Tech Establishments (final comments)

[Desertfox]

Maybe a simple rule, you can build any period ship BUT you can not mix and match. You can't take the best features from 5 different design and combined them to make one ship, even if all designs are from the same time period.

[ctwaterman]

Hmmm that seems like some common sence...


:o  Who are you and what have you done with Desertfox... :D

[Tanthalas]

Hmmm that seems like some common sence...


:o  Who are you and what have you done with Desertfox... :D

im going to second that vote, whoever you are give back our irational lord of chaos. ;) 

But on a serious note, part of the fun is building ships that were never even imagined in period, I would be more agreable to saying follow the general layout of ships that are period.  If someone wants to build a AQY monitor in the mold of the Admiral Lazarev and mount 16" guns on it so long as the guns dont violate the rules for guns, I say go for it (it would proly be seriously worthless but thats up to the player to decide). 

The Nverse is a Sand Box and people will just like as OTL gravitate to what works.  For Example DF and I fight a great honking Naval Battle we both have turreted monitors in the british style, DF placing his emphisis on speed and firepower, me placing it on armor and firepower.  One of us wins and I wouldnt automaticly say it was me even though OTL showed us my style of ship was superior.  So say DF wins wouldnt that tend to validate his ships against mine? would say TC abandon his new construction heavily armored ships to build ships like DFs?

These are all things that could happen and have atleast a chance of happening in the sandbox, and thats what makes the Nverse fun IMHO.

[Korpen]

1.  We are trying to allow for the Greatest amount of freedom and creativity in ship design.
2.  We must provide a rule structure that prohibits the construction of say HMS Dreadnaught 26 years earlier then historical.

I think that the important thing is to separate form and function. Things like layout of guns are a cosmetic issue, not a technical one (as SS take care of the technical aspects of the exercise) and hence should not be affected by the rules.
The rules should focus on other factors, such as the quality of shells (prior to capped shells almost all hardened armour was proof against almost everything), the all-round loading of main guns and precise control of the same, internal communications (prior to about 1900-1905 that ability to control turrets in action was limited, and coordination impossible) that affect how a ship worked.
Without all those techs under the shell a ship built in 1890 looking like dreadnought is like a car built out of Lego, it looks the part, but it sure as hell to not function like it. Prior to director control there were really no inherent advantages of making a 15kton ship with eight main guns rather two 8kton with four each.

The people who designed ships historically were not stupid or lacking imagination, most of the time they hade very good reason for the design choices they made.

NewGolconda made a really good point about this on the warhips1-forum: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/230163/Armoured-Cruiser-India-1896-98

[Nobody]

I'll ignore most posts that were posted in the meantime, but my suggestion would be like this:

• allow any historical layout (with slight variations in caliber) but no "best of" mixture (see Desertfox)
  
• limit of 5 big guns in turrets (max 2 per mount)
  
• no limits on broadside or similar layouts (central citadel?)
  we might also need:
  
• lower caliber limit of turreted guns
  And we should point out in the rules that heavy guns will be almost useless (low rate of fire, unlikely to hit anything) until central fire control is introduced around 1900, but a necessity to penetrate armor.
  
  
  
  And I'm still unsatisfied by the engine tech and gun development.

[Tanthalas]

I'll ignore most posts that were posted in the meantime, but my suggestion would be like this:

• allow any historical layout (with slight variations in caliber) but no "best of" mixture (see Desertfox)
  
• limit of 5 big guns in turrets (max 2 per mount)
  
• no limits on broadside or similar layouts (central citadel?)
  we might also need:
  
• lower caliber limit of turreted guns
  And we should point out in the rules that heavy guns will be almost useless (low rate of fire, unlikely to hit anything) until central fire control is introduced around 1900, but a necessity to penetrate armor.
  
  
  
  And I'm still unsatisfied by the engine tech and gun development.
  

Bump that to 6 big guns and I have absolutly no problem with it.  Admitedly im Biased by my desire to show a history of AQY ships for Deseret (not to mention I have drawn about 20 of them for my fleet =P)

[Korpen]

• limit of 5 big guns in turrets (max 2 per mount)
  

Why?
Prior to centralised firing and aiming there is no inherent advantage in having guns concentrated on a single ship, so if someone wants to put all their eggs in one basket and build one large ship rather then two smaller ones I do think that should be allowed.
Also removes the need to try and define when a gun starts to be "big".

Tech tree should focus on the technology, not on limiting its implementation.

[Nobody]

Bump that to 6 big guns and I have absolutly no problem with it.  Admitedly im Biased by my desire to show a history of AQY ships for Deseret (not to mention I have drawn about 20 of them for my fleet =P)

I choose five because its >4 and because that incudes all mentioned oddballs (e.g. the Russion one which had 5 guns in 4 Turrets) and because I want to prevent an early Brandenburg. On the other hand I would have no problem with a ship carrying 6 main guns in single turrets (hexagonal layout). So maybe a limit of 5 guns if 2-gun-turrets are used and 6 if not? And no limit if turrets are not used (e.g. citadel, broadside battery or casematte mounts).
Another option would be a limit of 4-5 guns per broadside, that way even an 8 gun ship with AAYY twins would be allowed.
Yet another idea would be to allow the combination of on 2 diagonal (central placed) with one centerline turret at one end (6 guns as well), actually that would be any any 6-gun layout that isn't AQY.

EDIT
Or maybe something like (with turret=2 or more gun mount):
early ships: maximum of 2 turrets on the centerline
early (pre-)dreadnoughts: maximum of 3 turrets on the centerline
super dreadnoughts: no limits

[Korpen]

Bump that to 6 big guns and I have absolutly no problem with it.  Admitedly im Biased by my desire to show a history of AQY ships for Deseret (not to mention I have drawn about 20 of them for my fleet =P)

I choose five because its >4 and because that incudes all mentioned oddballs (e.g. the Russion one which had 5 guns in 4 Turrets) and because I want to prevent an early Brandenburg.
EDIT
Or maybe something like (with turret=2 or more gun mount):
early ships: maximum of 2 turrets on the centerline
early (pre-)dreadnoughts: maximum of 3 turrets on the centerline
super dreadnoughts: no limits

I repeat my question: Why?
The all the pre 1900 ships is going to be obsolete before there is any benefit in concentrating lots of big guns on a single ship anyway, so why is there any great need to regulate how players choose to layout their ships?

Personally I see no good reason for any rules to that effect at all.

[miketr]

Well, that does fix the problem for those who want to make French-style lozenge layouts, but it completely kills off Jef's Central Citadel ships. It also kills my intention to develop more along the French AA-Q-Y and AA-YY ships (like Ocean and Amiral Duperré)

One Rule To Rule Them All... it's not going to fit in this time frame.
There are just too many different types of ships, with too many different layouts and too many different angles on each one. We CAN start regulating with a single rule when the 'Race to Dreadnought' begins- but right now, I can't see one rule that allows everyone to make good period ships of all the different types of ships available.

The rules need expansion rather than contraction... that's the best I can do ATM.
Given a few nights worth of work, I can work up a proposal for a broader tech tree that will lead into the dreadnought design pattern from more diverse starting points.

What I am suggesting is to not limiting people to A-Y layout but limiting the number of main guns to 4.  Locations of mounts to be anyplace the players wish.   So if you want to do the A-A Q-Y layout of single mounts that is fine.  The odd ball french designs people want to be able to copy made heavy use of single mounts but none had more than 4 main guns.  Heavy secondary batteries in some cases but I am not and was never talking about limiting them.

I strongly want to limit number of main guns under 6 because I see A-Q-Y layout with twin mounts as an attempt to create proto-dreadnoughts.   Of course with crap fire control, no real AP shells and slow reload rates a VERY strong case can be made that the extra two main guns are actually a negative but again.  I want to avoid a world filled with odd balls.

Michael

[miketr]

Given how it's gone whenever I've previously tried to actively advocate any move in a particular direction, I think I'll confine my commentary on the subject of ship designs to this post.

I do not think that it is overall to the game's benefit to restrain the ways in which players are permitted to use the tools available to them. When the entire point is the exploration of differing avenues and choices from those made historically, saying that things must be done in a particular fashion seems self-defeating to me. If particular design traits are not desirable, then let them be enforced by the historical realities that made them sub-optimal, rather than by GM Fiat - all-big-gun designs shouldn't be built during our period because the lack of fire control and range, combined with low rates of fire, makes them sub-optimal, not because God Forbids Them. Airborne invasions in 1900 should fail because of the prohibitive cost of building and operating enough transport airships, not because 'It didn't happen that way!'

If someone wants to spend the resources on a failure of a ship anyway, they should be able to.

We're not here for a history, we're here for a sandbox. I'd suggest aspiring to Deus Ex, not Final Fantasy, so to speak.

The problem is this method requires the Mods to approve every design and we get into pissing contests of what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.  Especially as once we open the door we get stuff like you allowed X in why not my design Y?

NO SYSTEM is going to be perfect but the more free-form of a system you have the less structure it has and the more room for administrative anarchy is the real result.

I put this out here to get peoples comments and to try to build some consensus.  So I do not object to the blow back and I am willing to work with people to try to make the MOST people happy as possible. 

[miketr]

im lost at that point charles (1920-1940) my personal favorite period is about 1905-1920, although I have been doing extensive research on the 1870-1890 period recently.  The majority of ships boasted no more than 2 turrets, however just about every nation had atleast one 3+ turret design, and some were admitedly more usefull than others.  I cant remember how exactly it was set up in the original rules, but I know they had somthing about AQY ships in them.  As to the Ships Jef wants to build my reading of the proposed rules is it only limits guns mounted in turrets is that right?

I want to limit the number of MAIN GUNS of capital ships.  IE the 10" plus guns mounted in cole turrets, barbettes and or turret and barbette.

I want to avoid ships with 6 main guns all together till at least the mid 1890's.

Again I don't care about secondaries (the 7.X" and smaller guns) in casements or whatever mounts.

Michael

[miketr]

I'm looking for a system where this ship,

Tegetthoff 1876 is a central battery design and a very odd bird with Six 11" L18's.  At the same time the guns while very well protected would have limited arch's of fire.

Ajax 1876 has the guns in a central position on ericson turrets but they can't fire to 0 or 180 degrees.

I REALLY dislike the Sachsen class coast defense ships as they open a Pandora's box.  Six 26cm Guns on Barbette mounts with very good range of fire.  What happens if you build one that is 2,000 tons heavier?  Or that is 4,000 or 5,000 tons heavier? 

Amiral duperre I am not worried about.

Ships with 6 guns do worry me, ships like Sachsen worry me ALOT.  Again this is not going to end well if we open the door to these types of designs.  Especially with no displacement tonnage limits.  I was willing to accept no limits on ship size as long as there was limits on guns but if we open the doors up on guns then we need to do something else to prevent this from getting out of hand.

Seriously think it through where do people see this ending? 

Michael

[miketr]

its AAQY or AAXY, and while the potential for abuse grows with each Divergence from the british style layouts it adds to the overall flavor of the period.  Noone realy knew what worked so we ended up with what we know in hindsight was mistakes but at the time were just as viable of options as anything else.

The feed back cycle is EXACTLY what worries me, this combined with hindsight that even if forced into the back of peoples minds is still there.

Opening the door to 6 gun barbette / turret ships and no size limit is going to end badly.

Active moderation of each design is PITA and setting up for blood bath fight of the week on ship designs.

Michael

[miketr]

Maybe a simple rule, you can build any period ship BUT you can not mix and match. You can't take the best features from 5 different design and combined them to make one ship, even if all designs are from the same time period.

All the six gun ships from what I can tell where SMALL ships.  Remove the limit on size this opens the door to disaster.  I knew from the start that examples could be found of odd ball ships but that doesn't mean a world of odd balls is reasonable either.

Michael