Let us say we want to compare a bunch of navies, but we have time just for a very rough and quick comparison. A predetermined system giving value to each vessel according to certain attributes would be quite benefitial so we could have a standardized approach to all navies.
Of course, each scenario is different and values different requirements in various ways. For now, let us stick to open ocean supremacy scenario.
Listing subsystems on vessels is great but it takes way too much time. If we had just two values: tonnage and technology level – what ratios of each would we need to use?
And that is for surface ships. What about submarines? i guess there we would need to make a difference between conventional subs and nuke subs.
then there are aircraft carriers – helo carriers and airplane carriers. Again, different figures would be needed for a helicopter, for a plane. what if planes only have guided antiair capability and no guided antiship capability?
Example navy composition:
1 aircraft carrier – 40k tons, aew present, 12 planes only guided aa capability. 12 planes aa and asuw capability. all 1990s tech
1 helo carrier – 25k tons, 20 helicopters, asw and asuw capability. 2000s tech
1 cruiser – 10k tons. 1980s tech
1 destroyer -7k tons. 1990s tech
1 frigate – 4k tons. 2010s tech
1 corvette -1500 tons. 2010s tech
1 conventional sub – 1990s tech
1 nuke sub – 2000s tech
How to add value to each of those?
1 ac – 20 base points for the ship itself? 10 base points for aew? 12 points for aaw planes? 24 for multiroles? so 66 base points times 4 for 1990s tech?
1 cruiser – 10 points for ship times 3 for 1980 tech modifier?
1 diesel sub – 2 points for ship times 4 for 1990s tech?
1 nuke sub – 7 points for ship times 5 for 2000s tech?
and so on.
I know many people will say this is idiocy and that you cant make such comparisons. it is full of holes and very imprecise. but it is still better than just counting ships. I dont want to debate on the merits of the reasons of the system.
I would just like to get feedback on the ratios of point distribution or even advice how to make whole system simpler, without so much division between different kinds of surface ships. Is it worthwhile making a differentiation between a corvette and cruiser, if we already have the tonnage difference?
how much should i give to aircraft carriers and aircraft? half as many points? thrice as many? And so on. All advice on how to make mechanics of the system less bad are welcome. Comments about the purpose of the system are not welcome. 🙂
By: Prom - 8th July 2012 at 10:55
The problem is that the values vary depending upon what you want to do. However, in the spirit of the thread:
Two parameters: Ship type and Technology level, both subjective to some extent, but that’s life. This will give something that everyone can critcise anyway 😎 🙂
I am ignoring SSBNs, because they are used then everyone loses
Type/Size
Supercarrier: 10
Medium Carrier: 8
Small carrier: 5
SSN: 6
SSK: 2
Guided missile ship >6000 tonnes: 4
Guided missile ship 3000 to 6000 tonnes: 3
Corvette/OPV/other ship incl auxiliary supply vessel: 2
Small craft : 1
Technology levels:
Class Design post 2000: 6
Class design post 1980: 3
Prior to that: 0
Add one if it has had a major refit in a later period than its design
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th July 2012 at 14:47
…Basically a subject that cant be simplified easily.
Agree. Take Japan and the UK for instance, since with these pretty much equally professional and modern services we can probably ignore crew training and technical sophistication for the most part. Depending on what tasks you consider either one or the other navy is massively more capable than its counterpart – it’s very much a question of military doctrine. In terms of regional ASW and ASuW the JMSDF is a formidable force, able to take on practically any challenger with equanimity with its lavish fleet of capable surface combatants and SSKs. If you are more concerned with global power projection however the Royal Navy punches way above its weight thanks to its SSBNs, SSNs, carriers and amphibious fleet – and last but not least a large auxiliary fleet that can keep all this going thousands of miles from home.
Naval strength means different things to different countries.
By: Grim901 - 3rd July 2012 at 20:22
How about ability to project power (eg availability og auxiliaries), presence of support capabilities (MCM etc), training of crews, weapons presence and availability, and actual tech present (a decade isnt exactly a great measure).
…Basically a subject that cant be simplified easily.
By: totoro - 3rd July 2012 at 09:28
that offers greater precision, of course, but is just too cumbersome for what i need. (it is not a computer game) i really think two variables is most i should go for, thats why i mentioned tonnage and overall technology level. Instead of going for subclasification of corvettes, frigates, destroyers etc i am thinking of a way to just stick with tonnage but somehow make points increase nonlinearly with added tonnage.
I am still very much at loss concerning what point ratios i should use.
By: Distiller - 3rd July 2012 at 08:09
What about:
# Offensive value (count missiles, SAM, AShM, ASW, land attack, and classify them light – medium – heavy)
# Resilience (going roughly by tonnage, plus an “armor” factor, minus if commercial hull)
# Mobility (mix of range and speed)
# Special characteristics (e.g. subs can’t be hit by anti-ship missiles)
# Tech Level (e.g. reduce all the above values by x% for each x years)
By: totoro - 2nd July 2012 at 10:57
Yes, it is for a game, that is why it is so simplified.
Anyway, if this is no place for such discussions, can anyone recommend a wargaming forum where I could get decent and knowledgeable advice on my subject?
By: kev 99 - 2nd July 2012 at 10:53
Is this for a new series of top trumps like games?
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd July 2012 at 10:14
I don’t think you can truly evaluate a navy in this way. To evaluate a navy you have to compare its capabilities with its operational requirements or potential threats. I do not see the point of trying to compare navies in this over simplified empirical manor.
By: Fedaykin - 2nd July 2012 at 10:13
The reason you haven’t got any response totoro is what you have asked us to do is long winded and dull.
If you want to do some war gaming then go to a forum that has people who like to do that.
By: totoro - 2nd July 2012 at 10:06
I never even mentioned anything else except hardware. Hardware is more easely quantifiable and is thus easier first step of the evaluation process. Of course we can later add all sorts of modifier coefficients for training/experience/etc. But again, that is going into purpose of the whole idea. How about we stick to just the mechanics of the hardware evaluation part.
Is there really no one else interested in that stuff here?
By: Wanshan - 1st July 2012 at 17:34
You’re suggesting (only/mostly) hardware matters :rolleyes:
Sign In
July 1, 2012 at 3:51 pm