N4.5 Rules Question/Comment thread

[Desertfox]

Got an idea, why not write the treaty with the limits instead of number and size of guns be based on broadside weight? So battleships will be limited not to 6x12" in AQY but to a ~5,200 lb broadside. So maybe you go with 18" guns but unfortunately you can only fit one, or go crazy and build a 20x10" broadside battleships.

[Carthaginian]

No Desertfox.
NO.

You will have to be creative within the treaty.
We've had this discussing already- the rules will not be altered.
If you don't like the setup, then... honestly, you don't have to participate.
Snip and I have done our best to come up with a system that will allow great freedom, incite creativity and keep the rules as simple as possible. We are up for small changes that fix the problems that can be found. We ARE NOT open to changing fundamental parts of the rules.

If you want to build something crazy like Outrageous, Uproarious, and Spurious... get people to amend the treaty with you to allow it. That is the only way anything will happen- the treaty is amended by the players.

[Darman]

I'm already planning on experimenting with primary armament being broadside weapons. 

[KWorld]

IJN Satsuma would be legal as far as the design rules go, yes.  On an individual basis, she SHOULD beat an AQY ship, but that will depend a bit on how badly that heavy secondary battery penalizes her fire (and whether the AQY ship can get an important hit or two while the 10" guns are not yet in range).  In a fleet action, a lot will depend on how many AQYs you can get for 1 Satsuma: she's a big vessel, all of 20,000 tons, and most of the AQYs we've seen so far here have been 15,000 or less.  Can 3 Satsuma's beat 4 AQYs?  The AQYs have twice as many 12" guns, while the Satsuma's have a forest of 10" guns that the AQYs don't have a direct counter to.

[Desertfox]

Not asking for a change in the rules. Just pointing out that AQY layouts are almost unavoidable as the rules are written out. One of my N-verse 2.0 ships the NSS United States packed 6x12" guns in an AQY, 20 knots, and battleship level armor in only 12,000 tons. With the treaty limit at 20,000 tons, well there's only so much speed you can put in (20kts), so much armor (no need to armor for over 12"), and well that just leaves a ton of tonnage left over for weapons, which can't be over 12". So unless there's some rule change we will see pretty much only AQY ships as its the only way to stuff as much armament as possible into a BB.

[Carthaginian]

Not asking for a change in the rules. Just pointing out that AQY layouts are almost unavoidable as the rules are written out. One of my N-verse 2.0 ships the NSS United States packed 6x12" guns in an AQY, 20 knots, and battleship level armor in only 12,000 tons. With the treaty limit at 20,000 tons, well there's only so much speed you can put in (20kts), so much armor (no need to armor for over 12"), and well that just leaves a ton of tonnage left over for weapons, which can't be over 12". So unless there's some rule change we will see pretty much only AQY ships as its the only way to stuff as much armament as possible into a BB.

No, you wont. Look at ships of the period.
Many pre-dreadnoughts rolled up to the 17,000 ton (standard) mark, so a 20,000 ton NORMAL ship wouldn't be out of the question. You are looking at LIGHT tonnage, which we are no longer going to use. In this version of the sim, you will pay for everything aboard the ship- bullets, fuel, etc- and not just the bare hull.

That is probably where you are seeing such big tonnage discrepancies.

[Carthaginian]

A final warning about A-Q-Y designs:
1.) Our civilizations have not reached the point where they are able to replicate long-base rangefinders.
Your fewer big guns will suffer historic accuracy problems at long range. These will be equal to the kinds of problems that ships trying to sight multiple calibers will have at long range, and will mean that at shorter ranges, you are throwing fewer shells.
2.) Most of our admirals are still in a 'short-range state of mind,' having gotten out of the black powder age not long ago. They are not going to realize the advantages of extreme-range combat; a few might have heard the call to 'Away All Boarders' in their lifetime. They will think that the best thing a man can do is to lay his ship alongside the enemy and fire.
3.) The penalties on semi-dread style ships seem to have scared some people off- they will be different but no greater than the range penalties you face trying to fire at long range without good rangefinders. If this has been what has kept you from these kinds of designs, then you need not fear- you will not be penalized any heavier than the A-Q-Y layouts, and I maintain that my ships are going to be of this type... hopefully that will prove that it is viable.


Now, prior incarnations of the N-verse didn't allow A-Q-Y layouts from the start.
I wanted to give it a try.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake.

[Nobody]

I have to agree with Desertfox about the ship size though. 20 kt for battleships is almost what historically the second generation of Dreadnoughts (often called 'super-dreadnought') had. And I think my designs kind of proof that. 'Ships of the Line' with AY-only layout were usually just over 10 to 12 kt normal.


I did want to have tech levels...

[Carthaginian]

By starting near 1920, I was hoping to eliminate tech levels; battleship design didn't advance significantly between the introduction of Dreadnought and the use of aircraft in naval warfare.
All the basic modern battleship architecture was in use by then- except for dual purpose secondaries... and the need for those would be limited by the introduction of effective, fast, all-metal aircraft. That not being likely to happen for a while, it seemed that 'tech levels' would not be necessary. They still won't in ships after we start.

Background ships will be less important as time goes on- so I didn't think that trying to delineate to prevent every single ship in existence at start from the instance we started building them. I figured that people would just build ships that were diverse and interesting. Apparently, I underestimated the desire of people to design pseudo-dreadnoughts because they perceive that 'all big gun' is superior in all situations.

[Carthaginian]

Also, your ships are fine when you look at STANDARD displacement, Nobody.
I can roll back the tonnage limit on battleships to roughly 18,000 tons if people think that it's necessary, but your 17,000 ton standard displacement on even your biggest ships are on track historically.

[Carthaginian]

Guys- the wait on a tech tree was one of the things that killed the last attempt at a restart.
WesWorld has done very well without one.

It is too hard to make everyone happy with a tech tree, so I decided to do away with them.
I then set the start date at a point where tech development was beginning to reach something approaching the 'modern' view of ships.

I'm not open to including a tech tree... it was one of the things that Snip and I decided to deliberately leave out.

[KWorld]

WesWorld, from what I've seen, also periodically erupts into arguments over whether or not something is "reasonable" or not given their assumptions (which have changed over time).  That's not counting the arguments over whether someone was breaking the treaty back when they had one, etc, I'm talking strictly about their periodic tech arguments.


Long-base range finders were not necessary for long-range shooting.  See the Battle of the Yellow Sea for an example: both sides were shooting and hitting at ranges far beyond the range of their rangefinders (the Japanese rangefinders had a maximum range of 6000 meters or less, the Russians only 4000 meters, but firing and hitting began at over 8 miles.

[Guinness]

I don't suppose anyone has an annotated map at this point? I suppose I could make one....

[snip]

Carth is working on one. I have one final exam and a short paper to go until I am back in the mix of things

[KWorld]

I'm looking forward to seeing one, seeing what the neighborhood looks like.....