Re: Size Class Escalation -- How high in Mass?

***
>   Number one, you get fewer examples to work on.

This may NOT be true. Example -- dreadnoughts of
World War I. They built a LOT of those.
***

'A lot' in this case is a very relative term. Less than in a single
class
of DD, I think, but I'll have to check my Jane's. On top of this, for
any
particular class of dreadnought, there were, at most, only four or five.

***
>   Number two, the same part usually costs more if
> applied to a more
> expensive system.

That's american marketing, not reality
***

;->= Yeah, I had problems with that one, though it's not JUST 'merican.

***
Your assumptions say they're uncommon, so they're
expensive so they're uncommon -- circular reasoning.
***

Well, not entirely circular, as the 'first' case is so different between
a
DD and DN.

***
So, it depends on the universe. The construction
rules don't seem to support the contention that
bigger weapons and ships are unnaturally harder
to construct than equivalent mass in smaller ships.
If this were the case (and you're welcome to make
it the case in your universe) where's the evidence?
***

Unfortunate, but true, for the rules. In the 'real world' of course,
there
is increasing cost for increasing size. Bridges, buildings, ships,
become
more difficult and more expensive, though admitted not always as fast as
the increasing 'value'.

This is a bit nebulous in discussion, though. Some real world examples
would be useful, such as the difference in cost between a slipway for a
DD
and a DN, length of construction time, etc.

I'm not sure I've the info on these, but I'll see if I can't work out
some
costs per ton on ships of WWI era, and see if there's anything
interesting
there.

The_Beast