|
Post by tbr on Feb 11, 2019 15:31:33 GMT -6
In discussing building slips the discussion focussed solely on building capacity for capital ships. But from a certain size onwards capital ships were not anymore built on slipways, but in drydocks (though there are exceptions to this observation). This means that the capacity for building capital ships and repairing them was, to a certain extent, exchangeable and identical. We have some recent examples, like the sinking of the large Russian floating dock, that highlighted the effects of inavailability and/or scarcity of drydocking capacity for large vessels and/or in certain geographical areas.
So tracking "drydocks" (initially it would make no distance whether graving or floating) would offer lots of choices to the player if a capital ship can only be repaired in a free capital size drydock. E.g. if a nation only has three capital size drydocks and is building two BB's it might become neccessary to "early launch" uncompleted hulls if a battle results in too many damaged capital ships and repair times (and the wait for same) become too high. Building AND operating capital ships would require conscious investment into infrastructure as well. We could even include colonial drydocks (such as the RN had) or, late game, deployable floating drydocks like the UNS had, to provide "capital size" repair capability in the non-home areas. Ideally the drydocks would get their own tab (like coastal defences and submarines) where the plyer could check which one is being used for what project, build new ones (or expand existing ones) and move the deployable floating drydocks.
Drydocks were of strategic importance and sometimes even a matter of national pride:
The location of capital size drydocks sometimes had massive impact on naval operations (e.g. Bismarck was sunk while trying to get here):
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 11, 2019 16:06:04 GMT -6
I think we should examine the definition of a graving dock and a floating dock. Floating docks can be propelled to a location of ship in or near the harbor, they are cheaper to maintain, and can be trimmed for and aft using ballast. A graving dock can accommodate bigger size vessels compared to other systems. It is cheaper to operate and can be used for retrofitting, modification and the supply of spares, machinery and services are much more accessible. Starting from the turn of the century, the increased technical sophistication of the warships and their size caused much difficulty in trying to provide the investment in manufacturing and new construction. The game, should show this change. The best ship builders were private because they had to maintain their docks and facilities to keep up with the private requirements. The prime issue was the size of the dock which had to be capable of carrying a wider ship. British builders on the Thames were limited to 90 feet and most of the battleships were designed to be much larger. The basic requirement for shipbuilding is a very large piece of open ground which had the geology to support the docks. The docks had to have large cranes on either side to be able to lower the turrets, engines and other heavy parts into the ship. Older shipyards had problems due to population growth around the site, which meant they might not be able to increase the size of the docks or the number of docks. This is what happened to the Thames. Over time building warships like dreadnoughts that were over 600-800 feet in length became an issue. The US and Germany had the advantage because they were able, due to the fact that they were new at shipbuilding and had plenty of space. The cranes were cantilever cranes and they went from about 160 tons in 1908 to well over 250 tons, just five years later in England. Guns and mountings, steam turbines, boilers and armour plates were the principal loads for these cranes. For the Japanese the problems was just lack of shipyards, both private and naval, the problem was really never solved.
If you want more details about shipyards, there is a free book titled "Practical Ship Production" dtd 1919. Its chapter V has a complete description of how shipyards were developed and built. I have the book and can provide some answers if needed. There is another title Battleship Builders which is recent about the British shipbuilding industry.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Feb 11, 2019 17:24:05 GMT -6
I think we need to have a look at what is feasible within the game AND adds sufficiently to player experience to merit implementation. I think the easiest way is to provide each "capital size dock" with a maintenance cost which floats with maximum dock size and make dock size increase cost a function of the number of docks, that would abstract your quoted history. The prize (and time) to build any new docks should also depend on maximum build size at the moment of ordering. Have floating drydocks need a higher maintenance budget than graving dock, with "normal" floating drydocks having "short" range (not moveable in wartime) and deployable ones "medium" range (moveable in wartime), with additional maintenance cost and inavailable for builds (only repairs/upgrades allowed) when not located in home area.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 11, 2019 17:33:13 GMT -6
I agree with your conclusions and that is why I am presenting the information about the docks. It is complex and should be simplified for the game, to make it feasible to play. Possibly a construction cost for a new shipyard, a construction cost for improvements to an existing dock and construction cost for a floating dock. Each would have their commensurate maintenance cost and limitations. As to non-home or colonial possessions, that could be complex but I think the simplified method will work except that it might take longer to get the necessary materials to build and maintain the yards and personnel.
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Feb 11, 2019 18:31:35 GMT -6
Related discussion. I was going to find/necro this thread to keep the conversation going instead of starting something new, but you beat me to it. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1615/shipbuilding-multiple-home-areasI agree with tbr... feasibility and adding to player experience are the key criteria. Matched (exceeded, really) in importance by developer "want to". :-)
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Feb 11, 2019 19:32:38 GMT -6
I think you could base a whole game around shipyard management and building/expanding slips and drydocks, but I don't think it's necessary to expand the system to such an extent in Rule the Waves, the same way the game's air model won't track engine development and availability separately from airframes.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 11, 2019 19:46:42 GMT -6
I think you could base a whole game around shipyard management and building/expanding slips and drydocks, but I don't think it's necessary to expand the system to such an extent in Rule the Waves, the same way the game's air model won't track engine development and availability separately from airframes. There are actually shipyard games and they are complex.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 11, 2019 19:47:55 GMT -6
I was able to get some financial data for the Admiralty Shipyard. I don't know if it will be helpful. DOC_0000500595.pdf (592.36 KB)
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Feb 11, 2019 20:26:30 GMT -6
In my opinion this adds too much micromanagement to a game that will already have more to manage than its predecessor. I think this needs to remain abstracted.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Feb 11, 2019 21:15:53 GMT -6
I think you could base a whole game around shipyard management and building/expanding slips and drydocks, but I don't think it's necessary to expand the system to such an extent in Rule the Waves, the same way the game's air model won't track engine development and availability separately from airframes. There are actually shipyard games and they are complex. Makes sense. Any recommendations?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 11, 2019 21:37:03 GMT -6
There are actually shipyard games and they are complex. Makes sense. Any recommendations? They aren't video games but they are on Amazon. I don't know much about them. They are called location based games.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 12, 2019 6:10:51 GMT -6
Perhaps the availability of dry docks could be linked to base facility improvements in foreign stations? As we invest money in base improvement the number of dry docks would automatically increase, starting with small dry docks (capable of repairing DD and MS sized vessels), with one dock per 20 points. Once we have invested over 100 base points we get a medium sized dock (capable of repairing CA and CL sized ships) for each 40 points, and once we have invested 500 base points we get a large dock (capable of repairing B, BB, and BC sized vessels) for every additional 100 base points. So a foreign station with 600 base points invested could simultaneously repair 30 small ships, 12 medium sized ships, and 2 large sized ships. These numbers could be tweaked up or down, obviously.
The consequence of this system would be that if a suitable dock was not available a ship couldn't be repaired, so if you have 5 damaged ships and only one dock then they have to go through one by one adding months to repair times for the later ships.
In the players home base these numbers would define the maximum number of ships of each size that could be simultaneously built / refitted. With 1400 base points you could build / repair / refit 70 small, 32 medium, and 9 large ships simultaneously.
I think a system like this might add a layer of realism without adding unnecessary complication. It would also make players plan ahead when spending on base development as it will be necessary to build up single base nodes with high base capacity rather than shotgunning investment across all the colony's in a zone as and when you need more base capacity.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Feb 12, 2019 15:27:43 GMT -6
My understanding (from peripheral observation, not from researching shipbuilding per se) is that ships were still built on slips over at least the period of the game in question. Drydocks were expensive and scarce resources (and frequently in use to do repairs and clean hulls). Floating drydocks were the same - meant for maintenance and repair rather than construction.
I could well be wrong (and apologies if I am), though, so any evidence to the contrary most welcome, but I can't think of a single example of a ship, large or small, that was built from the keel-up in a drydock, rather than on a slipway, and then launched for fitting out, but that was later cleaned and/or repaired on a drydock.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 12, 2019 17:32:19 GMT -6
My understanding (from peripheral observation, not from researching shipbuilding per se) is that ships were still built on slips over at least the period of the game in question. Drydocks were expensive and scarce resources (and frequently in use to do repairs and clean hulls). Floating drydocks were the same - meant for maintenance and repair rather than construction. I could well be wrong (and apologies if I am), though, so any evidence to the contrary most welcome, but I can't think of a single example of a ship, large or small, that was built from the keel-up in a drydock, rather than on a slipway, and then launched for fitting out, but that was later cleaned and/or repaired on a drydock. A dry dock is a narrow basin that can be flooded to allow a ship to be brought in and the dock drained. Ships can be constructed, maintained and repaired in a drydock. A slip or slipway is simply a boat ramp where a ship or boat can be moved to and from the water. In the early 20th century they were called launching ways. Ships or boats can be built in slipways, then launched.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 13, 2019 6:25:26 GMT -6
Perhaps the availability of dry docks could be linked to base facility improvements in foreign stations? As we invest money in base improvement the number of dry docks would automatically increase, starting with small dry docks (capable of repairing DD and MS sized vessels), with one dock per 20 points. Once we have invested over 100 base points we get a medium sized dock (capable of repairing CA and CL sized ships) for each 40 points, and once we have invested 500 base points we get a large dock (capable of repairing B, BB, and BC sized vessels) for every additional 100 base points. So a foreign station with 600 base points invested could simultaneously repair 30 small ships, 12 medium sized ships, and 2 large sized ships. These numbers could be tweaked up or down, obviously. The consequence of this system would be that if a suitable dock was not available a ship couldn't be repaired, so if you have 5 damaged ships and only one dock then they have to go through one by one adding months to repair times for the later ships. In the players home base these numbers would define the maximum number of ships of each size that could be simultaneously built / refitted. With 1400 base points you could build / repair / refit 70 small, 32 medium, and 9 large ships simultaneously. I think a system like this might add a layer of realism without adding unnecessary complication. It would also make players plan ahead when spending on base development as it will be necessary to build up single base nodes with high base capacity rather than shotgunning investment across all the colony's in a zone as and when you need more base capacity. I know it is bad form to quote yourself but I wanted to expand on my idea in light of a conversation I had in another thread about invasions. I think it would be a really good idea if expanding the base resources in a colony added to the point value of that colony, making it less likely to be invaded. Something like 1 point per 500 base resource might work, and we would need a mechanic that allowed an invasion to occur even if you get up to 10 points - possibly allowing invasions if it is the last possession in a zone? Anyway, if we are going to make a change to the significance of base resources we also need a way of protecting them somewhat from random chance destroying them.
|
|