Carrier Hull strength discussion

[The Rock Doctor]

Might as well have the discussion about hull strength here.

My notion for the Labedz CV was:

-Other than the airgroup, the ship fully qualifies as a cruiser (which she's derived from).

-The rule set didn't explicitly state minimum hull strengths for carriers.

-The airgroup of 6 meant the ship didn't count as a carrier for some purposes.

If it's preferred that we just specify a minimum 1.0 for carriers, that's fine.  If there is leeway for carriers having reduced hull strength equal to cruisers under some circumstances, that's also great.  Obviously one can do a bit with the 0.90 hull strength.  I'm not sure one can do a great deal to abuse the 0.75 HS for cruisers under 3,000 t, but we're creative.

[The Rock Doctor]

None of which is meant to come off as combative, please note.  It is easy enough to rip out some boilers on Labedz and my next design is HS 1.0 anyway.

[Kaiser Kirk]

None of which is meant to come off as combative, please note.  It is easy enough to rip out some boilers on Labedz and my next design is HS 1.0 anyway.

It would be fine to sound combative :) 
Folks are invested here, and need to be able to speak out at times.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Might as well have the discussion about hull strength here.

My notion for the Labedz CV was:

-Other than the airgroup, the ship fully qualifies as a cruiser (which she's derived from).

-The rule set didn't explicitly state minimum hull strengths for carriers.

-The airgroup of 6 meant the ship didn't count as a carrier for some purposes.

If it's preferred that we just specify a minimum 1.0 for carriers, that's fine.  If there is leeway for carriers having reduced hull strength equal to cruisers under some circumstances, that's also great.  Obviously one can do a bit with the 0.90 hull strength.  I'm not sure one can do a great deal to abuse the 0.75 HS for cruisers under 3,000 t, but we're creative.

Issue A ) Let's start with the current standard :

Under ship design :

Hull Strength

Ships are expected to have a Composite Strength of 1.0 except for the following provisions.
--Ships built to the standards of the Cruiser Architecture technology may adhere to any limits stated in the tech held by the constructing nation.
--Ships built to the standards of the Destroyer Architecture technology must have at least a cross-sectional strength of 0.50 instead of a composite strength requirement

Ships not meeting this criterion are at risk of moderator-inflicted incidents. 

]

Basically, with the exception of cruisers and destroyers, hull strength is to be 1.0.
This is stated under ship design.

As per the last line, anyone can build, or I guess refit, a ship to have lower hull strength,
just there is the potential for problems.

Issue B) the carrier / non carrier dividing line

Looking at the Aviation ship rules,
I see the point of confusion.
Early it states

"Carrier : Has a flight deck. Deck at least extends from Stern to Foredeck -forward...
-If it has 6 or less armed aircraft on board:  It's a warship or possibly aux (2% rule) but not a carrier.
-If it has 6 or less unarmed aircraft on board: It may be a warship or aux, but is not a carrier.

Then down lower, under 'Non-Carrier' it specifies those 6 or less as floatplanes rather than just aircraft.

As I recall the discussion, the floatplane aspect was purposeful,
as there was a desire to preclude Aux ships as a fast tanker with a flight deck and say...with 6 torpedo planes

So that language is not as clear as it should be, and should be fixed. Good discussion point.

Issue C ) Flex

I think it may be worthwhile to ask the group if we want to stick to 1.0
or if we want to modify it to do 0.90
or if we just want the same hull str as your cruiser tech.

I agree that it would be hard to abuse the 0.75, 3000t CVs.
as flight deck size would limit the airgroup.

Downside : The various SIMs done when we created the carrier rules were
- at least for me - all done with 1.0 hull strength.  This includes the conversion penalty.
So all those weights and calculations may need to be adjusted.

Upside : Many real-life carriers were apparently built (scantling, hull form, damage control) more like cruisers

Downside : Done right, this would mean a good Sim of USS Yorktown at 1.0 would now be doable at 0.9,
but if the SIM was 'right' in the first place, no ship systems should change.

So 72 planes at 1.0 would stay 72 planes at 0.9.

Since  0,9 should be able to take more Misc Wt than a 1.0, then airgroup weights should be adjusted upwards
to compensate.

Upside : Cruiser conversions would work a little simpler.

My opinion :  I am inclined to stick to 1.0 for new-built carriers.

Other concept : We could declare the "Conversions" weight penalty of 1.5
to allow the prior-existing hull strength of that converted ship to remain sufficient.
That would make some sense.

[Jefgte]

If a cruiser is converted to carries seaplanes with a partial deck, 50% max of the length and 1 elevator, it can remain at 0.9.
He must keep half of his original armament & 10 seaplanes max.
Mogami, Tone, Furious with aft & front decks.

If a cruiser is converted to an aircraft carrier with full deck, 2 elevators, air groups it must upgrade to 1.00.
Independence, Ibuki.

A seaplane carrier (0.9) could be refurbished later to aircraft carrier (1.00).

[Kaiser Kirk]

Current status :
per the Ship Design statement, and the Aviation Ship non-carrier stipulation of floatplanes,
a carrier with wheeled planes will need 1.0

Future status :
The Aviation ship rules are just now being put to the test,
we're going to find bits that need adjusting.

I think there's room to talk and modify
but half the folks are checked out right now it seems.

[The Rock Doctor]

Yeah, unfortunate they're not around.

When I send Labedz in for her refurbishment in 1/25, I'll yank out 4,000 kw of machinery to bring her HS to 1.00.  Costs 0.8 knots, which isn't terrible, and doesn't add to the refurbishment costs.

[Desertfox]

Personally I would prefer:

If the carrier uses a cruiser hull, ie the nation has cruisers in service with the same exact* hull parameters, then it can be built to 0.9. Otherwise its 1.0. Rebuilds from cruiser hulls could use cruiser rules if the hull isn't modified.

*L:B:D and BC can not be different in any way.

[Desertfox]

An alternative idea is, how about both? Carriers built with armored boxes like the British ones, require 1.0, while open carriers like the American ones can use cruiser standards?

[TacCovert4]

Provided that carrier fits within the cruiser sizes, of course.  Which would basically make a .75 carrier impossible, and a .9 'light or escort' carrier possible but not generally preferred.

[The Rock Doctor]

Now I feel obliged to try a 3,000 t, 0.75 HS carrier.

[Desertfox]

If you let me I will absolutely stuff a carrier into 3,000t

[TacCovert4]

If you let me I will absolutely stuff a carrier into 3,000t

Carrier with 4 AA guns....and 4 aircraft maybe

[Desertfox]

I didn't say it would be a good aircraft carrier...

Although it would need a minimum of 7 aircraft to qualify

[Kaiser Kirk]

My opinion :
I think that once Snip can participate, we consider adding the 0.9 cruiser rule as a carrier option.
I don't think requiring armored carriers to be 1.0 is needed, if anything, the armor taking the place
of structural plating argues for 0.9 on those.

I think the 75% needs additional testing.
Identify small real carriers - finished or planned, and find out what the lower limit needed is.
Length, deck width, speed, these may have minimums for viability
For example, escort carriers were for many plane types restricted to catapult launch instead of flying off.


Ramblings :

From readings long long ago, I am of the impression that battlewagons were built with a larger % of their weight in 'scantlings' (aka frames) and duplicated systems. I recall observing that it seemed that the bore (in inches) of the main gun was akin to the % hull that went into ribs and stuff.
Part of that is to absorb firing shock, and part for damage absorption, but I bet a fair bit was to
absorb the stresses inherent in the larger hull.

I think it's the Leanders or Arthuesas that introduced better Homogenous armor drilled and fitted in place of hull and deck plating - so instead of 3-4" of armor on top of 1/2-3/4" plating, you just had the armor.

That, plus only duplicate systems is my  mental explanation for the 90% cruiser tech.
Granted, I don't know what the original author thought, it's just how I explain it.

There is no need for heavy scantlings, and most carrier armor is thinner and likely homogenous,
Further, you see things like Hermes described as Cruiser built

So I think the 90% rule, with the tonnage cap, makes logical sense, and makes lighter carriers more attractive.


The 75% rule, I'm not sure what to make of. I think it was intended to allow for the 'Super Destroyers'
and Condottori types of fast but flimsy small cruisers.

Rocky's sim with 8 planes, and I did one (unpublished) of 13, point to 75% & 3000 as being very limited.
One thing that is not well reflected in our rules is that navies found large carriers more 'efficient',
and I don't think anyone built 3000 ton carriers.

So I am inclined to think we need to evaluate the smaller carriers for what minimum parameters
there may be.
I know that in Friedmans cruisers on the Flight deck cruiser discussion he mentions a minimum flight
deck length...which probably was biplane light bombers.

Longer term :
I am overall thinking, with the Mayan war behind us, that
Feb/March may be a good time to ask what rules need further tinkering.

I rather view the ruleset as a contract we all agree to abide by when we sign up to play,
so unless something is obviously broken and requires mod fixing, rule tinkering should
be by a preponderance of players.

The same time period  might be when we can trial 'skirmishes',
but I doubt both are doable at the same time.

Though I hope to find the time to "game out" have the Mayan Battleline and the Aztec Battleships trade long range fire. Both sides wanted that to happen, but the orders/ time on station/ search effectiveness failed to have that happen, which was a shame.
The Aztecs have a low % chance to hit, but many times that of the Mayan BBs.

The Mayans, with 3T2 and fewer spotting A/C and more ships vs. limited targets have significant disadvantages,  but had the FC to at least try, so the 1% minimum rule might wind up helping there.

At that point the additional volume of fire could lead to hits.
Hits impact the targets 'to hit', and so could drop the Aztecs to 1% as well- though they would
not know that. At which point they could get the worst of it.
There's also always the chance of a shot like the Mayans landed on the Japanese BB, fluke funnel hit, but took speed away from the IJN.  A similar hit of various sorts that impacts speed could remove the Aztecs ability to stay at a chosen range...