Re: (FT) Point Value for Hulls

----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us>

> On 30-Mar-01 at 16:53, Bif Smith (bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Robert Blair <pellinoire@yahoo.com>
> >
> > > If you are going to vary point cost based on mass them
> > > the bigger the ship is the LESS you should pay per
> > > point of mass.
> > >
> > > Smaller hulls are more expensive to build per tonne
> > > than larger hulls - economies of scale. One large ship
> > > is much cheaper to build and operate, especially
> > > operate, than any number of smaller ships carring the
> > > same aggregate mass of cargo.
> > >
> > > The battle line wins again!
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > This is something that I have been thinking about since the FB
design
rules
> > came out. The first is the crewing costs and therefore the running
costs
of
> > civilian ships and freighters. I may have missed something, but the
crewing
> > requirments of ships (all ships, not just millatary) is based on
their
hull
> > size/mass. This should be altered to a lower figure for civilians of
a
mass
> > figure plus something. What I`m trying to say is their should be
some
> > advantage (in crewing costs at least) to running large civilian
ships.
The
> > other thing about large ships is they should cost more to build in
the
> > first place due to the longer construction times and the interest on
the
> > capitol to build them. This would be a way a capitol ship would cost
more
> > than a escort. I leave better minds than mine to work out the
figures
<G>.
>
> The problem here is bigger ships cost less per ton than smaller ships.
> Otherwise why would oil companies build super-tankers?  In a one-off
> game expect big ships unless something artificial is done to stop
> them.  In our campaign we limited big ships with upkeep costs
> of (Mass * .06)^1.6 in NPV.  This was pretty bogus also but we wanted
> to force smaller ships and the upkeep on my BDN was painful.
>
> Roger
>
No, what I`m trying to say is that (I may be wrong here) they companies
build supertankers and the like not because they are cheaper to build
but
cheaper to RUN (crewing costs, maintenace cost etc). The first up costs
(build cost plus capitol) would increase the larger the ships get, and
not
by just a streight ratio of size (called compound interest). It`s the
same
reason nobody`s built a 1 mile high skyscraper (posible technally, but
the
interest would cost several times the build cost, which would be massive
anyway). Also, the biggest supertanker afloat now will be the biggest
for a
long time due to the fact if it was built now, with double skined hull
and
modern safety requirements, it would be uneconomic (build cost +
interest Vs
cost savings + earning potential).

BIF
 "yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
 strong in arms, thick in head"

The crewing ratio for civilian ships should be altered in my opinion
from
the "1 crew factor per 50 mass (Vs 20 mass for warships) to (for
example) 1
crew factor per 60 mass PLUS 2 (making bigger ships more economically
viable, just like now, although there will be a point of diminising
returns,