Clarifications

[Kaiser Kirk]

Naval Guns. ugh.

So,
I run into the problem that I've never gotten how to turn the Muzzle Energy allowed into a Bore/Caliber/Shellweight/MV combination,

If I have shell weight & MV on a weapon, I can use Big Gun to get a rough idea of what penetration that had at the expected combat ranges (here : 2000-8000 yards). With that knowledge I can design vessels to be internally consistent. It really doesn't matter if Big Gun is high or low, the folks in 1900 wouldn't know any better.

But with the Naval Gun Research saying that an 1895 10" gun has 1700 million lb.ft^2/s^2.... which means.... what?  How does that convert to muzzle velocity in terms of shell weight.
How does one figure out MV and shell weight on sub 8" guns ?

Also,
I've long wanted to do a +7.5, +15, +30, +45 progression - was working there with Bavaria, had started the WW Dutch down the road. That yields a 7.5, 15, 23, 30, 37, 45, 52, 60, 75,  90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 255, 300, 345, 390, 435 progression. , so if I was simming a 13.5/30, the historic 343/30 becomes a 345/30 to keep it all neat.

Looking at the Italians, many Italian Guns were actually Armstrong guns from their factory in Pozzuoli, built in the 1800s. The result is the Italians had 17"/27 and 13.5"/30 in the late 1800s. Which runs into the problem of the Naval Guns allowed....those aren't allowed yet. So if simming Italians, could I just do a 435/27 and 345/30 instead of the 432/27 and 343/30?

[snip]

Im assuming this is for pre-start ships in the 1890-1899 era. If not, the following may change.

I have no issue with altering the 343mm to a 345mm. The L30 as proposed fits into the rules (and you could even make a ahistorical L35 under the rules as well) so it does not mater that it would not be an exact copy of the historic gun. The 435/432mm Im a little more hesitant on. While I know the gun is a *ahem* poor performer and a change of 2mm is very tiny, I would rather keep hard and fast to the (at this point informal) rule that all guns that do not fit under the gun table need to be exact copies of the historic piece. Modifying the historic guns could theoreticly (and I don't see you proposing this, speaking in general) lead to guns outside what our gun techs allow being tweaked to make them superior to the guns made inside the table. For the sake of constancy, I would like all non-table compliant weapons to be exact clones down to all Springsharp-definable features with other applicable stats that are not covered within Springsharp untouched.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Okey dokey. That's the reason for asking. 432/27 ok, 435/27 not ok.

But the other part ?  How to turn ME from the formula into something useful in terms of shell wt & MV ?
It strikes me as something I did get eventually in N3, but darned if I remember it now.

[Kaiser Kirk]

another question, also involving the pesky Italians...
on the big ships, they really took their time. So on something like the St. Bon Class it's laid down in 1893 - so 1895 engines....but they didn't bother launching it - i.e. finishing the armor deck and sealing it all up, until 1897.... so could that be 1900 engines?

On the other hand, if N6 doesn't slavishly duplicate the pre1900 vessels, I guess the laydown date could just be moved to 1897?

[Walter]

Those darned Italians again! ;D

For 1900 engines, you need to lay down the ship in 1898 or 1899. Ships between 1890 and 1897 would be using 1890 engines.

[snip]

But the other part ?  How to turn ME from the formula into something useful in terms of shell wt & MV ?

IIRC Logi has something along those lines. *summons*

another question, also involving the pesky Italians...
on the big ships, they really took their time. So on something like the St. Bon Class it's laid down in 1893 - so 1895 engines....but they didn't bother launching it - i.e. finishing the armor deck and sealing it all up, until 1897.... so could that be 1900 engines?

Laydown date determines everything, unless the ship(s) in question is specifically modified prior to completion in accordance with the refit rules.

On the other hand, if N6 doesn't slavishly duplicate the pre1900 vessels, I guess the laydown date could just be moved to 1897?

We are not forcing people to stick to exactly what was made during the historical 1890-1899 period, tho it seems most have been finding it helpful to take similar paths.

[Jefgte]

Are La Réunion,  Tahiti & New Caledonia part of French colony ?

Is Polynesia French ?

http://www.polynesie-francaise.eu.com/fond-d-ecran-miss-tahiti_35.htm

:)  :)  :)

Jef  ;)

[Logi]

Naval Guns. ugh.

So,
I run into the problem that I've never gotten how to turn the Muzzle Energy allowed into a Bore/Caliber/Shellweight/MV combination,

If I have shell weight & MV on a weapon, I can use Big Gun to get a rough idea of what penetration that had at the expected combat ranges (here : 2000-8000 yards). With that knowledge I can design vessels to be internally consistent. It really doesn't matter if Big Gun is high or low, the folks in 1900 wouldn't know any better.

But with the Naval Gun Research saying that an 1895 10" gun has 1700 million lb.ft^2/s^2.... which means.... what?  How does that convert to muzzle velocity in terms of shell weight.
How does one figure out MV and shell weight on sub 8" guns ?

I've derived several non-official formulas for that in the past, here is the most recent and accurate one:


This was the error margin:


IIRC, my old Steam and Sails Ballistic program used P3D's ME formula word for word to make it's calculations.
There the formula was:
MV = SQRT( ME * 2,000,000 / shell weight)

[Logi]

Are La Réunion,  Tahiti & New Caledonia part of French colony ?

Is Polynesia French ?

http://www.polynesie-francaise.eu.com/fond-d-ecran-miss-tahiti_35.htm

:)  :)  :)

Jef  ;)

If you want it to be. IIRC, French Polynesia was not "officially" a colony til past 1885, so it's up to you, as the French player, if you want to take it to that route. If you want it, I'll modify the map accordingly.

[Kaiser Kirk]

IIRC, my old Steam and Sails Ballistic program used P3D's ME formula word for word to make it's calculations.
There the formula was:
MV = SQRT( ME * 2,000,000 / shell weight)

Hmm, that one seems familiar.
Thanks Logi.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Each nation starts with any technology with a 1890 or earlier date. Technologies for the 1891-1899 period become available 3 years after the date which they would be researched normally (assuming no successful roll, so 1895 engine tech on a 1898 ship for example) at a price of $6 (flat cost of development if completed) OR the maximum amount that would be invested by the first turn in 1900. Any tech dated 1900 or later must start research after game start.

I could swear that this is no longer what we're doing.
My impression is that anything pre 1900 is ours, but I ran across the above quote instead.

[snip]

Each nation starts with any technology with a 1890 or earlier date. Technologies for the 1891-1899 period become available 3 years after the date which they would be researched normally (assuming no successful roll, so 1895 engine tech on a 1898 ship for example) at a price of $6 (flat cost of development if completed) OR the maximum amount that would be invested by the first turn in 1900. Any tech dated 1900 or later must start research after game start.

I could swear that this is no longer what we're doing.
My impression is that anything pre 1900 is ours, but I ran across the above quote instead.

Ignore the parts about cost. At start, anything pre-1900 is ours. During the starup period, you gain access to the tech 3 years after its listed date (so 1895 Engine becomes available for ships laid down in 1898). Mostly this effects ships, so dont really worry about it for land units. Seeing as they are all declared, we will note if we have any concerns about them being odd.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Ok, that fits more with what I thought was occurring, I just was finding the old info and not the new. Thanks

[Kaiser Kirk]

Yet more pesky questions !

A) I don't see it in the rules on Naval Construction...nor does it talk about it under using build points.
I presume the building rate is now 6,000tons/half year as opposed to 3,000 tons / quarter ?

B) In the Design guidelines, there is no Miscellaneous weight suggested for torpedo nets. I'm going to allocated  2/3t below water per Meter of hull.
Why?
because in the dim recesses of my mind, I think around a quarter century or so ago I saw a weight spec for the QEs of about 120t, and they were ~180m, so it's a WAG.

Any better #s?

[snip]

A) I don't see it in the rules on Naval Construction...nor does it talk about it under using build points.
I presume the building rate is now 6,000tons/half year as opposed to 3,000 tons / quarter ?

I don't think we ever had a max BP-per-ship for a turn. I know we have some caps on $ amounts for a few items. Seeing as two currencies exist here, I dont think we really need a cap since the built times provide a solid floor for how long a ship takes to complete.

B) In the Design guidelines, there is no Miscellaneous weight suggested for torpedo nets. I'm going to allocated  2/3t below water per Meter of hull.
Why?
because in the dim recesses of my mind, I think around a quarter century or so ago I saw a weight spec for the QEs of about 120t, and they were ~180m, so it's a WAG.

Can we call it a even ton just to make the bookkeeping simple?