| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
Sorry, don't know why they don't work, copy and pasting in the addresses yeilds a diagram of each of the types in question.
_________________
 |
|
 Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:42 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Any idea about the cost of C-class cruisers, such as HMS Caroline? I've got a nice top view of her, but not the cost.
The same for D and E-class cruisers.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:02 pm |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 534
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I have thirteen Austro-Hungarian ships waiting in the wings but so far I have only found prices for four of them - one of the other is listed in Brassey's for 1896, 1902, 1912, and 1915 and has no price in any of them  .
Anyway, herewith
Erzherzog Karl (predred B) $4,425,625.00 (£912,500)
Kaiser Karl VI (CA) $2,080,650.00 (£429,000)
Sankt Georg (CA) $2,820,678.00 (£581,583)
Zenta (CL) $697,333.00 (£143,780)
I seem to have found a typo in the 1860-1905 Conway's - Karl VI is listed as Karl IV. The same ship is mentioned in the 1906-1921 volume with the correct number. FWIW, Karl VI was Maria Theresa's father, so it makes sense the Austrians would name a battleship after him, while all Karl IV did was reign during the Black Plague.
| Quote: | Dreadnoughts: Donau, Erzherzog Friedrich, Dandolo, Saida = 50.4M crowns each
Cruisers: Aurora, Zrinyi, Frundsberg = 9M crowns each |
With the exception of Erherzog Friedrich, which was one of Erzherzog Karl's sister-ship and was definitely not a dreadnought, none of these ships served in WWI. They were all either screw sloops or corvettes. The Dual Monarchy recycled the name Zrinyi in 1908 by renaming the sloop, so they could use the name for a Radetzky-class dreadnought.
Also, the Austro-Hungarian dreadnoughts most definitely were built; they laid down seven of them between 1907 and 1912 and all were completed in time to take part in the war. Unfortunately, Conway's has no financial information (as usual) and none of the relevant Brassey's annuals have anything but projected costs (£2,500,000 or thereabouts), even though six of seven were completed before the 1915 annual was published. Go figure.
_________________
LT
***********************************************************
A Member: Treason!
Mr. Henry: Treason? Gentlemen, if this be treason, let us make the most of it. |
|
| Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:51 am |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
| Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:51 pm |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 534
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I got the exact costs of the four Drake-class CAs from Brassey's and added them to the wiki:
HMS Drake £1,002,977
HMS Good Hope £990,759
HMS King Alfred £978,125
HMS Leviathan £1,012,959
_________________
LT
***********************************************************
A Member: Treason!
Mr. Henry: Treason? Gentlemen, if this be treason, let us make the most of it.
Last edited by Brass on Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:10 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
That's great! Change them here too please 
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:19 pm |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 534
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | That's great! Change them here too please |
How would I do that? Isn't editing the stickies an 'admin only' thing?
_________________
LT
***********************************************************
A Member: Treason!
Mr. Henry: Treason? Gentlemen, if this be treason, let us make the most of it. |
|
| Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:19 am |
|
|
CV-2 and CV-3
Posts: 94
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Not to rain in on the parade, BUT
NO ONE will like trying to "buy" ships to make a fleet (no offense)
you (whoever is making the whole thing) are making it a little too complicated for normal people The whole point value thing for WAS is really nice and user friendly but the money system is just too confusing...not that it is really confusing in the way like "What do I do..I don't understand what to do...? duhduhduh???" but more like a "I really don't want to try and add all those dollar amounts up...especially since i have to use my calculator because everything is down to the penny, and i have to convert to pounds...Ugh." At least for me (and others i have talked to about it in my general area) i would not really want to play DR if i had to go through the entire money value thing just to make a fleet...
The whole point of DR and WAS and all other board games is not always for historical accuracy to a T but to have fun and help other people have fun and learn a little about history along the way... I would probably never pick up DR just because of the buying of ships...it would be really good but i wouldn't want to play for 45 minutes after i spent an hour trying to find a fleet and add the entire thing up...
Also have one other problem with the money thing...Did you guys take into account the economies of the nations...because if you did Germany will ALWAYS lose...she just didn't have the economy of the British Empire (and especially after the Americans got involved) the monetary value of the ships does not equal the firepower and "niceness" of the ship...
e.g. the HMS Hood...sunk by one hit from the Bismarck and although it was just a lucky hit...it made the Hood cost way too much for its usefulness in WWII same thing here..some units will always be used and other will collect dust on the mantel because they are utterly useless for the money they cost...
Anyway...don't take offense at what I said because it is not as though io think you're stupid or anything [I actually admir how much digging yuo've done to find the monetary values very impressive ] but from a game design standpoint the monetary value system is not a simple enough system to use and making DR a user friendly game
That is my $5.00 (cause i wrote WAY more than just 2 cents)
_________________
"Hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the..." General George S. Patton
"Peace: In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting." The Devils Dictionary 1911 |
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:43 am |
|
|
Posts: 2185
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
There is no conversion, you don't have to convert any money, we've already done the conversion for you. There really isn't much difference in buying with money or points. In the money system, one will have X million dollars, in the point system you will have X points. The only real difference is the money is accurate but the points are subjective to opinion. Not to worry though, I believe both systems will be tried out and maybe even both will appear on the cards. Thank you for your opinions.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
 |
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:29 am |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| LadyLexandToga2 wrote: | | I would probably never pick up DR just because of the buying of ships...it would be really good but i wouldn't want to play for 45 minutes after i spent an hour trying to find a fleet and add the entire thing up... |
You probably haven't seen a DR card. There are some here.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:53 am |
|
|
CV-2 and CV-3
Posts: 94
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
to lotharlutjens...oh ok I didn't realize this fact because some of the units you have listed are not all in pounds but some in dollars (American) and stuff like that so i didn't realize that you were going to change them all before the game came out
and to NeuralDream
yes i have seen them (quite impressive) but i still think that the decimals and other extra addittion skills needed to count the value up is a little too much for this game...the other thing i might put forth is that DR is not going to be as popular as WAS and people already have problems with WAS point costs and values so i don't know exactly how you are going to pitch for DR with a more complex game system than is in WAS...but my opinion I guess
P.S. I really love the broadside gunnnery vs. foward or aft gunnary valules (Nice one) and the fact that you have to turn before retreating
_________________
"Hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the..." General George S. Patton
"Peace: In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting." The Devils Dictionary 1911 |
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:21 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2185
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I have never had intentions of making this gane more popular than WaS, In fact, I expect it to not be as popular to the general public, but I hope it will appeal to those who want a more "tactical" feel and will find a niche there. BTW you have a good idea on the "spotter" aircraft. Thank you sincerely for that contribution.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.
|
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:20 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
We had a snag about US ship costs since the costs that congress voted on didn't included the ordinance, but here's a small help to that perhaps.
A year 1926 battleship plan (a variation on the canceled interwar South Dakota class), has a break-down in costs in the book US Battleship by Norman Friedman.
13.7 mil - ordinance
4.8 mil - machinery
14.1 mil - C & R
0.8 mil - equipment
4.5 mil - ammunition
So unless my math is off, that makes ordinance and ammo about 48 percent of the cost. Perhaps this is a factor that could be applied to the other US ship costs we have to get approximate values.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:41 pm |
|
|
Posts: 748
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Silly question time.
What was the reason for settling on price as the fleet building determinant?
As opposed to something like tonnage?
_________________
Eric
- "Think you used enough dynamite there Butch?" |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It was a long ago decision. First, we wanted to try to take a lot of the guesswork out of costing the units before we even had details of the game mechanics nailed down. So we chose to set it this way based on a 'real' value. Real cost seemed appropriate to stand in for game cost, I don't know if we considered displacement as an alternative or not.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:23 am |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Donations are used for Forumini Olympics awards (donations admin: Aquarius)
| Forumini Gallery |
 |
|
