You are not logged in.

Rule question

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

perdedor99

Sage

Posts: 4,026

  • Send private message

81

Wednesday, September 26th 2007, 10:34pm

Just saved close to seven months in the construction of the Villars. I give by vote to this enlightened measure. :D

Earl822

King of the Nords

Posts: 1,351

  • Send private message

82

Wednesday, September 26th 2007, 10:48pm

Don't think it will affect my 4.5 years of pre written reports much if at all, maybe just spend a bit longer on some DDs.

thumbs up.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

83

Wednesday, September 26th 2007, 10:49pm

Just saved close to six years in the construction of the HIJMS Yukihime. :D

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

84

Wednesday, September 26th 2007, 11:04pm

It will still cost you the same amount of tonnage Walter.

I'm fine with this as I'm going to be laying down new ships later in 1935 or early in 1936.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Ithekro" (Sep 26th 2007, 11:04pm)

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

85

Wednesday, September 26th 2007, 11:31pm

Quoted

It will still cost you the same amount of tonnage Walter.

No longer. As she had 16 shafts to get to 40 knots, I changed that to make it a bit more realistic (and thus was able to shrink it a bit). Right now, including the minor size change, I'm saving 9 years in construction time as well as 51,200 tons in construction costs and with the exception of the speed, she's actually better than the bigger version. :)

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Sep 26th 2007, 11:31pm)

Desertfox

Ambitious Packrat

Posts: 4,058

  • Send private message

86

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 2:30am

Well I don't know, I like small ships and Im more tonnage restricted than time on large ships.

I'll abstain on this one.

parador

Sage

Posts: 3,829

  • Send private message

87

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 8:36am

I think exactly the same. How realistically is it to build a battle ship with 27 shafts and a tonnage of 1.234.923 tons ? I think also we should rather find a tonnage restriction and not a time restriction.

Therefore, also I abstain on this.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

88

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 11:46am

The powers that were failed to come up with a tonnage restriction during the San Francisco talks, so there isn't likely to be one of those. And the current system, as has been noted, does not work well with the various battleships built during the mid-late 1930s and early 1940s.

Earl822

King of the Nords

Posts: 1,351

  • Send private message

89

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 12:40pm

Quoted

I think exactly the same. How realistically is it to build a battle ship with 27 shafts and a tonnage of 1.234.923 tons ? I think also we should rather find a tonnage restriction and not a time restriction.


building a slip or dock for that monster would be very expensive!

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

90

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 3:22pm

The latest proposal could also be combined with the idea of limiting how many tons can be applied to a hull by it's length. This might be useful in the case of the largest ships, and could be relaxed during wartime production.

Something like the previous proposal:

Amount of tonnage per month that can be applied to a hull is based on its length.
0 - 70 meters - 250 tons per month maximum
70.01 - 120 m - 500 tons per month maximum
120.01 - 170 m - 750 tons per month maximum
170.01 - 220 m - 1000 tons per month maximum
220.01 - 270 m - 1250 tons per month maximum
270.01 - 320 m - 1500 tons per month maximum
320.01 - 370 m - 1750 tons per month maximum

perdedor99

Sage

Posts: 4,026

  • Send private message

91

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 4:39pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The latest proposal could also be combined with the idea of limiting how many tons can be applied to a hull by it's length. This might be useful in the case of the largest ships, and could be relaxed during wartime production.

Something like the previous proposal:

Amount of tonnage per month that can be applied to a hull is based on its length.
0 - 70 meters - 250 tons per month maximum
70.01 - 120 m - 500 tons per month maximum
120.01 - 170 m - 750 tons per month maximum
170.01 - 220 m - 1000 tons per month maximum
220.01 - 270 m - 1250 tons per month maximum
270.01 - 320 m - 1500 tons per month maximum
320.01 - 370 m - 1750 tons per month maximum


I still go for the other proposal. The other one was easier to keep track off.

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

  • Send private message

92

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 4:41pm

Hm.

"Zitat:
I think exactly the same. How realistically is it to build a battle ship with 27 shafts and a tonnage of 1.234.923 tons ? I think also we should rather find a tonnage restriction and not a time restriction.


building a slip or dock for that monster would be very expensive!"

And expanding a port...

About 10 IP, and at least 2 years, I figure.

Then you can start your behemoth.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "AdmKuznetsov" (Sep 27th 2007, 4:47pm)

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

93

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 4:51pm

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The latest proposal could also be combined with the idea of limiting how many tons can be applied to a hull by it's length. This might be useful in the case of the largest ships, and could be relaxed during wartime production.

Something like the previous proposal:

Amount of tonnage per month that can be applied to a hull is based on its length.
0 - 70 meters - 250 tons per month maximum
70.01 - 120 m - 500 tons per month maximum
120.01 - 170 m - 750 tons per month maximum
170.01 - 220 m - 1000 tons per month maximum
220.01 - 270 m - 1250 tons per month maximum
270.01 - 320 m - 1500 tons per month maximum
320.01 - 370 m - 1750 tons per month maximum


I still go for the other proposal. The other one was easier to keep track off.


The idea was to combine both of these suggestions, not one or the other.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

94

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 8:48pm

Quoted

building a slip or dock for that monster would be very expensive!"

And expanding a port...

About 10 IP, and at least 2 years, I figure.

Then you still have to add the construction time as well and for a ship of 1.234.923 tons that's almost 70 years. Then you can use it for 15 years before you'll have a refit that'll take 18 years. then you'll use it for another 15 years before you'll have a rebuild that'll take 35 years... so by the time the rebuild has been completed, 153 years will have passed since you laid down the keel and you only used it for 30 years...

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Sep 27th 2007, 8:49pm)

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

95

Thursday, September 27th 2007, 10:25pm

That would be your submersible aircraft carrier that can land 747 jumbo jets easily without modification and likely has the firepower of at least a Nagato-class battleship and interal space for a small squadron of I-boats, right?

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

96

Saturday, September 29th 2007, 9:00pm

Anyone else? Hoo? Wes?

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

97

Saturday, September 29th 2007, 9:34pm

Ok converted the numbers to include feet, for easy use.

0 - 70 meters/0 - 229.6 ft - 250 tons per month maximum
70.01 - 120 m/229.7 - 393.7 ft - 500 tons per month maximum
120.01 - 170 m/393.8 - 557.7 ft - 750 tons per month maximum
170.01 - 220 m/557.8 - 721.7 ft - 1000 tons per month maximum
220.01 - 270 m/721.8 - 885.8 ft - 1250 tons per month maximum
270.01 - 320 m/885.9 - 1049.8 ft - 1500 tons per month maximum
320.01 - 370 m/1049.9 - 1213.9 ft - 1750 tons per month maximum

I'm ok with the numbers as my build times are usually stretched out anyway.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

98

Wednesday, October 3rd 2007, 11:22am

Hoo, have any comment on the recent preposal? Anyone else?

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

99

Wednesday, October 3rd 2007, 2:42pm

I´m a bit confused which proposal actually is the one you ask me to agree on . :o/

Are you talking of the "tons/1000 plus x month"-thing or the "size defines x tons/month"- proposal? Or a combination of both...?!

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

100

Wednesday, October 3rd 2007, 3:18pm

Thinking about it, this is the one we want:

Quoted

Minimum construction time in months = Light tonnage of hull / 1000 + (10 - (Light tonnage of hull / 3000))


This has the following results:
1,600 ton DD - 11.1 months (vs 10.6 months currently)
9,000 ton CL - 16 months (vs 18 currently)
30,000 ton CV - 30 months (vs 39 currently)
45,000 ton BB - 40 months (vs 54 currently)
63,000 ton BB - 52 months (vs 72 currently)


The other one, if used alone, has a fairly serious problem in that it allows a 12,000 ton CA to be built in a year, and a 2,000 ton DD to be built in 4 months.