WesWorld

True but I see it as an incentive to acctually build smaller ships rather than larger meglamaniacal designs.

I can't see how it would do that: if you get a benefit (ship gets done quicker) for a larger versus a smaller ship, why wouldn't you build the larger (assuming, of course, that you can afford it)?

Well thats just it I suppose, some will build larger ships because they have the resources to do so.

Problem is we can't develope a simple rule to fix the problem without having some large discrepancy's in the build time at certain tonnage limits and most seem to want simple rules.

The only other suggestion I could make would be to have 3 sets of rules for wartime building.

1000 tons light/+9 months for ships under 35,000
1000 tons light/+6 months for ships starting at 35,000
1500 tons light/+6 months for ships over 45,000

These numbers could be modified slightly if there are still gaps but sticking as closely as possible to the orriginal rule makes it easy to understand.

As discussed in the original thread, it's not just wartime ships. Yamato had most of her construction time before Japan went to war with the US. Bismark was laid down in 1936 and completed in 37 months, and Germany wouldn't go to war production for another 2 years at least. King George V was laid down in 1937 and completed in 36 months, with about 15 months of that while GB was at war (and she's smaller than Bismark). So a wartime only fix is no fix at all.

Than it must have been the one where we divided the total light tonnage by 1,200 instead of 1,000 to get the time needed for construction, thus reducing the time needed to finish.

However the other point that could be brought up is that even if it does take too long, it takes too long equally for everyone.

True. But it's' d@#$$%^ annoying that we settled this and now it's open again.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
True. But it's' d@#$$%^ annoying that we settled this and now it's open again.

To quote Kaiser Kirk.....

Thanks, Hrolf, looks like Option #1 :
Minimum construction time in months = (Light tonnage of hull / 1000 + (10 - (Light tonnage of hull / 3000))) / comp. hull strength

was semi-chosen. Only a couple of votes.

..........

I think the important things here are
1 - Semi-chosen
2 - Only a couple of votes.


If people feel strongly about this, could we ask the mods to set up a poll, and a result be accepted after all the current participating players have voted.

Make that three votes

Such radical change in rules completely ruins my wartime planning including wartime economy, building of many vessels and repair times (the latter have to modified too then), general building plan and spreadsheet.

We already had a poll on this and there was no majority for the proposed change in rules. So no again, no new poll. There have not been any new arguments pro such new rule.

For some reason I don't seem to recall a clear vote or poll being held, with clear options to chose from....

I thought the dicussion just kind of petered out, unresolved.

We did NOT have an official poll on this, that was on the proposed maintenance rules.


From the original thread, the list of people who gave the idea a clear thumbs up:
myself (obviously)
thesmilingassassin,
Adm K.
Perderdor,
Hood,
Earl,
Ithekro


Abstained:
parador.
Desertfox


Vote not clear:
HOo,
Kaiser Kirk
Rooijen (though he was seemingly enthusiastic, he never said, for sure, that he was in favor).

Here's what I don't get: the proposed change would change the minimum time it takes to complete a ship. That's it.

It doesn't force anyone to change their plans, writeups, nothing, all it does is let them build some ships faster than they could before. Notice the word "let" in the preceding sentence: it means it's optional. You can still build everything at the same pace as before if you like. If it's too much work to adjust the build schedule for a couple of ships, DON'T DO IT! You don't have to, the proposed change doesn't force you to do so. It allows you to do so if it's worth it to you. That's all.

Hrolf, it surprises me that you did not mention HMS Dreadnought among those examples.

Quoted

Rooijen (though he was seemingly enthusiastic, he never said, for sure, that he was in favor).

I was? I did?
*looks through thread*
... apparently so.
I didn't like the rough steps of the earlier proposals which is why I'd prefer Option 1.
Seeing Hrolf's list of people in favor and against, I would think that, since no one clearly objected to it, it was accepted back then.

When someone puts a radar on his ship or flightdeck elevators on the sides of the carrier or a steam catapult or whatever else you can think of... people are concerned with the historical facts about such things. They question whether it is possible or the complain about it because it is too early to appear in history.

Now we are trying to adjust the construction rules somewhat so we get closer to historical building times for certain large ships, and people start to complain about that.

Quoted

Yamato had most of her construction time before Japan went to war with the US. Bismark was laid down in 1936 and completed in 37 months, and Germany wouldn't go to war production for another 2 years at least.

If I am not mistaken, I mentioned back then that Japan was at war when Yamato was started... but since it was with China, it was unlikely that Japan's naval construction was speeded up because of that.
The same is true for Germany. While not really at war, Germany was involved in one (Spanish Civil War). However I think that that what I mentioned about Japan above is also true for Germany. It is unlikely that there was a naval construction increase due to the Spanish Civil War.

Quoted

The only simple thing I can think of right now is to bump up the ammount of tonnage able to be put into the design per month to 1,500 tons.

You could go for a slightly more complicated method by taking the "tons per month maximum" for the various lengths of the ships from option 2 and use that list as "tons per month maximum" for the various lengths of slips and docks. I would think that more materials can be stored on and more people can work on a 270 meter slip compared to a 120 meter slip.

But that's just an idea. Llike I said, that one is slightly more complicated. After all, you would need to remember which type of slip/dock you are using for which ship. There are people who prefer to keep it simple.

Quoted

It doesn't force anyone to change their plans, writeups, nothing, all it does is let them build some ships faster than they could before. Notice the word "let" in the preceding sentence: it means it's optional. You can still build everything at the same pace as before if you like. If it's too much work to adjust the build schedule for a couple of ships, DON'T DO IT! You don't have to, the proposed change doesn't force you to do so. It allows you to do so if it's worth it to you. That's all.

It seems to me that the people who do not want to change their building plans are unwilling to give the people who are willing to spend a few more minutes to recalculate their building program an edge over them.
(not really satisfied with how I typed that; if you read that bit and feel offended by it, feel free to grab a hammer and use it to hit me on the head)

I can't really remember this, but am happy to go along with it to some extent.

I do remember this, but I had completely forgotten about it. ^_^;;

Hmm I seem to have stirred things up, not my intent.

If folks want to change things so large ships can be built faster, fine- I'll speed up the Kortenaers. If not, well then I won't.

It's not really something I care about either way. I mainly just want us all playing by the same rules- whatever those are.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Hrolf, it surprises me that you did not mention HMS Dreadnought among those examples.

Heh, I could, I suppose, but it's rather older.

Quoted

It seems to me that the people who do not want to change their building plans are unwilling to give the people who are willing to spend a few more minutes to recalculate their building program an edge over them.
(not really satisfied with how I typed that; if you read that bit and feel offended by it, feel free to grab a hammer and use it to hit me on the head)

Speeding up construction may, or may not, give an advantage though. The ship being built will get into service faster, which is likely good, but the ships that were not built because their material was used by the ship being built faster might be needed instead. It's a choice.

Considering I originally raised the issue way back when, I think it's safe to say I'm in favor of some manner of adjustment. I just don't want to say what until I have a clear list of options before me.

That being said, the only way it'll really help me is if it's retroactive so I can shave a few months off the Canadas. I have nothing planned for the forseeable future even half as large.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
(not really satisfied with how I typed that; if you read that bit and feel offended by it, feel free to grab a hammer and use it to hit me on the head)

I'm not offended, but can I take a whack anyway? Feeling kinda angsty lately. :B

Ladies (if still reading) and Gentlemen,

I´m sorry I have to put on my moderators hat but this discussion has to come to an end. Some seem to get emotional and that´s not a good thing. I am also aware I will not make friends with this post. Nevertheless, the decision is this:

We will not modify the building rules regarding time needed per unit.

As a moderator I have two things to consider:

1.) What impact does a rule change have on the SIM?
2.) Does the new rule add value to the SIM?

See, I´ve not added 3.) what could have been Are people satisfied with the set of rules? or What are the intentions of those asking for modifications?. I do not focus on these questions because they are either speculative or add no value to the discussion. To put it like one participant wrote in a PM on this issue: They joined the Club. They accepted the rules. Now they have to live with it. However, I will explain to you how I answered questions 1) and 2).

To 1.)

To my knowledge and understanding a modification of the building time rules has the following implications:

a) The building time of all ships laid down after the new rule has come into effect differs from ships laid down to the rule exchanged. That means ships of comparable quality and capability will take different time to build.
b) The building time rule has direct influence on the time a slip is blocked by a ship. So equal ships will most likely block a slip for a different number of months.
c) Independent of which date is chosen for the new rule to come into effect there always will be ships in the process of building. So we have borderline cases that need to be dealt with (more complexity).
d) Modifications to the building time rules have direct impact on the time necessary for repairs, refits and the like.
e) The time to break up a ship will also vary once the building time rule gets changed.

These are direct consequences of any modification of the building time rules but there are also more general effects that come with the modification of such fundamental rules:

f) Every participant not supporting the new rule will find the place and rule set he agreed to changed. While keeping the rule has no negative effect on all players (all agreed to the original environmental rules) a change of settings will have negative effects on some. (It´s a bit like smokers vs. non-smokers.)
g) The more rules we allow to be modified the more other rules will come under discussion too. Every rule with border cases (i.e. small ship production, refit rules, slip length, costs for infrastructure) will be target of similar discussions right at the very moment they do no longer fit an individuals plans. Pandorra´s Box&.
h) We agreed on KISS. A formula, even if clever and more realistic, always is more difficult to use than a simply modifier.
i) People have based their plans on a fixed set of (basic) rules. There might be a reason why Player X waited a year to have a unit laid down. Heavily modifying the environmental rules mid-game will spoil that players plans what would be unfair.
j) A basic rule has to be fixed and not allow any leeway. So an option like only those players willing to do cannot be chosen. Comparability among designs and game speed would no longer be given if the rules lead to different effects.

To sum it up  such modifications has very great and deep impact on the SIM. It´s only worth it if the gains are that great they cannot be ignored.

To 2.)

A modification of a basic rule would be okay if it adds great value to the SIM. In our case it is said the new rule would make building times per unit more realistic based on the following, single argument:

I) Historical designs of great size were build much faster than our current rule allows. So obviously more than our assumed tonnage per month could be put onto a hull and our rule and modifiers are unrealistic.

As a result of this theory a formula was put together that leads to building times per large vessel similar to historical ones. It is now said the new rule must be more realistic because this is so. It is further said that such more realism offsets the work necessary by all players to introduce the rule and it corrects wrongfulness players suffer from using the old rule (when building large ships). So there are two main benefits from the modification of the building time rule according to those advocating the change:

II) The new rule is more realistic than the old one.

According to my research this is simply not true. The following table shows ship name/OTL time to build/ standard displacement/Old WW time to build/New WW time to build

Arethusa-class/27month/5225ts/14month/13month
Town-class/30month/9320ts/19month/16month
Uganda-class/37month/9000ts/18month/16month
London-class/35month/10000ts/19month/17month
H-class DD/22month/1340ts/11month/10month
M-class DD/25month/1920ts/11month/11month

Northampton-class/28month/9000ts/18month/16month
New Orleans-class/36month/9950ts/19month/17month
Brooklynn-class/30month/9700ts/10month/17month
Atlanta-class/21month/6000ts/15month/14month
Bagley-class DD/23month/1500ts/11month/11month
Benson-class DD/25month/1630ts/11month/11month

Leipzig/42month/6500ts/16month/14month
K-class CL/36month/6000ts/15month/14month
Type 36 DD/24month/2400ts/12month/12month

All values based on warships1.com data for building time and standard displacement for ease of use

Examine that table which shows only very few of the designs build worldwide leads us to following results:

- Building time of ships of similar size varies a lot. Obviously building time is not defined by size alone.
- Economy of size seems to play a part as building time of CLs, CAs (and capital ships  in reference to the figures posted during the discussion) seem to be very similar in general and not depending on the yard, displacement or tonnage used per month.
- Our old WW rule allows ships of cruiser and DD size to be build (much) faster than historically (but I never heard anybody lamenting about this fact!).
- The proposed new rule makes things worse and further reduces the time necessary to build such vessels.
- The new rule does not add realism to the SIM.

So the new rule which is based only on a handful of ships (all extreme cases compared to the usual vessel laid down) to calculate thousand others is statistically flawed and does not add more realism to the SIM. It just makes for a steep rise of building speed the large a ship gets compared to the old rule.

The discussion so far had little to do with realism. Otherwise we had seen a different discussion about WHY (capital) ships were build at the speed they were and how this could be implemented into the SIM.

III) Not changing the new rules put players with interest in building large ships in disadvantage.

For every capital ship build many smaller ships are laid down. There is a general consensus that a balanced fleet has about three cruisers per capital unit and three DDs per cruiser. With the old rule in place this means the gains with the small ships balance out the losses when building large units. By implementing the proposed rule this balance would be gone.

So not changing the rule does not put those in disadvantage building large vessel as they also build small ones anyway. But a modified rule would result in netto gains only  and every player not capable to lay down large ships to participate will be in disadvantage.

To sum it up  the proposed modification does not add value to the SIM that compensates the negative effects.

I hope those advocating the new rule  even if higher in number than those not voting for it  will show understanding for the latter and thus my decision. Now swear at me and throw your curse spells&&

Thread closed.