Tech Establishments (final comments)

[miketr]

• 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.

Korpen with no limit on size, etc you are going to get very unhistoric ships.  No solution is perfect and any attempt to allow to build everything that was built historic is no rule at all.  We become hostage to the next escalation.

Michael

[Jefgte]

Only one question Michael:

Could we built HISTORICAL ship with + / - 5 %  of the REAL displacement ?


Jef

[miketr]

Let me put it this way.  I want to avoid seeing ships that displace 18,000 tons, armed with 3x2 14" guns in a A-Q-Y layout with a dozen or so 6" guns in casements.  This is what I see as the end result of a free for all system. 

How do we avoid this with rules that are not 2,000 words long and or do not require case by case moderator / group approval?

This is my objective.  Does everyone agree that this is a reasonable goal?

Michael

[miketr]

Only one question Michael:

Could we built HISTORICAL ship with + / - 5 %  of the REAL displacement ?


Jef

Player A lays down something like the German Sachen coast defense ships.  Call them 8,000 tons normal displacement.

Player B points to Player A's ship on the slipways and say I want to one up that.  They build a ship only 5% bigger at 8,400 tons.

Player C or perhaps player A points to player B's ships and says that is the new bar.  So they build a ship 5% bigger at 8,820 tons. 

This continues so that by 1897 ship size has grown to 18,336 tons.  It is this sort of feedback escalation that I am trying to avoid.

Michael

[miketr]

OK I checked my copy Conways very quickly.  RN with the Royal Sovereign class reached 14,150 normal tons in 1889.  I didn't see anyone breaching 15,500 tons by the end of the 1890's.  Many ships of the 1880's were in the 10-13K ton range and some nations built ships like this in the 1890's.

So again I want to avoid seeing unhistoric monster warships in the 1890's.

So how do we do that?

Michael

[Jefgte]

Add simply a rule:

"Max Historic Displacement "


Jef

[Desertfox]

Maybe is you mix and match the ship receives a penalty of some sort due to the "experimental" nature of its design.

I just find it funny, that all of you clamoring for more options for more oddball ships all bring up the AQY layout as the final goal, isn't that just going from the British cookie cutter to the Brandenburg cookie cutter? C'mon people, if you want that rule relaxed, come up with some REALLY weird layouts.

[miketr]

GM is worried about the A-Q-Y setup at large size.  Most requests are more esoteric to be honest.  I am just worried about where it all goes.

I will wait to let other people reply and see what their thoughts are.

Michael

[Jefgte]

You could just limit to "Historical Ship"

Jef

[Korpen]

This is my objective.  Does everyone agree that this is a reasonable goal?

No.

Let me put it this way.  I want to avoid seeing ships that displace 18,000 tons, armed with 3x2 14" guns in a A-Q-Y layout with a dozen or so 6" guns in casements.  This is what I see as the end result of a free for all system. 

How do we avoid this with rules that are not 2,000 words long and or do not require case by case moderator / group approval?

First of all, I am not convinced that it is as large a problem as you make out, or rather; exactly why is it a problem?
As far as I see it, if someone wants to put all eggs in one basket by putting 14 35cm guns on an 1890 warship, let them; there is really no combat efficiency gained by it.

If one really wants to keep down size of ships, increase the cost for upgrading ships allot to make it a very bad idea to build ships with an eye to upgrading them with the "next tech around the corner".

And/Or use the ship building tree to increase build time a fair bit. To say 6months + kton weight x 2,5 (instead of x 1).

[miketr]

I direct all questions on Capital Ship Architecture to Charles.

Michael

[ctwaterman]

I direct all questions on Capital Ship Architecture to Charles.

Michael

Ok I need to look at the Tech Tree and such... but I am tenatively infavor of allowing you to build all the large useless... er beautiful ships you want.  Just remember build the Slip to build it in, build the Dry Dock to clean its bottom and do maintenance in and be prepared for long build time on extremely large ships.

Oh and when you go to Refit or Rebuild this ship it stays at the 1.1 or 1.05 Composite Strength.  If you want to rebuild it to 1.0 Composite Strength you will be keeping, the Name Plate, the Silver Ware and Crockery and the Wheel.   Everything else you should scrap.

[Tanthalas]

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

let me make sure I have this right before I do somthing stupid.  So aparently the type of ship I like is unwelcome here so im going to be forced to build what YOU like if I want to participate.   I agree that there has to be some sort of limit, but this feals arbitrary, like we the majority who can behave as adults are being punished for the actions of the minority who are incapable of doing so.  There should be a truely balanced compromise, and as I said before im willing to give up on my AQY ships if that is the final decision I'll build nice little cookie cutter british ships and make everyone else happy.

I direct all questions on Capital Ship Architecture to Charles.

Michael

Ok I need to look at the Tech Tree and such... but I am tenatively infavor of allowing you to build all the large useless... er beautiful ships you want.  Just remember build the Slip to build it in, build the Dry Dock to clean its bottom and do maintenance in and be prepared for long build time on extremely large ships.

Oh and when you go to Refit or Rebuild this ship it stays at the 1.1 or 1.05 Composite Strength.  If you want to rebuild it to 1.0 Composite Strength you will be keeping, the Name Plate, the Silver Ware and Crockery and the Wheel.   Everything else you should scrap.

Grrr keeps being new posts I have to take into consideration before I post LOL.  I cant speak for anyone else obviously but I didnt view my AQY as even all that big in the cosmic scheme of things (3500 tons), and as I said above if its going to be such an issue ill withdraw it I wont like doing it but ill do it.

[Carthaginian]

Mike,

It seems to me that you simply want to prevent the 'dreaded three twins on centerline' ship at any cost...
Why?
You have already stated that these ships:
1.) would be handicapped from the effects you are afraid of by lack of fire control.
2.) provide no real combat advantage to the player building them.
3.) are largely cosmetic in difference at this point in time.
4.) are generally smaller, coast-defense vessels.

You say 'this is to prevent a pseudo-dreadnought.'
What this tells me is that you are not considering anything which makes a difference in the ship's design except the fact that it has three twin turrets on centerline. The fact that it has no real greater combat effectiveness makes no difference... it becomes a matter of your personal preference overriding that of the player.

Then you state that you are willing to allow ships with 5 main guns on centerline. Seriously... what is the difference between a ship with three twins on centerline and two twins and a single on centerline? How much 'worse' is Tan's design with 3x2x11" than me designing a ship with 2x2x13.4" and 1x1x13.4"?

Basically, once the Pandora's Box you fear is cracked open, it may as well be flung open wide.

I *searches for signs of eminent apocalypse* find myself agreeing strongly with Desertfox here, as his idea is really a good one- any ship that is of your laydown year or earlier (including tech establishment advantages) will be a legal ship for you to lay down. That is about as dirt simple as you can get, guys... no big and crazy rule needed. If you can say 'see, someone did it right here *quote page in Conway's or Freedman's*' then you should be able to do it yourself.

I also agree with Jef, in that we should allow any historic layout to be built TO WITHIN 5% OF THE HISTORIC SHIP'S DISPLACEMENT (to allow for the difference in, say, 12" guns vs 11" guns). There can be ABSOLUTELY NO PLAYER-GENERATED SIZE INCREASES... you can point to any historic ship in your laydown year or earlier for an example of layout/tonnage justification, but never another player's ship. This will fix your fear on the possibility of the incredible expanding ship.

I further agree with Charles, that any ship built to 1.1 or 1.05 composite strength must remain at it's original hull strength. The few ships that received refits that were extensive enough to cause major hull strength changes were more expensive that actually building a new ship anyway... and we need to keep that element of reality close to our hearts.

There... that seems to be about it.
I think we're seeing a compromise that is acceptable to the majority of the players work itself out.

[miketr]

I direct all questions on Capital Ship Architecture to Charles.

Michael

BUMP

Michael