'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.