You are not logged in.

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.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Thursday, August 9th 2007, 6:15pm

Rule question


Our building rules refer to wooden vessels of no more than 200ts (number depends on size and number of factories) and steel build boats over 200ts (depends on light displacement and a modifier of either 4 or 9 month).

What if I want to build steel-made vessels of less than 200ts?




Thursday, August 9th 2007, 6:29pm

What I've done with my steel-hulled river gunboats (which are 192 tons) is just treat them as steel-hulled vessels over 200 tons.


Thursday, August 9th 2007, 7:23pm

How about steel-hulled vessels under 100t counting as wood vessels under 200t? Since most of us are already using that rule to build MTBs, and MLs, all of which are under a 100t.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Thursday, August 9th 2007, 8:25pm

But all of those are made of wood. :o/

Does it actually take longer to build a 100ts made of wood or made of steel?


Thursday, August 9th 2007, 8:51pm

today making a steel ship is faster if you have ready made material.
In the 30's I dont know.


Friday, August 10th 2007, 12:33am

In reguards to wooden ships, building could take around 2-6 months for American MTB's while British MTB's could take anywhere between 4 months to a year, but British shipyards had to put up with air attacks and tended to be smaller than American plants who used prefabricated pilothouses.


Friday, August 10th 2007, 10:31am

If they are welded then I can't see why they can't be built just as fast as wooden boats. They should be able to complete within a quarter so I see no problems having them under the wooden boat rules.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Friday, August 10th 2007, 12:03pm

Proposed modification

Doesn´t look like we have a consensus here. Too bad we did not expect somebody to build steel hulled small crafts when we set up the rules for small combatants. :o/

Hrolf already used the >200ts rules (5 month building time, that is) for his 192ts units so it seems unfair if I´d build my 130ts units under the wooden hull rules which would cut down building time significantly.

On the other hand 5 month seems way too much if a wooden ship of similar size can be build in a quarters time.

So I think we need a modification of our building rules specifying the building time for stell vessels of 200ts and under. The easiest solution would be to handle all vessels under 200ts the same way. That is, cancel the word "wooden" in chapter 2.1 of the infrastructure rules.

What do you think?

I know it puts those in disadvantage who have used our standard building rules. However, ships build are build and once finished there is no difference between a vessel build to old or new rules. So impact on current fleet strength should be minimal. A modification of our rules would only affect those units currently under construction. Here a modification of sim reports may be necessary if the player in question wants to use new rules immediately.


Friday, August 10th 2007, 12:31pm

Works for me, speed of building wasn't all that important for Germany with the Danube squadron.


Friday, August 10th 2007, 2:03pm

OK by me, we had a general concencus on the wooden hulled ship build times so I don't see why Steel hulled ships can't be built the same way.

I'd say Q1/35 is a good start for the modified rules to take effect.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Friday, August 10th 2007, 4:15pm

I´ll wait for more players to commit their opinions before changing the rules if a majority agrees.

Other things that need to be modified? I know the discussion of building times in general (it was raised again because of super-large BBs lately). However, I have no solution that wouldn´t affect all our building programs. As it is a less-than-2000ts-DD can be uild in 11 month and a 8000ts-cruiser in 17. Both building times are much shorter than most historical examples I can find. On the other hand very large ships take too long (at least for the players intending to build them). IMHO this has always been balanced out during the SIM and no modifications are necessary but I´m open to suggestions that do not render all current building programs obsolete. I don´t think it has much to do with the "+9 month" modifier but with the total amount of steel a slip can handle (smaller slip, less material per quarter). But changing that in mid-SIM doesn´t make much sense to me. It could be dealt with should there be a WesWorld 2.


Friday, August 10th 2007, 5:46pm

Actually, it IS the "+9" that causes the problem at the high end, because it means that no matter how much steel you provide, you can't speed up the launch date past that. For a silly example, Germany decides to build a 100,000 ton ship. The minimum time to build that ship is 100 + 9 months, so even if I push 1200 tons per month at the ship, it won't speed things up. I can't even effectively push 1,000 tons a month at the ship, because it can't be built that fast.

I'm working on a proposal that will help, don't have it written up yet though.

Something to keep in mind, though: even if there's a way to speed up ship building at one end, that doesn't mean that a country HAS to take advantage of that. Doing so will have a cost (at a minimum it will cost more per quarter), and a country can choose not to pay that cost.


Friday, August 10th 2007, 9:03pm

Well if the calculation is tonnage divided by 1,200 + 9 in wartime rather than divided by 1,000 then you have a build time of 93 months for a 100,000 ton vessel rather than 109 months.

Sure you don't need to put much more than 1,000 tons into the project per month at that point, but the build time is reduced 16 months. Even if that rate of production is not possible, you'd still get the work done at least 9 months ahead of the original schedule based on the new construction time.

On the other hand, who's going to build a 100,000 ton (light) warship before 1950?


Friday, August 10th 2007, 9:53pm

*holds up hand*


Friday, August 10th 2007, 10:53pm

Considering the only never was ship I can find that size if the H-44, I don't see it really. Even the super Yamato types only go up to 88,000 tons.


Friday, August 10th 2007, 11:31pm

The problem is, Japan wasn't exactly under wartime production rules in the period where the real Yamato was built. Wartime production, if anything, should be FASTER: consider USS Iowa: laid down June 27, 1940, launched August 27, 1942, and commissioned February 22, 1943, for a total time under construction of only 32 months, which is pretty good for a 44,000 ton.(light) ship

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Hrolf Hakonson" (Aug 10th 2007, 11:32pm)


Friday, August 10th 2007, 11:48pm

Well, with rumors of this Imperio Ibérico, it might be time for Japan to get the plans for the Yukihime and the Muteki Nippon out of the freezer. I doubt the Japanese would believe in this "Innocent's Day joke" lie the Iberian Empire uses to cover up the construction of that class. :)


The problem is, Japan wasn't exactly under wartime production rules in the period where the real Yamato was built.

Well there was the Second Sino-Japanese War during that time, but I don't think that would have had an influence on the Yamato construction.


Saturday, August 11th 2007, 12:50am


Originally posted by Rooijen10


The problem is, Japan wasn't exactly under wartime production rules in the period where the real Yamato was built.

Well there was the Second Sino-Japanese War during that time, but I don't think that would have had an influence on the Yamato construction.

Exactly. There was a war on, and Japan was involved, but I'm not at all sure that Japan's industries had gone to what we'd consider a war footing for it.


Saturday, August 11th 2007, 1:01am

Considering the size of the historical Chinese fleet I doubt Japan even considered going to wartime production levels for her navy.

Perhaps the amount of tonnage allowed to be put into a ship should reflect what type of slip/drydock its building on. i.e. a type 4 slip allows you to put 1,000 tons a month into construction (3,000 a quarter) while a type 1 only allows 1,000 a quarter.


Saturday, August 11th 2007, 3:23am

Taken from my earlier thoughts on the subject;

A 65k ton light Yamato took 49 months; 4 years, 1 month. Our economy would take the same design 74 months to complete; 6 years, 2 months.

A 34k light USS Indiana took 30 months; 2.5 years. Our economy would take 43 months; 3 years, 7 months.

A 44k light USS New Jersey took 33 months; 2 years, 9 months. Our economy would take 53 months; 4 years, 5 months.

If any new rules are being considered for large ships, I hope they'll be allowed retroactivey, as Canada's two battlewagons taking 4 years to build is what's been a problem. Canada has a vested interest in completing them as soon as possible, as R&R's desperately needed modernizations are waiting until they're nominally in service.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "ShinRa_Inc" (Aug 11th 2007, 3:26am)