Gun Talk Thread

[Sachmle]

I see "Refurbishment" and "Reconstruction", but not "Refit" in the shipbuilding rules. Did y'all do away w/ refits?

[miketr]

I see "Refurbishment" and "Reconstruction", but not "Refit" in the shipbuilding rules. Did y'all do away w/ refits?

The mandatory Refit has been replaced with the non mandatory Refurbishment.

Michael

[Sachmle]

So are we saying that the things covered in a refit (hull scraping, painting, cleaning boilers, sweeping out coal bunkers, etc) is covered under normal upkeep? This is fine, mind you, I'm just curious. Mainly I think it's a terminology thing. IRL ships that got 'refits' got things like upgraded electronics, new radar/sonar, new/improved AA guns, torpedo upgrades, etc..whereas here refit means life extension basically and refurbishment means all the other stuff.

[miketr]

So are we saying that the things covered in a refit (hull scraping, painting, cleaning boilers, sweeping out coal bunkers, etc) is covered under normal upkeep? This is fine, mind you, I'm just curious. Mainly I think it's a terminology thing. IRL ships that got 'refits' got things like upgraded electronics, new radar/sonar, new/improved AA guns, torpedo upgrades, etc..whereas here refit means life extension basically and refurbishment means all the other stuff.

If you want to make changes to ships systems see Refurbishments or Reconstruction for specifics.

Normal upkeep of covers normal upkeep but without a Refurbishments or Reconstruction a ship is more and more likely suffer mechanical problems, etc in combat.

Michael

[Delta Force]

I think that the energy limit for the artillery might need to be revised. There were ships in this period that mounted muzzleloaders and breechloaders capable of firing 16.5 inch shells.

[TexanCowboy]

*shakes head*.

Delta, they'd just be firing the shells really slowly, or, rather, with not much penetration ability vs. modern armor...

[Logi]

But Texan, that has nothing to do with muzzle energy. That's all muzzle velocity.

It's only when energy is converted in velocity that the shells will fire really slowly. You're artificially reducing it's muzzle energy, making the muzzle velocity several hundred feet per second slower than historically!

For example: The 16.25"/30 gun (1888) historically did 2087 fps. By restricting the muzzle energy with no regard to the larger guns, it forces the same gun to produce only ~1350 fps!

In other words, you forced the historical 16.25"/30, which already was a horrible gun, to perform like a 16.25"/13.8 ! The kicker is that this hard cap on muzzle energy is scaling, it means that smaller and smaller guns can get incredible muzzle velocities under the rules whilst larger guns are far behind it's historical performance.

Under the rules, I could theoretically design a 8"/115.5 gun firing a 200lb projectile for a muzzle velocity of ~4350 fps, all within the 1900 hard-cap. Outlandish, but I use this example to make it clear the distinct muzzle velocity advantage you are artificially creating with this cap.

[Delta Force]

I do not really see the need to make things that were technological dead ends even worse or flat out banned, like big bore artillery or ships with three turrets. If something is not possible to do due to metallurgy or other technology than it should be restricted, but there actually were big bore artillery guns and ships with three turrets. Where is the fun in doing everything the "correct" way? We all know how warship design evolved, that does not mean that we have to play it out the exact same way it advanced historically. That is not very accurate RPing as we would be taking our perfect OOC knowledge and using it to make in game decisions.

It is like the tech tree in Civilization, how it only shows what worked out historically and you can steer your way towards it from the start. You can steer yourself down the path towards gunpowder in 4000BCE, and you never have to spend time on dead end research like elixirs of immortality or turning lead into gold. One of the differences between something like a video game and a forum based game is that you can actually go down those dead ends, making steam rams, ships with big bore guns, or constructing a ship with an amidships turret that causes massive blast damage. You are not forced down a "correct" path of technology.

[Tanthalas]

Logi and Delta, the problem is without some restriction we literaly have people building Dreadnaught and expecting it to preform like Dreadnaught in 1865.  which rapidly escilates to the point we are all forced to build Iowas by 1916 just to keep up with the arms race.

[Sachmle]

Logi and Delta, the problem is without some restriction we literaly have people building Dreadnaught and expecting it to preform like Dreadnaught in 1865.  which rapidly escilates to the point we are all forced to build Iowas by 1916 just to keep up with the arms race.

Key phrase. Just because they EXPECT it to work like Dreadnaught, does not mean it will. We are ALL aware of the metalurgical, fire-control, RoF, accuracy, control, and other issues that make building a ship w/ all large guns a bad idea until 1910ish and if someone wants to waste their time and $$ on building one that's their problem. And if they do, and then bitch when the Mods say it fails miserably in battle, then they just get what they deserve.

[Tanthalas]

Logi and Delta, the problem is without some restriction we literaly have people building Dreadnaught and expecting it to preform like Dreadnaught in 1865.  which rapidly escilates to the point we are all forced to build Iowas by 1916 just to keep up with the arms race.

Key phrase. Just because they EXPECT it to work like Dreadnaught, does not mean it will. We are ALL aware of the metalurgical, fire-control, RoF, accuracy, control, and other issues that make building a ship w/ all large guns a bad idea until 1910ish and if someone wants to waste their time and $$ on building one that's their problem. And if they do, and then bitch when the Mods say it fails miserably in battle, then they just get what they deserve.

*looks at some players in previous incarnations* I agree compleatly mate, as I stated previously I was going to do AQY from the get  specificly because it was a mistake.  IDK if there is a solution that will make everyone happy, but im fairly content as it stands.

[Logi]

I agree with Sachmle. If they wish to try building the Dreadnought in 1865, that's alright with me- that's just a bigger and easier ship to sink. In fact, I would be glad if everyone else decided on building Dreadnought in 1865 - it simply wouldn't work because of all the other factors.

For example: If Delta wants to build his 13,587 ton monster, he could! It'll just take 1 x 100kg warhead torpedo and roughly 2 hours to send it to the bottom!

Or better yet- according to the battlesim proposal I posted, it'll take two 100kg torpedo warhead hits within a minute (or is it 15  now?) to capsize it.

[Tanthalas]

your proposal is all fine and good logi, but unless I miss my guese part of the reasoning for restrictions is to make our ships fit into an already existing Naval Combat system.  Im not 100% sure on that but it "feals" like a good solid answer.

[Logi]

My proposal is nothing more than a best-fit interpretation of historical data with logical backing. I'm not proposing that my proposal is 100% accurate, just that's it's good enough for a general idea of what would happen in a real naval battle- miss the small details like time to evacuate crew etc.

That is- I'm just pointing out that such a large dreadnought before it's times were be a floating duck- easy to sink by torpedoes, weak due to low RoF, lack of FC, and poor metallurgy compared to later times - making the dreadnought just a large waste of space!

[Carthaginian]

Logi and I agree, actually.
This is really the best argument there is against building a large, dreadnought-type ship ATM.
IT JUST WON'T WORK.

Sam, we're just going to have to accept some risk if we want this freedom.
In order to have freedom, there has to be freedom to abuse the freedom.