Converting AK/AP to CV

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

HMS Furious is instructive: the dual flight deck is wholly impractical - the winds are messed up by the superstructure and smoke obscures landings - so the ship really never can safely recover. IF build this ship would have taught exactly the same lessons - and anyone reading about Furious did not need to learn this lesson on their own. Either way - it is not a real aircaft carrier design in a functional sense. It is - however - interesting.

The FIRST aircraft carrier was Russian - and existed in time for the Russo Japanese war - but was not sent.

it had an island, not a tower that creates two seperate flight decks. Indeed, with this concept, planes may land (at least in theory) at the same time when others start... - German engineerin... [;)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I mean 1b.
I see no reason why I should force the player to pay shipyard points for the time that it takes to decide what to do. Moreover, my TEA nations even keep old ships disarmed as hulk and passed laws that order to fortify the coast line with turrets that fit exactly the disarmed ships to be able to rearm the ships...
In such a scenario, there would already be reconstruction plans...

Anyway, I see no reason to spend HI for planning, political decicions...

There is no need to spend HI points - just time. You asked how much TIME is required?

It is a very problematical question - and it depends on things we do not know. When I try to answer it in my games, I go to basic data on the economy of a nation, and work out exactly where the hull will be built? That way I know when that particular slipway is available? I can figure out when a particular production line has enough xyz mm guns ? Or abce hp boilers? After ALL the parts I need are COMPLETED - and there is a time to order these before they produce - I allow a month to move them to the slipway. That process does not even START until AFTER we have a COMPLETED design: until then you do not know how many guns or boilers or whatever you need? At that point I start building - but when it is over - the ship is NOT available to use. Instead it needs time to work up - two months minimum except in an emergency when it will get AWFUL ratings - and THEN it moves to the theater where it will appear.

My answers were about time - not HI points. How you proceed is up to you - but I answered how it really works - and if you don't allow for it - it could not happen even in a hypothetical world.

[Historiker]

A reconstruction costs only 6 month time in the game, right? So the only thing I can influence is the time it starts and how much it costs.
I will concern all the time that's needed before a reconstruction starts by setting the date of it, so my only concern now is, how much should the reconstruction cost?
As I#ve showed above, I can calculate it quite good to let even long lasting reconstructions cost the right price - but I need to know on which data I should calculate it.

[el cid again]

I think the answer is no.

First - identify WHEN in time the IDEA for a reconstruction appears? UNLESS that idea was BEFORE the game started, the answer is no.
In that case - it will never be less than a year for an austerre conversion - and more for a robust one.

Second - if the lead times are taken care of already - either before the war or because this is a follow on to a ship that is already COMPLETED (you are using the same facilities to build another) - then meaybe yes.

Here there is a complicatoin: a ship may follow on as soon as the slipway clears - not really waiting for the shp to leave the fitting out basin. But to know that you have to get into how long is needed in the slipway - and that depends on what you are doing? Changing engines or armor makes that 2/3 of the (longer) conversion - but an austere job it is only 1/3 of the (shorter) conversion period.

ANother probelm is facilities and rate of production of subassemblies. I do not believe that this can ever be very high in any country in the WWII era under the strains of a war economy - the USA excepted. You might have one slipway up to the conversion of a particular class - maybe two - but it will be some small finite number - and the number of vessels that could convert will be LESS than that number of ways can builld (because there are always things going wrong causing delays - perhaps an average of a month per hull). One yard doing austere conversions might be up to hree jobs a year if it hadone fittng out basin per slipway - six if it had twice as many fitting out basisns. The same yard will only make one or two ships that need robust conversions.

A yard that builds warships is required for this work - not a merchant yard. This is a conversion of a merchant or old hull to a carrier - and only SOME of the warshp yards can do that. Limit one is size of slipway - it must be big enough for the hull. Limit two is the skill of the work force: if it never built any carrier before - it needs a couple extra months to train/recruit specialists - delaying that first job. It need not be a military yard - but it must be a yard that builds warships. Now a yeard often has more than one slipway - but itr will not usually have many the same size - and it will almost never commit all the dame size to the same sort of job. There are many things a navy at war needs - and having everyone work on one thing only sounds good to gamers - it is not a real strategy - nor would it be politically feasible - even in a dictatorship.
Institutions have their ways - and navies will in war tend to get some of what they really need - which is never just one kind of ship.

[Historiker]

Every question other than the simple time and costs (concerning workers and materials) will be considered in the time of the reconstruction.
The only thing that is important for me now is the simple question of how long it takes to convert a ship and how much workers and material it needs.

As Germany had catapults, there's no need of changing the engines, especially as there were enough fast ships even for usual carrier use without catapults.

As the "building costs" for ships are defined by the durability, I need to find out what the correct durability is for the converted ships. I already have designed "construction-subs" that will only have the durability that is similar to the correct construction costs and doesn't care about the other values that usually are important for the durability...

[el cid again]

Here there are two ways to go - WITP or RHS


In WITP a ship durability is size divided by a factor - depending on whom you believe - it might be anything from 100 to 400.

It also is a WITP convention to use standard displacement - which a merchant ship does not have (so God alone knows what they really used - since it could not be the never defined standard displacement - a legal term for warships - and only some of those)

RHS we use full load displacement - all ships have that - it is real - and it is UNIVERSAL navy usage. It matters because that is how much a ship can weigh before it sinks.

RHS uses a sliding scale. If a merchant ship is divided by 400, a warship is divided by 200 - even if the SAME hull. This so a hull with more damage control parties and gear is more durable than one without.

Your choice.

BUT in RHS tankers are different - so if you convert a tanker - keep durability the same.

[Historiker]

No, you don't understand...

Durability shows the structure of the ships and the data is related to the displacement and the type of ship, yes...
BUT, it also it the value, that shows how much a ship costs and how long it need to produce it.

AFAIK, one only has to pay 4 times the days (or something like that) of the durability in ship points.
So a ship with durability 1 needs 4 days to be built (= to pay for it in witp) and costs 4 points.
A ship with a durabilit of 200 instead will need 800 days to pay for (while it can already be accelerated before) which means it costs 200x800=160.000 points as well as its "witp-construction-time" is 800.

I intend to not only have the displacement and structure in the durability, I also want to mention the building time and costs. For that, I am looking at ships like CL, CA and BBs to take their durability as reference for all other ships. So for me, durability doesn't only include the data for displacement and structure, it also says
a) how long does it take to build the ship?
b) how much workers are needed for the ship
c) how much materials are needed for the ship

Takeing this, I can calculate the "price" that one has to pay for reconstructions. As I've showed in this thread, this can be done quite good. So a reconstruction of the AP Bremen III to a CV may have a durability of 220 in the DB, while the ship should have only a durability of 45.
To concern this, I have a CV Bremen with the durability of 220 that is in the building list, so one has to pay for it, and after being completed and on the map, the ship will upgrade to a CV Bremen with its correct durability of 45.

This was the problem in RHS, which I concerned most. There were subs that had such a high durability, that two of them cost as much as a CV. I can't remember how you calculated the durability of SS, but I now took the maximum dive deep in feet divided by 10 (which may be wrong and will be corrected if so) - so most subs end with a durability between 50 and 80.
But at the same time, an Admiral Hipper CA has only a durability of 50! So by witp means, this means exactly: "To construct a Typ II B sub (if it has the durability of 50), there are exactly as much workers needed, It also takes exactly the same time to construct the CA compared with the sub - and moreover, both sub and CA need the same materials to be constructed"

This is - of course - definitly false! In reality, one might construct 20 Typ II B  (just a number) with the workers for the CA, with the steel, engine work, time and work to produce the armement, etc.
So while the Typ II B is in the "ship available" list - which means it is under construction - it must have "costs" that are 1/20 of the costs of the CA.
So if the CA has a durability of 50, it will cost 200(days)x50(daily costs)= 10.000 points. So the Typ II B must not cost more than 500, if the game intends to be realistic! So the "construction durability" of the Typ II B will be 11 in my game (following my calculations as 4x11x11 is 484). Immediatly after construction, there'll be an update available that includes a durability expansion to 50.

So I have to find a ship I can compare the reconstruction of a AP to CV with, to find out how much this reconstruction will cost not regarding the durability the reconstructed ship should have at the end. To force the player upgrading, reconstructed ships may only have a speed of 1kt and a A/C capacity of 1...


So: with what - concerning workers needed, materials used (excluding the materials that get scrapped and so can be used again) and time needed - can the reconstruction of
1. an AP (high superstructure) to CV with one hangar deck
2. an AP to CV with two hangar decks
3. an AK (low superstructure) to CV with one hangar deck
4. an AK to CV with two hangar decks
be compared with?

The time needed for political descicions and for designing plans isn't important as the start of the reconstruction will already mention this!

[Historiker]

In RHS, you take durability only concerning displacement and damange control, which had the result that there were AOs that cost more to produce than CVs!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

No, you don't understand...

Durability shows the structure of the ships and the data is related to the displacement and the type of ship, yes...
BUT, it also it the value, that shows how much a ship costs and how long it need to produce it.

.

But I DO understand- you are correct in saying this - and it is also a reasonable (if ultra simplistic) approach to the problem.
Further - you don't really have much choice: to the extent durability should be higher when a hull is harder to sink - not to make
it so is wrong. And in a crude sense - it takes longer and costs more (in this case HI points) to make it harder to sink. Going the other
way - all ships would be equally cheap - and equally easy to sink. This violates every bone in my simulator's heart - and I see no way to advocate it.

Anyway - the system AS DESIGNED was that bigger ships have more durability - and cost more - and take longer to build. They did not do it the same for AKs and BBs either - and submarines are still a different case (a truly wierd one - the "cost" of a submarine is proportional to its diving depth - but in a crude sense - that it also true: it DOES cost more to build a deeper diving submarine).

I have attempted to honor the spirit of the design but at the same time to make it more true:

for example the idea of using standard tonnage is flawed - it is not as useful as what we really use in naval service - full load tonnage - in particular in the sense of durability

I also tried to extend the principle "different kinds of ships cost more or less in proportion to their size" - AKs are not treated like BBs - but I have extended it more systematically - and in the process we learn that for CHS another standard was used as well (from Joe)

But while one might quibble about these "reforms" in one way or another - I am not changing the fundamental system itself.

To the extent I got into trouble it was because I created a whole new way to represent thosands of minor vessels - gave each of them a durability point - and this gave us a much more correct picture of the world with thousands of small craft - in opeartional and logistical terms - but it also created a great cost for their production. Since the idea was so good - I have worked on making it practical - and we are getting there. You can avoid this altogether by abstracting landing craft, and minor cargo craft, and riverine craft - or not having them - if they do not matter in an oceanic scenario as they do mater in an island hopping and riverine campaign like PTO. But in no sense am I confused or on the wrong track.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

No, you don't understand...

.
I intend to not only have the displacement and structure in the durability, I also want to mention the building time and costs. For that, I am looking at ships like CL, CA and BBs to take their durability as reference for all other ships. So for me, durability doesn't only include the data for displacement and structure, it also says
a) how long does it take to build the ship?
b) how much workers are needed for the ship
c) how much materials are needed for the ship

Takeing this, I can calculate the "price" that one has to pay for reconstructions. As I've showed in this thread, this can be done quite good. So a reconstruction of the AP Bremen III to a CV may have a durability of 220 in the DB, while the ship should have only a durability of 45.
To concern this, I have a CV Bremen with the durability of 220 that is in the building list, so one has to pay for it, and after being completed and on the map, the ship will upgrade to a CV Bremen with its correct durability of 45.

This was the problem in RHS, which I concerned most. There were subs that had such a high durability, that two of them cost as much as a CV. .

Your concerns have some validity. And in a sense it is impossible to address them in a comletely satisfactory way: we cannot change the system itself.

Starting at the end - we do not control submarine durability a bit - it is depth - period. THAT defines cost and building time - and it is the system - and there is nothing we can do about it - except we could

a) Not build submarines at all
b) falsify their depth

The first occurs when a sub starts the scenario - and applies to two cases:

1 - subs that are normal and available for operations
2 - subs that are not quite ready - and can appear damaged (an idea stolen from AE)

The second is more tricky: subs are too easy to sink in WITP to begin with - so giving them less depth only makes the problem of surviving worse - and I think it is a move in the wrong direction. This is a bigger problem for German subs than for any others - they dive deeper - and it is one of many reasons this game is not suitable for the campaign you are trying to do. Worst - IRL German subs could go even deeper than their test depth - and a truly reasonable rating would make the problem gigantic - because the building cost/time is the square of the depth rating. Sorry - but this is structural - and none of it my fault. Nor is there any easy solution.


The cost of a CVE varies a great deal - IRL and in RHS. It may have been a mistake - but tankers - of great value and cost - were converted in several cases. Those vessels naturally cost a great deal more than those made from simple hulls. You have to pick and choose to say "half as much as a CVE " - it depends on the CVE. But saying an AK hull should be doubled when it is manned and fitted to military standard is a step toward making the CVE costs similar - and greater than for submarines. You COULD make subs even less durable - but I don't think that helps a lot in a campaign where submarines are supposed to have a chance to survive. It is probably better to make the CVEs cost more. Since I don't believe in vast fleets of German CVEs to begin with - I have no problem with that.

The truth is that durability is not what it should be in WITP. It does not work. A gigantic tanker is expensive in terms of HI points, Victory Points, building time - all good IMHO - but it still is easily sunk - even in a single salvo sometimes - and fast if it is badly on fire - also good IMHO. But maybe it is too easy. This means you can adopt two different attitudes:

1) we don't ever have "enough" durability - so be stict in demanding as much as you can

2) since it does not work well anyway - don't worry about it at all - and let ships durability be all wrong relative to each other - use build time as the basis for your rating

Buy you asked for an opinion - and I gave you mine. I am a literal modeler - not an abstract one - and I like things to be rated right - in part on instructions from Matrix: "you get the data right - I will get the code right - some day." I want the ratings to be right - even if they are not used in a wholly meaningful way right now. You do what you want. But if you ask - I will answer the way it "should" be.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

..
So while the Typ II B is in the "ship available" list - which means it is under construction - it must have "costs" that are 1/20 of the costs of the CA.
So if the CA has a durability of 50, it will cost 200(days)x50(daily costs)= 10.000 points. So the Typ II B must not cost more than 500, if the game intends to be realistic! So the "construction durability" of the Typ II B will be 11 in my game (following my calculations as 4x11x11 is 484). Immediatly after construction, there'll be an update available that includes a durability expansion to 50.

.

It does no good to worry about what is beyond our control. Sub durability is BY DEFINITION a function of depth. That the value has implications for cost and build time is the way it works. We cannot change either. We can either ignore the problem, or lie with the data (and live with the consequences of that - e.g. make subs 'less durable' and they will sink easier) - or we could make surface ships cost more. That has some merit - insofar as shipbuilding is monsterously expensive and a serious drain on national resources. IRL nations never can afford what gamers do in games.

The game structure "cheats" and does NOT calculate durabiity for a CA the same way as for an SS. That may be wrong - but there is nothing you can do about it. You can make the sub dive less - or the CA more expensive - if you must have your 20:1 ratio. I think this is a complete error in thinking: neither is going to work well.

And while it is perfectly true that a sub with a deeper diving depth might be more expensive than a sub that should cost more with less depth - there is nothing whatever we can do about it - unless you are willing to have it dive less deeply. It is a waste of time to complain about it. It is a waste of mental energy to worry about it either IMHO - but feel free if you want to. Either way - don't blame me- it is not my code or definition.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

In RHS, you take durability only concerning displacement and damange control, which had the result that there were AOs that cost more to produce than CVs!

In RHS we do not calculate the cost of CVs at all - they are whatever they were - and we assumed CHS or stock values were right. No other data was right - so this might not be a valid assumption. But we do not have time to assume all 126,000 fields are all wrong - so we assume core ones are right until shown otherwise.

IRL an AO can be a very large ship. No ships are built bigger than jumbo oilers. Nor are any more complex. So it is indeed feasible for an AO to cost more than a small CV does - in terms of steel or build time. Carriers are great warships BECAUSE they are cheap - they cost a LOT less to build than a CA or BB does for example - and take a great deal less time to build. There is nothing inherently wrong with your assertion - even if you are used to games in which tankers are regarded as cheap and expendable.

IRL a naval staff regards a big tanker as MORE valuable than a carrier - and a great deal of care is placed on getthing them to the right place at the right time - because of it. I know it violates what players are used to thinking in terms of - but my background is professional - and no one in operations regards oilers the way they were in stock - when you could burn them. [you did not need to haul oil to Industry to make fuel - and haul the fuel back - it was already made lots of places for you - so you could pretend they were cheap and risk them in a sense a staff would never do] One REASON tankers were made more expensive was to increase their VP meaning - not just purely to make them harder to sink. This worked out better too - the VP value is indeed higher - while the durability only buys you a little more time afloat in a severe damage situation. I do not apologize for doing it right. I do apologize for not having integrated the cost into the system better -
but note that while YOU think it was the tankers that were the problem - it turned out it was the small craft in multiple ship units that made the cost much greater. This of course doesn't affect the allies - and the production system was never right in any sense to begin with. But it could not produce enough until I modified it in some ways - which I did do. CVEs are not a problem - as warships they do not cost merchant points to build.