Status ?

[snip]

Another update.

--I see some of you are still working on getting startup stuff finalized. Please drop me a PM with your expected completion date and any help you need to get things done.
--We are starting to get some Diplomatic standings up here. Take a little bit and get a post up.
--During some discussion here, Kirk and I got to talking about armor layouts and realized we don't have a defined rule of what All-or-Nothing actually is. This has the potential to cause an issue, so he and I are working on hammering something out. The current working proposal only runs afoul of a small number of designs (one of which is mine) and the individuals in question would be contacted if the rule is formally adopted.

[snip]

Quick update for you guys. Darman has informed me that he does not currently have the time to be seriously involved. This means that the Sweeds are currently unmanned. If anyone has any thoughts as to someone who could fill that hole or other ideas please shoot me a PM.

[snip]

As stated before, We have never had a defined rule of what All-or-Nothing actually is. To clear that up, the following amendment to the Ship Design Guidelines document is proposed. The good news is that this only impacts three encyclopediae posted designs; one Norse, one Byzantine, and one Roman. I will be shooting the relevant players a PM after this is posted to see how best to get these designs compliant. If these changes are minor (eg small shifts in laydown date, change of mount type or a minor expansion in tonnage) my intent is to allow the necessary changes for free if the pre-start report is already finalized. This is because this is a late change. Let me know if you have any questions or feedback.

Armor Layouts: The following detail some specifics of the allowed armor layouts.
--All Capital Ships must possess a Main Belt and an Armored OR Protected Deck. They must use either a Traditional or All-or-Nothing layout.
--Traditional Armor Layouts for Capital Ships must have at least a 90mm Upper Belt. This belt must provide reasonable protection for the portion of the freeboard above the main armor belt. Traditional layouts must also possess End Belts, tho these have no minimum thickness requirements. End Belts must provide reasonable protection for the waterline.
--All-or-Nothing Armor Layouts for Capital Ships become available after researching the 1910 Capital Ship Architecture tech. Designs constructed to an All-or-Nothing standard have no minimum requirements regarding Upper or End Belts.
--Armor Layouts for Cruisers may have any combination of Belts and Protected OR Armored decks OR Boxes over Magazines, Engines, or both.
--Ships built to Destroyer Standards may have Belt or Deck armor intended for splinter protection.

[Walter]

Sorry that I come with this now, but since I am actually somewhat awake now (with having to go to work quite early in the morning) and looking around a bit since I need to alter one of my designs, I read this...

Traditional layouts must also possess End Belts... End Belts must provide reasonable protection for the waterline.

... I looked into my book on British Battleships and saw enough late 19th century designs without one to disagree with those two bits.

[snip]

Can you point me to a couple?

[Walter]

In order in the British Battleship book...

The first one I encounter in the book is funnily enough not British, but the 1873 Italian Caio Duilio class (there are 4 classes prior to that one, but they'd probably fall under the cruiser architecture as they do not use turrets or have the guns in twin mounts).


Inflexible (1874)


Ajax class (1876)


Italia class (Italy, 1876)


Colossus class (1879)


Admiral class (1880) No proper image on wiki with its armor layout... but it is just the small main belt rectangle bit between the turrets and below the dotted line of the foot of the funnels...


Victoria class (1885) same issue as the Admiral class, only main belt which is the part below the turret and going back to just behind the engines


Trafalgar class (1886)


Royal Sovereign class (1889)


Centurion class (1890)


Renown (1893) No image but similar armor layout to Centurion class

Majestic class (1893)


Formidable Canopus class (1898) No stern armor. Seems to be the last in the BB book until AoN. (*)



A few others on wiki while looking for Images of the above...

Ruggiero di Lauria class (Italy, 1881)


Re Umberto class (Italy, 1884)



Now, when looking at the proper armor scheme of Monmouth, I noticed that it did not have any stern armor either... what you see aft is I believe the protected deck (based on the '2"Deck (slopes)' bit and that only 'Belt (bow)' is mentioned)...



There may be more of them from other navies but that would take a lot more time and there is no guarantee that images are available of their armor schemes.

... so based on those, the "Traditional layouts must also possess End Belts" does not seem to be the case OTL for a significant period of time (~25 years) and the lack of end belts automatically means that " End Belts must provide reasonable protection for the waterline" is not the case either.



(*) BB book indicates that Canopus has no stern armor, but the Brasseys image shows that it does... oddly enough the BB book shows that Formidable should have stern armor and the Brasseys image does not... wiki's Formidable page says "The Formidables' armour scheme was similar to that of the Canopuses, although, unlike in the Canopuses, the armour belt ran all the way to the stern" which means that the Brasseys images are switched around and it should be the image of the Canopus class and not the Formidable class.

[snip]

Taking a look at those drawings, one thing I notice is that almost all of them (sans the Casemate ships, which sort of fall outside of our period) all have some sort of armor that covers the full length of the hull. Would making the following bolded alteration adequately cover this?

--Traditional Armor Layouts for Capital Ships must have at least a 90mm Upper Belt. This belt must provide reasonable protection for the portion of the freeboard above the main armor belt. Traditional layouts must also possess some form of armor protection along the entire length of the ship. This can be in the form of End Belts and/or For/Aft armor decks. This armor must provide reasonable protection for the ends of the ship.

[Walter]

sans the Casemate ships, which sort of fall outside of our period

True, but if they did fall into our period, they would fall under the capital ship infrastructure tech.

one thing I notice is that almost all of them ... all have some sort of armor that covers the full length of the hull.

I could be wrong, but I think they all have deck armor 'covering' the ends.

Would making the following bolded alteration adequately cover this?

I think it does.

[snip]

Ok, so unless there is any further requests within 48H of this post, I will make that modification to the text in the rules thread.

[Kaiser Kirk]

What's going on with the Ciao Duilo style ships is that they were really "protected" battleships.
They had an armored deck - I think twinned, with many compartments backing. As I recall there was both cork and bunker coal backing it.

That style of armor- and the couple very large guns - went out of fashion when Quick Firing guns came on the scene.
All of a sudden, a casement or protective deck only ship had a substantial liability in that most of the vessel could be ventilated and be mission killed.
The helpless ship could then be closed on and sunk at close range with the larger guns - like the single 9.2" you saw on British ACRs.

However, quick firing guns were also about the same time period as steel armors- which rapidly improved.
This allowed much thinner armors to be effective, freeing up weight to extend the armor over more of the vessel to save it from
the quick firing. Thus the End and Upper belts common during the period we start in.

With the extension of range that fire control brought, there was a shift away from the effective range of many of the QF weapons - not to mention the confusion a plethora of splashes would cause - and so the practicality of All or Nothing Armor if what one expected was very long range combat.

[snip]

So it been a little while, and some stuff has been happening. Right now, I'm still trying to figure out what to do with Green. Right now, I'm leaning on a little more significant plan than I originally put forward. Right now, there is a couple issue with the map that creates some less than dynamic gameplay. What I'm toying with is a redraw to eliminate these bottlenecks to allow for a more dynamic diplomatic and military scenario. IF these changes take place, it will result in one player needing to move, and some revamp of some national maps and/or reports. I've already reached out to the affected parties of those potential changes but wanted up update the group as a whole on what the holdup is. Ultimately I wanted to get things rolling faster, but I think taking the time to get this right will help ensure longevity.

[Walter]

Haven't heard anything so I guess the North is safe. :)

One other thing I was thinking of was what the relations of our nations would be with the various non-player nations you listed. I would like to know if it is allowed from the start to have established trade routes between the Northern Kingdom and various non-player nations.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Haven't heard anything so I guess the North is safe. :)

One other thing I was thinking of was what the relations of our nations would be with the various non-player nations you listed. I would like to know if it is allowed from the start to have established trade routes between the Northern Kingdom and various non-player nations.

Good point.
I've been assuming it is.
Historically the Arabs and Persia and Rome traded down the Swahili coast and the Indian coasts. Rome even had a trade port in SE Asia which they think they've found, while a island near the Tanzania/Mozambique border is thought to be the furthest south spot on the African Coast.
If you examine my OOB, I specify ships assigned to rotate on a Swahili coast and a Javan station, meant to indicate a long and powerful Parthian presence in those areas to protect mercantile interests. I'd have claimed ports and put in drydocks...but that would be frowned on at this stage of things :)

[The Rock Doctor]

Out of curiosity, what was Darman playing, and what work had he done with it?

[snip]

Darman was slated to play the Dark Green nation on the map. Sweeden+Germany+Poland-Lithuania etc. Nothing that is stuck is done.