N4.5 Rules Question/Comment thread

[Carthaginian]

I agree... I'm thinking something like the chart system that N3 had at the end, though.

Three types of mountings- Disappearing, Turret and Mortar.
Mortars are very well protected and short-ranged, but only hit deck armor- they are deadly early on.
Disappearing means that it's harder to hit, but they only fire every other turn in sims- slow firing due to the recoil mechanism.
Turrets are well protected and faster firing- but they are easier to see and hit.

Each one costs a fixed amount to build- but unlike ships, you can't just 'refit' them... you have to replace the whole shebang.

[KWorld]

I'm not too keen on a table, simply because as the sim goes on I'd expect that there will be more and more divergence in commonality between different countries that a table won't cover well.

[Carthaginian]

I'm not too keen on a table, simply because as the sim goes on I'd expect that there will be more and more divergence in commonality between different countries that a table won't cover well.

Well... not really.
While a SHIP is a large and diverse collection of equipment, an artillery piece is pretty much the same everywhere. It has a T&E mechanism, a tube, a breech and that's about it. In fact, most nations use the same/similar calibers with grossly similar performances! Towed or self-propelled, artillery is pretty generic.

Springsharping the coastal mounts, well, that means you have to have a system: what represents each type of gun mount, how do you handle the issue of freeboard and composite strength, etc?
It will inject a lot more complexities to the rules- complexity which we have sought to avoid in areas where it's not utterly unavoidable.

[Carthaginian]

In fact, I am most inclined to say that each Port has 'adequate defenses' and leave it at that. If the Port is attacked, it would have 3 batteries of the largest guns available for battleships, and 3 batteries of aprox 6" for smaller vessels closer in.

[KWorld]

My point is we may well see coast guns and bore sizes diverging more as the sim continues.  One country might use small guns, others might use old naval guns, another might use new high-velocity guns, while a fifth might use new low-velocity guns.  Those choices will make a difference on the receiving end (high-velocity guns hitting belt armor at the same range low-velocity guns hit deck armor, for instance).


If you used SS to do this, you'd JUST do the mount, nothing else, I'd expect, because you're really only interested in the weight or the cost.  So freeboard, strength, etc, don't come into play. 

It would look something like this:

Test, Test Test laid down 1940

Displacement:
   0 t light; 0 t standard; 0 t normal; 0 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (0.00 ft / 0.00 ft) x 0.00 ft x (0.00 / NaN ft)
   (0.00 m / 0.00 m) x 0.00 m  x (0.00 / NaN m)

Armament:
      1 - 18.11" / 460 mm 45.0 cal gun - 3,306.93lbs / 1,500.00kg shells, 0 per gun
     Breech loading gun in turret on barbette mount, 1940 Model
     1 x Single mount on centreline, aft deck aft
      Weight of broadside 3,307 lbs / 1,500 kg

Machinery:
   Immobile floating battery

Complement:
   0 - 0

Cost:
   £1.674 million / $6.697 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 561 tons, 0.0 %
      - Guns: 561 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: NaN tons, 0.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     NaN lbs / NaN Kg = NaN x 6 " / 152 mm shells or NaN torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): NaN
   Metacentric height NaN ft / NaN m
   Roll period: NaN seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): NaN %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): NaN
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): NaN

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / NaN
   Length to Beam Ratio: NaN : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 0.00 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 0 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  0.00 ft / 0.00 m,  0.00 ft / 0.00 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  0.00 ft / 0.00 m,  0.00 ft / 0.00 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  0.00 ft / 0.00 m,  0.00 ft / 0.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  0.00 ft / 0.00 m,  0.00 ft / 0.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      0.00 ft / 0.00 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): NaN
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): NaN
   Waterplane Area: 0 Square feet or 0 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): NaN
   Structure weight / hull surface area: NaN lbs/sq ft or NaN Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: NaN
      - Longitudinal: NaN
      - Overall: NaN
   Extremely poor machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Extremely poor accommodation and workspace room

Enter percentage of bunker tonnage devoted to coal fired boilers

Now, looking at this, it's fine for an unarmored mounting, but for some reason the armor weight allocated (if any) doesn't show up under SS3 (it does under SS2.1).  But the armor weight IS given on the Guns tab after you put in the armor, so it's not a big problem, and it would really only apply for armored turret mountings, it probably wouldn't apply for concrete emplacements.

[KWorld]

In fact, I am most inclined to say that each Port has 'adequate defenses' and leave it at that. If the Port is attacked, it would have 3 batteries of the largest guns available for battleships, and 3 batteries of aprox 6" for smaller vessels closer in.

For free???  And how long does the port have to be in existence before these are emplaced?  And how about as the sim goes on and "largest gun" changes: do the old batteries get replaced, added to, etc?

[Carthaginian]

KWorld- more to come when I get back from work.
'For Free' would not be 'free'; it would be tied to the size of the port and resources spent on it.
Caliber choice- well, in any game, things are approximated and are grouped by 'ranges' rather than specific calibers. I would use that info in the chart... some small changes in calibers (generally less than 1") would fall within each 'step' of the 'range.'

[Carthaginian]

KWorld... you know, the more I look at it, the more I think it's the easiest way to do things.
We would sim the weight of the gun mount and armor, then DOUBLE IT to account for all the necessaries to keep the gun working- magazine structure, pits for the guns, accommodation and administration buildings, etc.

Yeah- I think that simming the gun then doubling SS's weight for GUN, ARMOR and AMMO will work out just fine.

[Nobody]

Yeah- I think that simming the gun then doubling SS's weight for GUN, ARMOR and AMMO will work out just fine.

Sounds good to me, for turreted (and similar) guns, but what about other mount types (e.g. disappearing)?
And I think we should add some freeboard (e.g. 1m) to include the weight of barbettes, because bunkers are underground after all. To differentiate between different levels of fortifications, I would use the 'superfireing' and '2 levels up' options.
Summarized example:

level of fortification	freeboard	gun position	cost
light	1 m	deck	x2
normal	1 m	1 up	x3
high	1 m	2 up	x4

[Carthaginian]

Well, I said double for all because most mounts don't use metal armor.

I'm kind of giving a 'discount' for disappearing mounts and mortar pits based on the fact that, though they are 'taller' structurally (extending farther underground), they are generally using earthworks and concrete for their armor. Charging more for someone to simply move dirt around doesn't seem fair IMO. If anything, I would actually make your table run backwards- making the fully turreted guns the most expensive, and making simple mortar pits the least expensive. That seems to more adequately reflect the situation in real life; after all, disappearing carriages and mortar pits were more economical and more plentiful than turreted mounts.

[Jefgte]

I have some problem with SS about "Save data file"
& some ships studies are lost. I can't reopen them  :'(  :'(  :'(

How did you save your SS ?
*.sship
*.ssr
*.ssr.sship (this one is strange...)

Thanks

Jef

[Carthaginian]

*.sship is the format that saves the actual ship data.

*.ssr saves only the ship report- the stuff we post on the forum.

No idea what that last one was.


Sorry for the lost data; nothing more frustrating than to loose something you've spent hours perfecting!

[Jefgte]

Thanks Cart  ;)

I have just restudy the 1897-8500t AC Delome class.

Jef

[Nobody]

Carthaginian, you misunderstood. That table is supposed to be turrets (and maybe "deck" (and hoist) mounts) only. The difference is supposed to be how strongly and how deep the associated bunkers are build. And yes they would be mostly moved earth and concrete, but we only have one type of build points. And maybe increasing the factor is overkill, increasing the barbette height might have a big enough effect on cost on its own. It was just a very rough thought.

[Carthaginian]

Ah, ok... I get it now.
I think that having more than one 'level' of protection for the turrets would be a bit of an overkill. They would already be the hardest type to kill, requiring a direct penetrating hit to knock out. This would (under most circumstances) require a gun that was at least as powerful as the mount itself to accomplish.
If the mount in question was a 'mortar pit' or a 'disappearing carriage' mount, it would require little more than a hit from any 'heavy' gun (6" or so) to knock out a gun in the battery... and any battleship-sized gun would probably kill the entire battery. The 'turret mount' would require you to pierce the armor... making it very hard to kill.

Having the various mounts increase in cost is a good idea though:
'Mortar Pit': - 2x cost; attacks 'deck armor,' 1/2 effective range, lightly protected.
'Disappearing Carriage': - 2x cost; attacks 'belt armor,' full effective range, lightly protected.
'Turret Mount': 3x cost; attacks 'belt armor', fully protected.