N4.5 Rules Question/Comment thread

[snip]

Without talking to carth, my opinion is this: Pre-start, no turreted main batteries below ~155mm. After the games start, I think waiting until about 1920 would be nice, but my opinion on this is fluid (aka make your case as to allowing them earlier if you want)

[Jefgte]

Have a look there on the C022 plan, Chanzy 140mm turret installed on pivot - "Canet turret"

http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/02fonds-collections/banquedocuments/planbato/planbato/Plans/planbato.php?id=100

----------
Ok I agree, no turret on light cruisers.
We could just use Deck Mounts closed for all guns installation vs Flying Predators - Perso, I use 0"4 armor.

Jef

[KWorld]

This is, IMO, another case where we're running into the "hindsight" issue: IF the nations of the world know the lessons of Tsushima and Jutland and so on, there's no reason they wouldn't head towards turreted CLs as soon as they could.  Technically, there's no real bar there, it's really an issue of weight and making the design decision to go that way.  There could be rate of fire issues, if the hoists aren't up to the task of bringing up ammunition as fast as the crew can fire it, but that happened with the open mounts as well (see the comments on NavWeaps for the British 6"/50 (15.2 cm) BL Mark XI and XI*).

[Jefgte]

When Men came on this new planet, 2000y ago they have some scientific documents...
Now, with the resourses exploited, their territories clean from predators & the population, they could use these documents to built a Fleet.
They carry 1895-1909 warships plans.
So, Warships plans of this period are exemple for us.
We have just plans but no Tsushima & Jutland references.
That's why rules are somewhere "late" in the technologies & building conception.

Jef

[Carthaginian]

http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=1677

And another argument in Jef's favor... sort of.
The Fylgia is a very small armored cruiser, and mounts her 6" guns in turrets. They are true turrets; they are revolving gunhouses located atop armored barbettes.
Laydown date: 1902
Problem: She's the only one of her kind.
Solution: We simply ignore the fluke and look at the big picture.

The schematic that Jef posted was basically a fully enclosed deck mount & hoist type mount. This is similar to the 8" twins on the U.S.S. Olympia, U.S.S. Brooklyn and U.S.S. New York as well, which were basically guns mounted on a pivoting turntable with a small shell hoist leading to the magazine.

For the moment, the latter setup will be considered legal for light cruisers prior to startup while the former will not. One of the first cruisers intended to be built with 'true turrets' (that I can think of) was the Emden of 1921... though restriction on German shipbuilding forced her to be armed with single mounts. So by around 3920, we can start looking at allowing these kinds of things.

[Carthaginian]

Changing my mind form my former posts:

Seeing some designs makes me lean towards limiting these kinds of ships till much later.

Something about every ship in the world turning into an A-Q-Y layout ship with twin turrets disgusts me on a very fundamental level. While I prefer to allow everyone the maximum flexibility to design what they want, I refuse to have every ship in every fleet look exactly alike... and to have every ship from the smallest cruiser to the biggest battleship have the same identical A-Q-Y layout.

This isn't anything against you, but it is saying that A-Q-Y is starting to become a problem for creative shipbuilding.

[KWorld]

IMO, the convergence on AQY designs is a consequence of A) allowing the AQY layout, and B) stating that ships with a heavy secondary battery will be penalized because of ranging issues.  What's a designer to do?  B says "don't do this, or you'll pay a price".  A says "You can get more main guns on this layout and avoid the penalty exacted by B as well."  So..... AQY becomes very popular, as it should be.

If you build a battleship with a AY layout and lots of small secondaries, those secondaries are of little value against capital ships, which is what battleships are designed to fight.  These battleships can be smaller for a given speed & range than AQY battleships, which is nice, but if multiple battleships are firing at the same targets they'll have similar ranging issues as they would if they have large secondaries, so the benefit is limited.

[Carthaginian]

These battleships can be smaller for a given speed & range than AQY battleships, which is nice, but if multiple battleships are firing at the same targets they'll have similar ranging issues as they would if they have large secondaries, so the benefit is limited.

This will not be an issue in the game system.
ALSO, we can say that our colonists are aware of the use of dye markers in spotting, and that some of the problems are solved... if this will encourage some greater differentiation. ;)

[KWorld]

These battleships can be smaller for a given speed & range than AQY battleships, which is nice, but if multiple battleships are firing at the same targets they'll have similar ranging issues as they would if they have large secondaries, so the benefit is limited.

This will not be an issue in the game system.
ALSO, we can say that our colonists are aware of the use of dye markers in spotting, and that some of the problems are solved... if this will encourage some greater differentiation. ;)

If you want more varied designs, I'd really recommend dropping the idea of penalizing heavy secondaries: yes, there could be confusion, but the designers and officers of the day clearly didn't think it was unmanageable (else vessels like IJN Tsukuba, HMS Lord Nelson, MN Danton, and USS Connecticutt would never have been built). 

Also, I'd be careful with the idea of not penalizing multiple firers on a single target, this will encourage a fleet to fire on 1 ship at a time.

[Carthaginian]

These battleships can be smaller for a given speed & range than AQY battleships, which is nice, but if multiple battleships are firing at the same targets they'll have similar ranging issues as they would if they have large secondaries, so the benefit is limited.

This will not be an issue in the game system.
ALSO, we can say that our colonists are aware of the use of dye markers in spotting, and that some of the problems are solved... if this will encourage some greater differentiation. ;)

If you want more varied designs, I'd really recommend dropping the idea of penalizing heavy secondaries: yes, there could be confusion, but the designers and officers of the day clearly didn't think it was unmanageable (else vessels like IJN Tsukuba, HMS Lord Nelson, MN Danton, and USS Connecticutt would never have been built). 

Also, I'd be careful with the idea of not penalizing multiple firers on a single target, this will encourage a fleet to fire on 1 ship at a time.

The penalties will not be so severe as you think...

The problem is that any time someone here hears 'penalties' they run screaming like little girls just bit by a spider. Everyone wants to build the perfect ship with the perfect guns and the perfect speed.
No one wants to build designs that look good in theory but might risk a few problems in practice.

Basically designing a fleet based totally on A-Q-Y is the ultimate in hindsight. You have to be willing to build a ship with some problems even though you know that the problems are there... even if those problems might cause you some problems in combat. The British knew there would be some difficulty in telling large secondaries from 12" guns- anyone with artillery experience would know that- but they assessed the risks as being acceptable with regards to the rewards.

I am choosing this route for my fleet.

[Jefgte]

AXY (X superfiring)turrets disposition was use on Battleship Henry IV

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

ABY is a possible disposition too
orAY

Superfiring nount on another like USS Kearsage too, if you have the BB5 plan in your scientific documents...

Jef

[KWorld]

Those examples aren't really AXY or ABXY, though, since the superfiring guns aren't the same size as the main battery.  Henri IV had a 138.6mm superfiring over a 274mm, and Kearsarge had 8" guns superfiring over 13".

[Carthaginian]

Those examples aren't really AXY or ABXY, though, since the superfiring guns aren't the same size as the main battery.  Henri IV had a 138.6mm superfiring over a 274mm, and Kearsarge had 8" guns superfiring over 13".

These would, though, be allowed at startup. ;)

PS I didn't actually modify your post- I accidentally clicked the wrong button.

[Desertfox]

I think the main problem is that the treaty allows BBs up to 20k but only 12" guns, hence any big BB armed with only 4x12" guns will be undergunned. Perhaps relaxing the limit on gun size and/or limiting AQY to 11"?  Or allowing any turret arrangement provided 1) only 6 guns can fire broadside or ahead/astern and 2) no super-firing guns. So if someone wants 6 single turrets they can do so or something equally crazy. Heck, Satsuma is probably legal and would eat any AQY ship for lunch.

[Darman]

I think the main problem is that the treaty allows BBs up to 20k but only 12" guns, hence any big BB armed with only 4x12" guns will be undergunned. Perhaps relaxing the limit on gun size?

*whispers* psst... you can put more than 4 heavy guns on a ship.... just dont use turrets....