SDN World 3 Commentary Thread III

[Siege]

He could modify one of those Bamyan Buddha statues to carry your visage .

I've decided to retroactively pump the 175 points I spent on cruiser tank research on enhancing my industry, because that sits better with me than magicking a battleship or a few divisions out of thin air.

[loomer]

I think the lack of naval assets is what really gets me on my IBPs - that's like half the national budget saved.

[Thanas]

I think the lack of naval assets is what really gets me on my IBPs - that's like half the national budget saved.

I have got enough surplus dutch equipment lying around from their demobilization to equip over a million men, if you want to purchase it, let me know.

[RogueIce]

I have got enough surplus dutch equipment lying around from their demobilization to equip over a million men, if you want to purchase it, let me know.

He's Afghanistan. What's he going to do with a Navy?

[Thanas]

I have got enough surplus dutch equipment lying around from their demobilization to equip over a million men, if you want to purchase it, let me know.

He's Afghanistan. What's he going to do with a Navy?

No, those are from the army. Remember that one-third to half of the dutch army quit, with the most hardcore going into exile with the soviet union. Which leaves a lot of unused equipment lying around, which is also the reason the resistance gets access to sniper rifles.

[RogueIce]

I have got enough surplus dutch equipment lying around from their demobilization to equip over a million men, if you want to purchase it, let me know.

He's Afghanistan. What's he going to do with a Navy?

No, those are from the army. Remember that one-third to half of the dutch army quit, with the most hardcore going into exile with the soviet union. Which leaves a lot of unused equipment lying around, which is also the reason the resistance gets access to sniper rifles.

Ah, true. Hey, you still have any old Dutch ships? I could use some target hulks...

[Thanas]

All sold to the Brazilians about one year ago or scrapped.

[RogueIce]

All sold to the Brazilians about one year ago or scrapped.

Bummer. Well, if you want to get rid of anything else, I'll happily make blown up artifical reefs out of them.

---

On another note, Fin, you got a typo. You say the ships are 65,000t but you're paying 60IBPs. I know the intent and that it's just a small mistake, but I'm obsessive like that.

[Steve]

The issue of re-instituting caps came up, with 60,000 being the max permitted for 1927, but since a cap feels artificial, another means of reflecting the difficulties in building these behemoths is being considered.

Namely... it should take longer to build a 60,000+ ship than a 30,000 one.

Therefore I'm considering raising the build time to 3 or 3.5 years for ships over 60,000T, in effect creating a new range of construction times as in the rules. I think this might be an acceptable route for practicality.

(I'd vastly prefer abstraction, but we're too far into the game to emulate such appropriately).

[Thanas]

The issue of re-instituting caps came up, with 60,000 being the max permitted for 1927, but since a cap feels artificial, another means of reflecting the difficulties in building these behemoths is being considered.

Namely... it should take longer to build a 60,000+ ship than a 30,000 one.

Therefore I'm considering raising the build time to 3 or 3.5 years for ships over 60,000T, in effect creating a new range of construction times as in the rules. I think this might be an acceptable route for practicality.

(I'd vastly prefer abstraction, but we're too far into the game to emulate such appropriately).

Congratulations. You just ensured nobody will build ships that large. Compare the costs:

50kt *8 = 400 points total.
60kt *12 = 720 points total.

Given that the 60kt design will, at most, hold 2 guns more than the 50kt design, this means we can all forget about building ships larger than 60kt right now.

I am sorry, but this does not make sense. I should not have to pay nearly double for a ship to get 2 more guns.

[RogueIce]

The problem is that the 25kt - 60kt gap for build times is huge. We could make it 55kt+ as the new lower limit (so if it's 55,001t sucks to be you, but 55,000t on the spot has to be allowed because people already did it) but that's not a whole lot better. But we're stuck because that's what we've allowed for the whole game.

Admittedly if we'd done it like, say, 25 - 40, 40 - 60 as the intervals, it'd be better. But we didn't and we can't really make that kind of a rule change at this point. So we're doing the best we can with what we have.

It's been said before but I'll say it again: this game has been pretty rough. We tried to make a whole system from scratch and we likely rushed into the game a little too quick. So we've been having to patch things as we go along. Not a great way to do it but it's what we have. Should we move on to a SDNW4 at some point, one hopes we can take the lessons learned from here and apply it there (this is still better, IMO, than the "almost no rules outside of nation building" we had in the first two, though).

So yes, some things may not work out so great. But we're doing the best we can and all I can do is ask you all to try and give us some benefit of the doubt and work with us.

[Thanas]

So yes, some things may not work out so great. But we're doing the best we can and all I can do is ask you all to try and give us some benefit of the doubt and work with us.

I am not going to accept that I am being forced to pay double the price for ships that offer only a marginal capability increase. I also find it galling that this rule is enacted now after I have already paid two years worth of construction in shipyards only to find out that I should not have bothered with it as they suddenly do not make sense anymore.

I am also not going to accept it in light of the fact that I can pretty much chuck 12 hours of work I have done with Springsharp out of the window as not a single one of the designs will ever be built. Nevermind the work on the budget. Oh, and the 1280 IBPs I spent on upgrading old shipyards and building new ones.

I should not have to pay for unnecessary ideas the moderators suddenly think should be enacted.

[Steve]

Hence why I said "consider". And hence why I'm tempted, sorely tempted, to find some way to just re-do the whole damned thing to abstract naval forces like army ones are, eliminating the need to toy with SpringSharp and finding a fair, reasonable, logical cost and time ratio.

Because it seems my choices are all bad. Institute artificial caps ("No 60,000T+ ships until 1929, no 65,000T-70,000T until 1931, etc.) that feel arbitrary and unrealistic compared to actual naval development , increase building times and thus, as pointed out, increasing overall cost, which creates incentive to remain below 60,000T Standard (though I must admit.... that does seem rather appealing as it emulates, realistically, how increasing costs would make nations stop building bigger), or doing neither and watching navies go crazy.

Also doesn't help that the simple concept of "cash" derived from economic score wasn't implemented, therefore IBPs are being used as currency when they were honestly never intended to be.

But as Rogue just said, the game was rushed into play with adequate playtesting. So it's going to suffer for that.

(I'll add that various "lessons learned" from this playthrough - and the LibArc STGOD, which suffered even worse due to a far more rancorous, heated rules debate that inspired the proposing mod to put a draconian "NO CHANGES" policy into place when imposing the rules to start the game - are already being considered in a ruleset I'm devising for another game, not to be on SDN, also unlikely to be utilized for SDNW4 unless we want to remain pre-WWII.)

[Thanas]

Because it seems my choices are all bad. Institute artificial caps ("No 60,000T+ ships until 1929, no 65,000T-70,000T until 1931, etc.) that feel arbitrary and unrealistic compared to actual naval development , increase building times and thus, as pointed out, increasing overall cost, which creates incentive to remain below 60,000T Standard (though I must admit.... that does seem rather appealing as it emulates, realistically, how increasing costs would make nations stop building bigger), or doing neither and watching navies go crazy.

If someone has the IBPs to spend, do you think they would not suddenly spent it on more 50kt ships? Do you think it more realistic that a navy fields 4 70kt ships or ~6 50kt ships? If I have, for example, set aside 300 IBPs for battleships, do you not think these will get spent regardless of on how many ships?

What might be more worth looking into is the age of ships. I myself have set a 25year service limit of ships, and a 30 years hull life. That means, after 25 years, a ship gets put into reserve and if not immediately, then at least after 30 years scrapped. This alone means that my BB fleet will shrink by 8-12 units over the next two years.

[Steve]

I'm more concerned with the fact that with the 55-70 slipways coming out some players are already jumping up toward 70 right off the bat (considering Sovereign is 50,000 and Defiant 55,000, I tried to hold Excalibur under 65,000, ended up at 64,500 due to the armoring and alloting for superheavies), and with the fact that building a ship the size of a 65-70 requires a lot more man-hours and material than a ship of the 25-50 range yet the build-times don't reflect this.

[Thanas]

I'm more concerned with the fact that with the 55-70 slipways coming out some players are already jumping up toward 70 right off the bat (considering Sovereign is 50,000 and Defiant 55,000, I tried to hold Excalibur under 65,000, ended up at 64,500 due to the armoring and alloting for superheavies), and with the fact that building a ship the size of a 65-70 requires a lot more man-hours and material than a ship of the 25-50 range yet the build-times don't reflect this.

And yet we have build jumps in OTL that are even more drastic. For example, the Baden class had 32000 and the L20alpha had 48000 tons.

As for the more man hours, not really. For example, the Montana was expected to take three years. In real life, the Iowa took 2 2/3 years. So it is not really that much of a difference, even though the gap was even larger than between the 55 and 70kt ship, for it is over 20000 tons.

As for the extra materials, I would argue that as we have already hit the practicability limit on guns with 20" guns being the maximum feasible, the extra cost is well-covered by the cost of the ship itself. After all, it is more than a quarter more expensive, but only offers around the same increase in capability.

[Thanas]

Okay, something that got lost in the new discussion about the BBs.


As outlined in the story thread, Germany is planning to build the Rhein-Main Canal. The project will take six years and cost 1200 IBPs total. When completed, Germany will get a 5% economy bonus peacetime and 10% economy bonus wartime.

- Every partner nation will get a 2,5% economy bonus peacetime and a 5% economy bonus wartime.
- If there are not enough partner nations, Germany will take up their slack and their bonus.
- If there are less than two partner nations, the thing will collapse. At least one partner nation must be the Balkan Confederacy or the Byzantine Empire.
- Every partner nation is expected to contribute a total of 36 IBPs per year, or 9 IBPs per quarter. Germany will contribute the difference to the 200 IBPS.

Initial offers have gone out to the French Republic, the Byzantine Empire, the Balkan Confederacy and the Kingdom of Tuscany.

[Lascaris]

I'm more concerned with the fact that with the 55-70 slipways coming out some players are already jumping up toward 70 right off the bat (considering Sovereign is 50,000 and Defiant 55,000, I tried to hold Excalibur under 65,000, ended up at 64,500 due to the armoring and alloting for superheavies), and with the fact that building a ship the size of a 65-70 requires a lot more man-hours and material than a ship of the 25-50 range yet the build-times don't reflect this.

And yet we have build jumps in OTL that are even more drastic. For example, the Baden class had 32000 and the L20alpha had 48000 tons.

As for the more man hours, not really. For example, the Montana was expected to take three years. In real life, the Iowa took 2 2/3 years. So it is not really that much of a difference, even though the gap was even larger than between the 55 and 70kt ship, for it is over 20000 tons.

As for the extra materials, I would argue that as we have already hit the practicability limit on guns with 20" guns being the maximum feasible, the extra cost is well-covered by the cost of the ship itself. After all, it is more than a quarter more expensive, but only offers around the same increase in capability.

I do still doubt how practical 20 in guns are (IMO the ain't) but when all is said and done a 70,000 ton ship costs 40% more than a 50,000t one. That's more than enough of a show to the greater resources and manhours consumed by it.

[Lascaris]

Okay, something that got lost in the new discussion about the BBs.


As outlined in the story thread, Germany is planning to build the Rhein-Main Canal. The project will take six years and cost 1200 IBPs total. When completed, Germany will get a 5% economy bonus peacetime and 10% economy bonus wartime.

- Every partner nation will get a 2,5% economy bonus peacetime and a 5% economy bonus wartime.
- If there are not enough partner nations, Germany will take up their slack and their bonus.
- If there are less than two partner nations, the thing will collapse. At least one partner nation must be the Balkan Confederacy or the Byzantine Empire.
- Every partner nation is expected to contribute a total of 36 IBPs per year, or 9 IBPs per quarter. Germany will contribute the difference to the 200 IBPS.

Initial offers have gone out to the French Republic, the Byzantine Empire, the Balkan Confederacy and the Kingdom of Tuscany.

Oh? Let me see. It costs 400 IBP for a gain of 25 IBP. Why I have that odd idea that the 1200 points hear will be producing about 100 IBPs and potentially even more?

[Thanas]

Oh? Let me see. It costs 400 IBP for a gain of 25 IBP. Why I have that odd idea that the 1200 points hear will be producing about 100 IBPs and potentially even more?

Because canals are different from normal things. For example, the Nicaraguan canal, for a total cost of 4000 will produce about 200+ IBPs at the end. It is the same thing as with the economy, for example me spending a total of 500 points in the dutch economy only nets me...20 additional IBPs.

The Rhein-Donau Kanal after all is one of the most important water traffics of europe. If you can find another canal project that will have that much of an impact on the economy of five nations, feel free to propose it to the mods and more power to you.

EDIT: To show the impact - if produced, it will allow goods to travel directly to the Byzantine empire and the Balkan/Italy without having to traverse the mediterranean. It is an enormous time-saver.

EDIT 2: For example, as a moneymaker for Britain, you might want to get in on a proposed canal expansion to the Panama canal.

[Lascaris]

Oh? Let me see. It costs 400 IBP for a gain of 25 IBP. Why I have that odd idea that the 1200 points hear will be producing about 100 IBPs and potentially even more?

Because canals are different from normal things. For example, the Nicaraguan canal, for a total cost of 4000 will produce about 200+ IBPs at the end. It is the same thing as with the economy, for example me spending a total of 500 points in the dutch economy only nets me...20 additional IBPs.

And the IBP effects of the Nicaragua canal are shown again oh nowhere right.

On a different question how exactly have the Dutch IBPs been split? Looking at France in seems to have gotten 150 point while Germany seems to have gotten 400... for a total of 550.

[Thanas]

And the IBP effects of the Nicaragua canal are shown again oh nowhere right.

You are quite wrong, they were posted in the previous commentary thread. Use the search engine and you will find them.

On a different question how exactly have the Dutch IBPs been split? Looking at France in seems to have gotten 150 point while Germany seems to have gotten 400... for a total of 550.

Nope. The split was 400-100. Germany then ceded its border fortresses and the french speaking parts of Alsace-Lorraine worth another 25 points to France. That explains how they got to their total, taking past investment in industries in account. Or they might scrap some ships or something.

EDIT: Note how Germany's base points was only 480 after the Dutch invasion? Yeah, those are the -25 and +5 (from investing in IBP earlier) differences.

[CmdrWilkens]

Oh? Let me see. It costs 400 IBP for a gain of 25 IBP. Why I have that odd idea that the 1200 points hear will be producing about 100 IBPs and potentially even more?

Because canals are different from normal things. For example, the Nicaraguan canal, for a total cost of 4000 will produce about 200+ IBPs at the end. It is the same thing as with the economy, for example me spending a total of 500 points in the dutch economy only nets me...20 additional IBPs.

And the IBP effects of the Nicaragua canal are shown again oh nowhere right.

Thanas mentioned this but since its my project I do take some umbrage at the idea that I'm hiding the cost/benefit numbers of the canal. Both share classes have their relative values posted in the Commentary II thread (the Mexican shares receive less kickback but cost a little less, the Partner shares cost more and return more). Its a huge project with huge returns because of its impact. It will allow ships of roughly Suezmax size (21m draft, 50m beam, 350m length) to transit in both directions allowing for a much higher throughput in terms of total ships and massively higher in terms of DWT throughput. It would save up to a full day in transit and possibly more for Asia and Cascadia to the US and W. Europe as well as reverse...so yeah the economic benefits should be big.

[Akhlut]

Turns out paleontology wasn't the only benefactor of those grants!

I'll need to talk to some mods tonight about both bombing Shepistan and this prospective indepedence movement in China.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'm more concerned with the fact that with the 55-70 slipways coming out some players are already jumping up toward 70 right off the bat (considering Sovereign is 50,000 and Defiant 55,000, I tried to hold Excalibur under 65,000, ended up at 64,500 due to the armoring and alloting for superheavies), and with the fact that building a ship the size of a 65-70 requires a lot more man-hours and material than a ship of the 25-50 range yet the build-times don't reflect this.

Steve I'm gonna toss back out an idea from earlier in this thread:

Steve maybe it might make more sense to say that for every 1,000 (rounded) kt over the previous largest ship design requires that many more months of trials. Its already 3 years to bring a monster in to this world so 4-6 more months isn't that much time (percentage wise) but it would serve as a check on reckless size growth (something I would be a bit guilty of if and when my 1928 design hits the slipway).

So basically if you jump from 50kt to 60kt then it would be 10 extra months of trials...but you would only be paying the 1/20th IBP load for those extra 10 months during the fitting out stages. This means that the cost of building these large ships is not drastically higher (at least for the initial builds) but does come with penalties designed to make more evolutionary leaps (or 2 or 3kt at a time). Moreover once you've built one monster of a given size then other ships in the same weight class would revert back to the standard time-frames.