Swiss Concepts for the Twenties...

[Guinness]

Actually, smaller BCs are more reasonable in bigger ships than you think. The original Lexington class design (14" guns) had a BC of .501, for instance.

[Sachmle]

Actually, smaller BCs are more reasonable in bigger ships than you think. The original Lexington class design (14" guns) had a BC of .501, for instance.

True, but it also didn't have enough room below the waterline/armored deck for all the boilers. ;)

[Tanthalas]

Actually, smaller BCs are more reasonable in bigger ships than you think. The original Lexington class design (14" guns) had a BC of .501, for instance.

True, but it also didn't have enough room below the waterline/armored deck for all the boilers. ;)

My Beloved Derflinger did though and it came in at a whoping .454 (I know cause I am in the process of making an accurate SS file for it from several sources)

[Guinness]

It wouldn't surprise me if most of the German WW1 capital ships had slightly lower than expected BCs, if only because of that big cut up to the bow to accommodate the forward torpedo tubes.

[Walter]

Speaking of the Dutch. Is there a reason everything is locked in the Dutch encyclopedia? Did I miss something?

As to maximum number of guns, I think 4x2 + TTs of those US DDs is probably the max you should go for on a big DD... and we don't have the proper tech for that size of DDs yet.

As for BCs, when I simmed the historical DDs and TBs of Japan (which I deliberately did last), I noticed that the BCs were all over the place, from 0.48 to as low as 0.35.

[Guinness]

Speaking of the Dutch. Is there a reason everything is locked in the Dutch encyclopedia? Did I miss something?

Yes. We can always unlock it when either Korpen returns or we restaff the Dutch.

[Desertfox]

Bump. Once news of Dutch continuing the I class come out, NS WILL build these ships...

[Blooded]

Hello,

In reading about this and Damoclese's DDs. I feel obliged to say WTF. I thought we were trying to build more realistic DDs and not just EXPLOIT Springsharp weaknesses. What happened to higher BCs(.47+) and speeds(50%+ machinery displacement) for the DD types?  ???

10x4" and 6" gunned DDs are ridiculous, if allowed they better be capsizing left, right and center from too much topweight and crumple from overexerted bulkheads. I have waited and waited for the mods to rein these designs in, but it does not appear to be happening, or else it is happening at glacial speeds. Both Mods and players listed objections to this design(among others) and as always DF states

Oh, I know. But the rules allow it and the Dutch have them

or else ignores it entirely

NS WILL build these ships...

which says to me 'Bite me, I do what I want regardless' which is a slap to the face.  >:(

I cant take anymore of this 'design freedom' or DFs blissful ignorance of most every other players desires for the game.  >:(

I know this is harsh, but I am tired of the nonsense. Personally, I am a very mellow person, but this and a few other issues frustrate me beyond belief. They make me want to quit every time I read certain posts. And I have heard from others who feel similar. We invest as much or more time, energy and soul into the game as others. (Yes, believe it or not I have most all of my ships drawn up but my provider wont allow me to upload because of some tech issue they have been working on for months along with a dozen half finished stories). So yes its harsh, I don't think ANYTHING else will get the point across.

[damocles]

If the ships are illegal, then they are illegal. I have no problem with redesign. Just let me know. I was aiming for 3900-4000t light cruisers, no more than  6 x 150 mm guns originally as heavy fleet escorts. I think I have one set of cruisers now at 7700 tons and another at 6000 tons planned instead.

Problem is that I have these already designed I class destroyers armed  with those 120mm guns that have been used.  I based the K class destroyers off of them, but this is what a K-class cruiser might look like .  

D.

K class, Holland torpedohruizer D laid down 1921

Displacement:
   3,968 t light; 4,117 t standard; 4,604 t normal; 4,994 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   426.51 ft / 426.51 ft x 42.65 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
   130.00 m / 130.00 m x 13.00 m  x 6.00 m

Armament:
      10 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (3 mounts), 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1921 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side ends, majority aft, 4 raised guns - superfiring
      8 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1921 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships
      32 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1921 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 633 lbs / 287 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   8 - 24.0" / 610 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.39" / 10 mm   0.39" / 10 mm      0.39" / 10 mm
   2nd:   0.39" / 10 mm   0.39" / 10 mm      0.39" / 10 mm

   - Armour deck: 0.98" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 2.95" / 75 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 45,339 shp / 33,823 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 9,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 877 tons

Complement:
   279 - 363

Cost:
   £1.079 million / $4.317 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 79 tons, 1.7 %
   Armour: 246 tons, 5.3 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 17 tons, 0.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 211 tons, 4.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 18 tons, 0.4 %
   Machinery: 1,561 tons, 33.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,782 tons, 38.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 636 tons, 13.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 6.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,938 lbs / 1,333 Kg = 55.7 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 1.7 ft / 0.5 m
   Roll period: 13.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.47
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.450
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 20.65 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
   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:      22.97 ft / 7.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   14.76 ft / 4.50 m
      - Mid (50 %):      14.76 ft / 4.50 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   14.76 ft / 4.50 m
      - Stern:      14.76 ft / 4.50 m
      - Average freeboard:   15.42 ft / 4.70 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 130.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 70.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,603 Square feet or 1,078 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 83 lbs/sq ft or 403 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.00
      - Longitudinal: 2.25
      - Overall: 1.09
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped

Notes:

Misc. 350 tons.
150 tons fire control.
25 tons radar.
25 tons radio
25 tons acoustics
32 tons toirpedoes
43 tons for depth charges and mines

[The Rock Doctor]

Blooded, I share your frustration.  I've noted with several designs that they are in some respect badly over-armed - with guns or torpedoes.

I'm not going to ban these designs.

What I am going to do is remember that these ships are very cramped with all the gun crews and limited accommodation, and in the case of the 10-gunend destroyers, remember that they are going to have a lot of ready ammunition on deck.  During combat, these factors will be relevant - and not at all advantageous.

[TexanCowboy]

I made a bad mistake with the Shamavani's, and don't hope to repeat them.....

So, I would definatly accept 1/4th combat value for them.

[maddox]

X

Supported by Maddox

[Desertfox]

which says to me 'Bite me, I do what I want regardless' which is a slap to the face.

Well the thing is, the Dutch ships HAVE been built. And there is a very good chance that NS will be in a  war with the Dutch sometime on the future. I have to match them somehow. I'm fine with the mods banning these ships, but it has to extend to the Dutch ships too.

[maddox]

The Heavenly armed Dutch ships ain't used in war yet....

[Desertfox]

But they are around. The Swiss have been looking at 'em and don't like what they see. Besides the Dutch ships will be 14 years old by the time mine are built...