Tech Establishments (final comments)

[Carthaginian]

My suggestions/support for others stand and are directed to Charles for due consideration... I think the population of the forums have pretty much argued ourselves to a rough consensus there (and fairly rapidly, too).

My statements to you also stand, Mike.
I just can't understand why you have a phobia about three twins.

[Logi]

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.

The thing is, there is no benefit to building such a ship. As I mentioned in my designs, waterline length drains composite strength extremely quickly. The waterline length needed for a true A-Q-Y layout would be extremely inefficient in terms of strength per broadside weight.

In other words, you can build a 18,000 ton armed with 3x2 14" guns in a A-Q-Y layout. I'll build 4 5,000 ton armed each with 2 x 2 14" guns. End game result? 6 x 14" guns on the 18 kton ship vs 16 x 14" guns on the 5 kton ships. Simply more efficient!

In addition, like Carth pointed out - a proto-dreadnought will only be one in appearance! The technology is simply not up to the level needed for a dreadnought... The Dreadnought was more than just layout...

... It is this sort of feedback escalation that I am trying to avoid.

Well for me I don't design in that manner. I try to match ship without raising tonnage - ie. build more efficient designs, not bigger! As designs get bigger, they also get more inefficient - simple one-ups-man-ship like that of the escalation scenario you point out are inefficient because they're built to be bigger, not built to meet mission requirements.


I concur with Charles here - just making my opinion known.

[Carthaginian]

Also... let me clarify one thing:

LAYOUT MUST BE BASED ON A SINGLE SHIP, OR ONE WITH A LARGER CALIBER MAIN GUN.
You cannot say "My ship has 'Feature X' from this ship and 'Feature Y' from this one and this one had a similar layout done with a smaller caliber gun and I scaled it up." You can scale down, and you can build a ship which is like a single ship, but the cut-and-paste madness can't be allowed.

That might be a good thing to include... anyone else?

[Nobody]

I have a question about the gun techs.
I was searching for information when the Krupp sliding breech block was invented or first used. What I found instead was a Krupp gun on display in 1887(?) with a caliber of about 40 cm and a barrel length of 40 calibers! This gun has a muzzle energy of 214.6 MJ (that's 5092 million lb*ft²/s²) - how does that fit into the proposed tech tree?

[miketr]

I have a question about the gun techs.
I was searching for information when the Krupp sliding breech block was invented or first used. What I found instead was a Krupp gun on display in 1887(?) with a caliber of about 40 cm and a barrel length of 40 calibers! This gun has a muzzle energy of 214.6 MJ (that's 5092 million lb*ft²/s²) - how does that fit into the proposed tech tree?

It doesn't is the obvious answer.

Michael

[Korpen]

Also... let me clarify one thing:

LAYOUT MUST BE BASED ON A SINGLE SHIP, OR ONE WITH A LARGER CALIBER MAIN GUN.
You cannot say "My ship has 'Feature X' from this ship and 'Feature Y' from this one and this one had a similar layout done with a smaller caliber gun and I scaled it up." You can scale down, and you can build a ship which is like a single ship, but the cut-and-paste madness can't be allowed.

That might be a good thing to include... anyone else?

No. We have springsharp as the filter for what "features" and layout technically work. Picking and mixing is part of how design work, well, works.

The rules should perhaps put some limits on when some things such as what guns might be used,  turbines or turrets on barbettes, but not on things such as layout were it is the designer that chooses how to put things together.

Your suggestion would basically mean that we could throw away springsharp, which defeats the purpose with the entire game.

[Carthaginian]

Korpen,


Then we need some tech rules devised to prevent things like twin mounted secondary guns, or battleships with turreted secondaries in 1870.


While I am in favor of the least limits, I realize the need for some limits.

[ctwaterman]

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.

Now to clarrify everything.... I have read the massive lists and If people read the Discussion from Warships1.com that Korpen posted back on page 3...
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/230163/Armoured-Cruiser-India-1896-98

So first I dont think anyone had any problems with the smaller AQY what we were having problems with is what comes after....?????

So Having read Korpen Link I have to do some revisions to the Tech Establishments.  But Once that is done I feel that you will all be free to build away.

There are some reasons that many have pointed out here why 2 8K ton designs will beat a single larger ship and they are reasonable.

In addition the Larger ship requires a significantly larger investment into ship building Architechture.   You will need bigger slip to build it, a larger Dry Dock to maintain it and a 18K ton ship well a 20K ton military port can only support it and a few small ships.   It means a massive investment into Infrastructure while our economy are still small  :o

Add to that the fact that without improved turrets and Fire control we are still at the stage of all guns in Local Control... the gun captain aims and fires the gun or guns at a target between 1500 and 3000 yards away.  Considering 6" of Harvey Steel Armor from 1885 will stop every single Shell from the period either causing it to break up or explode outside the armor except for Solid Steel Shot I really dont see a problem with allowing anyone to build a Huge White Elephant.

[snip]

I think that the approach that is being argued regarding the limits is a good one. We do need some guidelines, but I think the more freeform we can make ship design, the better. Let combat preformace and infrastructural limits be the judge of what we can build, not hard and fast rules regarding every aspect of our designs. A posible way that this would play out: "Ok, so my AQY ships got really banged up by some ships with an AY layout and similar armor. My ships still won, but how much of an advantage would it be if I built the next ones with an AY and built three instead of two? Dose that give me any advantage in terms of not having to expand my infrastructure?" As opposed to: "Well my ships need some more heavy guns, as in-game experience shows that more heavy guns is better as opposed to the mix I have now. Well, I don't have the tech to add a Q turret, guess I have to wait 5 more years."

Questions as to what your nation needs, what it knows works, what it thinks will be best in the immediate future, and what it can afford should be put ahead of do I have the right research? Things like engines, guns and armor still need to be governed by more traditional tech rules, as that is what they are, tech. Armament layouts and other non-technological based items have always been an area that plays to each nation's individual needs, not some cookie cutter deal based on how "advanced" a given nation is. An environment were we can evolve our designs to fit the current combat experience, infrastructural constraints, and technology that our nations have would be the holy grail of what this sim should be, not some re-hash of OTL design theory. Let the game dictate what works and what does not.

[ctwaterman]

I have a question about the gun techs.
I was searching for information when the Krupp sliding breech block was invented or first used. What I found instead was a Krupp gun on display in 1887(?) with a caliber of about 40 cm and a barrel length of 40 calibers! This gun has a muzzle energy of 214.6 MJ (that's 5092 million lb*ft²/s²) - how does that fit into the proposed tech tree?

Honestly I dont Know... you are way beyond me... Im a simple Guy I got to Historic Guns that went into production on ships and use one of them.   If you found a Krupp Gun that was an early prototype.... well I just dont Know.

I guess I will have to re-read the Gun Tech section again... But I swear if you people make me pull out my math books again... well your ships better stay out of shoal water.... ::)

[Tanthalas]

I have a question about the gun techs.
I was searching for information when the Krupp sliding breech block was invented or first used. What I found instead was a Krupp gun on display in 1887(?) with a caliber of about 40 cm and a barrel length of 40 calibers! This gun has a muzzle energy of 214.6 MJ (that's 5092 million lb*ft²/s²) - how does that fit into the proposed tech tree?

Honestly I dont Know... you are way beyond me... Im a simple Guy I got to Historic Guns that went into production on ships and use one of them.   If you found a Krupp Gun that was an early prototype.... well I just dont Know.

I guess I will have to re-read the Gun Tech section again... But I swear if you people make me pull out my math books again... well your ships better stay out of shoal water.... ::)

and here I was trying to behave... I promise no math inspired terrors from this end

[snip]

*hides the Linear Algebra, Analysis, Proofs, and Multi-variable Calc textbooks* Nope, nore from here  ;D

[Korpen]

I have a question about the gun techs.
I was searching for information when the Krupp sliding breech block was invented or first used. What I found instead was a Krupp gun on display in 1887(?) with a caliber of about 40 cm and a barrel length of 40 calibers! This gun has a muzzle energy of 214.6 MJ (that's 5092 million lb*ft²/s²) - how does that fit into the proposed tech tree?

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924030704880/cu31924030704880_djvu.txt page 197-198
If that source is correct it should be 176MJ for the 40cm gun. Which is allot, but not that extreme.

[TexanCowboy]

Linear Algebra? Sounds easy. I must be missing something...

*Hides suspicious differencial equation, AP Chemistry, and Physics textbooks behind back*

[snip]

Linear Algebra? Sounds easy. I must be missing something...

*Hides suspicious differencial equation, AP Chemistry, and Physics textbooks behind back*

Like Proofs? Also have a DifEq book and at least one Physics book here somewhere....