WesWorld

Same here..

A couple of things...

I'm noticing a few rule adjustment/additions further down the thread. Could they be added to the first post for easier reference?

I see no rules for length-of-refit. Is it just as long as it takes to install the material?

Add to the Rules & Admin section?

If we are adjusting this, could we also get 'installing bulges' put in. I have previously asked, making the case for 25%, and got no response. Since I'm looking at refitting ships and adding bulges...

Thanks for the reminder; Roger advised me of the need for this a couple weeks back but I was lazy. I've now added the stuff, except for Kirk's latest question, to the "Shipbuilding and Infrastructure Rules" thread in the Rules and Admin Forum. I'm not going to update in this thread as well - the Rules and Admin Forum entry has precedence, and in case of conflict, is the correct version of things.

Shinra, the percentage used to calculate material cost is also the percentage of the original build time needed for the job - for now. I'm starting to think that this may really exaggerate the length of time needed for larger ships to get done. So I'll put this up for consideration:

Quoted

-Level 1 Refit: 5% of cost and 2.5% of buildiing time to complete.
-Level 2 Refit: 15% of cost and 7.5% of building time to complete.
-Level 3 Refit: 25% of cost and 12.5% of building time to complete.
-Level 4 Refit: 50% of cost and 25% of building time to complete.
-Level 5 Refit: 75% of cost and 50% of building time to complete.

Similarly, for repairs, I'm not sure it's appropriate to consider X% of repairs as being equal to X% of construction. Otherwise, there'd be no incentive to repair heavily damaged ships such as the battleships at Pearl Harbour. Some of those ships were sunk and could be rated at 0%, but they were raised and rebuilt. Obviously this was more economic in time/resources than building new ships from scratch, and that makes sense because the ships weren't obliterated - they just had large chunks missing and a lot of water aboard. So I'm thinking:

Quoted

The material and time costs of repairing a ship is one half of the building cost in time and materials. For example, the material cost of repairing a ship with 50% damage would be 25% of its light displacement, and the time required would be 25% of its original build time.

It's food for thought.

Kirk: There's an entry for changes to torpedo bulkheads in the 50% category, but if folks want to debate a more simple bulging in the 25% category (maybe just blistering for stability/bunkerage?) this is the time to have that discussion.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Thanks for the reminder; Roger advised me of the need for this a couple weeks back but I was lazy. I've now added the stuff, except for Kirk's latest question, to the "Shipbuilding and Infrastructure Rules" thread in the Rules and Admin Forum. I'm not going to update in this thread as well - the Rules and Admin Forum entry has precedence, and in case of conflict, is the correct version of things.

That's fine with me, I just wanted all the rules in one place...the place itself wasn't as important, so long I know where it is

25% for Simple blistering (The Kearsage/Crane Ship No.1 comes to mind) with no changes to the TDS seems reasonable.

The reduction of RR&R times also sounds fine with me, as I've been facing my two big modernizations with dread, since it means I'll be without capital ships for a year or so.

Rocky,

while you are at it, Roger has send me this some time ago:

"I'd made a suggestion for simplifing things for destroyers and it seemed to be acceptable to a number of players. The thread is here:

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.ph...405&sid=&page=3
"
Me thinks this should be considered too.

Hoo, currently the link doesn't work for me....

Probably needs to be this:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?th…405&sid=&page=3

I think Roger's suggestion of boilers/bunkerage is covered by the existing wording. I'm not sure about the seaplane tender part.

I was referring to the part about clueing two half DDs together... Sorry, should have mentioned it.

I added that too. Figured you might need it soon...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Kirk: There's an entry for changes to torpedo bulkheads in the 50% category, but if folks want to debate a more simple bulging in the 25% category (maybe just blistering for stability/bunkerage?) this is the time to have that discussion.

That was my opinion. You have several vessels which were built without TDS that were bulged as the most expedient way of adding protection. Later you have vessels refitted and bulged in lieu of messing with the internal bulkheads. Both historical scenarios suggest we should peg it a notch below 'changes to torpedo bulkheads', so 25% is what makes sense.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
That was my opinion. You have several vessels which were built without TDS that were bulged as the most expedient way of adding protection. Later you have vessels refitted and bulged in lieu of messing with the internal bulkheads. Both historical scenarios suggest we should peg it a notch below 'changes to torpedo bulkheads', so 25% is what makes sense.

That sounds workable to me, at least IMHO.