Architecture

[Desertfox]

People using the rules to design ships that skirt the edges of those rules, to gain a fictional advantage on the other to "Win" the game.

I mean that's what nations and designers did in OTL isn't it? There should be some amount of that present if we are doing this realistically. I'm more worried about hindsight, "we know this worked so lets do this". If anything, I believe the more interesting ships come about when people do try to skirt the edge of the rules, see pocket battleships.

I am not clear on what problem we're trying to fix at this point.

The intent of the rules was no turrets on cruiser architecture until 1920, the way the rules where actually written, turrets where allowed with no limits. So theoretically you can build a Cleveland using the 1900 Cruiser tech. The goal is a compromise, allow turrets but only to a certain limit.

[Jefgte]

Rules are clear. It's not necessary to update them... but...
Perhaps add :
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
and / or
  Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Necessary for long range cruise crew.

I often took back my SS because with the armament and the speed chosen, the hull was not good.
=> increase in dimensions, freeboard => heavier vessel

[Kaiser Kirk]

I am not clear on what problem we're trying to fix at this point.

A) The way the rule does read vs. the way the rule was intended do not match.
B) The way the rule IS, does allow 4T3 cruisers - now, which the Tech was meant to exclude.

I did do a very quick and simple SS, managed to squeeze 4T3 150mm on a Von Der Taan layout - 153m x 17m x 5m, 0.5BC, default freeboard, 100mm belt/turrets, 30mm deck, 29kts 1.01 comp hull, but at 5991t, she can have 0.9 comp hull - so FC, torps and a bit more armor. 

That is far different than anything found in this period.

If people want to build HMS Captain or HMS Furious, please do.

Actually both of those would fall under Capital ship :)

I don't like the "4 main gun" limit, it prevents the Furutakas and a turreted version of the Hawkins, but I wouldn't just increase it to 6. How about the following? Still prevents the treaty cruisers, but allows Furutaka/Hawkins type cruisers.

A) To me, under the current tech, there is no restriction on superimposed mounts or turrets.  My presumption has long been if you've figured it out on capital ships, you can do it on a cruiser.
So...you want to add further restriction?

B) The Hawkins with powered assist is a 1910 cruiser. The Furutakas were laid down in December 1922, which basically means they are 1923 ships.

C) The turret restriction goes away with the 1920 cruiser tech, which can be researched in 4 quarters and so Furutaka available 1923. One could also pay extra and start 1920 early.

D) One alternative I had for a bit was to allow 6 guns in single/twin turrets for the 1910 tech, but I realized that would lead to early York/Leander/Furutaka.

Rules are clear. It's not necessary to update them... but...
Perhaps add :
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
and / or
  Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

A) It may be the player base does not want a revision in this rule, and is happy with the possibility of 4T3 0.9hull cruisers in the 1910s.
That was not the original intent, BUT that is why I wanted a discussion.

B) I think many current cruisers in N7 may not meet those standards. Especially if meant as short range scout cruisers, or to operate in the Mediterranean, Baltic, Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Black Sea, etc.

[Desertfox]

A) To me, under the current tech, there is no restriction on superimposed mounts or turrets.  My presumption has long been if you've figured it out on capital ships, you can do it on a cruiser.
So...you want to add further restriction?

I'd rather not add restrictions but since we are discussing them, I'm proposing a slightly less restrictive alternative.

While the Furutakas are basically a 1923 design, I would consider them (with single turrets) as the ultimate evolution of the 1910 Cruiser Tech, since they were designed as counters to the Hawkins and Columbia class cruisers, while the Aobas with their twin turrets would be the prototype of the 1920 "Treaty Cruiser". A Furutaka is still barely equivalent to the new Parthian cruisers (10x6.5" and 8x7.7") and if restricted to only 4 main guns would be badly outgunned.

Since the goal is to prevent a Cleveland, why not simply disallow triple turrets until 1920, and limit twin turrets to two, while placing no restrictions on singles? Something like this:

Proposed Rule alteration :
Cruiser Architecture: Allows ships to be built with lighter hull members, and with less armor,  twin turrets limited to no more than 4 main guns until 1920 tech.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I could see an approach like that working.
One of the alternate languages I considered had something more like what you're suggesting.

I've got some other stuff to do right now, but I will come back to this either tonight or tomorrow morning
and see if I can come up with appropriate wording.

Other comments still welcomed.


...but yes, Parthian PCs have long been heavily armed and large (for N7), long ranged ships. Intended for a Olympia or Dupuy de Lome.

[The Rock Doctor]

If there is concern about cruiser capabilities being excessive, a first step is to eliminate the option to have hull strength below 1.00.

Limiting a cruiser to a certain number of turrets of any kind makes no technical sense.  A ship that can mount two turrets can be designed for three or four instead.  A ship which can mount singles can mount twins or triples if the hull can accommodate it. 

I am firmly of the view that the rules should be as limited as possible and only constrain what is possible from an engineering perspective.  The rules should not be in place to eliminate hindsight or force us away from certain design decisions. 

If somebody wants to build a Cleveland in 1920, I think that's their prerogative.  We know that, historically, they were amongst the best treaty light cruisers built.  Is it a leap of logic to spring from a C- class cruiser to a Cleveland?  Sure.  Would governments see internal resistance to funding such a leap?  Likely.  Will they be feasible or sensible choices in an environment that does not include a treaty which defines light cruisers or restrict capital ship construction?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Maybe they'll be the scourge of players who build Emerald- or Emden type light cruisers, but maybe they'll be dead meat for players who build improved Bluchers or Invincibles instead.

[Desertfox]

Eliminating the 0.9 hull strength option, essentially merges the cruiser and capital ship techs after 1910.

Wasn't what made the Clevelands such great cruisers was their great DP secondaries? Which they can't really mount here under our rules.

Just to throw more gasoline on the fire, I managed to stuff the following in under 6,000 tons, note its completely legal under 1910 tech even with the more restrictive rules:

Mogami, Japan Cruiser laid down 1913

Displacement:
   5,958 t light; 6,226 t standard; 6,916 t normal; 7,468 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (490.00 ft / 490.00 ft) x 52.00 ft x (19.00 / 20.14 ft)
   (149.35 m / 149.35 m) x 15.85 m  x (5.79 / 6.14 m)

Armament:
      12 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1913 Model
     6 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts
      4 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1913 Model
     4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 1,559 lbs / 707 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   4.00" / 102 mm   400.00 ft / 121.92 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 126 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   5.00" / 127 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      5.00" / 127 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 56,475 shp / 42,130 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 5,400nm at 14.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,242 tons

Complement:
   378 - 492

Cost:
   £0.713 million / $2.853 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 317 tons, 4.6 %
      - Guns: 317 tons, 4.6 %
   Armour: 1,197 tons, 17.3 %
      - Belts: 699 tons, 10.1 %
      - Armament: 93 tons, 1.3 %
      - Armour Deck: 404 tons, 5.8 %
   Machinery: 2,213 tons, 32.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,163 tons, 31.3 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 958 tons, 13.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 68 tons, 1.0 %
      - On freeboard deck: 16 tons
      - Above deck: 52 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     4,803 lbs / 2,179 Kg = 44.5 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 2.2 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 14.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.71
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.04

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.500 / 0.509
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.42 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.14 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
   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:   40.00 %,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Aft deck:   15.00 %,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Average freeboard:      17.48 ft / 5.33 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 122.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 145.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 16,977 Square feet or 1,577 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 83 lbs/sq ft or 404 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.86
      - Longitudinal: 1.44
      - Overall: 0.90
   Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[maddox]

Cool, a floating magazine.
25 tons of propellant for the main battery, and that all in steel chambers with 4" wall.

[The Rock Doctor]

Eliminating the 0.9 hull strength option, essentially merges the cruiser and capital ship techs after 1910.

I'm alright with that.

[Desertfox]

Alternative based on Rocky's suggestion:

Move the 0.9 Hull Strength cut-off down to 4,000t, but ships taking advantage of it are limited to single mounts and no belt armor. Basically merging the larger protected cruisers with capital ship tech, while allowing small gunboats and scout cruisers some advantage and providing a smoother transition to destroyer tech. I would also change the 1920 tech from >0.75 to >0.7 so you get the following transition:

Destroyers up to 2,000t >0.5
Cruisers under 3,000 >0.7
Cruisers under 4,000 >0.9

[maddox]

Harbor queens to be. Smooth weather flowers.

1.0 is the sweet spot for ships with more range than a canoo.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Fox : since I managed four triple 6" turrets, I'm not surprised at six twin 6" mount& h. M&H is usually lighter.
Heck, I managed 10 165mm on my 1906 ship, this is only 2 more smaller guns 7 years later.

What is not accounted for is that even lightly armored twin 6" on Omaha* got complaints about training rate and cramped reloading.
There's a point where the rotating weight gets to high and one starts seeing historical complaints, or the follow up class with the same weapons they go with turrets.

*glancing at it, Wiki calls those mounts 'turrets', but Wiki does that alot. They appear to have been twin M&H

Rocky/Fox :
Changing comp hull : I would not like to change something already in use. There are existing cruisers in the 4001-6000 range using the 0.9 comp hull.

If there is concern about cruiser capabilities being excessive, a first step is to eliminate the option to have hull strength below 1.00.

Limiting a cruiser to a certain number of turrets of any kind makes no technical sense.  A ship that can mount two turrets can be designed for three or four instead.  A ship which can mount singles can mount twins or triples if the hull can accommodate it. 

I am firmly of the view that the rules should be as limited as possible and only constrain what is possible from an engineering perspective.  The rules should not be in place to eliminate hindsight or force us away from certain design decisions. 

There is a great deal of merit to that.

Alternative
What if, we take the 'eliminate hull comp reduction' and apply it only to cruisers with turrets.
You can build a M&H cruiser and take the comp hull deduction

For 1920, with welding, we expand the 0.9 category to 8000. Makes the CS Omaha easier to manage.

Or you can build a Turreted cruiser and not have a comp hull deduction. - Grandfathering any existing exceptions.

Rational - a turret is a big heavy weight in a point location.  The point is to feed large guns and manage a large rotation weight and firing shock. A turret is an additional structural burden for the ship. Further, the ships "scantlings"/Ribs need to scale to the force of the turret salvoing. Both of those are real considerations in ship construction.
Those would be be engineering rationals for why a turreted cruiser can not use the comp hull deduction.

[Desertfox]

And... I think we ended up right were we started. So basically putting turrets back into capital ship architecture and grandfathering existing ships?

[maddox]

A lot of the historical ships that seem to have turrets make do with weather closed mountings and a hole trough the deck for the hoist.

Nothing more than a well placed race/crown on the deck to allow a gun and platform to turn smoothly and keep the guns were they should be.

Funny fact, the 18" gun on the HMS Wolfe was placed in a (fixed) mount, and the hoist was away from the gun, making the resupply of the gun with a cart on a track on deck.

[snip]

As the one who started this discussion (Sorry Kirk), I think we have chased the tail of it around enough to sooth out that there is not really a good solution to modifying what we have. In any case, there are going to be differences in what ends up being the "ideal" for ships of various classes as I doubt that we will ever copy the WNT to the T. What that ideal is needs space and time to be grown towards and any attempt to reshape the rules at this point would only serve to interrupt that process. Our navies are evolving from European-based forces to inter-oceanic or global ones and that evolution is going to be part of the fun.

At this point I would like to ask Kirk to give us a slightly more formal rubric to how he would judge designs under the rules as they stand, so we don't have to have such a detailed discussion for edge cases every time they pop up.