Page 4 of 5
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:49 pm
Larry wrote:comments noted
IL- You present a good case. Please, if you can, find something that show the comparitive cost of a WWII DD and sub.
I'm leaning more towards making them both cost 8 and a transport costing 8 as well.
It is extremely difficult to find the cost of ww2 ships.
Janes have this cost:
Iowa class battleship $ 100.000.000
Essex class carrier $ 90.000.000
Cleveland class cruiser $ 30.000.000
Fletcher class destroyer $ 12.000.000
Average fleet sub $ 6.000.000
Of course, for game purpose, an battleship unit is 5 or 6 ships, increasing to 18 ships for destroyers and cruisers, and 24 for subs.
Battleship cost 24
Carrier cost 18
Cruiser cost 16
Destroyer cost 8
Tranny cost 8
Sub cost 6
This must be the cost, so we must work uot the combat value from here.
Destroyers always was stronger than subs, so destroyers combat value must be higher than subs.
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:57 pm
thanks for the information..but you cant just compare american warships, and you cant just take the largest class warships as your basis of cost comparison. Find out what the arizona cost, find out what the hornet cost, etc these are the primary working ships. but you continue with your example, the essex is 90,000, while the bb is 100,000 so why then do bbs cost 24, while cv's cost 18? what did i miss??
i was trying to compare cost by the weight in tons. The destroyer is about 1,700 to 2,300 tons while the subs generally are 300 tons more or heavier. The destroyers are made with prefabrication hulls like liberty ships, while i have read that subs are far more maticulous in putting them together. so ill assume they cost more. I too didnt find costs , but have to make indirect observations based on other means..
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:53 am
One word of caution...if you do decide to make the cost of ships much less and the cost of land units much more please re-examine the effects of naval bombardments on land units.
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:50 pm
The naval units are not of lower cost than the land units , they are nearly exactly twice the cost in each catagory ( if you compare destroyers to infantry, battleships with bombers, cruisers with fighters, subs to mech infantry, carriers with tanks.
ON the topic of amphibilous attacks, i have tried to sell others on the idea that only battleships and cruisers get either a shot for each 4 infantry landed, or that each MATCHING infantry gets a +1 bonus with each matching bb, CA, or DD on a 1/1 basis and no more shore bombardment.
Dont worry all is not lost...
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:22 pm
Adlertag – great info. Do me a favor and tell Il that yes we can, for our purposes, use this info for cost comparison’s.
Kurt – you got it.
Il – My thinking at this moment is giving a +1 to each of 4 attacking land units for each BB present and the same +1 but for only 2 attacking land units for each cruiser.
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:40 pm
Thats good but id forget destroyers unless you want +1 for ONE unit. So 4 for BB, 2 for CA, and 1 for DD?? THat is very close the the perfect truth on solving that problem forever.
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:39 pm
One unit gets +1 if DD present? why not? That could work.
What I was particularly interested in was the cost ratio between DD's and subs. Subs were substantuially cheaper. Knowing this I could cost DD's at 8, subs and Transports at 6.
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:50 pm
Boss there was not information to be had, but again the destroyers allways seen to weigh about 400 tones leass than subs, and that destroyers were prefabrication much like liberty transport ships. Submarines took longer to build and were heavier due to specialization. Remember destroyers are not just destroyers, they are destroyer escorts, patrol ships , gunboats and anything that was very small and fast. Subs can only be subs. Thats why destroyers should be the infantry of the seas. Transports should be the same as destroyers if you want the truth. So both at about 6 IP, or refer to d12 unit value ( nation specific chart)