You are not logged in.

Us Lst

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.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

61

Wednesday, June 16th 2010, 6:47pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
That's correct, her superstructure was replaced in the 1939-1940 rebuild that turned her into an AMC.


Don't know whether this might help envisioning the changes.

Link

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

62

Wednesday, June 16th 2010, 6:50pm

Yes, I have most of my photographs of Prince David and cousins from that page.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

63

Wednesday, June 16th 2010, 6:56pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Yes, I have most of my photographs of Prince David and cousins from that page.


*Shrugs* I tried.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

64

Wednesday, June 16th 2010, 7:00pm

Which of the ship designs I choose depends on how the rules proposed here shake out.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

65

Thursday, June 17th 2010, 12:44am

I also have ships that will be effected by these rules that about to build in Q2/38 so I'd like to settle these rules ASAP. So far there is only input from a few players here.....

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

66

Thursday, June 17th 2010, 3:38pm

Let me re-offer the proposed rule:

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.


Might I additionally suggest that all amphibious ship designs posted according to this proposed rule have a breakdown of the miscellaneous weights into the "Deductible" and "Nondeductible" categories? Thataways everyone in the sim can see and double-check what's being deducted from light tonnage for the purpose of these rules.

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

  • Send private message

67

Thursday, June 17th 2010, 11:03pm

Seems fine and logical to me.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

68

Friday, June 18th 2010, 2:43am

Quoted

- Conversions of existing civilian ships to landing ships shall be priced according to pre-existing rules.

....not sure if I like this one, seems I might pay even more than Hrolfs preposed rule and 3 times as much as the rule I used for the Lago de Maracaibo's conversion. The pre existing rule means I pay 50% of light tonnage as per rebuild rules which is 3,216 tons.
That makes Hrolfs preposal more appealing to me when I only have to pay 2,233 tons.

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

  • Send private message

69

Saturday, June 19th 2010, 11:44am

Maybe we should adapt the light tonnage refit rules instead?
That way the price will be lower.

Anyway how much would adding a few davits and converting the lower decks to bunked accomdation really cost?

Obviously serious mods like bow doors etc would cost much more.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

70

Saturday, June 19th 2010, 12:29pm

That's why I'm seeing a major difference between landing ships (need fairly specialized hull form, often need heavy-duty ballasting for ocean cruises, at least bow ramps, etc) and troop transports (which, since they won't be beaching, don't need all that and can be liners with minimal modifications sucha as heavy-duty davits and light AA). The Maracaibo's are large, and they need complete bow replacements along with the internal changes (which would be cheap) for their role.

The high cost of the Maracaibo's under the existing rules is a result of the same problem we're seeing with the Kornilov: the rules expect comprehensive, major refits, even if you don't need to do that.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hrolf Hakonson" (Jun 19th 2010, 12:30pm)

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

71

Saturday, June 19th 2010, 1:56pm

....which is why I'm starting to like your version of the new rule. It means the Maracaibo's are cheaper but not rediculously.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

72

Monday, June 21st 2010, 1:30am

*Pokes discussion*

I thought we had this all nailed down a week ago but it's still apparently under discussion. I'd like to propose that the rule come into effect for the Q1/1940 reports and beyond, so that no countries are unfairly advantaged by the late posting of reports.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

73

Monday, June 21st 2010, 10:29am

....so I'm guessing with that preposal any sort of grandfather clause is out of the question as well...

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

74

Monday, June 21st 2010, 1:14pm

Heh, well, if we go with that proposal (proposed rules change goes into effect Jan 1, 1940), the US has to do some fairly serious re-vamping of it's 1938-1939 build plan. Doable, of course, but it will take me a little bit.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

75

Monday, June 21st 2010, 3:54pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Heh, well, if we go with that proposal (proposed rules change goes into effect Jan 1, 1940), the US has to do some fairly serious re-vamping of it's 1938-1939 build plan. Doable, of course, but it will take me a little bit.

If this discussion is what's hanging up the posting of the US reports, then we need to decide what rules we're going to use and get on with it. We've been discussing this without consensus for over two weeks now, and since we aren't apparently any closer to a decision...

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

76

Monday, June 21st 2010, 4:46pm

In my case, because of this rule preposal my Maracaibo designs cost has gone down to 30% of its orriginal cost, then up to 60% and finally back to the orriginal cost (which would become certain if we make the rule take effect in 1940) all because we seem to be adding on more and more designs to this rule.

Lets first determine which designs we think are specialized enough to use this rule...

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

77

Monday, June 21st 2010, 4:59pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
In my case, because of this rule preposal my Maracaibo designs cost has gone down to 30% of its orriginal cost, then up to 60% and finally back to the orriginal cost (which would become certain if we make the rule take effect in 1940) all because we seem to be adding on more and more designs to this rule.

Lets first determine which designs we think are specialized enough to use this rule...


My opinion: this rule is really for specialized designs, that have no direct civilian counterparts and are more than a tanker or a liner with some guns and extra cranes installed. Specialized hull forms and designs for beaching, ballast tanks for operating at sea, bow and/or stern loading ramps, etc (ferries often have the ramps, but not the beaching hulls and the ballast tanks, and will be hard-pressed to serve the same roles unless landing at a port). Fleet tankers, depot ships, transports that use standard hull forms, etc, can all use the normal auxilliary rules.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

78

Monday, June 21st 2010, 5:01pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Lets first determine which designs we think are specialized enough to use this rule...

This is a problem, I think, which is going to hurt our rules discussion in the future. How are we going to determine what's "specialized enough"? I posted a design a week ago that met my criteria to fall under the proposed rule, and was told it "wasn't specialized enough".

Personally, I'd like to see all auxiliaries (such as oilers) built to the same rule proposed here: light displacement minus deductible miscellaneous weight, rather than just converting them from civilian ships. But if we did that, nobody would build military fleet trains and just keep converting merchant ships, however unrealistic that would be.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

79

Monday, June 21st 2010, 5:03pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Fleet tankers, depot ships, transports that use standard hull forms, etc, can all use the normal auxilliary rules.

...and yet the HMS Misoa class DID beach themselves on a regular basis so hullform or intended design specifications where irrelevant. Rebuilt, they performed the same task and probably cost the same as a purpose built design in terms of Wesworld economics, esspecially if we adopt these rules.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

80

Monday, June 21st 2010, 5:08pm

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.