Italy Q4/1933

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

21

Wednesday, February 14th 2007, 10:05pm

If they reflect labour costs why don't we have to pay for scrapping?

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

22

Wednesday, February 14th 2007, 10:39pm

I mentioned this before...
For simplicity, assume removing will take about a week, will need some 20 tons of plating and cost something like 100,000 USD. Re-arming will take a week or so and another 100,000 USD for the facility use as well as paying the workforce. For sim purpose, converting that cost into materials means:

Design cost: 18,769,000 USD
Design normal displacement tonnage: 15,679 tons

18,769,000 USD / 15,679 tons = 1197 USD/ton
100,000 USD / 1197 = 84 tons which are used to sim the funds needed for the project.
84 tons funds + 20 tons materials = 104 tons to be used for each ship.

No materials needed when rearming the ship, but you still need to pay for the other stuff in 'money' so that would require 84 tons.

Quoted

If they reflect labour costs why don't we have to pay for scrapping?

Probably easier to justify. A small part of the scrapped ship is what you get back, the remainder is part useless material as well as part payment for the scrapping firm and labour, etc.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

23

Wednesday, February 14th 2007, 10:45pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

If they reflect labour costs why don't we have to pay for scrapping?

Probably easier to justify. A small part of the scrapped ship is what you get back, the remainder is part useless material as well as part payment for the scrapping firm and labour, etc.

Couldn´t have explained it any better....

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

24

Wednesday, February 14th 2007, 11:01pm

Except that the scrapping companies are making a truly IMMORAL profit!!!

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

25

Wednesday, February 14th 2007, 11:07pm

But that's because they're a bunch of crooks.

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

26

Wednesday, February 14th 2007, 11:15pm

Crooks I could deal with, but this.........

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

27

Wednesday, February 14th 2007, 11:22pm

As mentioned before in the previous thread on this subject, if we go down the road of "it's already paid for, I don't have to pay again", we might as well throw out the refit rules in their entirety, because they'll never be used again except for the 15-year refurbishment. Everyone will use the precedent set here, they'd be crazy not to. This also, as AdmK pointed out in the previous thread on this subject, leads to ships being built with "placeholder" armament and armor, just waiting for their "real" armament to be dropped in.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

28

Thursday, February 15th 2007, 6:47am

Agreed, my own designs, particularily my training CV, could add their future growth capability's for free if we go the current route.

If you don't want to pay, keep them as they were and deal with the political ramifications, otherwise they need some sort of payment.

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

29

Thursday, February 15th 2007, 7:13am

Perhaps a compromise is in order; Reduced costs for design changes while a ship is still building, but any modifications done after the ship is 'completed' follow the usual rules.

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

30

Thursday, February 15th 2007, 12:14pm

The 25% number already is half-price, compared to what a change to a 203mm battery is in the refit rules.

Go to the top of the page

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

31

Friday, February 16th 2007, 10:12am

One of the problems with attempting to break the refit rules down into an itemized list is...they are not meant to do that.

Take my ZP refit. It's 25% or 6,474.5 tons. This number allows me to replace the outer belt armor- all 5,600 tons of it "free", but I get no reduction if I don't change a thing.

The point is that this simple system is how it was agreed to Sim these things, warts and all.

So- proposal of no cost would appear to have not been generally acceptable.

The idea of 5% or 15% for plating over, etc. also met arguments as not enough.

Hrolf's proposal of 25% to take off and 25% to put back on appears acceptable to most. Is this a correct perception?

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

32

Friday, February 16th 2007, 12:34pm

Considering Hrolfs points yeah that sounds about right. I'm still open to alternate preposals.

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

33

Friday, February 16th 2007, 2:55pm

That would be fine.

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

34

Friday, February 16th 2007, 2:56pm

Alternatively, RA has shown a design where the belt armor is modified instead of the armament, that would be acceptable as well as far as I'm concerned.

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

35

Friday, February 16th 2007, 3:29pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Hrolf's proposal of 25% to take off and 25% to put back on appears acceptable to most. Is this a correct perception?

I can't disagree strongly enough!!

Hypothetical example

Danish Hel CA
13600 tons

Now, If I decided to take one of her turrets off and plate over the hole, by these rules, this act would cost me 3400 tons.

And if 12 months later, I decide to reinstall the turret, the removal of the plating and reseating of the turret would cost another 3400 tons

So, 6800 tons................

I just doesn't work out
I'dd be better off putting 50% into her as a rebuild and ending up with a much tougher ship!

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Commodore Green" (Feb 16th 2007, 3:29pm)

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

36

Friday, February 16th 2007, 3:42pm

By the rules that exist now, you'd actually pay 6800 tons to pull the turret off and another 6800 tons to put it back on, for a total of 13,600 tons (modifying a mount of this size is a 50% rebuild under the rules).

And in the normal case, yes, you would be better off doing what you said, doing a normal refit and improving the ship. But this isn't the normal case, this is an abnormal case where a ship that was designed to be heavier than Treaty limits is being brought into compliance with those limits. If the changeover is free and takes, say, a month, why would any country count the ship as being within limits when it's so easy for it to return to an over-limit state?

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

37

Tuesday, February 20th 2007, 10:24am

Edited post to reflect refits.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

38

Tuesday, February 20th 2007, 10:59am

As per the 25% or something else?

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

39

Tuesday, February 20th 2007, 11:28am

Quoted

12 factories produce 12.000t of material
2.000t transferred from Ethiopia
2.800t transferred from Iberia
2.244t used from stockpile
1.137tons available from scrapped ships
18.781tons of material available in total

10xMTSM, 10xBarchino, 20xSLC built for Xa MAS
Pope-Class cruisers refitted - 9752tons

18.480tons of material needed
New stockpile of 301tons
4x Triple 381mm turrets in storage