WesWorld

While you're at it, why not change the rules for CV's as well??

We pay for aircraft on our carriers, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

We pay for troops on our troopships, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

We pay for landing craft on our troopships, as well as building and paying for the landing craft themselves,so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

And on a personal note, I paid for the misc weight on Loki, as well as building and paying for the torpedo boats themselves,so will I get a "tougher" Loki???

As for the "you'll have a tougher ship" argument for older vessels.......absolutely pointless!

We have no mechanic in place to assign damage sustained in combat, so a "tougher" ship is of no value.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for aircraft on our carriers, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

No we don't. We assign miscellaneous weight for the number of planes it can carry, but that's not paying for the planes. Otherwise, we'd be paying tonnage every time we replaced a carrier's planes. The weight covers important things like the flight deck and hangers.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for troops on our troopships, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

Again, no we don't; we pay for the accomodations to support troops. Bunks, kitchens, etc.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for landing craft on our troopships, as well as building and paying for the landing craft themselves,so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

This new rule follows hand-in-hand from our existing rule - it's a logical extension. We can either pay for the landing craft with the refit via miscellaneous weight, or we can pay for them independently.

Edit: rereading this one again... no, we DON'T pay for the landing craft twice. Several months ago we all agreed that landing craft, if paid for via miscellaneous weight on a landing ship, do not need to be paid for separately. The logical inverse of that is that we can drop that weight for the construction of the ship, but would then need to build the landing-craft individually in order to equip the landing ship with them. We do not pay for landing craft twice.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
As for the "you'll have a tougher ship" argument for older vessels.......absolutely pointless!

We have no mechanic in place to assign damage sustained in combat, so a "tougher" ship is of no value.

I disagree strongly. Everybody here knows you can conjure a "cruiser" out of a merchant ship with a 25% refit, and re-engine and armour it for 50%. Why then is nobody doing it? It's because, damage metric or not, we KNOW that those ships are nothing better than cheap stopgaps with lesser damage capabilities.

The old rules that come with the original SpringStyle define how we design ships, including civilian and military vessels.

These rules, also we later started to use SpringSharp for technical reasons, define how to make use of misc weight as an integral part of a ship in case we want cargo to be carried. Such misc weight has an influence on the ships stats, including light displacement.

In WesWorld we pay for warships we want to add to our nation’s order of battle.

The price to be paid for a warship is defined by the designs light displacement. The percentage of total displacement distributed to misc weight has no influence on the price other than influencing the ships stats in general.

A landing craft is a warship. In that, it is not different to a cruiser, carrier or submarine.

Hence, to add it - newly build - to a nations list of ships it has to be paid for the full price (light displacement).

There is no reason to change these definitions and rules.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
There is no reason to change these definitions and rules.

We've already made two exemptions of this sort for landing ships and landing craft; our proposed change is merely regularizing those changes with a single rule.

As we've already pointed out before, building these ships *solely* based on displacement in Springsharp is an unrealistic system for LSTs because:
- The miscellaneous weight used in their construction represents weight that isn't part of the ship
- LSTs aren't constructed to military standards, but civilian standards, and thus have lighter displacement than Springsharp wrongly assumes.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for aircraft on our carriers, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

No we don't. We assign miscellaneous weight for the number of planes it can carry, but that's not paying for the planes. Otherwise, we'd be paying tonnage every time we replaced a carrier's planes. The weight covers important things like the flight deck and hangers.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for troops on our troopships, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

Again, no we don't; we pay for the accomodations to support troops. Bunks, kitchens, etc.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for landing craft on our troopships, as well as building and paying for the landing craft themselves,so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?

This new rule follows hand-in-hand from our existing rule - it's a logical extension. We can either pay for the landing craft with the refit via miscellaneous weight, or we can pay for them independently.

Edit: rereading this one again... no, we DON'T pay for the landing craft twice. Several months ago we all agreed that landing craft, if paid for via miscellaneous weight on a landing ship, do not need to be paid for separately. The logical inverse of that is that we can drop that weight for the construction of the ship, but would then need to build the landing-craft individually in order to equip the landing ship with them. We do not pay for landing craft twice.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
As for the "you'll have a tougher ship" argument for older vessels.......absolutely pointless!

We have no mechanic in place to assign damage sustained in combat, so a "tougher" ship is of no value.

I disagree strongly. Everybody here knows you can conjure a "cruiser" out of a merchant ship with a 25% refit, and re-engine and armour it for 50%. Why then is nobody doing it? It's because, damage metric or not, we KNOW that those ships are nothing better than cheap stopgaps with lesser damage capabilities.

So, why shouldn't you pay for the ability to transport the tanks, in the same way you pay for the aircraft accomodations.

As for the landing craft, does that mean I'll get a refund on the Iberian troopships?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
There is no reason to change these definitions and rules.

We've already made two exemptions of this sort for landing ships and landing craft; our proposed change is merely regularizing those changes with a single rule.

And these exceptions are? I am not aware of any rules change on landing crafts. Would be interesting to know as I just started building up SAEs amphib capabilities.

But anyway, using exceptions to argument in favor of changing the standards is nothing I can support.

Quoted

As we've already pointed out before, building these ships *solely* based on displacement in Springsharp is an unrealistic system for LSTs because:

Well, SpringSharp and realism often do not go along very well, like for submarines. However, we still agreed to use it. Why should this be different for LST?

Quoted

- The miscellaneous weight used in their construction represents weight that isn't part of the ship

Which is true for all designs where misc weight is used to represent removable equipment or cargo. Following your argument we would have to remove misc weight or part of it from all designs. But how to define what is actually part of the ship?

It is easier to just use the light displacement without modifications. This is what we did. This is what we will do.

Quoted

- LSTs aren't constructed to military standards, but civilian standards, and thus have lighter displacement than Springsharp wrongly assumes.

In what way are LSTs not build to military standards? What is "military standard", btw? What impact do these standards have on light displacement? How to measure that?

This is not about thickness of steel or the number of joints and watertight compartments. This is also about bow ramps, gear to move heavy equipment, armement, military radio equipment, crew quarters, ammo storage, handling and ventilation, fire and damage control systems etc.

A LST is a warship and has to be paid for the full price.

If you want to use merchants instead, that you get for free, you will have to modify them. So we probably should not talk about altering our basic design / building / paying rules, but if adding a bow ramp to a freighter and making it accessable from the holds is a major rebuild of 75%. We could then add that to the rebuild rules without changing the fundamental ideas that run this sim.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
There is no reason to change these definitions and rules.

We've already made two exemptions of this sort for landing ships and landing craft; our proposed change is merely regularizing those changes with a single rule.

And these exceptions are? I am not aware of any rules change on landing crafts. Would be interesting to know as I just started building up SAEs amphib capabilities.

We've made two:
- Landing ship docks are simmed with miscellaneous weight representing a flooded aft well, but that is not counted in the construction costs. There were no objections when we discussed this rule.
- Landing ships with miscellaneous weight assigned for landing craft have those landing craft come as part of their construction or conversion. That was what you said, and we agreed we would use that method.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
If you want to use merchants instead, that you get for free, you will have to modify them. So we probably should not talk about altering our basic design / building / paying rules, but if adding a bow ramp to a freighter and making it accessable from the holds is a major rebuild of 75%. We could then add that to the rebuild rules without changing the fundamental ideas that run this sim.

No, you don't have to modify the bow at all if the civilian ship is designed that way (like, say, a ferry, of which there are plenty at this time and post-WWII LSTs were used as ferries in civilian service). So, the only thing that this hypothetical civilian ship would need to do it's job is what little armament and armor an LST carried. Armament: a few machineguns, some light cannon. Armor? Uhm, no, there wasn't any. So.... 5-15% refit. The US is game......

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
If you want to use merchants instead, that you get for free, you will have to modify them. So we probably should not talk about altering our basic design / building / paying rules, but if adding a bow ramp to a freighter and making it accessable from the holds is a major rebuild of 75%. We could then add that to the rebuild rules without changing the fundamental ideas that run this sim.

No, you don't have to modify the bow at all if the civilian ship is designed that way (like, say, a ferry, of which there are plenty at this time and post-WWII LSTs were used as ferries in civilian service). So, the only thing that this hypothetical civilian ship would need to do it's job is what little armament and armor an LST carried. Armament: a few machineguns, some light cannon. Armor? Uhm, no, there wasn't any. So.... 5-15% refit. The US is game......

And considering Chile already has two ships that would work perfectly as small LSTs (I said from the start they were designed as such, but built as civilian ferries)... I'm game.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
No, you don't have to modify the bow at all if the civilian ship is designed that way (like, say, a ferry, of which there are plenty at this time and post-WWII LSTs were used as ferries in civilian service). So, the only thing that this hypothetical civilian ship would need to do it's job is what little armament and armor an LST carried. Armament: a few machineguns, some light cannon. Armor? Uhm, no, there wasn't any. So.... 5-15% refit. The US is game......

Well, I have seen many drawings of train ferries but non has looked like a purpose build LST like the one below.



I also think you need quite a lot of "train ferries" to make up a good amphib force, capable of operations like the ones in OTL Pacific, Med or D-Day environment.

But okay, if you think that it is reasonable, go ahead. At least it is not against the rules. I will just remind you that civilian ships are usually build by civilian companies to earn money. Buidling thousands of train ferries just to have them lying around in case a war might come, and the navy might suddenly need LSTs, is hardly what civilian business men will do.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
And considering Chile already has two ships that would work perfectly as small LSTs (I said from the start they were designed as such, but built as civilian ferries)... I'm game.

Well, and what kind of invasion force can be made up of two ferries?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
But okay, if you think that it is reasonable, go ahead. At least it is not against the rules. I will just remind you that civilian ships are usually build by civilian companies to earn money. Buidling thousands of train ferries just to have them lying around in case a war might come, and the navy might suddenly need LSTs, is hardly what civilian business men will do.

A difficulty which we designed the proposed rule to solve, without resorting to refits.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
We've made two:
- Landing ship docks are simmed with miscellaneous weight representing a flooded aft well, but that is not counted in the construction costs. There were no objections when we discussed this rule.

If there is a special rule for landing ship docks that we have agreed on, I am currently not aware of it. I have to check. Can you present me a link please?

However, I still fail to see how this special rule for a very special type of vessel should force us to alter our basic rules.

Quoted

- Landing ships with miscellaneous weight assigned for landing craft have those landing craft come as part of their construction or conversion. That was what you said, and we agreed we would use that method.

Nice you put that "you" in italic. Thanks.

Anyway, I still don´t see how this affects our current discussion. For the "mother ships" the full prize is paid. Calculated against the misc weight on a mother ship is the light displacement of the light landing craft carried. 400ts misc weight make up for four 100ts infantry landing crafts for example. We never said one has to substract the misc weight of the small landing craft from the small vessels light displacement and charge what is left against the mother ships misc weight capacity.

So in fact, what you raise as an argument to support your position here, just tells the opposite. It is not a valid argument to support any change of rule on LST.

Heres the rub, we only pay for naval stuff. We don't pay for land equipment or aircraft (naval aircraft included). In addition if we build a troop transport equiped with landing craft we DO pay for those but we also can build those landing craft seperately and incure cost accordingly. Theres nothing limiting how many aircraft or army units we can build, except common sence and population base numbers. This represents an inconsistancy IMO.

This is an issue I've repeatedly brought up and preposed that we set up infrastructure rules for aircraft and army stuff. These preposals have repeatedly been shot down under the excuse that "they are to complex" or "this is a naval sim we don't need to sim anything else" or better yet "next sim". How long has this sim been going for now?

So unless we adress this inconsistancy we can argue till the cows come home, OR simply play the rules fast and loose as Hrolf and I have pointed out is VERY possible.

Well, this is not a full scale game or simulation. Never was intended to be. Every single participant has to decide on his own what is reasonable and how far he wants to stretch common sense.

If, for example - I am not aiming for Hrolf, the player of the power with the largest industrial potential thinks it is reasonable to introduce thousands of civilian build train ferries to safe some tonnage otherwise spend on LSTs - it is up to him. It is not against the rules as there are none. He only has to deal with what the board will throw at him. And if he decides to ignore it, there is nothing we could do. However, Howard has shown us to what that kind of behavior will lead us.

There are quite a few things that have been introduced into this sim that were not intended at the start, and yet the sim has evolved.

This is not even close to what Howard was up to, that comparison falls flat IMO.....

Well, in advance, I'm sorry if this offends anyone.

If we set up rules for tanks, aircraft, infantry, etc., you're going to be looking at having to set up rules for "civilian" air groups, and merchant marines. We keep coming down that path, we're looking at setting up rules for maintance, and then etc., etc.....You're looking at a 1940's version of Navalism.

In short, I'm not opposed to setting up rules for say, just the aircraft (could be swayed on the army). But when this leads to civilian merchant marines, and civilian assets, to sum it all up, that's when this sim is going to start becoming more of an economic sim than a naval sim, and that's when it's going to stop becoming enjoyable, at least to me.

Again, I'm am very, very sorry if that insulted someone.

Meanwhile, back to the original debate: I see no problems in lowering the price on the LST's, considering how they were 44% of the price of a equivelently sized ship, and made from civilian materials, in the WWII cases, at least. 75% of the price seems more than fair.

Have to put the Mod hat on for a second here, folks;

I think comparing anything in this thread to the kind of mischief Howard was up to is bringing things a bit too far, and I think this discussion is starting to get way too heated and personal to some folks.

I reccomend that everyone step back for a while and cool off, or get on IRC to discuss it in a more comprehensive fashion.

Regardless, If the discussion doesn't calm down and cool off, I'm gonna lock the thread for a few hours until it does.

I cannot see how all this is heated. My comment on Howard was probably pushing it a bit, my fault, but I clearly stated I am not aiming at somebody special. So this is NOT personal.

The rest is trading arguments which is just fine.

So unless you do not make/rate it personal where it is not personal, I do not see any reason to lock down this thread.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
So unless we adress this inconsistancy we can argue till the cows come home, OR simply play the rules fast and loose as Hrolf and I have pointed out is VERY possible.

And I think most of us do see this as an inconsistency that needs addressing. Once again, that's why I'm promoting this change to fix the problem.