N4.5 Rules Question/Comment thread

[Carthaginian]

Er no. You see this best if you add a ridiculously thick torpedo bulkhead, e.g.:
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
      19,7" / 500 mm   330,54 ft / 100,75 m   32,81 ft / 10,00 m
Then the result in the weight distribution looks like this:
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armour:
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 7.899 tons, 39,5%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: -3.183 tons, -15,9%
So whatever weight is added as a Strengthened bulkhead is at the same time removed from the hull weight. The composite strength of the ship however remains unchanged (at 1.00). If you use 'additional bulkheads' instead, the composite drops.

I don't see your problem with the necessary belt length though, that seem to work just fine IMHO. What doesn't work though is that is the amount of damage (number of torpedos to sink the ship) is usually - but not always - unaffected by the torpedo protection system.

OK, I see now. It simply 'moves the weight around' from another category to make it work. So, what we would have to do is add the weight removed from the 'Hull, fittings and equipment' category back to the ship.
The 'problem' with the belt length is adding additional bulkheads really stretches the needed armor belt. I didn't know if this option would do so, but I know adding large amounts of Miscellaneous Weight will also stretch the necessary belt length.
If the 'Torpedoes to Sink' number isn't improved, we might simply have to use the Additional Bulkheads option only for mechanical reasons, and explain in the ship description whether it's actually Strengthened or Additional bulkheads.

[KWorld]

Using Strengthened Bulkheads doesn't effect the length of the armor belt, because you don't have to adjust the beam between bulkheads (which, if you set it too small, forces the engines and ammunition to take up more length in the ship).

I'd say until this feature gets looked at in the future, we don't use Strengthened Bulkheads.  I'd also be OK with not using torpedo bulkheads until game start, but that's me.

[Nobody]

The 'problem' with the belt length is adding additional bulkheads really stretches the needed armor belt. I didn't know if this option would do so, but I know adding large amounts of Miscellaneous Weight will also stretch the necessary belt length.

I should and it does. By how much depends entirely on the 'beam between bulkhead' value. If you input half the ships width there the required belt length will double. Which is exactly what it should because you now only have half the space.

If the 'Torpedoes to Sink' number isn't improved, we might simply have to use the Additional Bulkheads option only for mechanical reasons, and explain in the ship description whether it's actually Strengthened or Additional bulkheads.

Well it sometimes does, but I have also seen it drop by adding a torpedo protection. Anyway in case of the 50 cm bulkhead it doubled, but than again if you actually had a 50 cm bulkhead it would probably impossible to sink it from the sides in the first place.

[Carthaginian]

I'd say until this feature gets looked at in the future, we don't use Strengthened Bulkheads.  I'd also be OK with not using torpedo bulkheads until game start, but that's me.

I think that I'm going to fall into that camp as well. We might have to delay TBs a bit, until we get the related problems worked out a bit. I've never really seen a TB cause a drop in torpedo survivability- unless it was something very serious like the ship not being able to mount all the machinery within the hull after the TB was added.

Also, I'm thinking about playing with torpedo range... EITHER by adding a limit on torpedo diameter/length for start ships, OR by adding a range modifier related to year. So far everyone is doing quite well for staying in historic limits, so no big need for a ruling.

[KWorld]

I wouldn't complain about reducing the capabilities of torpedoes a bit, right now they're REALLY good for the period.


Also, given the restrictions on ship engines, it certainly looks like only Infantry units should be available at game start, and probably for some time afterwards.

[Carthaginian]

Though I fail to see the connection between ship engines and armies... ;)
Infantry and Artillery will be the only units available until a time I 'roll up.' I will select a good die with a fairly good percentile and give it a toss. Tanks will be available in (Start Year + Die Roll); I'll then assign numbers to all nations except me and Snip, and roll an appropriately numbered die. The winner of the roll will receive a PM that he is able to build tanks the next budget period, and everyone else will be able to follow after that.


The torpedoes will probably be penalized by 'range brackets' and 'size brackets.'
You won't be able longer or bigger torps for a little while.

[KWorld]

Artillery isn't currently listed as an option.


The relationship is simple: if your primary fuel is coal (and it is), barring steam-powered "land battleships" a la Jules Verne, armies are going to be infantry or cavalry, and with the technology already postulated, cavalry is,  at best, a  recon force.  Rail lines are extremely likely and will be very important, but large fleets of steam-tanks?  I'm not seeing it.

[Carthaginian]

Artillery isn't currently listed as an option.

Could have sworn it was.
Link me to what you see. I'll look tonight.
It will be as follows in the final draft:

LAND UNITS
Infantry
Armor
Artillery

AIR UNITS
Scout
Fighter
Bomber

The relationship is simple: if your primary fuel is coal (and it is), barring steam-powered "land battleships" a la Jules Verne, armies are going to be infantry or cavalry, and with the technology already postulated, cavalry is,  at best, a  recon force.  Rail lines are extremely likely and will be very important, but large fleets of steam-tanks?  I'm not seeing it.

Uhm... no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracked_vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank
Internal combustion crawler tractors with guns mounted on them (a.k.a. 'tanks') existed by 1915.

So, while tanks won't be available immediately upon start-up, the argument of 'steampunk landships'... well, I won't go there.

I understand that there will be various 'holdover' units like horse cavalry and skirmishers. HOWEVER, they are rapidly outmoded by more modern battlefield units. Not desiring to try to bend the system to suit things that won't be there very long in the first place, I have made an 'executive decision' to say that they generally won't matter.

So, I modeled the system to deal with what is coming up rather than what is being left behind.

[snip]

as the rules stand now (in my posted PDF) sub in Arty for Mechanized units. That should be about right for the cost.

[Guinness]

Alright, I've handed over the keys, caught up on the rules, etc. Where am I playing? :)

[snip]

start coming up with designs. Carth has the map so take a peek a let him know. nation ideas are sort of free form, have fun.

[Carthaginian]

Alright, I've handed over the keys, caught up on the rules, etc. Where am I playing? :)

Continent #1 and #2 on the map are open for settlement at the moment.
The rules for placing ports are included in the thread (which I am going to clean up as the week progresses).
So far, this is roughly where everyone is:
1.) Southeast Peninsula on Con't #1 - Nobody
2.) Mountainous region in West of Con't #1 - Carthaginian
3.) Southeastern area of Con't #2 (where two lakes are) - Snip
4.) Southwestern section of Con't #2, south of inland sea, west of single lake - KWorld

I'll post a map with exact positions of ports when everyone sends me their placements.
My 4th anniversary is this coming week, and as I have taken a lot of time off to spend with my wife, I'll have plenty of time to work on the map... :)

Your nation can follow any real pattern you want as long as you remember two things:
1.) the interiors of the continents are kind of 'here be dragons' territory- takes a lot of support to go inland, so you only really do it for resource gathering operations.
2.) the game is set up for expansion by sea, all but the biggest battles are collaborative storyline affairs, and the tech tree will change only as fast or slow as the players vote to let it to.

[KWorld]

A question on cruisers: when will it be appropriate to start "turretizing" light cruisers?  Historically, light cruisers were armed with open mount single guns up through the end of WWI, with the USN Omaha's being one of the first designs fitted with enclosed turrets (though they carried most of their guns in casemates).  There's no real technical reason it couldn't have been done earlier, though: ACs carried their main batteries in turrets, and some vessels carried guns not much larger than a CLs in secondary turrets (for example, the 164.7mm guns on the MN Suffren's).

[Jefgte]

Early French turrets were guns mounting on a rotating platform with 54mm armor around, not really a turret similar to a Dreadnought with face armor plate, barbette, armored roof...

Dupuy de Lome first with single guns in turret in 1890.
& 2 guns on Leon Gambetta class in 1901

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_cruisers

Jef

[KWorld]

Omaha didn't have REAL turrets, either, but the effect is basically similar: the crew is protected by armor from nearby hits.  Leon Gambetta was really an armored cruiser, not a light cruiser, which are what I'm talking about.