in 1908-09 and too many in 1901-1907 for many of the reasons outlined by Walter - tech, availability, and hull sizes.....and the number of years in the period. I shifted things around to help, and then noted the effect of the differing lengths of the periods. At which time I figured out the Hulls/ Year (excluding <100t), which worked nicely to show the numbers were reasonable (I think).
At this point, I could go back, add a field for type, and figure out hulls/ architecture, but I'd like not do that. I've already gone back and padded <1894 and 1895-1900 with those small gunboats, bringing my hulls/year to 7.7, 7.7, 8 and 8. I think I've met and exceeded the written statement of a "reasonable effort". So I'd prefer to just use what's written.
In regards to when I "count them" ... I do it by the period they are laid down in - as constrained by the # of facilities I have for that, and presume it's all prepaid, if needed by timely scapping of older ships to boost it.
Not including the auxiliaries and a few obsolete ships, I am at 5.5 - 26 - 37.7 - 21.5 for each period when it comes to hulls per year. The 5.5 is caused by the Fenrir's lay down year of 1882, though if I were to add the few old obsolete 'main line' ships to the list that list, it would be as low as 0.53.
The 37.7 spike of 1901-1907 is caused by the large number of submarines and MTBs added to the fleet. I kinda match the RN's submarine stuff so like the OTL RN there will not be any listed in the 1908-9 period and ,as mentioned, I only have the one MTB design of the 1904 DD/TB/MTB tech which makes it a 1906 design (and similarly the submarines are essentially 1902 and 1907 designs and there are no 1908-1911 designs as the earliest the 1910 tech would be available is 1912). Now if I were to spend 6 points on the 1908 DD/TB/MTB tech, then I would add a bunch of the 'B' type MTBs to the 1908-1909 period but to me it is too expensive to do that so I will settle for those 'B' type MTBs after game start.
Now without the Submarines and the MTBs, it would be 19.9 ships per year for the 1901-1907 period. Ignoring the Fenrir, the <1895 ships per year would be 15.8. So ignoring those extreme cases, 15.8 - 26 - 19.9 -21.5 is actually not too bad in my opinion.
Rough ratios of hulls per type per period are:
BB/AC/BC: 1-1-3-1
PC/CL: 2-2-1-1
DD: 4-8-7-3
Put those three categories together and it is about a 3-5-5-2 ratio which to me makes sense. Compared to the ships of the 1895-1909 period the <1895 ships are obsolete or becoming obsolete and while some may still be around, numerous ships would have been scrapped already so a lower value for <1895 can be expected. At the same time, there are not enough years in the 1908-1909 period to expect the same amount of hulls as the previous two periods. I consider that to be reasonable enough and to me that what Kirk is doing is going way beyond that what I consider reasonable.
I'm personally satisfied with both these efforts.
Questions :
1) If I build an 1894 vessel.... hmm, this question was aimed at if they received a free overhaul before 1910, but that overhaul requirement seems to be gone, except for a reference under refurbishment.
2) If I build an 1894 Battleship, and then in 1905 add radios, rip off the 45mm deck guns and put on 60mm deck guns, then come back in 1907 and add fire control... all of those fall under "Basic Refit". My presumption is I need to pay for the costs of those refits in my 1901-1907 costs.
3) I've noted some vessels which appear to have been refurbished with new engines, I presume that cost would need to be paid for ?
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on March 11, 2017, 03:21:29 PM
Questions :
1) If I build an 1894 vessel.... hmm, this question was aimed at if they received a free overhaul before 1910, but that overhaul requirement seems to be gone, except for a reference under refurbishment.
2) If I build an 1894 Battleship, and then in 1905 add radios, rip off the 45mm deck guns and put on 60mm deck guns, then come back in 1907 and add fire control... all of those fall under "Basic Refit". My presumption is I need to pay for the costs of those refits in my 1901-1907 costs.
3) I've noted some vessels which appear to have been refurbished with new engines, I presume that cost would need to be paid for ?
1) Yes, Overhauls died. Please point out where that language is so I can kill it.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
QuoteRefurbishments
A refurbishment is a more comprehensive refit which allows for replacement of obsolete or
undesired fittings as well as overhauling any original equipment that remains. Since a ship can
get by on overhauls through its entire career, a refurbishment is never mandatory. However, a
ship that is refurbished is likely to be more effective than a ship that is merely overhauled.
QuoteRough ratios of hulls per type per period are:
BB/AC/BC: 1-1-3-1
PC/CL: 2-2-1-1
DD: 4-8-7-3
Correct ratios
:)
So a further question for the group. Do we want to provide some ability to pre-purchase 1910 techs? My thought would be below.
QuoteTechs dated 1910 cost 9 points but are not considered available until 1/1/1910
Do note I had this idea in conjunction with my thoughts on quads, detailed here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7007.msg89968.html#msg89968). Any objection?
Considering the rules, I would think that it should cost 10 points for consistency, so 1906 = 2 points, 1907 = 4 points, 1908 = 6 points, 1909 = 8 points and 1910 = 10 points.... but that is just my opinion.
Quote from: snip on March 12, 2017, 05:56:37 PM
So a further question for the group. Do we want to provide some ability to pre-purchase 1910 techs? My thought would be below.
QuoteTechs dated 1910 cost 9 points but are not considered available until 1/1/1910
Do note I had this idea in conjunction with my thoughts on quads, detailed here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7007.msg89968.html#msg89968). Any objection?
No. The cap at the 1908 was sufficient.
I don't want to go back and relook at my builds and mod points and start changing things now.
So Question came up in the Roman ship thread :
Oil and other strategic resources - are they as historical , or is everyone assumed to have enough?
IF everyone "has enough" it removes a driver for colonies and border conflicts.
IF they are as historical, then Rome has the Galacian oil, Byzantium has the Rumanian oil and some Northern Iraq, Sweden the limited German oil, The Norse....well offshore drilling doesn't exist in the North Sea, and Iberia has Libya, but that oil wasn't found until much much later. The Parthian Empire would have an embarrasment of riches, with the Baku oil and the Caucus fields, the Persian oil the British depended on, the Iraqi fields, the future Kuwait/Saudi/other Arab fields.
Then the additional question - can we presume that the "colonies" has the historical resources, so the Norse can go conquerer ...err liberate Venezuala and confidently address that need. ?
Quoteeveryone assumed to have enough
This is what I will assume, but enough is not enough. Enough is
never enough. More is great... Lots more is even greater. ;D