WesWorld

I've had an idea that might be a simple remedy to the current arguements without the use of cumbersome spreadsheets and maths.

My idea is a new rule that forces all players to build sufficent tenders and support craft.

Every ship class would be treated seperately; eg two tenders per eight destroyers, one tender per eight submarines, one tender per battleship. This would also include tankers in some form. Every qaurter 10% of the standard tonnage of all the tenders added together is paid in warship materials to simulate the use of resources etc. In a war if any support craft are sunk then fighting value points are knocked off the warships it supports.

Key points are, it fills up slip spaces and takes valuable warship materials to build thus slowing down the aqcusition of warships and any future construction requires the building of more tenders.

It's simple and effective with little calculation needed, as the tenders are built the effects culminate to sim enough useage of parts and oil.

What needs working on is the sizes and displacements, sub tenders are quite large while destroyer tenders could be smaller, each type must be assessed seperatley and the tonnages agreed by a Gentleman's agreement which all players stick to. A 10ton tender would be frowned upon!

What do you guys think? A germ of a brilliant idea or have I been exposed to too many X-Rays at work!

To illiustrate I'll take my own nation and a hypothetical set of rules.

First how many support ships do I need?
1 per BB/ BC, 1 per 2 CA, 1 per 4 CL, 1 per 8 DD and 1 per 8 subs, 1 per 8 sloops/escorts stuff above 15kts etc and down to 200tons.

2x BB and 2x BC = 2 tenders
3x CA = 1 tender
14x CL = 3 tenders
30x DD = 3 tenders
6x subs = 1 tender
28x other ships = 3 tenders
Grand total = 13 tenders

Tonnages
BB and BC tenders 9-11,000 tons
Cruiser tenders 8-11,000 tons
Destroyer tenders 6-9,000 tons
Submarine tenders 9-11,000 tons
Small tenders 1,500-4,000 tons
Grand total = 78,500 tons min to 142,000 tons max

That is what Argentina would have to build minus any existing depot ships etc which could be discounted off the total in both hull numbers and tonnage.

Upkeep calculations
10% of total standard displacement of all depot ships added up.
10% of 78,500 tons (as a min figure) 7850tons
10% of 142,000 tons (as a max figure) 14,200 tons

This to be paid each year (NOT each quarter as I estimated in my post above), bear in mind Argentina produces 7000 tons per qaurter it is a sizeable amount and the ships require materials and slips to build takig up valuable warship building resources too. Any expansion must lead to new depot ships too thus forcing all players to plan ahead more. Add in my proposed combat effectiveness effects if a depot ship is sunk then it becomes a active factor in wargaming too.

Well, to some extent I'm biased against anything that causes further book keeping, but I realize this is an issue others have been desirous of including, so overall I'm rather neutral.

As a means of approaching it, it's fairly simple which is a strong "good". We could even conjure up fleets of old "tenders" to bring navies in compliance as of 1934 (those that have specifically built "tenders", those would be bonus).

I'm using "tender" as some should be machine shop vessels, some oilers, some aircraft repair ships, some torpedo storage, etc.

In my view the major failing is that some navies spend more time in port, or rely on base facilities, and simply don't need the same level of support as others.

A smaller concern is that I at least don't use 8-ship divisions (too many obligations, too few Clieto tons available), and how do we address those. Also, you list 30 DDs = 3 tenders, not the 3.75 or 4 one may expect. Perhaps it could be rephrased as 1 tender can support up to 8 DDs, or for every full 8 you need one.

So, not sold on the need, but good enough to be worth talking about.

Just my 2 cents,
Kaiser Kirk

Interesting approach. I´d like to hear more players post thei opinion.

Personally I think some tenders are too large in size. 9kts for a submarine tender might be excessive. Anyway, the idea is well worth discussing.

A good idea which should be discussed, imho

A problem of the simulation is, that we necessarily need a system for the supply of the fleets.
We get so another reality factor in the simulation, and we prevent that ships grow like mushrooms.
But how do we get a sensible scheme ? We need somehow the influence of the resources of each
country to the building of a fleet.

I mean, if you have not enough oil you couldn't support a huge fleet of BB's

We DO need some sort of maintenance rules, as has been noted a number of times. I don't think this is quite what we need, though, since as has been noted not all nations need a lot of support ships, instead using fixed bases. Tenders, oilers, etc all are handy for a fleet that has ambitions of fighting away from it's bases, but if that's not the role of the fleet, they aren't necessary.

That's what i mean ! We do not need more ships (a supply ship is also only a ship).
Every ship needs maintenance so we need some rules for it !

Well I'm open to suggestions, maybe one tender per sqaudron/ formation?

The main thing I'm getting at ismost players are not building supporting vessels at all. If we have maintenace rules etc then surely for the sake of realism we must begin building balanced fleets. Even if a Navy spends most of its time in port most need some kind of ship-to-ship resupply at some time.

Tonnages and numbers are open to suggestion, the figures I used are merely for basic calculations but flexible enough for nations to build either bigger or smaller depot ships based on requirements etc.

Maybe include bases as part of the calculation?

There is not too much book keeping, add up the ships in your fleet by type, design the neccessary depot ships and then add the tonnages of these to work out the yearly costs. Once they are completed and a fleet does not grow further the amount stays the same.

I've had a new and logical answer to our problems. Maybe it was staring us in the face.


Refer back to the Infrastructure rules;

"96% to 100% - Nominal

Ships in this rating are in normal use and are typical for the day. There are always a few problems on every ship from time to time and this small range is designed to reflect this fact. In general, ships that spend more time at sea or have less experienced crews will be closer to 96%."

Simply then we must spend 2-4% a year per ship to represent the ware and tear of normal use.

This amounts to 1-0.5% of light displacement per quarter.

Reserve units requirements could be halved and active units in heavy use the full amount.

How to pay? Double the putput of factories.

Is this simple enough to work well?

I certainly think so, that was kind of the basis of my original proposal.

Why not make it even more simple and make a standard maintenence rate for each ship type? By rights maintenence for a 1,600 ton DD should be the same as a 1,500 ton DD, or am I wrong?

Quoted

By rights maintenence for a 1,600 ton DD should be the same as a 1,500 ton DD, or am I wrong?

Depends, a 1920's built 1,600 ton Scott type leader or a 1940's built war emergency O-P class destroyer...

Cheers,