Allow more modifications before a design is considered "new"

[tomthehand]

I think receiving a discount for basing new designs on existing ones is an excellent and important mechanic, but I also think designs are considered "new" too easily. I think this issue is important because it incentivizes players to be evolutionary in their designs and thereby causes more realistic play.

I think the "% change" mechanic is underutilized and has the potential to address the issue. For example, a 0.5" change in deck armor is considered just a 10% change, but 1" is considered a new design. I was hoping the team might consider some of the following changes:

• Displacement: Substantially less effect on % change; the change should come from other factors and displacement changes should just be a side effect.
  
• Freeboard: 80% change for any adjustment
• Speed: 1 kt/2 kt/3 kt = 10%/40%/80% change
• Range: 40% change per increment
  
• Engine priority: 10% change for any adjustment
  
• Fuel type: 40% change
  
• Unit machinery: 20% change
  
• Belt, BE, or Turret armor: 1.0/1.5/2.0" = 10%/40%/80% change
  
• Deck, DE, or Turret Roof armor: 0.5/1.0/1.5" = 10%/40%/80% change
  
• Conning tower: Little to no effect
  
• Secondaries: 10% change for any adjustment
  
• Magazine box: 40% change
• Belt coverage: 40% change
  
• Inclined belt: 40% change
  
• Armor scheme: 80% change
  
• Torpedo defense: 40% change per increment
• Accomodation: 20% change for any adjustment
  
• Colonial service: 10% change'
  
• Main guns: Adapt "Rebuild?" mechanic to allow changing, for example, triple 14" into twin 16" at a reasonable % change (~20%?).
  
• Secondary guns: Complicated; not sure what to say off the bat apart from changing from casemates to turrets should be a substantial % change (20%? 40%?).
  
• Tertiary guns: Whatever mechanic is used should be similar to secondaries.
• Torpedoes: Complicated, but underwater tubes should have a greater effect than above-water tubes.

As we move on to AA and beyond, my opinions get less strong, and I think I've made my overall point clear. Certainly there's room for debate about the exact changes made, but generally I think the game would be improved by revising this element.

[dorn]

As it in game it is quite realistic. I do not have experience with ship building however I expect it is generally similar to other project prepared similar way and even relatively small changes means you can start from scratch. 

Just think about 35000 tons battleship and change of displacement of 500 tons. You can do it and quickly adapt design however it would be not so efficient as starting from scratch. However if the change is larger eg. 1500 tons, you have completely different dimension, to have same speed you need different machinery, you cannot just fill free space with something you need to redesign your ship etc.

Such changes as freeboard are making the design completely brand new. Similar change in speed means you practically need to redesign almost whole ship. I could be probably less strict in same cases but it would make programming nightmare.

Another example is conning tower. You think it has no effect but it is just opposite as all weights is up and it has tremendous effects on stability of ship.

[tomthehand]

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken; the above recommended changes would be substantially more realistic. A change of displacement of 500 tons is quite small, and is far smaller than, for example, the change of South Dakota's displacement between 1942 and 1945: on the order of 1700 tons, largely due to additional AA batteries. A larger displacement change could be (and was) accomplished by simply stretching the ship; the Gearings were created by lengthening the Sumners amidships, increasing full load displacement by some 10%.

I would point to the U.S. "Standard-Type" battleships as an example of what the game should allow: going from 10 x 14" to 12 x 14" guns, as from Nevada to Pennsylvania, or going from 12 x 14" to 8 x 16", as in Tennessee to Colorado, should be a moderate change rather than an entirely new design.

Re: the conning tower, during World War II many Standard-type battleships had their conning towers replaced with cruiser-type towers, precisely to improve their stability; my point is not that these changes have no effect, but that they do not require tearing up all of your blueprints and starting from scratch.

The game is too strict about this, and as a result if the player wants to go from 12 x 14" to 8 x 16" guns they might as well completely change the ship. It would be more realistic if the player had an incentive to just make that one change.

[rimbecano]

One thing that has to be kept in mind is that even if the overall tonnage remains the same, changes that affect weight distribution can have significant effects. Weight removed/added at a given frame without adjustment to the cross sectional area at that frame will tend to cause that frame to try to float shallower/deeper than the rest of the ship, which will cause loads on the ship's structure. Note that this is a relative effect: if the ship is 10% heavier at every frame, it will just ride lower in the water. If it's 10% lighter in the middle and 10% heavier at the ends, it will experience bending forces.

[Antediluvian Monster]

5x3 6-in to 3x3 8-in should probably be possible within bounds of the design modification, on account of USS Wichita's and Baltimore class' descent from Brooklyn class light cruisers. As well as the more simple change from triple 6-in to twin 8-in from Japanese heavy cruisers.

Endurance should definitely be modifiable, sometimes this varied quite a bit even within same class as with Gazelle class cruisers.

[rimbecano]

For endurance I'll actually go a bit farther than you're going and say that you probably should be able, not only to change it for a new design without badly affecting the derived design discount, but probably even to change it during rebuilds.

OTOH, to play devils advocate against my own position, there are potential TPS issues that could result.

[wlbjork]

Unfortunately, in this game, the displacement also dictates hull size. The size of the hull requires a certain layout of bulkheads in order to adequately support the deck above, just as some walls in a house are load-bearing and need special care when modifying.

Likewise, the switch from coal-fired to oil-fired is massive. You're going from hand shovelled coal from bunkers to needing piping connecting tanks and boilers. Consider that a coal bunker are worked in as a key part of the defensive scheme of a warship. Oil tanks can be used as such, but tend to be far less effective in the role.

Range is far trickier. Reducing range has the advantage that it frees up space, though it may also require some rearrangement of the internals to balance weight distribution. Increasing range on the other hand requires space, and will certainly require some rearrangement of internals.

Guns are also tricky. Obviously adding a new turret is a major change - but then, so would be switching from casemated guns to turreted guns, whether primary, secondary or tertiary. However, I do agree that a little flexibility with calibre would be nice.

The other point that needs to be made is that changes made during rebuilds and refits tend not to be anywhere near as extensive as the changes made with new ship designs - and are certainly far less efficient than a new design would be.

[cabalamat]

Does anyone know how long it took to design ships in real life?

[dorn]

What I think could be interesting about designs to allow changes before launching any ship. Something similar to the thing game ask you about 3 months in advance if you would like to upgrade your fire control. 

So it would be great if at same time you have several options:

a) build ship as originally designed
b) design "refit" of that ship and ship is build according that specification. To simplify a little (for coding and reality), such design can have maximum time of refit 4 months (so easy check in code). The time of construction does not change, only there is one time payment of that refit (may be something as 40 % of refit as equipment was not installed yet). After that the ship in construction is change to the refit design (slightly change of monthly costs would be probably unimportant). May adding 1 month of construction as time needed to changes. May be does not allow changing casemates to something else.
c) choose refit design (if designed earlier) and used same principle as in b)

It would help a lot with equipments as AA guns, secondary guns, mines, torpedo tubes, catapults, aircraft, fire control etc.

[tomthehand]

Mar 16, 2020 22:56:48 GMT -6 cabalamat said:

Does anyone know how long it took to design ships in real life?

Dramatically longer than it takes in the game. To give a few examples from Friedman's "U.S. Destroyers":

• The characteristics for the Farragut-class were approved in April 1931. This is equivalent to you clicking "Save" so that the design can be developed for production. Farragut was laid down in September 1932, almost a year and a half later.
• The characteristics for the Fletcher-class were approved in January 1940, and Fletcher was laid down in October 1941, almost two years later.
• In April 1942, the Bureau of Ships "argued that it would be 12 to 14 months before any entirely new destroyer design could be laid down", and hence ships similar to the Fletcher-class should be built instead.

It seems as though it takes a year or two to develop a destroyer. Larger ships took longer. I think it would be a good idea to increase the amount of time to develop ships, or include a multiplier that the player could set when starting a new game. That change would complement my above suggestions well, as it would increase the importance of using an existing design as a base.




On an unrelated note, I was designing an aircraft carrier, and I noticed that going from unarmored guns to the minimum amount of armor (1"/1") results in an entirely new design. It seems like because we can't use 0.5" armor, the first inch of turret roof armor should count as 0.5" for the purpose of determining % change.