Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Adressing it is not a bad idea.
Adressing it by changing the fundamental way of building ships in Wesworld is a bad idea, though.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
You are picking out a single statement.
I have raised several points above that speak against such change of rule. I also explained why it is a fundamental change of rules - or opens the door widely for one.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
The old rules that come with the original SpringStyle define how we design ships, including civilian and military vessels.
These rules, also we later started to use SpringSharp for technical reasons, define how to make use of misc weight as an integral part of a ship in case we want cargo to be carried. Such misc weight has an influence on the ships stats, including light displacement.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
In WesWorld we pay for warships we want to add to our nation’s order of battle.
The price to be paid for a warship is defined by the designs light displacement. The percentage of total displacement distributed to misc weight has no influence on the price other than influencing the ships stats in general.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
A landing craft is a warship. In that, it is not different to a cruiser, carrier or submarine.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
This is not about thickness of steel or the number of joints and watertight compartments. This is also about bow ramps, gear to move heavy equipment, armement, military radio equipment, crew quarters, ammo storage, handling and ventilation, fire and damage control systems etc.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
We've made two:
- Landing ship docks are simmed with miscellaneous weight representing a flooded aft well, but that is not counted in the construction costs. There were no objections when we discussed this rule.
If there is a special rule for landing ship docks that we have agreed on, I am currently not aware of it. I have to check. Can you present me a link please?
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Anyway, I still don´t see how this affects our current discussion. For the "mother ships" the full prize is paid. Calculated against the misc weight on a mother ship is the light displacement of the light landing craft carried. 400ts misc weight make up for four 100ts infantry landing crafts for example. We never said one has to substract the misc weight of the small landing craft from the small vessels light displacement and charge what is left against the mother ships misc weight capacity.
So in fact, what you raise as an argument to support your position here, just tells the opposite. It is not a valid argument to support any change of rule on LST.
Quoted
Originally posted by TexanCowboy
And which is more realistic, building a all warship fleet or a fleet that includes tenders, oilers, ammunition supply ships, etc?
This isn't stopping you from building, as you say "more warships that can actually fight", it just provides incentive to build a more historically accurate fleet with tenders, oilers, ammunition supply ships, tugboats, etc.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
It seems to me, now, that there is a general misunderstanding or different interpretation of our rules and sims, but probably I am wrong. I will thus give a general description of my point of view, and by doing so I will also address your points.
In general, Wesworld rules are meant to be as easy and basic as possible. Of course this means we had and have loopholes and exploits to deal with. As the sim grew we addressed some of these points but by concept we will never be able to fix them all – except we turn Wesworld into something completely different than what it was for the last 7 years. I take it as granted that this is not what we want. However, once big issues are uncovered, they need to be addressed.
As you pointed out, because of the loophole of transforming civilian ship into warships at very low costs, we might have an issue here, at least for landing ships. The question is, how to address that?
Up to this point it was a given to me, that the ships we build bring everything with them they need to be used for what they were build. That is, a battleship brings its shells, fuel and floatplanes, a carrier brings its aircrews and planes, a large landing ship (“mother ship”) its infantry, equipment and boats and finally a LST its tanks. Misc weight is used to define what these ships carry and you have to pay for the capability to carry something in general. Commander Green seems to agree (see above).
So with this in mind, please check the Indian Amphibious Warfare vessels for example. The General Munaf Bindra Class Landing Ship brings its own complement of different boats to fulfil her task. These boats are part of the initial design and paid for in misc weight. It does not make sense to remove them, other than for roleplaying purpose, as the ship would otherwise not be able to fulfil her main task – act as a landing ship. Details of those 13m infantry landing crafts are not given. But of course you could sim them, providing more details – including how much misc weight they actually include to carry troops. We will keep that in mind.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
IIRC, it was never questioned these Indian ships (still just an example, we could use others) were build to our basic rules. That is, the player in question devoted material according to the light displacement given in the sim file. So I assume they are build to full warship standards – whatever that actually means for a landing ship. As Commander Green pointed out, we have no rule, no mechanism that allows us to benefit from ships build to different standards. You can only make use of this from a roleplaying point of view – but as there are no restrictions for roleplaying in general, this is of little use. You can script what you want anyway.
Now we also have civilian ships that are most likely build to lesser standard. Here we agree. But how does a LST compare to a normal freighter? Because of the heavy gear and special features needed, such as the bow ramp, lift or ammo storage, I would rate a landing ship like a LST a mix. It is more complex than a simple freighter but probably less so than a purpose build surface warship, e.g. a cruiser. So I agree, we should check if we need to address this special nature of landing ships. And if we address it, how can we do so?
You say such landing ships are transporters first place, in use filled with removable cargo, e.g. tanks. As such cargo is not part of the ship initially, you say the ships misc weight is actually air alone, for which you do not want to pay. This contradicts with my understanding of a ship bringing with it what it needs, and when you look at the diagram I posted above, you can also see that there is much more on a LST that you will not find on a normal freighter – like a lift for vehicles etc. So it is not only a large empty hold, it is also enlarged crew quarters, magazines, lifts, holds, spare parts, weapons, electronical gear etc.
Your solution would be to use deductable and non-deductable weights that are listed in detail as part of the designs misc weight. The deductable weights, e.g. tanks or trucks, would be allowed to be removed from the sims light displacement to reduce the costs of the landing ship. However, I see a problem with that as there is no guideline to define how much of the misc weight is deductable. It would be left to the player alone to define that, based on his experience and knowledge about these things and his will to “play” fair.
And there is a second problem with that. Remember the Indian ships I mentioned above? They had small landing crafts as part of their misc weight. You take this a precedent that cargo can be removed from a ship and simed separately. I reply that by removing such crafts you render the whole design useless so it does not make sense to remove them. However, I am pretty sure you will not consider this a “no” argument.
And actually, that was not even the point I tried to make in my earlier post. Probably my fault, so I try again. I meant to say, that with your rule, you will have a problem with reverse engineering and very complex calculations. As an example we take that Indian landing ship again. It carries eight infantry landing crafts plus some smaller boats. Smaller boats we usually do not pay for as they are considered part of a ships design in general (something to question, btw, if we follow down this road). They are left our of the misc weight break down. But the 8 LCI are listed at 50 tons each, light displacement according to the way we simed ships yet. Now, I cannot find a sim of them but from my own experience I would say about a fifth of their weight is dedicated to the cargo they are designed to carry. That would be 10 tons then. So according to your proposed rule, we would be able to subtract those from the vessels 50 tons, in case we decide to not pay for them with the mother ship and build them separately instead. The total amount of material to be spent on those eight LCI is 320 tons then. But as 400 tons of misc weight are dedicated for LCI on the mother ship, she can actually carry ten of them – two more than originally planned, two more than there is deck space for (but that is only a matter of altering the drawing, isn´t it – there are no rules for drawings anyway). Putting landing crafts on landing crafts, which is not unusual, will be quite tricky.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Finally, once you have addressed landing crafts on basis of “deductable weights”, you will also have opened Pandora’s Box. Why should players not leave out deductable weights on all their designs? The springstyle design rules say a floatplane on a surface warship is calculated with 25 tons each. Now, a floatplane of that era only weights 5 tons usually, the rest is probably dedicated to catapult, spares, fuel, aircrews etc. But if we consider every cruiser or battle ship in a fleet to carry two floatplanes average, then this frees us a lot of tonnage we could spend otherwise. It buys you a flotilla of MTBs for free easily. And I am sure, spirited or tricky participants like Walter ;oP will soon find more options for “deductable weights” than just floatplanes…
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
In the end, any such rule that deals with the misc weight of landing crafts would make it more difficult to calculate and handle things in general and opens the door for new exploits. It rattles the fundaments of WesWorld. So I think it is easier and better to keep the rules as is, pay for every ships light displacement and beat those with big sticks that pop in a fleet of civilian “train ferries” out of the blue. ;o)
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, somebody questioned the SAE would be affected by such rule modifications as they build no landing crafts. Better go and check the last reports again. ;o)
Examples:
Quoted
- Purpose-built landing ships of 3,001t or greater light tonnage shall be built to light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [1] [2]
- Landing ships and landing craft of 3,000t or less shall be built to 75% light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo.
- Conversions of existing civilian ships to landing ships shall be priced according to pre-existing rules.
[1] Including, for example, tanks, or water in flooded well decks; but not including things like radar, workshops, cranes, etc.
[2] As we've discussed here and in the Landing Ship Dock thread.
[3] In this case, Hrolf's LST would be (1,789 - 780) * .75 = 757 tons to build.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, somebody questioned the SAE would be affected by such rule modifications as they build no landing crafts. Better go and check the last reports again. ;o)
Examples:
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH