I see "Refurbishment" and "Reconstruction", but not "Refit" in the shipbuilding rules. Did y'all do away w/ refits?
Quote from: Sachmle on September 20, 2011, 03:33:53 PM
I see "Refurbishment" and "Reconstruction", but not "Refit" in the shipbuilding rules. Did y'all do away w/ refits?
The mandatory Refit has been replaced with the non mandatory Refurbishment.
Michael
So are we saying that the things covered in a refit (hull scraping, painting, cleaning boilers, sweeping out coal bunkers, etc) is covered under normal upkeep? This is fine, mind you, I'm just curious. Mainly I think it's a terminology thing. IRL ships that got 'refits' got things like upgraded electronics, new radar/sonar, new/improved AA guns, torpedo upgrades, etc..whereas here refit means life extension basically and refurbishment means all the other stuff.
Quote from: Sachmle on September 20, 2011, 03:48:53 PM
So are we saying that the things covered in a refit (hull scraping, painting, cleaning boilers, sweeping out coal bunkers, etc) is covered under normal upkeep? This is fine, mind you, I'm just curious. Mainly I think it's a terminology thing. IRL ships that got 'refits' got things like upgraded electronics, new radar/sonar, new/improved AA guns, torpedo upgrades, etc..whereas here refit means life extension basically and refurbishment means all the other stuff.
If you want to make changes to ships systems see Refurbishments or Reconstruction for specifics.
Normal upkeep of covers normal upkeep but without a Refurbishments or Reconstruction a ship is more and more likely suffer mechanical problems, etc in combat.
Michael
I think that the energy limit for the artillery might need to be revised. There were ships in this period that mounted muzzleloaders and breechloaders capable of firing 16.5 inch shells.
*shakes head*.
Delta, they'd just be firing the shells really slowly, or, rather, with not much penetration ability vs. modern armor...
But Texan, that has nothing to do with muzzle energy. That's all muzzle velocity.
It's only when energy is converted in velocity that the shells will fire really slowly. You're artificially reducing it's muzzle energy, making the muzzle velocity several hundred feet per second slower than historically!
For example: The 16.25"/30 gun (1888) historically did 2087 fps. By restricting the muzzle energy with no regard to the larger guns, it forces the same gun to produce only ~1350 fps!
In other words, you forced the historical 16.25"/30, which already was a horrible gun, to perform like a 16.25"/13.8 ! The kicker is that this hard cap on muzzle energy is scaling, it means that smaller and smaller guns can get incredible muzzle velocities under the rules whilst larger guns are far behind it's historical performance.
Under the rules, I could theoretically design a 8"/115.5 gun firing a 200lb projectile for a muzzle velocity of ~4350 fps, all within the 1900 hard-cap. Outlandish, but I use this example to make it clear the distinct muzzle velocity advantage you are artificially creating with this cap.
I do not really see the need to make things that were technological dead ends even worse or flat out banned, like big bore artillery or ships with three turrets. If something is not possible to do due to metallurgy or other technology than it should be restricted, but there actually were big bore artillery guns and ships with three turrets. Where is the fun in doing everything the "correct" way? We all know how warship design evolved, that does not mean that we have to play it out the exact same way it advanced historically. That is not very accurate RPing as we would be taking our perfect OOC knowledge and using it to make in game decisions.
It is like the tech tree in Civilization, how it only shows what worked out historically and you can steer your way towards it from the start. You can steer yourself down the path towards gunpowder in 4000BCE, and you never have to spend time on dead end research like elixirs of immortality or turning lead into gold. One of the differences between something like a video game and a forum based game is that you can actually go down those dead ends, making steam rams, ships with big bore guns, or constructing a ship with an amidships turret that causes massive blast damage. You are not forced down a "correct" path of technology.
Logi and Delta, the problem is without some restriction we literaly have people building Dreadnaught and expecting it to preform like Dreadnaught in 1865. which rapidly escilates to the point we are all forced to build Iowas by 1916 just to keep up with the arms race.
Quote from: Tanthalas on September 20, 2011, 08:57:22 PM
Logi and Delta, the problem is without some restriction we literaly have people building Dreadnaught and expecting it to preform like Dreadnaught in 1865. which rapidly escilates to the point we are all forced to build Iowas by 1916 just to keep up with the arms race.
Key phrase. Just because they EXPECT it to work like Dreadnaught, does not mean it will. We are ALL aware of the metalurgical, fire-control, RoF, accuracy, control, and other issues that make building a ship w/ all large guns a bad idea until 1910ish and if someone wants to waste their time and $$ on building one that's their problem. And if they do, and then bitch when the Mods say it fails miserably in battle, then they just get what they deserve.
Quote from: Sachmle on September 20, 2011, 09:07:50 PM
Quote from: Tanthalas on September 20, 2011, 08:57:22 PM
Logi and Delta, the problem is without some restriction we literaly have people building Dreadnaught and expecting it to preform like Dreadnaught in 1865. which rapidly escilates to the point we are all forced to build Iowas by 1916 just to keep up with the arms race.
Key phrase. Just because they EXPECT it to work like Dreadnaught, does not mean it will. We are ALL aware of the metalurgical, fire-control, RoF, accuracy, control, and other issues that make building a ship w/ all large guns a bad idea until 1910ish and if someone wants to waste their time and $$ on building one that's their problem. And if they do, and then bitch when the Mods say it fails miserably in battle, then they just get what they deserve.
*looks at some players in previous incarnations* I agree compleatly mate, as I stated previously I was going to do AQY from the get specificly because it was a mistake. IDK if there is a solution that will make everyone happy, but im fairly content as it stands.
I agree with Sachmle. If they wish to try building the Dreadnought in 1865, that's alright with me- that's just a bigger and easier ship to sink. In fact, I would be glad if everyone else decided on building Dreadnought in 1865 - it simply wouldn't work because of all the other factors.
For example: If Delta wants to build his 13,587 ton monster, he could! It'll just take 1 x 100kg warhead torpedo and roughly 2 hours to send it to the bottom!
Or better yet- according to the battlesim proposal I posted, it'll take two 100kg torpedo warhead hits within a minute (or is it 15 now?) to capsize it.
your proposal is all fine and good logi, but unless I miss my guese part of the reasoning for restrictions is to make our ships fit into an already existing Naval Combat system. Im not 100% sure on that but it "feals" like a good solid answer.
My proposal is nothing more than a best-fit interpretation of historical data with logical backing. I'm not proposing that my proposal is 100% accurate, just that's it's good enough for a general idea of what would happen in a real naval battle- miss the small details like time to evacuate crew etc.
That is- I'm just pointing out that such a large dreadnought before it's times were be a floating duck- easy to sink by torpedoes, weak due to low RoF, lack of FC, and poor metallurgy compared to later times - making the dreadnought just a large waste of space!
Logi and I agree, actually.
This is really the best argument there is against building a large, dreadnought-type ship ATM.
IT JUST WON'T WORK.
Sam, we're just going to have to accept some risk if we want this freedom.
In order to have freedom, there has to be freedom to abuse the freedom.
oh on that point I agree compleatly, the "dreadnaughts" I simed for the period were just for laughs, Sort of What if projects never ment to be built but interesting to play with.
One way would be to include a cp on muzzle velocity depending on which for of powder is being used; say 450m/s for pure black powder, 600m/s for prismatic powder (and similar) and whatever when one gets smokeless powder. Perhaps only going into ME limits when one gets to smokeless powder?
As I noted when writing my programs- it's easy to approximate the muzzle energy of various powders by changing the coefficient of the muzzle energy formula that P3D came up with:
Of course, I don't know what the actual names of propellants are (Cordite for example is just a period name, it's not a propellant)...
Black Powder (0.018) - pre-1865
Early Smokeless (0.032) - 1865-1880
TNT (0.038) - 1880-1910
Cordite (0.040) - 1910-1950
These variable coefficients form a soft cap on the muzzle velocity (restricting the amount of muzzle energy per caliber-diameter, but not how large the gun can be).
Quote from: Logi on September 21, 2011, 07:41:53 AM
As I noted when writing my programs- it's easy to approximate the muzzle energy of various powders by changing the coefficient of the muzzle energy formula that P3D came up with:
Of course, I don't know what the actual names of propellants are (Cordite for example is just a period name, it's not a propellant)...
Black Powder (0.018) - pre-1865
Early Smokeless (0.032) - 1865-1880
TNT (0.038) - 1880-1910
Cordite (0.040) - 1910-1950
These variable coefficients form a soft cap on the muzzle velocity (restricting the amount of muzzle energy per caliber-diameter, but not how large the gun can be).
TNT???
Trinitrotoluen has never been used as a propellent charge (tto insensetive), and cordite was only used by quite few countries...
I think I also found a viable solution.
These really big guns all used black powder, and most were muzzle loaders <=30 calibers in length, right?
Then why not say every black powder or muzzle loading gun has a maximum length of 30 calibers and no limit on the bore diameter. Performance is limited by a chosen (rather low) value for the average pressure.
For breech loaders or guns using more modern propellants we make a table which list for each tech level how long a gun of certain caliber can be(similar to the one used in N3) and the gas pressure for this tech. And yes these limits require a bit physic & math knowledge or my program to be useful. And yes, it's likely and intended that muzzle loaders might be superior until the 1890s.
I split this off as its sorta off topic for the main thread. I feel it does deserve to be talked about and can so here.
Michael
Quote from: Nobody on September 21, 2011, 09:02:50 AM
I think I also found a viable solution.
These really big guns all used black powder, and most were muzzle loaders <=30 calibers in length, right?
Then why not say every black powder or muzzle loading gun has a maximum length of 30 calibers and no limit on the bore diameter. Performance is limited by a chosen (rather low) value for the average pressure.
For breech loaders or guns using more modern propellants we make a table which list for each tech level how long a gun of certain caliber can be(similar to the one used in N3) and the gas pressure for this tech. And yes these limits require a bit physic & math knowledge or my program to be useful. And yes, it's likely and intended that muzzle loaders might be superior until the 1890s.
less than 20 cals in length man, the 10 and 11 inch ones I have been playing around with were only 13.2 cal in the 1860s/1870s
Quote from: Tanthalas on September 21, 2011, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: Nobody on September 21, 2011, 09:02:50 AM
I think I also found a viable solution.
These really big guns all used black powder, and most were muzzle loaders <=30 calibers in length, right?
Then why not say every black powder or muzzle loading gun has a maximum length of 30 calibers and no limit on the bore diameter. Performance is limited by a chosen (rather low) value for the average pressure.
For breech loaders or guns using more modern propellants we make a table which list for each tech level how long a gun of certain caliber can be(similar to the one used in N3) and the gas pressure for this tech. And yes these limits require a bit physic & math knowledge or my program to be useful. And yes, it's likely and intended that muzzle loaders might be superior until the 1890s.
less than 20 cals in length man, the 10 and 11 inch ones I have been playing around with were only 13.2 cal in the 1860s/1870s
What about the Italia class's 17"/26 (or was it 28)?
Korpen...
Quote from: Logi on September 21, 2011, 07:41:53 AMOf course, I don't know what the actual names of propellants are (Cordite for example is just a period name, it's not a propellant)...
That's just a name of the period that the explosives were used. They're just placeholder names for actual propellants of the period- simply because I don't know the propellant names!
Quote from: Nobody on September 21, 2011, 09:28:17 AM"Energy Density", I think that's the value Logi mentioned increasing over time (but in metric units). The figure on the right shows that it is actually non-linear.
Nobody - The energy constant I mention is derived by the equation P3D gave:
Muzzle Energy = coefficient * Diameter^3 * Caliber
Your energy density graphs are on the right track, but lack the crucial diameter information- the diameter of the gun. Your current graph displays energy density in only one-dimension, hardly fit to be called density (cubing the same value doesn't make it density unless your gun happens to be a cube whose sides the caliber length long).
If you could post a new graph with that in the y-axis, that would be great- considering I don't have the specific data values you have on hand. It should make the graph on the left show jumps over specific periods of time.
I say should because most of my testing has been backwards deriving the muzzle energy of the gun from it's muzzle velocity etc. to determine the approximate coefficient.
Quote from: Nobody on September 21, 2011, 09:02:50 AMAnd yes, it's likely and intended that muzzle loaders might be superior until the 1890s.
I don't think this would be desirable- considering that by 1880 the de Bange system made the muzzle velocities of the two gun types virtually equivalent.
Ofc, that's post-1880, not pre-1880...
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 20, 2011, 10:55:27 PM
Logi and I agree, actually.
This is really the best argument there is against building a large, dreadnought-type ship ATM.
IT JUST WON'T WORK.
Sam, we're just going to have to accept some risk if we want this freedom.
In order to have freedom, there has to be freedom to abuse the freedom.
One of the things I had thought might be "fun" in this period would be a steam ram with a truely massive gun fixed along the centerline- a "wave motion gun" if you would. Closest in application would be the USN's "dynamite" guns. Transitioning from the hard cap on ME to a caliber-cap allows folks to explore wierd options and establish why they might fail. That should be one of the joys of a simulation. - just my 2 cents.