WesWorld

I see no way how production can be pushed in peace-time. Maybe war-time production can be somewhat faster, allowing maybe up to 1200ts instead of 1000ts to be put on a hull and thus calculating time by dividing through 1200 instead of 1000 but I´m still not sure if we should introduce such a rule.

Say, why do you need to speed up your production? Preparations for a war?

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Your example clearly shows that in war-times things are sometimes possible that are not in peace-times.

But there is another think you have to keep in mind, especially when talking about Repulse. She, as well has her sister Renown, were reconstructed, transforming R-class BBs into battlecruisers. Therefor material already prepared could be used. Most important is, in this case, that the turrets were already ordered and under production. In many cases the turrets and the guns were the real bottleneck in warship construction, may it be a 13,3cm turret (the shortage of those mounts is a well known story in WW2) or a 38cm mount. Several cases are known were the completion of a given capital unit was delayed due to problems with the turrets. This was not the case with Repulse what helps to explain why she could be build in such an incredibly short time.

On the other hand both Repulse and Renown were also known as Refit and Repair for several reasons. One being, that they were rushed into completion and not build up to standards normally used in british warship construction.

I've been thinking about speeding up construction time on several occasions. Using 1200 tons instead of 1000 is a good idea but perhaps we should apply a penalty to it as well. Maybe subtract 1 percent off the ship's condition for each month that you finish earlier.

Example: a 25,000 ton battlecruiser would normally require 34 months to complete. However when you rush production on it, you can finish it in 30 months. This means that when the ship is finished it'll be at 96 % rather than 100 %.

So for a 40,000 ton BB, that would mean that you can construct it in 43 months rather than 49 months. But its condition will be at 94%.

Just a crazy suggestion of mine...

Quoted

Say, why do you need to speed up your production? Preparations for a war?

Aren't we all getting ready for war ? :-)

Walter

Not certain if you need to apply a penalty to it, as such - I have elsewhere a proposal for war-economy rules (which noone but me and Ho0man seem to find interesting?) - one could apply the increased efficiency of the shipyards as a second benefit of going to war-economy. The penalty could instead be similar to that applied to factories - 90% efficiency, with the same terms applying. Declaring war-economy cannot be done unless you are in actual conflict, though - and should perhaps have a clause that it automatically ends (does not begin) if the nation finds itself no longer in conflict.

With regards to building-times, it is notable that HMS Dreadnought, in peace-time, was completed in 14 months, though partly through the expedience of diverting four 12inch mounts from HMSs Lord Nelson and Agamemnon, under construction at the same time - normal building-time would be 25 months or more, in our rules-system.

I thought that 1000 tons was the maximum that could be put into a ship each month so as far as I thought, that would be the limit of what the men could do. If you were to reduce construction time, it would mean the construction would be rushed and would affect the ship's condition.
As for the factories, I thought it would be natural to apply a penalty on them since you proposed that in the thread on 'war-economy rules'. (Don't worry. I believe it to be interesting as well, but have made no reply on it yet).

As for Dreadnought, it's construction would be: displacement/1200 tons without the addition of the modifier of 9. Perhaps we could utilize that, but use the ship penalty there (when removing the modifier) rather than with what I proposed before.


Walter

Stupid me. I suddenly realized how stupid that remark I made sounded. Naturally removing the modifier can't work on the smaller combatants because that would mean you could construct 1000 ton ships in one month ! It is obvious that removing modifier could only apply to the bigger ships (perhaps anything of Dreadnought size and bigger)

Walter

I understood the proposal as saying that one could shorten the time, by using 1200 instead of 1000 in the calculations for the number of months, not that one could put mroe than 1000 tons into a project/month - the latter does not make much sense, since even when calculating building-time with 1200 instead of 1000, it still sin't until one reaches 54000tons light displacement that one has to put 1000tons material into the hull/month to be able to complete it in that time.

Not including the modifier of 9 is a bad idea, imho - it would mean that a 1000ton ship could be completed within a matter of 26 days from laying down until beginning of shakedown cruise. That may work for liberty-ships, but not for warships.

I'm aware of the slight error I made there. As I tried to correct it, this could be applied to the bigger ships but never to the smaller warships. It looks like I was a bit too late with the correction. However, we were talking about

Quoted

can you buld a battle ship faster.

So we were not looking at the smaller ships but the big ones. Because of that, this slight error creeped into the post. ;;

As for the proposal, HoOmAn mentioned:

Quoted

allowing maybe up to 1200ts instead of 1000ts to be put on a hull

Thus (the way I read it) one can put 1200 tons into a hull per month with war-time production.

Walter

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
As for the proposal, HoOmAn mentioned:

Quoted

allowing maybe up to 1200ts instead of 1000ts to be put on a hull

Thus (the way I read it) one can put 1200 tons into a hull per month with war-time production.

Walter

If the proposal was to allow one to put more tons into the actual hull per month, it will make absolutely no difference, since the construction rules say

Quoted

A ship may be launched when materials totalling 40% of its light displacement have been installed or when it is 40% through its theoretical building time, whichever is the later date.

A ship is completed when materials totalling 100% of its light displacement have been installed or when it is 100% through its theoretical building time, whichever is the later date.

At all ships below 54000 (fifty-four thousand) tons light displacement, less than 1000 tons is required per month to keep up with the theoretical building-time, if one calculates theoretical building-time by dividing light displacement by 1200 and adding 9. Consequently, putting more materials into the ship will not make it finish [n]any[/b] faster at all, since all that will happen is that the materials will have completed being put into the ship at an eralier date than the end of the theoretical build-time, and it is the later date of the two that marks actual completion.

I am not stating that we should use the 1200 tons per month in a ship. It is just the way I read HoOmAn's proposal. I have to agree with you that as long as we build ships below the 54,000 ton mark, there is no real reason to utilize that, unless maybe for finishing the ship (if you still need another 1200 tons to finish your ship). But how much materials you put into a hull per month is pretty much up to the player as long as it doesn't go over the maximum... While one player might opt to spead out his materials over numerous ships, another might put the maximum into it so he doesn't have to put any materials in the ship for the last 9 months which he can use for something else.

Walter

I did catch the post on wartime building and the prospect of my factorys doubling their output for a maximum of 2 months is cool. As for the R class BB's they were not reconstructed into the Renown/Repulse but were a separate design using turrets and armor from 3 (IIRC) cancelled R's, i'm assuming Hooman knows this and worded his responce incorectly, otherwise my info may be wrong!

... that at this point, four people are in favor of the proposed 'War Economy Rules'. No votes against so far.

Walter

Quoted

Quoth Rooijen10:

I am not stating that we should use the 1200 tons per month in a ship. It is just the way I read HoOmAn's proposal. I have to agree with you that as long as we build ships below the 54,000 ton mark, there is no real reason to utilize that, unless maybe for finishing the ship (if you still need another 1200 tons to finish your ship). But how much materials you put into a hull per month is pretty much up to the player as long as it doesn't go over the maximum... While one player might opt to spead out his materials over numerous ships, another might put the maximum into it so he doesn't have to put any materials in the ship for the last 9 months which he can use for something else.

But that interpretation has no real effect. The one thing which would have effect, would be to calculate the theoretical building-time by dividing by 1200 instead of 1000 - that would allow a noticeable reduction in theoretical build-time.

Quoted

Quoth thesmilingassassin:

I did catch the post on wartime building and the prospect of my factorys doubling their output for a maximum of 2 months is cool. As for the R class BB's they were not reconstructed into the Renown/Repulse but were a separate design using turrets and armor from 3 (IIRC) cancelled R's, i'm assuming Hooman knows this and worded his responce incorectly, otherwise my info may be wrong!

You are generally correct on the Rs - the last three had not been laid down, but the contracts for two were suspended isntead of cancelled, and redesigned into Refit and Repair, using available components from the cancelled Rs.

Regarding my war-economy proposal, it didn't state double production for two months - it states fifty percent higher productivity for any length, but with a two-quarter delay on getting it (since you have to draft and train workers, convert civilian factories, etc.), and a penalty on postwar efficiency if the industry remains on war-footing for long.

STRIKE!

Finally I made it!

Confusion everywhere....

*muahahahahahaha*

(just kidding)



To be serious:

I understand war-time production as a period where factories have an additional 50% output. They´re worn out afterwards if war-time production lasts longer than two month.

This rule is topic of another thread and there I mentioned I support the proposal.

Building ships faster is a different matter, though. With that 1200ts I made a comment that was somewhat stupid. As Pengolodh has already proofen, nobody even needs 1000ts/month/ship. So actually I meant to divide by 1200 instead of 1000 when calculating building times - for all classes. The additional modifier remains untouched. If you had not only quoted the first part of that sentance of mine but also the second half you should have noticed what I meant:

"allowing maybe up to 1200ts instead of 1000ts to be put on a hull and thus calculating time by dividing through 1200 instead of 1000"

So actually dividing by 1200 means allowing 1200ts/month/hull due to the construction rules. Putting 1200ts on hull (and thus more than necessary) will just have no influence on building time because of the phrase Pengolodh already quoted.

To sum it all up: During war-time production the time necessary to build a unit should be calculated by dividing by 1200 instead of 1000. One should also be allowed to put up to 1200ts on a hull per month. This will not shorten the overall time but will allow the same kind of material management as the rules already allow (on a 1000ts basis).

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
To be serious:

I understand war-time production as a period where factories have an additional 50% output. They´re worn out afterwards if war-time production lasts longer than two month.

Two quarters, not two months! Two quarters is equal to six months.

Will write up a version of the rules-proposal including the reduction of building-time.

Just took note of something from the present infrastructure-proposal, on repairs:

Quoted

Repairs to a ship can be expedited. The time to repair the ship is halved, but the cost in materials is doubled to reflect a general waste of materials in the hurry to make the ship sea-worthy. A player can choose to expedite repairs to multiple ships, provided he has the materials to do so. The rapid repair of the USS Yorktown after the Battle of Coral Sea is an example of this in action.

This might be usable to model quick-building of ships.

I'm not to keen on the limited time you have to expidite completion of a ship, but a hike in costs of building materials would seem reasonable. You could then balance between cost and time to build.

How about:
2000tons can be put into a ship each quarter but it will cost 4000tons in materials.
That sound ok?