WesWorld

My only point is that the new rules should start as of Q1 1940 as stated by Brock. Anything else you guys come up with is fine by me.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I feel Wes has a very good case to make an exception for his ships, but would like to note that there are likely very few other ships in the world which would be able to be converted like that.

If we can get the US and Atlantean reports caught up to Q2/39 by the end of this week, I'll drop my rules-start-date suggestion. I want to see everybody caught up so we don't have major powers lagging behind.

I can live with that suggestion. As it is the Maracaibo's current cost and the priority that been placed on my battleships building means the Maracaibo's completion will likely be delayed anyway as I juggle funds arround.

I guess Brock was too fast for me in his posting. I could agree to the dates he stated; they put everyone on the same page in regard to the reports and should stop some of the concerns of nations being behind taking advantage of new rules.

I'd still prefer to state a "rules-start date" to begin enforcement for all new rules proposed. Thataways we are all aware of new rules and everyone has equal opportunity to decide how to work with them. (After all, France, Britain, and the SAE all built amphibs in the 1938-39 period; France's definitely would fall under these rules but they're built to full tonnage, including the miscellaneous weight.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
If we can get the US and Atlantean reports caught up to Q2/39 by the end of this week, I'll drop my rules-start-date suggestion. I want to see everybody caught up so we don't have major powers lagging behind.

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of a precdent of players being extremely far behind in their Q reports, in hopes of them taking advantage of a rule adjustment that more prompt players cannot likewise easily backdate and take advantage of.

Which is why I proposed the Q1/1940 date to begin with.

I don´t see why we need this rule change at all.

...because our current rules make LST's (and other types) more expensive than a destroyer which wasn't the case in real life and Hrolfs made the point that their cost prohibits their large scale production as historical.

I agree on the cost issue.... However, I vote against a change of rules midgame. Some of us, including myself, have just build similar ships and paid the full price.

How do you plan to compensate?

As long as this question is not answred, I am strictly against any change of rule like that. The difference is just too great.

EDIT: Btw, in the past we had this discussion about misc weight several times and every time we decided to keep the misc weight as part of the ship and pay for it, like on carriers or submarines. IIRC, we said this weight we paid for represents the costs of the initial airwing and special training etc. Now, in case of an LST the misc weight represents the tanks and stuff carried with it. As we have no rules for army stuff in general this at least compensates for the naval/amphib aussault capabilities nations build up in WesWorld. That´s perfectly fine and goes along well with what we had so far.

I completely agree with HoOmAn !!! So i vote against a change of rules midgame, too.

Am I missing something? Either the SAE and China are behind in their reports or they simply haven't posted their LST designs?

China hasn't built any LST till now, but I am against changing the rules during the game, if some players had to pay another prize before the rule changed !! How we will handle
the countries who paid the full prize ??

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
China hasn't built any LST till now, but I am against changing the rules during the game, if some players had to pay another prize before the rule changed !! How we will handle
the countries who paid the full prize ??

As noted before in this thread, one thing that countries that paid full price will get is much tougher landing ships: ships built to the new proposals are built to merchant standards rather than naval standards, and hence take damage 10 times as fast.

Besides, what did people get who'd built smaller cruisers to the original standards get after we modified the design rules to smooth out the breakpoint from destroyers to small cruisers? Nothing except a tougher ship. What did people get who'd refitted ships using the original refit rules after we modified them a while back? Nothing at all.

We've changed rules before during the game, it simply comes down to finding a solution that all can live with. I'm simply not fond of people dismissing rule change proposals outright without first making proposals/suggestions of their own.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
China hasn't built any LST till now, but I am against changing the rules during the game, if some players had to pay another prize before the rule changed !! How we will handle
the countries who paid the full prize ??

As noted before in this thread, one thing that countries that paid full price will get is much tougher landing ships: ships built to the new proposals are built to merchant standards rather than naval standards, and hence take damage 10 times as fast.

Yes, and I think that's a good way to balance the pre- and post-rule situations. The rules were not set up with every sort of situation in mind; I think adjustments such as this can (and often should) be made for realism.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
China hasn't built any LST till now, but I am against changing the rules during the game, if some players had to pay another prize before the rule changed !! How we will handle
the countries who paid the full prize ??

As noted before in this thread, one thing that countries that paid full price will get is much tougher landing ships: ships built to the new proposals are built to merchant standards rather than naval standards, and hence take damage 10 times as fast.

Sorry, may be i understand something wrong or over-read that point !!! Ash on my head !!!

I thought, the players that paid the full prize didn't get any advantage but with this solution it's a very good way to handle it.

Sorry again.

A BB is a warship that has to be completely paid for, no matter how large the part of misc weight is, and no matter what it reflects. The weapons of a BB are its guns and shells which are paid for together with the ship.

A CV is a warship. It´s misc weight is paid for. In terms of roleplaying this reflects the costs of the planes carried and all equipment to use them, as these planes are the ships main weapons.

A submarine is a warship. It´s misc weight is used to reflect water ballast. And it is paid for although it is just water, to represent the higher technical complexity of a submarine. Without such misc weight a submarine cannot be build and used effectively.

A passenger liner is not a warship. It´s misc weigh represents the ships capability to carry passengers and cargo. Without misc weight a design for a passenger line does not make sense. THe misc weight is paid for, albeit the ship is build to merchantile standards and also cargo is not an integral part of the ship. In roleplaying terms the misc weight represents the higher costs for all the furniture, gold plating etc.

Now, how is a LST different?

It is either a warship meant to use its misc weight to fulfill its main purpose - just like a carrier or submarine - or it is a merchantile design that serves no purpose without misc weight and the capability to carry something - just like a passenger liner. But whatever it is, you have to pay for the misc weight.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
A passenger liner is not a warship. It´s misc weigh represents the ships capability to carry passengers and cargo. Without misc weight a design for a passenger line does not make sense. THe misc weight is paid for, albeit the ship is build to merchantile standards and also cargo is not an integral part of the ship. In roleplaying terms the misc weight represents the higher costs for all the furniture, gold plating etc.

But no one has, to the best of my knowledge, paid for a passenger liner in this game. If they had, and paid for the miscellaneous weight as furniture and accommodations, then that would be correct.

Additionally, you hit on the topic squarely when you said the ship is built to mercantile standards - just like an LST.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Now, how is a LST different?

It is either a warship meant to use its misc weight to fulfill its main purpose - just like a carrier or submarine - or it is a merchantile design that serves no purpose without misc weight and the capability to carry something - just like a passenger liner. But whatever it is, you have to pay for the misc weight.

False dichotomy. It's not an either-or issue.

Springsharp is not intended to sim empty hull sections such as tankers, freighters, or the empty holds of tank landing ships; and so it presumes it's filled with decks and men. As I've discussed elsewhere, you can't sim a historical merchant ship without making serious "tweaks" to work around Springsharp. Passenger liners are at least "within the pale" of what Springsharp can manage, as there are actual decks and cabins accounted for in the miscellaneous weight, rather than great gaping cargo bays in the hull.

This is why I specified the use of deductible and nondeductible weight in the proposed rules. Nondeductible weight covers the things you've commented on - cranes, landing ramps, workshops integral to the ship... etc. Deductible weight covers cargo, which should not be paid for.

For starters we don't pay for merchant ships, even when pressed into naval service, unless we refit them.
We also do not pay for land equipment.

An arguement can be made that an LST equiped with naval Marines and their equipment would justify encuring a cost in misc weight, but what of army equipment? This is a naval based sim correct?...and we haven't set up any sort of cost/infrastructure for army and air equipment.

If repair ships can have their misc weight "used up" repairing a ship it stands to reason that an LST would be in similar situation, except we don't pay for this particular ships cargo. Merchant ships have misc weight, sure, but again we don't pay for those ships unless we refit them in naval service and even then we only pay under the rebuild rules.

So technically as an example, I could have civilian yards build hordes of shallow draft tankers only to have the navy purchase them and pay 50% rebuild cost and convert them to LST's rather than building them to the same standards in navy yards at full cost. Theres nothing in our rules stoping me from doing that.....

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
So technically as an example, I could have civilian yards build hordes of shallow draft tankers only to have the navy purchase them and pay 50% rebuild cost and convert them to LST's rather than building them to the same standards in navy yards at full cost. Theres nothing in our rules stoping me from doing that.....

Or, even worse, I could have civillian yards pump out full-fledged LSTs, then they're refit to add their armament at 15% cost (because they're under 3000 tons and the biggest gun is a 3"). That's playing the rules like a harp, and I'd prefer not to do it. That's why I asked how we could come up with something that was more reasonable than full cost (because the cargo carried by the LST isn't built with the ship, and will vary from mission to mission), but not as cheap as 15% either. LCTs and other smaller vessels would be, using the civilian conversion route, even cheaper: their conversions would be 5% (largest weapon is a 40mm or so).