Re: Campaign rules?

>On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Hal Carmer wrote:
>
>> Hello Guys,
>>   As a first rule for construction times, what do you all think about
>> using the square root of the mass as time in months for construction
time?
>> Thus a 100 mass unit would take 10 months to make, while a 4 mass
unit
>> would take 2 months to make.  Time taken is considered to be wartime
>> construction times where the shipyard is taking 7 days a week to
make.
>
>I'd rather think that the opposite would be the case - the bigger it
is, 
>the longer the building time per mass becomes. At least it seems to
work 
>like that for naval warships...

I disagree, at least as far as the end of WW2- consider a ~30000 ton
battleship- a reasonable fast peacetime (modern non-carrier capitals
haven't
often been built, as opposed to completed, in wartime) construction time
is
about 2 or 3 years, so that gives a capital ship building rate of 10000
to
15000 tons/year.

Taking a destroyer as 1500 tons, that's 5 to 8 weeks building time,
which
seems too short to me.	As a yearly rate I have no problems with it;  I
just
think the vessels would tend to be built and completed in, say 2 or 3
batches with longer build times per ship.
Building time is often decided by the supply of critical items such as
engines and guns/turrets.  The original dreadnought, HMS Dreadnought of
1906, famously was built in a year and a day, by fitting her with
turrets
already built for Lord Nelson and Agamemnon, which were delayed as a
result.

SNIP
>
>Regards,
>
>Oerjan Ohlson

Rob Paul
NERC Institute of Virology 
Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SR	  Tel. (01865) 512361
rkp@mail.nerc-oxford.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  "Once again, villainy is rotting meat before the maggots of justice!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--