Simming destroyers - alternative

[Ithekro]

Actually I was refering to your point of extreems: "So you think it is correct to have a ship with an 8 foot draught and a 28 foot freeboard when fully loaded?" as passanger ships today actaully sort of look like that.  It is fortunate that we can't sim such vessels correctly with SS as the technology for weight distribution on that scale doesn't quite exist before 1950.

[P3D]

If the program is broken, then it's broken for everyone.
Thus, we'll all have the same benifits and drawbacks.
To me, this isn't broken in a bad way, because it's broken equally.

My destroyers are higher in freeboard than some historical destroyers, but not by massive amounts. I'll admit that they are based on 1920's designs more heavily, but info on the web for the oldest destroyers is limited, and I can't afford all the books that you and some of the more hardcore guys have. I do the best I can with what I have, and try to keep my designs within realistic limits.

We don't have to keep changing the rules every time we check back in just because there is a better way of doing things.

My take on it:
Good enough generally is, while perfect is always a pain in the ass and generally not worth the extra effort.

If what we have right now is allowing everyone to build destroyers that are equal ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, then it's OK for our little world.

Your 750t destroyers have 2' larger freeboard and depth as historical designs. The  freeboard of the 500 tonners is 4' higher. 2' larger freeboard cost 0.1 strength, or 150t-200t light displacement. For the destroyers, there's not even a resemblance to real life designs, our BBs at least have that if not much more in common.

[Carthaginian]

Your 750t destroyers have 2' larger freeboard and depth as historical designs. The  freeboard of the 500 tonners is 4' higher. 2' larger freeboard cost 0.1 strength, or 150t-200t light displacement. For the destroyers, there's not even a resemblance to real life designs, our BBs at least have that if not much more in common.

Again, 2' isn't too much of a difference for the TR-189's; and the freeboard of the TR-200's (which I built looking at a Russian coastal design of the 20's, though I didn't add in a midbreak) wasn't being compared to a 1900's design, but rather a much later design.

I DO NOT have several hundred to a thousand or more dollars to spend to find out the 'right' freeboard, I simply look at pictures on Wiki and a few other sights and aproximate; I use an 8' per deck and a 4' bilge space standard on everything but destroyers, which I may reduce to a 7' deck and 2-3' bilge space*. Thus, my freeboard is generally in 4' increments, resulting in freeboards of 8', 12' or 16' (and probably 20' on my next series of designs for capital ships). If they are higher than historical, then I just bite the bullet and say that it's a design trait of Confederate ships and is just accepted practice.

There is method to my madness- I'm not trying to min-max my designs.
I have developed a design philosophy, and I stick to it just like any real-life navy would.
My freeboards are consistantly high... so what? OTL Japanese ships had consistantly low freeboards, and no one complained that they weren't following good design practices. OTL Royal Navy designs had consistantly higher freeboards than German designs- because the German designs worked in calmer coastal waters, while the RN ships were made for open sea duty needed higher freeboard.

My coastal destroyers KNOWINGLY sacrificed strength for seakeeping (following my design philosophy and traits) in order to remain operable during heavy weather, so my coasts would not be left ungarded during the passage of tropical weather systems, which they could ride out (though with a decent degree of difficulty) on the open sea with room to manuver. Of course, a full-blown Cat II or better hurricane would make them (and most battleships of the day) want to go home, they could stand a tropical storm without too much trouble.


A ships design reflects it's purpose. Many of our designs are built with different goals than the period OTL designs, and thus they have different features, and flaws. I can't see holding them rigidly to historical standards when our national intrests are not the same as the ones that spawned the historical designs. France's destroyers are not criticized, even though they trade speed (a French hallmark in DD design) for firepower and range; nothing like the French sloops was being built in OTL (as far as I can find with my limited resources- please correct me if I'm wrong). Likewise, the USN in OTL didn't have a huge need to design ships that could ride out tropical storms in the Gulf/Caribbean, so my CSN designs will be markedly different than the contemporary designs fielded by the same geographic reigon. I have different goals, and (as another example) though my TR-182 was designed to be SIMILAR to the 'four-piper' DD's ofthe USN in size, speed and armament, their operational goals (serve as mid-range patrol ships in the relatively calm Pacific) are different, and thus the end product is different than the inspiration.

I try to keep capabilities similar, but I feel that I should be free to design the best ship I can for the job at hand.
Tying me to 'be historical' in my designs limits my ability to do this.
No historical destroyer design sacrificed speed for seakeeping, but I had a situation that I felt merited it, so I felt free to make that adjustment... just in the way that Maddox felt that a 25 knot design with heavier guns and longer range would best work in the French fleet when no such design existed in OTL.


*Oh, some special-purpose ships mighthave a 10' or 12'deck height, resulting in slightly different figures, but not too much.

[P3D]

There aren't really internal decks in a destroyer. It might have decks fore and aft the machinery spaces and under the guns, but the depth of the ship is determined only by the machinery height.

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_V170-177_1918/



Aventurier Class , 950t

Hull depth 5m, 2.5m draught and freeboard. equivalent of the the N-verse 750-tonners.

Looking at the designs all around, your 750t destroyer is the one that bears any resemblance to real life ;), though still to high freeboard.

Anyway.
I think we can keep the current rules temporarily with some changes:
- Guns larger than 2" must have hoists
- Torpedo weight increased by 0.5t (1.5t per torpedo) to account for mount weight (to Borys - the additional structure cost is I think calculated by SS)

This would avoid the current overgunned/torpedoed destroyers.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Seems OK, and hopefully not controversial.
Borys

[miketr]

SIGH...  Look this is a PITA nothing more.  Changes like this mid game add static, pain and thats it.  Basicly my design work of the last week have just been flushed down the drain.  Something I put some time into and now all for nothing.  It really kills my interest...

Also this part really upsets me...

I think we can keep the current rules temporarily with some changes:

If your going to tinker with something thats not broken then at least do it all at once.  Please no death by inches with small and large changes here and there.  I understand now why some were so against tracking oil when I suggested it.  Must have been the pain killers at the time that made that a good idea... 

At any rate... Once again I can understand a desire for realism but it has to be balanced by its impact on the players.  So what if we have over gunned tin foil craft, its a game.  Our world clearly has the element baloneyum-238 that allows for such designs.

Michael

[Tanthalas]

just leave destroyers alone otherwise all our dds are junk they no longer function.  Including ones we have used since the begining >.<.  the only problem is people not being able to think realisticly (im just as bad on this look I put 100-150 tons of aditional weight on almost every ship), The problem is that we are trying to build the best ships we can instead of remembering not every ship is perfect.  Modern USN Destroyers are HORIBLE sea boats, FFGs are worse, hell even a LST will take watter over the bow in heavy seas.  Maybee the golden rule should be cheap, atleast that would be realistic

[P3D]

Then let's change nothing - when SS3 comes out we can debate it.

[Tanthalas]

LOL i broke SS3 today or found a way to fool it anyway.  Ill post the ship i made later but acording to SS3 it would work.....

[P3D]

I mean the version that will have better resistance and engine weight calculation.

[Tanthalas]

I knew what you were refering to boss.  I actualy find even the curent version of SS3 to be better (even if more dificult to use) than the previous version.  the ability to actualy see the freeboard is a huge advantage.

[P3D]

Torpedo weight
18" or less - 2 tonnes a tube
18"- 22" - 3 tonnes a tube
+24" - 4 tonnes a tube
No difference between fixed or not.

Borys, you were closer to the truth. Buy you underestimated weights too.

1908 single short tube 28cwt long 31.5cwt (1.5 and 1.575t)
(1 cwt = 112lb=1/20t)

A single 18" tube was around 1.5 (torpedo less than 1t)

1927 'A' class 2 quad TTs
quad weight 10t
Torpedoes 1.7t each

Quintuple launcher
12t

A 18" torpedo therefore weighed 2.5t with TTs.

A 21" one weighed 3.5-4t.

Late war 21" Type D
Loaded in quintuple hand-operated launcher, total revolving weight 20-1/4t

Weight calculations during design assigned 5t cost to each 21" TTs

[Carthaginian]

OK, does this mean that designs posted for this half year are to be changed?
If so, it'll kill off my entire run of (at least) 22 destroyers (6 laid down and 16 negotiated to start next year). Will this take effect at war's end, or later, when we adopt SS3?

[Tanthalas]

we arnt changing anything till ss3 atleast that was my understanding last nite lol

[P3D]

No change until SS3 with all the required features comes out.