Re: construction times...

I am following this thread with interest.

While the comparisons with WWII era ships is useful up to a point, I
don't
think it stands up to the extent that Hal has described. If you compare
our
present space technology with say the naval technology of the 15th or
16th 
century then space craft are a _lot_ smaller. The space shuttle only has
a 
crew of 5, Apollo had only 3. Compared to the ships of Columbus thats 
pretty small.

I therefore have no problem in the spaceships in FT being a _lot_
smaller 
than the equivalent WWII ships.

Automation takes the place of people and doesn't require life support
systems, 
receation space and so on.

Mike Elliott

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: construction times...
Author:  SMTP:owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk/ at INTERNET
Date:	 07/12/96 10:29

Based upon the construction times for real life "ships", it might be 
better to assume that time to construct ships takes months according to 
this new formula:

Baseline construction time = sqrt(mass)*2.

Thus, mass 14 ships now take 7.4 months, 32 mass ships now take 11
months 
and so on.  I am going to point out a couple of thoughts, and then you
can 
all have fun telling me why the construction times should be shortened 
rather than lengthened as I have just done <grin>.

1) construction times were altered based upon actual construction times 
required for world war II ships (after using baseline of 1 mass = 250 
cubic yards).

2) I used the US construction rates based on the fact that industry will

probably be highly mechanized and automated - and qualify for heavily 
industrialized.  The gent who pointed this out on the list should be 
thanked for that observation...

3) World war II ships were not sealed hulls, nor were they highly 
specialized platforms as compared with today's ships.  In short, I
figure 
to maintain the "ratio" of construction time in that modern day craft
will 
be more complex, and built to more exacting standards.	

  Using the new formula, will now get the ships built more or less to
World War II standards, thus the Iowa type ship (mass 239), would take 
30.919 months to make, which is only two months off from the listed 
historical time.
  Personally, this "effort" to standardize construction rates, unless
coupled with some "economic" model, isn't going to be worth much.  
  Also, if we are using historical models, a mass 48 ship should not be
considered a "battleship".  However, rather than try to "redesign" the 
game, if possible, I would like to try and keep to the flavor of it, and

still interject some "rational" limitations on build rates ect...
  As for the concept of "random" construction times, I can live with it.
But the question I place before you now is this:

Assuming that we go along with World War Construction rates for
comparable 
sized/volume ships, then we should also explore the concept that navies 
will be similarly large.  In a crash course for survival of your "race" 
after a disasterous battle, you discover that you have to roll for each 
and every of the 200 hulls you are building - weeelllll, that might make

you lose enthusiasm for the dice rolling rather quick.	Also in answer
to 
the gent who states that he prefers faster construction rates to help 
offset those really disasterous battles - well, history has a few
examples 
of what happens when such events occur - it's called surrender.  Sue for

peace, and then resume hostilities once you are rebuilt.  In short, what
I 
would like to see for campaign battle type rules, are those that mimic 
what history says happens generally, and then people can "modify" such 
rules to their circulatory organ's delight... <grin - been aching to use

that phrase now for some time>.
  Now, if I can only get a handle on what kind of rules I should be
looking to build when it comes to "income" and construction capacity. 
Before 1800, you could not have built any Iowa class battleships, and
yet 
there was a sizable population on earth at that moment.  Come 1900, 
science coupled with industrialization, allowed for such beasties to be 
built.	Maybe I should consider the idea that there are three "tech
levels 
involved here.	Current - with everything in it. Early, with most 
everything in it, but some things slightly different - ie heavy beams
take 
3 mass.  During current times, it is an A battery.  During early times,
it 
was a "B" battery...   And then finally, the "Pre" tech, where current 
tech wasn't even on the drawing boards.
  One thing I am attempting to keep within limits is the idea that
shipbuilding is not some enterprise that can be started up today, run at

full steam for 2 years, and then left mostly idle for the next 10 years 
before "wartime" gears it back up to full production.  Once the market
is 
saturated with merchant hulls, the ship building industry will "die out"

unless maintained in some manner.  This is currently happening today in 
the US, where defense spending cuts have lowered the workforce in 
specialized fabrication industries to the point that they almost no
longer 
exist!

  FT analogy to modern day ship:

Converting the USS NIMITZ to FT stats, it would have to have a 422 mass 
hull, and have 15 fighter bays!  It should have some 13 weapon mounts,
and 
hold a crew of 5,698 people.  It should have heavy duty sensors on it,
and 
maybe even some "screens"...  To make matters worse, this beastie should

have quite a bit of "cargo space" in order to maintain extended
operations 
for it's fighters as well as escort ships.  Now THAT, would be a carrier

in FT's terms!	On the other hand, a ship with 211 hit points would not
be 
one that I would like to try and wear down, thank you very much.  If it 
took 70 points of damage just to reach a level one threshold check...

Oh well, musings complete for now, since it is now (locally speaking), 
04:15, and time for me to go home from work...

Hal