1912 Habsburg battleship

[Ithekro]

Considering that all of the Rohirrim's modern battleships are under 6:1 I have no idea where this rule came from.  None are below 5:1 (I think one type is 5.24:1 and one type with 5.26:1).  Wider hull, more stable gun platform for more guns seems to be the general Rohirrim design style.  Considering the next class is suppose to be an improved engine version of the latest class in production, that means another two modern battleships with a 5.46:1 ratio.

[P3D]

6:1 is a still a bizare place to draw the line, a bit like saying no ship sould have a draft of more then 6m. If one should have such a limit then 4:1 seems a better ones, as that was at least uncommon.

What suggestion do you have to eliminate 170.00m long designs with 35m beam? Or 120.00m long designs with 24m beam?

[Korpen]

6:1 is a still a bizare place to draw the line, a bit like saying no ship sould have a draft of more then 6m. If one should have such a limit then 4:1 seems a better ones, as that was at least uncommon.

What suggestion do you have to eliminate 170.00m long designs with 35m beam? Or 120.00m long designs with 24m beam?

Why should they be eliminated at all?

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Korpen, "centerline - distributed" does not change the sim at all :)
But as this is a repeat, I'd prefer to retain the en echelon layout.
Borys

[Korpen]

Ahoj!
Korpen, "centerline - distributed" does not change the sim at all :)
But as this is a repeat, I'd prefer to retain the en echelon layout.
Borys

Alright.
But my comment about it fitting was concerned about the deckspace, and echelon saves quite a bit of that. :)

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Aha ...
Well, thinking about it - I'm about Dante Alligheri/Gangut size (I think), and my 2x13,5 turrets are probbly smaller than 3x12" ones, so 4 deck-level centerlines should be possible.

Borys

[P3D]

Why should they be eliminated at all?

Because it is pure ruleplaying to build up to slip dimensions while disregarding the intent of the rule - to limit ship size.

Never mind that there was hardly ship historically that was leaner than 5.8:1 and a speed at least 20 knots. I could predict a lot of ships of the BC of 0.700, a length of 120m and a L:B of 1:4.5.

Like this ultimate coastal BB, it even fits a lvl 1 slip!

A 8x13.5" or 4x16" version is also possible.

Ultimate CDS laid down 1916

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1916

Displacement:
   15,780 t light; 16,768 t standard; 17,941 t normal; 18,880 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   393.00 ft / 393.00 ft x 72.00 ft (Bulges 86.00 ft) x 27.00 ft (normal load)
   119.79 m / 119.79 m x 21.95 m (Bulges 26.21 m)  x 8.23 m

Armament:
      6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1,687.50lbs / 765.44kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward
      16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline, all amidships
   Weight of broadside 11,125 lbs / 5,046 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   275.00 ft / 83.82 m   15.00 ft / 4.57 m
   Ends:   3.00" / 76 mm   118.00 ft / 35.97 m   15.00 ft / 4.57 m
   Upper:   6.00" / 152 mm   275.00 ft / 83.82 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
      1.50" / 38 mm   275.00 ft / 83.82 m   27.00 ft / 8.23 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   14.0" / 356 mm   6.00" / 152 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   2nd:   5.00" / 127 mm   3.00" / 76 mm      2.00" / 51 mm

   - Armour deck: 3.50" / 89 mm, Conning tower: 14.00" / 356 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 26,047 shp / 19,431 Kw = 20.00 kts
   Range 8,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,112 tons

Complement:
   774 - 1,007

Cost:
   £3.038 million / $12.150 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,391 tons, 7.8 %
   Armour: 7,053 tons, 39.3 %
      - Belts: 3,139 tons, 17.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 412 tons, 2.3 %
      - Armament: 1,843 tons, 10.3 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,453 tons, 8.1 %
      - Conning Tower: 207 tons, 1.2 %
   Machinery: 970 tons, 5.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,065 tons, 33.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,161 tons, 12.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     19,525 lbs / 8,856 Kg = 11.6 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 3.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
   Metacentric height 3.4 ft / 1.0 m
   Roll period: 19.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.72
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.688
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4.57 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.82 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Mid (50 %):      18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Stern:      18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Average freeboard:   18.24 ft / 5.56 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 99.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 22,440 Square feet or 2,085 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 88 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 174 lbs/sq ft or 850 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.90
      - Longitudinal: 2.68
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

[Korpen]

Why should they be eliminated at all?

Because it is pure ruleplaying to build up to slip dimensions while disregarding the intent of the rule - to limit ship size.

Never mind that there was hardly ship historically that was leaner than 5.8:1 and a speed at least 20 knots.

But there was heaps of ships with a L:B of around 5,0:1 with a speed less then 20kts, as already been pointed out.

I could predict a lot of ships of the BC of 0.700, a length of 120m and a L:B of 1:4.5.

      16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline, all amidships
   Weight of broadside 11,125 lbs / 5,046 kg

You right there is a problem with that ship; there is no way that 16 127mm gun will fit int the superstructure at deck level, there is only around 25m available, less if the midship guns are going to have decent firing angles. This also rules out the 8x343mm guns unless two turrets are elevated.
Otherwise the ship reminds me allot of Tsarevich in shape. :)


And if we get ships like that, why is that such a problem? If one is willing to scrifice speed to build fat ship i really fail to see why that is such an issue.

No matter what kind of rule limits we set we will build to the limits, and often try to minimise their impact, and why is that such a bad thing? In my experience, the more detailed rules, the more rule-lawering and ruleplaying it will be.

[P3D]

You right there is a problem with that ship; there is no way that 16 127mm gun will fit int the superstructure at deck level, there is only around 25m available, less if the midship guns are going to have decent firing angles. This also rules out the 8x343mm guns unless two turrets are elevated.
Otherwise the ship reminds me allot of Tsarevich in shape. :)


And if we get ships like that, why is that such a problem? If one is willing to scrifice speed to build fat ship i really fail to see why that is such an issue.

No matter what kind of rule limits we set we will build to the limits, and often try to minimise their impact, and why is that such a bad thing? In my experience, the more detailed rules, the more rule-lawering and ruleplaying it will be.

The main gun turrets are quads, and the secondaries are also turreted. Most probably they can be tailored to fit.

About ruleplaying. The relatively low number of rules did not prevent people to exploit them in N2-verse. And I can only repeat myself that several rules are there so that people won't design Washington Treaty cruisers laid down in 1905. Or 2000t destroyers with 3T2x5" armament. Were the relatively free rules of N2-verse retained, it would have happened.
The other solution is that players would try to refrain from building with excessive hindsight, and a design would be rejected if judged too modern. Unfortunately, the latter would work only in ideal circumstances.

[Valles]

As I have every other time this issue has come up since I've been here, I will note that 'playing a game' has really nothing at all to do with 'ensuring historical accuracy'. Which fact I'm quite satisfied with, thank you, until people start trying to shut down the former in favor of the latter.

[Korpen]

About ruleplaying. The relatively low number of rules did not prevent people to exploit them in N2-verse. And I can only repeat myself that several rules are there so that people won't design Washington Treaty cruisers laid down in 1905. Or 2000t destroyers with 3T2x5" armament. Were the relatively free rules of N2-verse retained, it would have happened.
The other solution is that players would try to refrain from building with excessive hindsight, and a design would be rejected if judged too modern. Unfortunately, the latter would work only in ideal circumstances.

Well awere of the motivation for quite a few of the rules.
First, I feel that often "hindsight" is simply a lack of understanding of why things were done the way they were done IRL, and applying it too much results in ships with inferior performance to ship designed to be effective in the period.

That said, I still do not think there is a problem with short fat ship, and in fact not seen any argument for why it is problematic.
Sure one can built rather extreme short ships such as a 170m long ship of 35kton, but really any rule can be stretched, and adding rules to block it will affect perfectly normal designs more then it will affect the extremes. So I think trying to limit beam is a remedy that is worse then the problem it is trying to solve.

When considering rule changes it is iportant to consider "Will this change makes Navalism better, easier and more fun or will it not?"

[The Rock Doctor]

I've no interest in enforcing a rule about L:B ratio. 

If somebody design something really odd, without historical precedent, it's my view that they are responsible for demonstrating that it's plausible - preferrably with a scaled top and side drawing. 

At any rate, the Hapsburger design is not unreasonably extreme, and the L:B ratio there is more an artifact of our arbitrary slipway classification scheme.  I'm giving some thought about alternatives to the current slipway/dock scheme, and if I ever come up with something workable, I may propose it.

[P3D]

I'm giving some thought about alternatives to the current slipway/dock scheme, and if I ever come up with something workable, I may propose it.

Alternative is to allow arbitrary dock and slipway length.
Slipways should cost, say, $2 for every 100ft.
Bit cheaper than today.

Docks should cost $3 plus $1 for every 2500t capacity.
I.e. $3 + full displacement x .0004
Length is whatever the player wants, but it must be stated. So people could build long docks for fast ships and deep docks for bathtubs.
We might just delete the BP cost.

Upgrade would be a bit trickier, but with some application of common sense could be solved.

[Desertfox]

Why not just put width limits to current slips/dock? Say, slips measure 170m AND 35m. So a fat 170m ship would need the next up slip. Simple, neat, and allows historical designs.