Gun Research lower limit

[Kaiser Kirk]

The question came up about if such things as heavy machine guns needed to be researched separately.

I considered the matter.

Fact : The Army fields far more weapons than the Navy

Fact : Army carriage mounted weapons are designed to limit weight and recoil, frequently having lower performance than naval weapons. Naval vessels typically did not use the army weapons of the same bore size.

Fact : Machine guns, carried by individuals or dedicated squads, existed in army service up to ~15mm.  Those seem to have been simply transferred to naval service with little to no modifications and placed on an extremely simple pintle mount.

Fact : The tech is 'naval artillery', and the guidance is 'Naval Gun Research'

Logic :  Weapons which would be reasonably developed under normal Army& Artillery progression do not need to be replicated for Naval use.

To provide simple guidance : 15mm and less and machine guns can be presumed developed by the army, and available on single pintle mounts.

The floor is now open for players to point out serious flaws or game mechanic errors with this.

[snip]

I see nothing wrong with this approach.

[maddox]

It also works the other way around for big artillery.

The Paris gun was a naval 15" gun, but sleeved and a barrel extention, and a bigger chamber.

Most railway guns were repurposed naval guns.

[TacCovert4]

I'd almost consider a twin pintle mount for anything  15mm MGs and under to be so simple that it's overkill to do a development process.  A twin pintle mount is little more than a bar of steel on the pintle with two fixed brackets like you'd find on a Tripod, and a trigger bar extension to allow for a single trigger to be used for both guns.  A ship's own machinists could probably whip one up in a couple of days.

Now, Quad or larger number mounts, even of lighter guns like 7mm and 12mm, those would likely need at least handwheels if not power assisted or full power mounts to be functional. That level of complexity would fit more within the lines of what a mount development program would be done for.  Like if you wanted a Quad .50cal setup....or a 8 gun .30 cal MG bit of insanity.

[snip]

I would not be opposed to allowing twin mounts under the same provision. I agree that triple and up should still have development.

[maddox]

I agree with TacCovert4.  Twins are easy, just a "tad" more unwieldy in manportable versions.  (A twin .22 is a lot easier than a single .50 BMG)

Triples and quads are another matter and need development. In the form of  advanced AA or something simular. 
Maybe merging that with advanced armored vehicles?

[TacCovert4]

I agree with TacCovert4.  Twins are easy, just a "tad" more unwieldy in manportable versions.  (A twin .22 is a lot easier than a single .50 BMG)

Triples and quads are another matter and need development. In the form of  advanced AA or something simular. 
Maybe merging that with advanced armored vehicles?

I wouldn't do that.  Sure, on Land advanced armored vehicles would probably include something like a halftrack with a quad .50 cal on it.  But Navies were using quad and even octuple mounts before they were common on ground vehicles. 

If you want a quad mount, pay for the development of it.  Then you're getting a Quad powered mount.  Heck, do a 2cm octuple mount and hoist and make it powered.  That would be an odd duck on a cruiser.....

[TacCovert4]

One more thing I thought of when looking into this.

Gun mount research under 21cm is 1HY per barrel of the mount at .1 per barrel of the mount.  This would mean that a quad 2cm mount under the rules would take 2 full years to research at a total of .40.

I might suggest the following options:

A)  Guns 5cm and smaller take 1HY per 2 barrels, at .1 per barrel.  Cost is the same, time is halved since we're looking at much smaller guns and mounts.  I think that this could remain a constant from a 1914 2cm twin mount on up to if someone wanted to do a 5cm quadruple powered mount and hoist.

B)  Guns 5cm and smaller that are AA or MG categories take a straight Year at .1 per barrel to develop a new mounting.  This might make bookkeeping easier, as any light or medium AA or MG mount would take a uniform amount of time with only the cost difference based on number of guns you're putting into the mount which would cover complexity. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I agree with TacCovert's point, I think we can hand wave in twinmount MGs without destabilizing the game.

As for Maddox's suggestion, it has some merit.
However, I'd like to have that discussion later.

I've mentioned before I hope to have a number of turns happen, have things be going smoothly, 
and then reopen for a round II of rule adjustments. We will keep the KISS principle, but at that point we can work to improve things we identify as problems. 
Part of this also is that I'm just now getting to where I am *trying* to work on Parthia's tales and diplomacy,  I don't want to start reinventing the game again.

Obviously we've had some things like the Turrets/No Turrets on the Cruiser rules that demanded answers now...and that's now resolved.
This more of a clarification issue - is an Machine gun 'naval artillery' or not? ...Not.
but since it effects everyone, I figured it should be posted publically.