I've occasionally mixed up the cruising speed and range fields, so I have a cruising speed of 10,000 kts and a range of 10 nm, but I don't think I've ever previously set up a design to have 10,000 shafts and a cruising range of 2 nm.
Do share it. ;D
I never saved a version of that, just fixed it and moved on.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 11, 2020, 04:38:26 PM
I never saved a version of that, just fixed it and moved on.
Aww come on, we want to see the mighty Vilnus "Butter Churn"
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on May 11, 2020, 07:39:17 PM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 11, 2020, 04:38:26 PM
I never saved a version of that, just fixed it and moved on.
Aww come on, we want to see the mighty Vilnus "Butter Churn"
"It will kill you if you let us tow it into you."
I was thinking it'd be interesting to look at refurbing the Wspanialy class PDNs, which have 2x2 280mm and 4x2 200mm, to a 2x2 + 4x1 280mm layout.
Of course, the original file is lost to me on an old computer, so I had to rebuild the 1902 design. That produced interesting results as I'd somehow gave it 78 m bulges without noticing, and couldn't parse why I needed so much machinery or had a capsizing warning. But I finally found and fixed it.
And now I see that the layout change would not work with a refurb - the single 280mm mounting is heavier than the twin 200mm mountings. So that's that, I guess.
Okay, the refit/refurb rules speak to roller diameter as the constraint on turret replacement - not turret weight. Are we inferring one from the other or do we have enough stats for historical roller diameters to go straight from sources?
There's got to be an algorithm we can establish for this...
Looking in Friedman's
Naval Weapons of World War 1, I can find some data:
German:
- 38cm L/45 twin: Roller ring diameter of 8.75m, inner barbette diameter 10m, gun axes 3.7m apart.
- 30.5cm L/50 twin: Roller track diameter of 7.32m inner barbette diameter 8.5m, gun axes 2.7m apart.
- 28cm L/45 twin: C/06 mount rode a ball bearing ring with a diameter of 6.6m, inner barbette diameter of 7.8m. C/07 ring was 6.92m, inner barbette diameter 8.1m. Gun axes were 2.27m apart.
- 21cm L/45 twin: Roller track diameter5.18m, inner barbette diameter 6.12m, gun axes 1.80m apart.
British:
- 12inL50 Mx Xii twin BXI mounting: Roller path diameter of 24.5 feet, inner barbette diameter of 28 feet, gun axes 90in apart.
- 9.2inL50 Mk XI single MkVIII mounting: Roller path diameter of 12.75 feet, inner barbette diameter of 16.5 feet.
- 9.2inL50 Mk XI twin Mk VII mounting: Roller path diameter of 16.5 feet, inner barbette diameter of 19.5 feet. Gun axes 82 in. apart.
I was hoping he'd have such measurements for French guns, but he doesn't seem to. Still I think the 9.2" mounts might be instructive here: In that case, the barbettes of the single mount of 85% the size of those for the twin mount, with a difference of 3 feet. Then if we look at the scale of the difference between German 28cm and 21cm twin barbettes, we see that the 21cm twin barbette is 75% as large as the largest 28cm barbette.
So I think a 2x20cm turret is probably on a barbette of approximately 5.75 to 6m inner diameter, and that a single 28cm should fit on a barbette of 5.85 to 6m. To me that's close enough to say it fits.
Fair enough.
So a back of the envelope calculation of the refurb, then:
20% of LD: $3 and 0 BP
Replace 4x2 200mm with 4x1 280mm: $3.4 and 1.7 BP
Swap in new VTE engines for ~22 knts: ~$4 and 2 BP
===
~$10.4 and 3.7 BP, minus the value of 4x2 200mm turrets if re-used.
That's a not-unreasonable BP cost, but the cash cost is pretty steep for a ship that'll have a six-gun 280mm broadside and reciprocating engines in 1914.
If modernizing them both, you could be buying one 20k ton ship. Also you have to consider that both ships would have to be out of service for a year or more. Neither is state of the art, but they are only roughly 7 years old and would still be in first line service. They'd be more modern if modernized, but still not really modern.
I think I'd leave them be and build new.
I made rebuilt with Barbarossa class, similar BB.
Yours have more recent BB & their rebuilt is interesting & economical.
Increase the speed to 21-22kts, new 28cm guns...
That could make good colonial support battle line, armament is dissuasive for any cruisers.
8T2x200 are free => use them on 2 or 4 cruisers.
It's interesting too to have free turrets for cruisers.
No hesitation ;)
Have fun ;)
I really think we need a revamp of the refurbishing rules, they are just too expensive right now for major work and will dissuade people from keeping around older ships.
I'd disagree with that assumption over the long term. Right now, most older ships have a huge technical obsolescence to them. You can only do so much to a ship built around lower speeds with VTE engines to make it viable in a world of turbine powered ships, and where warship sizes are right now the difference in cost between that kind of radical reconstruction and a more capable new build does not make sense. I think once you start to see the size and general capability of capital ships levels off, refits in that sector will gain more relative value. The same will hold true for other ships as well. Additionally, cash growth is going to massively outstrip BP growth as colonies grow up, which will help make the cash/BP differences in refurbishments and reconstructions.
To be fair, I'm designing and building my true dreadnoughts with the assumption that I'm going to re-engine them mid-life and they'll all be two or three knots faster as a result. That's fine and I'll accept the cost of undertaking such work.
This is probably the only time I'd be looking at significant alterations to main/intermediate batteries in any kind of mid-life scenario. Is it good value for money? I'm inclined to say no, but at the same time, I tend to do naval sims with a high degree of efficiency in mind and maybe I should be different this time around.
They still wouldn't be front-line warships, but they'd have a definite leg-up on actual pre-dreads and be reasonable challenges to first-gen dreadnoughts.
As Jef notes, the intermediate 200/45mm battery would work well as the main battery of a new armored cruiser, and I'd get a pair out of them. There is a problem with the sides/roof armor of the removed turrets - I designed them with 15mm of armor rather than 150mm - but I'd just add the additional armor as new costs if I re-used the guns.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 11, 2020, 09:13:08 AM
Okay, the refit/refurb rules speak to roller diameter as the constraint on turret replacement - not turret weight. Are we inferring one from the other or do we have enough stats for historical roller diameters to go straight from sources?
Snip made a ruling on this long ago,
the Guns + Mount weight is the equivalent of "roller path" for this purpose.
That's why the new Parthian guns are odd lengths- they are to replace old mounts and had to fit.
Quote from: Desertfox on June 11, 2020, 03:22:45 PM
I really think we need a revamp of the refurbishing rules, they are just too expensive right now for major work and will dissuade people from keeping around older ships.
My expectation is that as colonies are developed, $ will be less of a problem, and BP will be the limiter.
At which time, rebuilding existing vessels becomes a more efficient use of resources.
I'm planning on several rebuilds as it is, trying to work out when to do them.
Aha. Then I can drop the idea and feel not one iota of guilt for it.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 11, 2020, 08:42:21 PM
and feel not one iota of guilt for it.
What, no guilt?
It's free !
Well maybe a little, then, but I don't want to indulge.
Of course there is also the possibility of a political need to favor refitting of ships, like a WNT-like item.
Real life issues on roller bearings and barbette/gunhouse construction.
Weight is important for the correct loading of the rollers. Without enough loading the load won't be distributed over all the rollers (steel flexes a lot in those diameters).
And most of the big guns/turrets used pure mass to get the loading correct. As we can see on the wrecks. Bismarcks turrets dropped out during the decent, as an example
One solution was to add tension rollers on the bottom of the race, or even simple bronze bushings with tensioners.
But that is not a trivial task if it wasn't original. Pulling off a roller/bearing race and replace it with a newly designed one.
FWIW, I believe that a twin 200mm turret and a single 280mm turret could weigh about the same, or at least be close enough that marginal changes in armor configuration could make up the difference. The German 28cmL45 (C/07) guns were almost exactly 2x the weight of the American 8"L45 (MkVI).
It occurred to me last night that yanking the guns from the PDN, scrapping the hull, and building a new Sverige-type CDS (turbines, greater range, maybe not as much armor) would likely be cheaper from a cash perspective and probably not that much more expensive from a BP perspective than just refurbing the original PDN.
Quote from: Guinness on June 12, 2020, 09:52:55 AM
FWIW, I believe that a twin 200mm turret and a single 280mm turret could weigh about the same, or at least be close enough that marginal changes in armor configuration could make up the difference. The German 28cmL45 (C/07) guns were almost exactly 2x the weight of the American 8"L45 (MkVI).
Quote from: Guinness on June 12, 2020, 09:52:55 AM
FWIW, I believe that a twin 200mm turret and a single 280mm turret could weigh about the same, or at least be close enough that marginal changes in armor configuration could make up the difference. The German 28cmL45 (C/07) guns were almost exactly 2x the weight of the American 8"L45 (MkVI).
they can be similar.
The problem tends to lie in the older guns being very short.
Without figuring out the exact guns Rocky is discussing :
For a single-turret 280L45, the SS3 weight is 151t
But
a single turret 280L35 is only 109t
...but depending on the vilnus ship, I see 280L40s there.... so
Twin mounts would weight more of course.
For a Twin 200L45 the SS weight is 110t
For a Two-Gun 200L45 the SS3 weight is 138t.
With the 109 to 110 difference the obvious question is "well it's only 1 ton, does it matter".
That gets into the armor weight issue - but we are only talking the Gun + Mount tonnage, not armor.
So the prior rule was that this is a hard limit.
I lobbied against that at the time, and it's a hard limit.
I'm not going to rewrite rulings just because I have the pointy cap and corner seat now.
Now, if Rocky has just designed a 200L45 and realizes it's 1 ton over, then I'd let it become a 200L44 Twin at 106t so it would "fit".
Same cost, and we can presume a large naval design team can provide some foresight to the player 'off screen'.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 12, 2020, 10:27:03 AM
It occurred to me last night that yanking the guns from the PDN, scrapping the hull, and building a new Sverige-type CDS (turbines, greater range, maybe not as much armor) would likely be cheaper from a cash perspective and probably not that much more expensive from a BP perspective than just refurbing the original PDN.
It really comes down to the extent of the rebuild.
I've been working up several and the costs seem to vary by ship type.
The tonnage of engines you replace matter alot as that's the single biggest item.
So my high % machinery scout cruisers are not economical to upgrade, and with the short hulls are limited in maximum speed by seakeeping.
I'm considering just replacing the old reciprocating with new reciprocating with the same output and putting the excess space towards destroyer tender duties.
With the Armored Cruisers and Predreads, the total costs seem about 3/4 of a new ship, but much less BP.
As these had bigger longer hulls and high freeboards to let the casements work in moderate seas, some of them can hit decent speeds.
Again, swapping to turbines is attractive, but the required electric drive drives that price up, so I'm looking at oil-fired reciprocating as a cheaper solution if their potential speed is limited by seakeeping.
That feeling when you've got $6 and almost 21 BP still waiting to be used, without knowing how to really to spend it.
21 BP!
Can we still do the thing where we pay for a ship's cost in $ and BP all up front? I may have a windfall coming...
There's rules somewhere for acquiring foreign ships so I assume the option is there. I'll listen to proposals, certainly.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 16, 2020, 11:44:02 AM
There's rules somewhere for acquiring foreign ships so I assume the option is there. I'll listen to proposals, certainly.
Foreign purchases can indeed happen.
They can either provide just $ or $&BP
It was/is my intent that the NPCs will eventually buy lead ships of classes every 3-4 years.
Those would then give an idea of the
types that NPC has, and provide a possible sale venue
plus give folks design competitions for both players and guests.
Winners get a small $ prize and the contract. Runner up a small $.
However the free time block I had got used up on other game matters, so that has not happened yet.
Otherwise, there is the rollover allowance,
or you can reallocate your spending to free up more $ for BP.
Per Guinness's question - I'm not aware of any rule as to when you have to allocate the funds for a ship. Though it does have to be laid down.
You can't buy pieces for installation on undefined future vessels, or trade just parts. So no "x tons armor plate 300mm". Or "twin 325mm turret".
I could re-allocate spending, but there's a bit of a push on for additional IC this turn. It eases off next turn but I'm not sure I'd be using all those BP up anytime soon anyway.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 16, 2020, 02:09:22 PM
I could re-allocate spending, but there's a bit of a push on for additional IC this turn. It eases off next turn but I'm not sure I'd be using all those BP up anytime soon anyway.
You can always choose to just let your factories idle. The BP goes away.
The thrill of choices eh?
Jeez, why didn't I think of that earlier?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 16, 2020, 03:51:38 PM
Jeez, why didn't I think of that earlier?
Probably because you were caught up in the bliss that comes with realizing you could donate it to a worthy nation !
Imagine what the Maya could do with it, or the Norse !
:P
Still got $6 to spend. Maybe I need to go have a look through Jane's WW1 for some inspiration.
If I had $6 and 6BP extra to spend, my answer would always be "light cruisers".
I'm starting one, maybe I'll start a second. Need an Ersatz Bug now.
I would go with more destroyers... or something completely ridiculous, Surcouf perhaps?
Yes.
I should build something ridiculous.
You're right.
Can we make a deal on a Battletender?
Quote from: maddox on July 24, 2020, 03:32:56 PM
Can we make a deal on a Battletender?
From an in-character perspective, I'm not sure the Union would comfortable arming an immediate neighbour in the Americas.
A neighbor that acts as un-aggressive as an sloth?
I guess Wilno Leaders don't need lessons on paranoïa.
Quote from: Desertfox on July 24, 2020, 03:23:58 PM
I would go with more destroyers... or something completely ridiculous, Surcouf perhaps?
I tried a ship with 5x1 250mm in a Fletcher layout, but SS doesn't like that very much.
Colonial cruisers ?
Coastal Patrol vessels ?
New MTBs for the Baltic ?
250-500t TBs for the North Sea ?
6 new Land/Air points for the Netherlands?
Invest in drydocks for your new Colonies?
Parthia's finished several 150m, which will accommodate much of her cruiser fleet.
You will be excited to know I've worked out how to spend the cash and have posted.
Drydocks are on my to-do list, for sure, though I do need to figure out where I want/need them most.
I'm building a grand total of 4 MTB in 1913, figuring the navy will dabble with them, do some trials, etc. Maybe in a year or two they'll get more serious about using them in numbers.
I now recognize what ridiculous thing I need to build - because otherwise, in the absence of "Russia", it might never have existed.
Circular monitors.
I think Walter beat you there, I think I saw a circular monitor in the Norse fleet somewhere. That said... more circular monitors are always a great thing!
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 25, 2020, 06:54:12 PM
Quote from: Desertfox on July 24, 2020, 03:23:58 PM
I would go with more destroyers... or something completely ridiculous, Surcouf perhaps?
I tried a ship with 5x1 250mm in a Fletcher layout, but SS doesn't like that very much.
If only there was a way to sim recoiless rifles... I would totally build destroyers with large caliber recoiless rifles replacing the torpedo tubes.
Be prepared to be copied.
That or Faa Di Bruno.
Quote from: maddox on July 29, 2020, 12:44:30 PM
Be prepared to be copied.
That or Faa Di Bruno.
I should sim that one out and see if it somehow has worse seakeeping than my Novgorod sim. It's possible, I'm sure.
Had a dream that Kirk wrote up and posted a very detailed set of rules for construction of Monopoly-style hotels in our colonial provinces.
Sadly, I do not know what those rules were.
Okay, first post and I am putting it here becaise I don't know where else to do the Intro.
It's late in the day, so sorry if I missed the right place for this.
A few questions to start off with; where should I start? Is the Sim program compatible with my Mac?
Are there any availble countries, or should I create one? Where is the most recent map?
Lasty, is there a different skin-setting? This white is killing my eyes!
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 31, 2020, 05:53:19 AM
Had a dream that Kirk wrote up and posted a very detailed set of rules for construction of Monopoly-style hotels in our colonial provinces.
Sadly, I do not know what those rules were.
It's part of the current ruleset, haven't you been doing that?
On the turnsheet in F32 is the "# houses" cell, which tracks if you've built enough to install a hotel,
hotels generate $+0.5 and 0.1BP/province
and...
Nah doesn't exist.
Quote from: AnchorSteam on August 01, 2020, 08:47:40 PM
Okay, first post and I am putting it here becaise I don't know where else to do the Intro.
It's late in the day, so sorry if I missed the right place for this.
A few questions to start off with; where should I start? Is the Sim program compatible with my Mac?
Are there any availble countries, or should I create one? Where is the most recent map?
Lasty, is there a different skin-setting? This white is killing my eyes!
Greeting AnchorSteam, the beer with a little bite to it. The co-owner used to live in Bolinas CA.
Time is a little immaterial.
1) Start place - this works.
Basically it's a moderated game, the moderator (Me/Snip) looks for compliance with the rules and interpretation.
There's a number of countries available.
start up on a nation is a bit formidable for a new player, but help is available.
The game started in 1910, the world is getting gobbled up quickly.
However, there are several nations open, and all the decent ones have started on colonies, so no new player would be left out.
2) Mac...I believe it can work with SS3b, but I'm going to leave that answer to other people. It's setup for Windows, but I know there's a bunch of emulators for mac these days so thats rarely a barrier.
"SS3b3 is the program we use. "
Where is that? Here at Springsharp in the upper right : http://springsharp.com/info.htm#preview (http://springsharp.com/info.htm#preview)
Our rules and stuff are under the rules tab : https://www.navalism.org/index.php/board,575.0.html
A bit formidable to get going as there's a log of information.
...but N7's the trimmed down version.
3) Before jumping to a nation, you should probably get a handle on using SS3b, so that the ships you generate are those you actually want to use.
I'd suggest looking at other folks SS's and first copying them, then tinkering with the parameters.
Most Recent Map would be the Colonial Expansion map, showing this turn's expansion phase.
I'm waiting on the results of a little Japanese-Chinese Conflict (the 2nd in ..2 years...) before updated maps.
That thread is here : https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7455.0.html (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7455.0.html)
4) PM Guinness on that. He's the one that keeps the board. I just use the default.
that way de fault is mine....
Guinness would be the best resource for getting Springsharp up and running. I think there is a thread somewhere were the efforts at such in the past were detailed. Will see if I can dig it up.
Thanks Gents, that was a one-hour nightmare trying to make that thing work, none of the three Apps that I downloaded seemed to help wit that.
This is a mini-mac, not suited to online games anyway.
If that was just a ship-builder than I can get by with stuff that existed.
Thanks for the prompt replies, I will be back tomorrow.
Thread with past experience on the subject. (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7015.0.html)
To change theme: Profile->Look and Layout->Current Theme (Change)
If any of the choices don't work for you, let me know.
SpringSharp on Mac: I used to run it in Wine on my Mac successfully, but of late Wine doesn't work on Macs anymore (because of the deprecation of 32bit apps in modern MacOS). I took to running it in a Linux Virtual Machine under VirtualBox on my Mac. Loose instructions are here:
https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7015.msg93914.html#msg93914
And ultimately, if you're still having trouble with springsharp, some of us can design ships for you. Though ship design is half the fun.
Quote from: Guinness on August 02, 2020, 09:46:34 AM
To change theme: Profile->Look and Layout->Current Theme (Change)
If any of the choices don't work for you, let me know.
SpringSharp on Mac: I used to run it in Wine on my Mac successfully, but of late Wine doesn't work on Macs anymore (because of the deprecation of 32bit apps in modern MacOS). I took to running it in a Linux Virtual Machine under VirtualBox on my Mac. Loose instructions are here:
https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7015.msg93914.html#msg93914
That worked beautifully! Not only is the screen a nice, comfy black but the lettering is also larger. MUCH easier to read.
Thank you.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on August 02, 2020, 11:23:16 AM
And ultimately, if you're still having trouble with springsharp, some of us can design ships for you. Though ship design is half the fun.
Yes, the brief glimpse I had of it makes it look as easy to use as the old Battletech system, which was fun & easy ... but this is a
mini-Mac, all the complications and nowhere near the power of a regular mac.
So, instead of diddling around with that, shouldn't I look into available Nations? If one has been abandoned with an existing Navy I can work with that. I was hoping for Siam but that seems to have beentaken early on. That's a pity because I did some extensive work on it for a 1941 game, but this is 1915, yes?
I can also work with historical ships. As you may remember, I know a few things about those 8) .
So, is there anything just laying around that I can start with as-is?
Kirk will be the one to talk with about finding a home, but I think you've already done that step :) We've got a quite radical alternate timeline backing some game design based decisions about the map early on. I can go into more detail if you want on the goals and such.
I dont think you would have any trouble getting VirtualBox to run on a MacMini. Springsharp is rather central to what we do, and it's the only real required thing. Any ship which exists in universe needs to have a valid SS3b sim. Whether or not said sim is a defacto clone of a real design or not doesn't matter.
Current game time is somewhere in the second half of 1913. The second shooting match between Japan and China in the last year is main event of focus, but there are some other little things here and there as well.
I think there would be a couple good locations to look at landing. In no real order but with some justification from where I sit. Kirk can of course provide more details or strike any of these off the potential list.
- Rajasthan [the dark green on the Indian Subcontinent]: India has really had nothing done with it, so would be a reasonably clear slate to work with. Only super defined thing is [I think] the relationship with Parithia (bright orange). Has good players around it to work with on storytelling.
- Ethiopia: One of the weaker powers, like Thailand, but with some room to grow internally that other smaller powers dont really have. Keeps you in the same neighborhood as Rajasthan would, but does limit interaction with players outside of that area. A good place for a more unique fleet design and doctrine. Not a whole lot of diplomatic ties, so would be rather free to chop your own path.
- Peoples Republic of Maya: The Maya are perhaps the most fleshed out of the NPCs at this point, due to proxy with the recently awoken Aztecs. Definitely in a couple active areas with both local and colonial powers. Would prehaps be the most interesting from a "doing stuff right now" level. Only fixed think here is the do not like the Aztecs, at all.
- The Norse: Right now, the only major power that is vacant. Has a large fleet and more extensive colonial holdings. More set relationships [The Norse and Rome dont get along very well, for example] than ones open to interpretation.
Okay, Norse was suggested to me before, so I would probably go with that one, and if it is already fleshed-out so much the better.
Jeez.... just looking at the map, it looks pretty extensive.
Big and complicated, in other words.
My free time is going to be pretty limited for a few days, but I will look into it.
Army too, eh?
I've asked Snip, among others, for their opinions.
Snip's design for Nav 7 is naval focused, with Land and Air units abstracted.
Folks can tell their stories without having to breakdown which Battalion is garrisoning which coastal town.
So anyhow, poke around, get acquainted with folks turnsheets and the various rules.
If you aren't so interesting in the SS aspects, that actually saves you work :)
If you are more story interested, that's important, Maddox took the Inca as a nice story perch.
What your goals are - more story telling, or a real interest in naval development, help inform us as to a good 'home' for you.
Currently, I'm actually inclined towards Laksmanavati, which Snip didn't even list. Basically the Bengali Kingdom.
No immediate direct conflicts, nestled among NPCs. A decent colonial position in Australia. A mid-level power, so it can be relevant and potentially important as an ally. Rich and sophisticated history. A position you can grow into and flesh out as time allows.
Ethiopia could be interesting. Key spot between nations, interior growth potential.
Rajasthan is the next most likely, a little bigger, 2 sets of colonies, and a land border with..Me.
The Norse, while currently empty, have an extensive navy, and I'd like to see someone taking advantage of that by spring sharping their own ships.
Plus it's a big spread out position with potential conflicts with two major players.
Deccan Sultanates, Confederation of 5 tribes, Maya then Thailand then Berber States are all open.
Over the next couple of days we'll move towards getting you started in one of those spots.
-Kirk
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 02, 2020, 06:57:13 PM
Folks can tell their stories without having to breakdown which Battalion is garrisoning which coastal town.
oh thank christ....
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 02, 2020, 06:57:13 PMCurrently, I'm actually inclined towards Laksmanavati, which Snip didn't even list. Basically the Bengali Kingdom.
No immediate direct conflicts, nestled among NPCs. A decent colonial position in Australia. A mid-level power, so it can be relevant and potentially important as an ally. Rich and sophisticated history. A position you can grow into and flesh out as time allows.
Sounds like a good one, possibly, but -
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 02, 2020, 06:57:13 PMThe Norse, while currently empty, have an extensive navy, and I'd like to see someone taking advantage of that by spring sharping their own ships.
Plus it's a big spread out position with potential conflicts with two major players.
So, it seems like Norse would be a real prize, but only if I can make SS work in my little machine, correct?
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 02, 2020, 06:57:13 PMDeccan Sultanates, Confederation of 5 tribes, Maya then Thailand then Berber States are all open.
Right, the reason I was interested in Thailand is because another recent game showed me what they have right down to the decimal point. They have access to coal and iron, and even some tungsten. It is a surprising little place, but
little, so I will keep this in mind in case I can't make SS work.
Today has been brutal, so I will try to set that up tomorrow after noon... Pacific time.
Is there a particularly good time of day for this?
We are kinda scattered around. I think Foxy and Kirk are both Pacific as well, Im an hour behind you guys. Got a few east coasters and at least one Euro left.
Jef and Maddox are both in Europe. But we all move at a somewhat slowish pace, so no real hurry.
There are really no bad spots, there's even a nice quiet spot in the Iroquois.
I am already signed up to help out with the Norse (combination of British and American ships with a sprinkling of German)and have designed ships for four of the current player nations, so if you wanted to take the Norse and can't get SS3 running, I can definitely help there. I have also run Siam in a past iteration, am quite familiar with them, run Japan at the moment, and was planning on suggesting ship designs for them, so that's another country I can help with.
Thailand is a possibility.
You'll note the Thailand here includes the Malay penninsula.
It's in the middle of everything going on in the South East Asian sphere.
The downside is the Thai economy is similar in size to the Incan, and they have not been involved in getting colonies.
So it's a good spot from a story/interaction point of view, but not very strong.
Laksmanavati is a middleweight power, with a decent colony in NW Australia.
Either one could be an option, depending on what you're looking for.
For the Norse, frankly I would like someone who will be developing the navy and it's warships. That's not an absolute, but it would be weird for a major nation to suddenly start hiring out design staff, and it's difficult to plan a coherent fleet if you don't get to tinker with designs in advance. Of course the Parthian plans for their fleet have been considerably battered.
So in the end, we'll seek to fit the nation to your interests.
As for resources, that was also part of Snip's simplification - every nation played has "sufficient" strategic resources for military needs.
I wanted to have a certain number of Primary Resources OR 2 Secondary Plus 1 Energy to make each factory go...fortunately for you all, Snip prevailed.
You will not face the problem of the WWII Italians having to ration using their fleet because of fuel.
Now, that just applies to "home", overseas will take supply lines. Which can be a consideration - wood/coal are available everywhere, oil not so much.
Likewise, if your nation was historically rich in a resource, that can be a storyline material. In this timeframe, the areas that are my Parthia were major oil producers, eclipsed by the US...which is only now starting to produce oil- so I'm presuming Parthia is dominant in that market are exporting (as historical), but plowing the funds into infrastructure and colonies to absorb a burgeoning population....that's all storyline, but effects how I viewed the Sino-Japanese War...I would have merchants in those waters.
Timewise,
I'm a bit of a luddite, I do the forums/PMs, but don't do chat/discord. Others do and folks are decent about helping out.
I check the forums generally around 7pm pst and 11pm pst, pretty much everyday except Weds and maybe Thurs.
Quote from: AnchorSteam on August 02, 2020, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 02, 2020, 06:57:13 PM
Folks can tell their stories without having to breakdown which Battalion is garrisoning which coastal town.
oh thank christ....
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 02, 2020, 06:57:13 PMCurrently, I'm actually inclined towards Laksmanavati, which Snip didn't even list. Basically the Bengali Kingdom.
No immediate direct conflicts, nestled among NPCs. A decent colonial position in Australia. A mid-level power, so it can be relevant and potentially important as an ally. Rich and sophisticated history. A position you can grow into and flesh out as time allows.
Sounds like a good one, possibly, but -
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 02, 2020, 06:57:13 PMThe Norse, while currently empty, have an extensive navy, and I'd like to see someone taking advantage of that by spring sharping their own ships.
Plus it's a big spread out position with potential conflicts with two major players.
So, it seems like Norse would be a real prize, but only if I can make SS work in my little machine, correct?
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 02, 2020, 06:57:13 PMDeccan Sultanates, Confederation of 5 tribes, Maya then Thailand then Berber States are all open.
Right, the reason I was interested in Thailand is because another recent game showed me what they have right down to the decimal point. They have access to coal and iron, and even some tungsten. It is a surprising little place, but little, so I will keep this in mind in case I can't make SS work.
Today has been brutal, so I will try to set that up tomorrow after noon... Pacific time.
Is there a particularly good time of day for this?
Welcome aboard, AnchorStream.
Welcome aboard AnchorStream
& Good luck
Jef ;)
Thanks again, everyone, the response here is showing me that TacCovert4 was right, I really should drop the place I have been trying to help run and come over here instead.
I will have my act together and be ready to take part by the end of the week.
Tomorrow I will try to get SS working and hope it does not melt my mini-mac. But, even if I can't, I like the idea of Thailand or Ethiopia. I know them both pretty well and have already war-gamed both (but WW2-era).
However, I have been hunting around for current information on them, and I am not finding it. I guess I just don't know where to look yet, so I will be back tomorrow afternoon to ask about that.
See you soon!
I don't think there's any current information to find for either country. Both were quiet NPCs, so chances are nobody's been able to work up baseline data for them just yet.
Quote from: AnchorSteam on August 04, 2020, 01:39:11 AM
However, I have been hunting around for current information on them, and I am not finding it. I guess I just don't know where to look yet, so I will be back tomorrow afternoon to ask about that.
As designed, Snip left the NPCs as blanks.
They were assigned secret tiers which grouped them into rough power ranges relative to the players.
So that part is written and Snip and I have copies. I can turn that into IC and BP and some starting choices when the nation goes NPC->PC.
I have been slowly..ever so slowly... starting to round them out and make them a little more vibrant. ... the next step is to publish the Thai history, finish the Berbers and Confederation (Tac?) and start the Diplomatic tracking. Which I kinda expected to get to last weekend, but got caught up in other stuff.
There are histories for the various NPCs here : https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7440.0.html (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7440.0.html)
The Thai one Fox wrote up the draft, and I have failed to polish and post.
The Berber is partially done, need to tie together.
Tac had been working on the Confederation
So,
I got here a little late today, again. Sorry about that. i had to get my hand Xrayed and getting into a Hospital these days is about like getting into Fort Knox.
I have SS stored in my mac, but what is a safe source for "Virtualbox"?
I ask because one must be careful these days.... very careful.
And I think Thailand is out. Historically they had 2 x DDs, 4 x TBs and 4 x Gunboats of questionable value, and a whole slew of worthless crap. The best warship is the Royal yacht and its not even up to Light Cruiser standards.
Pity, much of the coastline is lke Torpedo-Boat heaven.
But Ethiopia has a similar set of islands where it counts the most, so maybe I can do something with that.
Dont worry about the historical fleets, they are not applicable to what sort of fleets would be reasonable for the sim.
Per Anchor's request I'm working on an updated End HY2 1913 national map- I'll show the Sino-Japanese as a red conflict circle.
Then I'll be providing rough ideas of the economies and naval tonnages of Ethiopia and Thailand
I was busy until a little after 9pm today, so trying to get this out this evening to aid him moving forward.
Quote from: AnchorSteam on August 04, 2020, 09:20:41 PM
I have SS stored in my mac, but what is a safe source for "Virtualbox"?
I ask because one must be careful these days.... very careful.
Downloads from here should be fine: https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads
Just check the SHA256 checksums if you are worried.
Whatever that was, I'm blaming Foxy.
See: https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7479.msg94735.html#msg94735
I've always had Space Battleship Yamato in my OOB! I swear!
This site crashed yesterday, I am glad to see it is back now. Lost a whole day.
Thailand seems too tiny to compete and too risky, I will try Ethiopia if I can't get that SS to work, and I have questions about that.
Even tried to set up an opening move for Ethiopia, but the new map makes it obsolete!
...and ever time I try to post the map I lock up the thing here.... I am just crap when it come to tech.
Quote from: Guinness on August 05, 2020, 06:30:44 AM
Quote from: AnchorSteam on August 04, 2020, 09:20:41 PM
I have SS stored in my mac, but what is a safe source for "Virtualbox"?
I ask because one must be careful these days.... very careful.
Downloads from here should be fine: https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads
Just check the SHA256 checksums if you are worried.
I am a total retard when it comes to this stuff, damnit. I can't find which one is suppsoed to work with Apple. Will there be a date/time we can get together and get this done?
I dont have a Mac to test on, but my recollection of an older one is that you want the OSX Distribution off that page Guinness linked since it is downloading a .dmg file.
I was tinkering with the 1/14 report and was like, "Hey, I've got the cash, I should use up all my excess BP!"
Then I realized that having 43 BP of construction going on this turn was going to leave me wondering how to allocate the mere 28 BP I'd have next turn. So things got slashed back to a more sustainable level.
My next few sim reports are going to be simple:
-Battleships
-Canals.
They eat up something like half the cash budget and 2/3 of the BP.
My 1914H1 report is a little behind its final tinkers because of a big fur torpedo name Desriel.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/390307707225112586/755562137652428922/20200915_131921.png)
We adopted her yesterday and she is settling in nice.
Congrats!
We acquired two pups in the spring - a Labrador named Uther (code-name Lugnut) and a Catahoula named Remington (code-name Dippy). It brings us up to 4.25 dogs, though the chihuahua and one of the sheepdogs are up there in age.
I take it the Chihuahua only counts as 0.25 of a dog?
Quote from: Desertfox on September 16, 2020, 11:06:58 AM
I take it the Chihuahua only counts as 0.25 of a dog?
She's a lovely little thing that spends about 23 hours a day sleeping, so yes.
Do we have formal guidelines/rules for simming sailing rig?
I dont think there is anything formal. I know there was something back in the N4 days that seemed "reasonable" to me, I'll try and dig it up.
EDIT: My memory does not fail me, from here. (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5717.msg74083.html#msg74083)
QuoteHulls and Sails
Hull Materials: The 19th Century saw rapid changes in materials that ships hulls were constructed off. In less than 50 years the worlds battlefleets moved from hulls of Wooden Hulls, to Ironclad, Iron hull and finally steel construction. These different materials have different abilities to take the load of the ships weight.
Sail vs. Steam: As the 19th century progressed there was a transition of warships from sail propulsion, to steam backup and finally to all steam propulsion. The switch over to steam comes because of two reasons. First is that ships can steam all the time in all weather conditions. The second is that rigging is a fire hazard and source of possible debris to block the ships deck. Of course a ship with sails does not need to go to port to coal and doesn't require the ship engine to be maintained. So sailing ships will remain common in civilian service for a great deal of time.
To simulate the weight of a ships sail gear and the ballast to counter the torque effects the mast has on the hull misc. weight will be used. A portion will be below the waterline misc. weight and the other as above the deck misc. weight both found on the Weapons tab for SpringSharp3.
There are two types of sail plans that ships can follow. The Full Rigged Ship (3 masted ship) or Brigantine / Brig (2 masted ship).
A full rigged ship can do up to 2/3 of SS hull speed (not ship engine speed but speed based on hull) Displacement costs being 1.5% misc weight above hull for Full Rigged Ship and 6.5% misc weight below deck. On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 480 total misc tons.
A Brigantine can do 1/2 of SS hull speed. Displacement costs being 1% Misc Weight above hull and 4% misc weight below deck. On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 300 total misc tons.
Thanks for that.
No problem.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 01, 2020, 05:45:40 PM
Do we have formal guidelines/rules for simming sailing rig?
What Snip posted is what I've used for Parthia, the Inca etc., and I believe cleared through him pregame.
Should we just make it "official" then and add it to our rules?
Quote from: snip on October 02, 2020, 06:37:38 PM
Should we just make it "official" then and add it to our rules?
Probably falls under Ship Design Guidelines if you'd be so kind.
:)
Apparently I forgot the construction of eight 500 t submarines in 1911 and 1912, so I'll calculate the over-due maintenance and toss it into the 2/14 report when the time comes.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 03, 2020, 07:12:20 PM
Apparently I forgot the construction of eight 500 t submarines in 1911 and 1912, so I'll calculate the over-due maintenance and toss it into the 2/14 report when the time comes.
When I migrated from the old turnsheet to the new, I didn't allocate some Land Units, so I just paid the catchup this past turn.
Happens.
I reckon it's time to send some of those twenty+ year-old, 22 knot torpedo-boats to the breaker.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 05, 2020, 07:30:10 PM
I reckon it's time to send some of those twenty+ year-old, 22 knot torpedo-boats to the breaker.
Parthia built several hundred steam torpedo boats- our 60 tonners.
While obsolete for warfare, and I'm building 50-60 MTBs/HY to replace them,
I'm wondering if they are obsolete for commerce interdiction. If I put 200 of them in Sumatra/Borneo,
that's a huge amount of mosquitos to swat.
I'd concede that might have some effect.
It would force an enemy to run out of shells.
QuoteI reckon it's time to send some of those twenty+ year-old, 22 knot torpedo-boats to the breaker.
I will do it too - (125t & 140t -21kts)
Quote...I'm wondering if they are obsolete for commerce interdiction. If I put 200 of them in Sumatra/Borneo,
that's a huge amount of mosquitos to swat.
Certainly a good choice in an archipelago
(remember JFK with PT109).
But, use the new 1914 techno => MTBD
And here I thought my 34 a turn was a lot
I'm kinda looking forward to designing aircraft carriers again. It's good to have some variety like that.
Oh yes, some civilian mail aircraft carriers would be nice, or even a casino aircraft carrier.
Thanks to the Chinese I think we can add theme-park aircraft carriers to that list.
I suppose since I'm scrapping a bunch of old protected cruisers I could set one aside for trials refits, but I did that last time.
Decided to start sketching out the Angstrom class. I'll be borrowing heavily from the historical Mackensen class for that.
yay, Rocky drawings are coming back!
Not many of them, and probably only a side view. Probably just the huge or weird stuff.
Although I'm flattered that these would be cause for excitement.
Woot! Woot! I can steal more drawing elements!
One of these days I will reacquire a CAD program, then I can fiddle.
I just use Paint. Can't be bothered to pick up or learn anything more complicated.
Although I did like my old Corel Draw back in the day.
Quote from: Desertfox on November 05, 2020, 11:02:57 AM
Woot! Woot! I can steal more drawing elements!
That's the spirit!
I did enough CAD way back in HS that I know enough to make it work. Then it also lets me scratch the little itch of "I know its the right size". At some point I should try Paint
CAD is great but way too time consuming to do it right for something like a ship. Paint is great for most everything we need, and quite simple to use. I use the same 1 pixel = 1 foot scale as Rocky, but if you go to 2 pixels = 1 foot, (like Guinness) there's a huge library of Shipbucket stuff you can borrow from.
I did some stuff in AutoCAD back when I was in college. Even had AutoCAD lite on my PC. Made an all aluminum (aluminium?) trebuchet for a competition, that was fun.
Did some tinkering around with electric drive designs today. Reckon it's a challenge for precisely the ships that would benefit most from responsive powerplants: Small, fast stuff in the destroyer and cruiser categories. For a 1,000 t destroyers, with 500-550 t of machinery, one loses ~150 t of the light displacement just to the electrics. That takes away from maximum speed, armament, and freeboard in some order and is pretty painful. Cruisers aren't as bad, but still hurt.
Also played around with electric drive refurbs of my youngest VTE-equipped pre-dreads and ACs for giggles. With turbines, electric drive and 100% oil, the pre-dread could add about 5 knots (24 max). But it's still got a mixed battery. Swapping out the twin 20 cm for single 28 cm doesn't work. Swapping out the main and secondary batteries for a universal 25 cm battery would work if I wanted to effectively duplicate the Blucher. Swapping the main battery out for twin or maybe triple 20 cm would give me a big, slow CA if wanted to do that. But the cash cost of replacing the machinery is around $8 (inc. refurb) before I even start on the armament, and I just don't see a circumstance where that makes sense since the outcome still doesn't produce a first-rate ship.
The cruisers have a uniform battery, happily, but more machinery means a higher base cost to refurb it, and I've still just got a ship with 6 x 20 cm on the broadside. I can build an Exeter clone for less cash and not much more BP.
So all that to say, my construction plans didn't change at all.
I admire those that can furnish illustrations of their vessels.
I've found myself poorly suited for that.
So welcome to doodling Rocky :)
Reading the rules on a refurbishment, as I ponder the fate of a couple pre-dreads.
The class has 2x2 305/45 and 4x2 200/45. Operationally, we've figured out by now that the two calibers don't get along well for fire control purposes. I'm giving thought to yanking the 200/45 turrets out for use in cruisers.
Refurbishment requires me to pay a $ and BP cost for components added. But if I just remove the turrets and plate over the holes...is there a cost? Like, besides the basic cash cost of the refurb?
Game Sim : I treat multiple calibers as the equivalent of more than 1 ship shooting at the target - essentially the extra splashes confuse fire control.
Implementation : I treat the ship captains as having a brain. If the penalty (-5) looks to substantially degrade the Hit %, I don't fire the extra guns. If its a bit closer in, where TH % can be in 25-30+ range, I fire the extra guns as the value offsets the penalty.
Refurbishment:
Practical matter : Simply removing the guns supposedly could cause real issues with the hull balancing. They need some weight there.
Implementation : I don't really know how one would police that.
The rule : Yes, while refurbishing you can yank guns off. I don't see that you have to replace them.
The possible exception is the phrasing for main battery, but that doesn't sound like an issue here.
You could sell them... no need to worry then!
I would think there should be a note about ballast in the misc weight section. But that should be all.
On the refurb -turret removal-.
Removing the turrets and plating the holes in the deck over shouldn't cause an issue. The weight of the ship changes all the time, with greater variations than the secundary turrets. That is why there are ballast tanks.
An if it causes a real life problem, adding more armor to offset the lost weight or even pouring in a block of lead in the empty barbette (or hoist-well) isn't high tech.
Even main gun turrets can be removed.
We have seen that done in the Japanese Hybrid carrier rebuilds of the Ise class BB's.
Ballast makes sense. Even if I pay for it, it'd be less expensive than adding armor or machinery. I should probably check out the seakeeping/steadiness/stability stats of the ship with the guns removed to see how performance is affected.
Won't make economic sense to just take the guns out for the sake of selling them. If I invest $0.50 in a refresh of the 200mm/45 gun, though, it's eight functionally new turrets to arm a pair of cruisers.
I find it ironic that it's a huge hull - 15,000 t - and yet the design is so very limiting for future use.
Oh I meant sell the entire ship ;)
Quote from: Desertfox on November 25, 2020, 11:01:54 AM
Oh I meant sell the entire ship ;)
Talk to me in late 1915, then...
To ask this question.
Specific remote listening/sensor installations cost 25t apiece. This is more in line with remote listening stations, Radar, ASDIC, Hydrophones, etc.
I had noticed that a number of ships, and typically the smaller vessels, wouldn't have anything so extensive in this era. Now a 1500t or 2000t DD might, but not a 750t DD. I've also noticed that a number of players note a few tons to 'searchlights and other night fighting equipment'.
So I was wondering, does dropping say 2 tons on a smaller vessel into 'additional scopes and searchlights' count at all as boosting its ability to fight at night? No I wouldn't expect the ship to be throwing broadsides at 15,000yds, but generally have it more aware and more capable of acquiring a target at night within the point-blank to say 8000yd envelope?
I guess we didn't have any consensus on Tac's questions above.
Night-fighting is a challenge for me. It's a technology but I don't think it ought to be. I think of it more as a doctrine in the same vein as juene d'ecole or mass torpedo attacks or risky shell-handling procedures to increase rate of fire. The equipment has essentially negligible mass and is largely standard fittings on a ship anyway. But I fit the "night-fighting doodads" into a lot of classes for flavor and to indicate that I nonetheless have the Union paying attention to that tech/doctrine.
But the remote sensing stuff - war tubas, Huelsmeyer devices - they're basically science fiction to me. I have no idea how they work or how they affect rolls. I don't know if anybody actually used them in combat and to what effect. So I don't allocate tonnage for them.
I have 0.449 BP unallocated in my draft H2/15 report and I have a tremendous urge to do something wild and amazing with it.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 23, 2020, 09:00:48 AM
- war tubas,
I just figured they were an integral part of the ship complement's brass band
Quote from: Darman on December 23, 2020, 09:39:02 AM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 23, 2020, 09:00:48 AM
- war tubas,
I just figured they were an integral part of the ship complement's brass band
*Furiously looks for the Like button*
For some reason, I dreamt that Jef was developing a 73 caliber capital ship gun and I was like, "BUT JEF THE BARREL LIFE!"
There are worse things to dream about.
I mean, its a valid concern. Do we need to have an intervention Jef? Over-calibering is a serious thing and we support you on your journey to overcoming this obstacle.
In the past, in my Panzerschiff studies, I had installed 800mm torpedoes tubes. A single impact could cut a 10,000t cruiser in half or put a battleship out of action.
I had also studied a "Bismarck" with 2T2 x 800 (Schwerer Gustav)
Crazy Jef :o ::)
I found it, the SS is from 1-12-2007 !!!
Gustav, Germany Battleship laid down 1942
Displacement:
72 000 t light; 77 580 t standard; 81 367 t normal; 84 396 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(980,09 ft / 964,57 ft) x 124,67 ft x (35,03 / 36,16 ft)
(298,73 m / 294,00 m) x 38,00 m x (10,68 / 11,02 m)
Armament:
4 - 31,50" / 800 mm 45,0 cal guns - 15 622,09lbs / 7 086,06kg shells, 105 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1942 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
12 - 7,99" / 203 mm 45,0 cal guns - 255,23lbs / 115,77kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1942 Model
6 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
16 - 4,13" / 105 mm 45,0 cal guns - 35,32lbs / 16,02kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1942 Model
8 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
8 raised mounts
32 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1,54lbs / 0,70kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1942 Model
16 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
32 raised mounts
64 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 150 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1942 Model
32 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
32 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 66 181 lbs / 30 019 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12,6" / 320 mm 688,98 ft / 210,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 4,72" / 120 mm 196,85 ft / 60,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
78,74 ft / 24,00 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 4,02" / 102 mm 692,26 ft / 211,00 m 8,01 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 110 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1,97" / 50 mm 754,59 ft / 230,00 m 34,45 ft / 10,50 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 98,43 ft / 30,00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15,7" / 400 mm 9,84" / 250 mm 15,0" / 380 mm
2nd: 5,91" / 150 mm 2,36" / 60 mm 4,72" / 120 mm
3rd: 0,79" / 20 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 5,91" / 150 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 13,78" / 350 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 173 222 shp / 129 224 Kw = 28,14 kts
Range 10 000nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6 816 tons
Complement:
2 408 - 3 131
Cost:
£59,453 million / $237,811 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 7 494 tons, 9,2 %
- Guns: 7 494 tons, 9,2 %
Armour: 22 198 tons, 27,3 %
- Belts: 6 174 tons, 7,6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1 893 tons, 2,3 %
- Armament: 5 187 tons, 6,4 %
- Armour Deck: 8 386 tons, 10,3 %
- Conning Tower: 557 tons, 0,7 %
Machinery: 4 525 tons, 5,6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 37 383 tons, 45,9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9 367 tons, 11,5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 0,5 %
- Hull below water: 100 tons
- Hull above water: 100 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 100 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
86 091 lbs / 39 050 Kg = 5,5 x 31,5 " / 800 mm shells or 11,5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 8,6 ft / 2,6 m
Roll period: 17,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1,15
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,17
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,676 / 0,679
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,74 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31,06 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 8,20 ft / 2,50 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 18,00 %, 34,45 ft / 10,50 m, 25,26 ft / 7,70 m
- Forward deck: 22,00 %, 25,26 ft / 7,70 m, 21,98 ft / 6,70 m
- Aft deck: 43,00 %, 21,98 ft / 6,70 m, 21,98 ft / 6,70 m
- Quarter deck: 17,00 %, 21,98 ft / 6,70 m, 21,98 ft / 6,70 m
- Average freeboard: 23,59 ft / 7,19 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 110,1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 168,2 %
Waterplane Area: 94 330 Square feet or 8 764 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 90 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 302 lbs/sq ft or 1 473 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,07
- Overall: 1,00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Warning: Calibre too large - Main Battery
Of course, I know !!!
weight of gun 1344tons
Oh dear.
I love it! It doesn't shoot shells, it shoots entire MTBs!
The reality is 25 tons "overpays" for some, and "underpays" for others.
Part of this is it's not weight tonnage, but also volume (GRT) for the personnel and spares and what not.
The gear really does not care how big your vessel is. Either you have space for it, or not.
Partial suites get partial ability....or none depending on the gear.
In general these 1-2t things will be looked at, but be of limited use.
Example :
Snip had 2t allocated for Paravanes on DDs.
After reading on Paravanes, I decided that meant the cables towing the cutting floats were short, and light gauge, and he did not have spare cutting floats.
So I let it work for a narrow path and 1 mine each. Had he encountered a minefield of any depth, they would have been inadequate.
As it was, the early WW1 mines could not be moored in deep water, so it was moot.
As Rocky observes, "Night fighting" is in large part doctrine. I did/do make a difference on how complex one can move/act at night.
The 1905 basically allows line-ahead, 1908 some limited formations, etc.
"Searchlights" I interpret as adding engagement range.
As I recall, I've been using :
No searchlight = 3000-6000m engagement range.
Standard ships gear of a searchlight = 8000m range.
"Searchlight Tower" ala British Battleships : ~10-12,000m
"Starshell" : 12000 +/-, need a 75mm+ gun....but can be shot by screening units as well.
Hulesmeyer :
In-game, it works out to 10,000m, and basically is a detector telling you something reflective is "that a way"
Not horribly useful...unless you're a sentry in the dark, in which case it could be useful.
War Tuba :
These are actually land devices, clusters of very large hearing horns which are mounted and pivot. They magnify the listener's hearing and so were used for early detection of airplanes. At sea they could also hear airplane engines...like those in MTBs.
Folks may note the most recent Parthian cruisers have Hulesmeyer and War Tubas.
While much of my ship design is based on what I think are solid practices, those are are there in reaction to the wars we've had.
They indicate Parthia's concern - as does their retrofitting the
Tiamat with torpedo nets - about night time torpedo attack.
Likewise Parthia is working on starshell.
All of which is a little funny, as Parthia's fire control, heavy secondaries, TDS and torpedo nets would make her Capital ships much tougher targets.
Anyhow, I expect future refits to take at least the War Tubas off.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on November 26, 2020, 07:00:51 PM
To ask this question.
Specific remote listening/sensor installations cost 25t apiece. This is more in line with remote listening stations, Radar, ASDIC, Hydrophones, etc.
I had noticed that a number of ships, and typically the smaller vessels, wouldn't have anything so extensive in this era. Now a 1500t or 2000t DD might, but not a 750t DD. I've also noticed that a number of players note a few tons to 'searchlights and other night fighting equipment'.
So I was wondering, does dropping say 2 tons on a smaller vessel into 'additional scopes and searchlights' count at all as boosting its ability to fight at night? No I wouldn't expect the ship to be throwing broadsides at 15,000yds, but generally have it more aware and more capable of acquiring a target at night within the point-blank to say 8000yd envelope?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 23, 2020, 09:00:48 AM
I guess we didn't have any consensus on Tac's questions above.
Night-fighting is a challenge for me. It's a technology but I don't think it ought to be. I think of it more as a doctrine in the same vein as juene d'ecole or mass torpedo attacks or risky shell-handling procedures to increase rate of fire. The equipment has essentially negligible mass and is largely standard fittings on a ship anyway. But I fit the "night-fighting doodads" into a lot of classes for flavor and to indicate that I nonetheless have the Union paying attention to that tech/doctrine.
But the remote sensing stuff - war tubas, Huelsmeyer devices - they're basically science fiction to me. I have no idea how they work or how they affect rolls. I don't know if anybody actually used them in combat and to what effect. So I don't allocate tonnage for them.
QuoteHulesmeyer :
In-game, it works out to 10,000m, and basically is a detector telling you something reflective is "that a way"
Not horribly useful...unless you're a sentry in the dark, in which case it could be useful.
That's basically what I assumed. So the only Japanese ships that have gotten them are the auxiliary pickets, spy ships, and select auxiliaries (hospital/diplomatic) that I don't want running into things.
I'm so relieved there are no 1916 or 1917 techs to start, because it means I can catch up on the last five 1915 techs I haven't started yet.
At this rate I won't be fielding an aircraft carrier until 1919.
Edit: No, that's wrong. Won't be laying one down till then.
Oh you rich kids... I still have 20 1915 and earlier unresearched techs...
Ouch.
Sad 1908 noises
The tech trees start out a little dense and then thin out.
Basically it means you can pick a couple categories and be "cutting edge" there,
but in the rest different countries will be at different places.
The Aztec/Inca/Japan all started a bit further behind, so it's a bit rougher for them.
That's where the the cost break for the older techs is nice.
Parthia just started the 1909 Engine tech, and the total cost is $4.20, so I'm going to plow through it in 4 HY.
Trying to sketch out a ship and realizing that I obviously wasn't thinking about deck space when I assigned the tertiary armament. No idea where half of it is supposed to go.
Conceptual deck space is interesting.
It seems the short ranged ships tended towards low freeboards and minimal superstructures.
As crews got larger, and ranges longer, superstructures ate up more of the deckspace,
but as freeboards go higher, there's more internal room and less need for superstructures.
So, I really like the rolling shutters with small craft (all those ship's boats) or torpedoes behind them, and the funky sponsons.
if you have the high freeboard, then you could just mentally shove those there, freeing up oodles of deckspace.
So FYI, keep an eye on your weapon mount weights for machine guns. I'm not sure precisely where or how, but I THINK SS has a glitch that adds too much weight to armor weights in that scenario.
Interesting.
I'd noticed way back when that shields weighed a remarkable amount for the light guns/ MGs, so stopped fitting them.
Using 10 single deck mounts :
A 7.5mm MG with a 50mm (2" !) shield - the shield weight is 57tons. : 5.7t each
A 9.9mm MG with a 50mm (2" !) shield - the shield weight is 44tons. : 4.4t each
A 15mm MG with a 50mm (2" !) shield - the shield weight is 30tons : 3t each
A 23mm MG with a 50mm (2" !) shield - the shield weight is 22tons. : 2.2t each
A 27mm MG with a 50mm shield - the shield weight is 20 tons : 2t each
Changing Mount type to QF drastically increases the weight.
7.5mm = 172 tons
27mm = 59t
75mm = 43t : 4.3/75mm QF mt.
AA drops the shield weight again to the MG level it seems.
All the other settings seem to use the QF system.
Very curious.
The minimum seems to be around the 75mm gun.
I think it scales from there.
It just scales UP instead of DOWN for the smaller guns,
but it may be based on the expectation that you need a Crew-sized square of metal,
so it shouldn't go too low.
Definitely goofy.
I had a situation last night where a 10mm MG in deck mount with no side/other protection carried 2 t of armor...but if I increased the side/other protection to 3 mm for weatherproofing, the weight of the armor decreased to 1 t.
Definitely goofy. Although it may be that SS is simming a gun shield designed for your typical 'naval rifle' not a machine gun or light autocannon. IE a full deck-ish to overhead and left to right wide enough to frontal protect the whole gun crew shield. Something in the single or twin .50 cal or 20mm range would in reality only have two 'wings' of steel as its 'gun shield', approximately 2ft x 3ft at a maximum. Considering that I've hefted these gun shields as they're used on gun trucks in Iraq, they're only about 80-120lb tops for a typical 7.62mm resistant shield for a .50 cal, that's going to be around 3/8 of an inch thick. Figure if you're doing a 8-30mm gun shield for your typical MG mount, it should actually run you around .1t per mount to .3 tons per mount depending on thickness, counting shield/hardware/strengthening of the mount for the weight.
I'm with Kirk, I've not been putting armor on my MGs, won't be until aircraft strafing is considered a significant threat. And by then we're probably looking at autocannon mounts rather than paired Machine Guns as the primary mid-close AA armament.
I was adding the armor to the mounts and am now thinking it's probably cost me several tonnes I'd have liked to use elsewhere.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on April 21, 2021, 07:35:14 AM
Definitely goofy. Although it may be that SS is simming a gun shield designed for your typical 'naval rifle' not a machine gun or light autocannon. IE a full deck-ish to overhead and left to right wide enough to frontal protect the whole gun crew shield.
I think you've identified it.
But I think it's also scaling off a fixed point ~75mm, but the formula simply goes by difference, so 7.5mm is massive.
One you add wings "other" it switches to some gunhouse formula.
As for Rocky's extra tonnage... look at that as 'cheap' comp hull waiting for a simple refit of deck guns.
or perhaps a sign the Wilno steel cartel paid off the Wilno naval designers to use extra product...
So you should "expel" the miscreant industry ! As a storyline matter that would mean sending a couple BP elsewhere.
Of course you wouldn't want them going to a neighbor, or even another nation with homeports on the Atlantic,
but somewhere like 2 nations away. Preferably a major nation who shares a border with the Golden Horde.
...like Parthia !
It's only logical.
Just send them even further away, like really far away, say the Pacific country of Japan?
Perhaps Parthia and Japan should fight for the honor.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 22, 2021, 12:38:47 PM
Perhaps Parthia and Japan should fight for the honor.
There's no need for that.
There's the difference that Parthia shares a land border with the Golden Horde and has a large deployable army which could come to Wilno's aide.
Japan... not so much.
:)
But, glad to hear Wilno is considering the concept !
I'm playing with an inclined belt for a 1918 design.
But I have forgotten virtually everything I ever learned about trigonometry.
If a belt is inclined at 10 degrees, and is to full enclose a space 4.8 metres high, how "high" does the actual belt need to be?
Hmm, I actually had to use trig a couple years ago to figure out offset angles setting up cable yarding corridors...
but there, I know adjacent and opposite and am trying to find the angle correction...
This is adjacent (4.8m) and angle are known and we want hypotenuse.
..which I didn't remember...and had to look it up
Cos (deg) = Adjacent/hypotenuse
So
Cos (10) = 0.98480775301221 = 4.8 / hypotenuse
So
hypotenuse * 0.98480775301221 = 4.8
so
hypotenuse = 4.8 / 0.98480775301221 = 4.874
hmm not as big a difference as expected, perhaps I made an error, but luckily I showed my work so others can find it !!!
It's a very shallow angle so your math looks good. Unless your calculator is set to radians instead of degrees.
Thanks for that, Kirk.
I found a site this morning that confirmed the same number, so that's handy. I was not expecting a huge difference from 4.8 metres, but maybe a bit more than a 7.5 cm difference.
I think for Parthians that math should work
For all others, just double the distance to be covered...
::)
For a given vertical height, the length of the hypotenuse/angled belt is:
10 degrees: 101.5%
12 degrees: 102.2%
14 degrees: 103.1%
16 degrees: 104.0%
18 degrees: 105.2%
20 degrees: 106.4%
I'm starting to feel like eight destroyers a year is too many. That's 160 over a twenty year period.
QuoteI'm starting to feel like eight destroyers a year is too many. That's 160 over a twenty year period.
6 is a good medium number.
12 per year => 1 Flotilla per year.
You could reduce to 4 if you built Torpedo Boat or TGB for coastal operation.
(TGBs only have 50% of the displacement reserved for the engines.
Weight saving is reserved for the installation of a powerful artillery, often 120mm guns and 4 torpedo tubes.)
Psh, I only laid down 16 destroyers this half year, while reffiting another 8.
Slacker.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 24, 2021, 08:34:03 PM
Slacker.
Sad GTB noises.
1918 I will build 4 x DDs......just saying.
Halving my destroyer build only nets me tonnage for two capital ships, though. Still spending most of my tonnage on the big boys.
QuoteHalving my destroyer build only nets me tonnage for two capital ships, though. Still spending most of my tonnage on the big boys.
What is the best fleet ratio?
1BB
1AC
2CL
3DD (ocean operations)
2TB (coastal operations)
1 or 1.5...2 or 2.5...?
1 BB
1 AC
1 CL
ALL the DDs!
Right now I'm kind of moving toward:
1 capital ship
2 cruisers
8 destroyers
That feels unbalanced on the light side, but reflect some jitters about the effectiveness of MTBs. I don't know if it will hold.
Oh ho Paint is going to get a workout tonight. I have a terrible idea and want to see what it looks like.
Paint says that yes, I could do a double-deck torpedo-boat carrier with a twin 400mm/45 turret aft.
Springstyle says it'll cost me 19 BP if I want it to go 30 knots.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/9cd8ace0a58695b98f46b8c2cd0a0130/tenor.png)
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 01, 2021, 07:08:37 PM
Paint says that yes, I could do a double-deck torpedo-boat carrier with a twin 400mm/45 turret aft.
Springstyle says it'll cost me 19 BP if I want it to go 30 knots.
Sounds interesting....
Doing a 'double decker' mod of my old TBCs has been on my 'to do'.
But I just want hull roller doors like you see in some brit and IJN ships over torpedo bays.
That will allow them to be inline with the upper davits and double their loadout.
but 31 knots and a big twin turret that can generate a ROF sufficient to effectively use fire control is not on the list.
Converting two to seaplane carriers is still on the 'two do'....
BUT...
I keep spending my BP on Army/Dep/Air/Fort...I really hadn't considered how much BP they would need and it's messing my build schedule up.
My new design ended up rather top-heavy with the weight assigned where it was. On the whole, even setting aside the questionable utility of the turret, sixteen MTB on a 18,000 t hull is far less effective than eight MTB on a 5,000 t hull.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 25, 2021, 11:24:35 AM
Right now I'm kind of moving toward:
1 capital ship
2 cruisers
8 destroyers.
Just as a side comment,
when I helped Snip pick the starting IC/BP range,
I know I penciled out a rough "1940" fleet with a
battleline and a several carriers, then support ships.
Then I figured the BP cost with an average lifespan of 15-20years.
The idea being, it gave all players a minimal fleet size that
would have enough options they could try different things.
I think I aimed between the Italian and Japanese fleets.
That was rooted in Wesworld experiences with new players
taking very small countries and finding building a single cruiser every
couple game years was not very exciting.
Couple that with Snip's colony design, and you can grow your BP
and afford a larger fleet long run...or refit old designs to get there.
As for me...I'm discovering the downside of sprawl is I think
I need independent cruiser squadrons.
That coupled with the Malta treaty allowing Jefgte to focus on
the East means I still have to plan for a bludgeon fest around
the Gulf of Aden...means I need two different types of forces.
And that has led me to discard my pregame 'even flow' build plans.
QuoteAs for me...I'm discovering the downside of sprawl is I think
I need independent cruiser squadrons.
That coupled with the Malta treaty allowing Jefgte to focus on
the East means I still have to plan for a bludgeon fest around
the Gulf of Aden...means I need two different types of forces.
And that has led me to discard my pregame 'even flow' build plans.
I'm sorry I thwarted your Building Plans. In fact, I think you just adapted them ...
I've got a year to go before the canal is done. It's sucked up a lot of my spending (and 10 BP) but once it's done I can work on catching up with some of you other guys in terms of BP and IC. Then I can bump up my construction a bit as well.
Quote from: Jefgte on July 05, 2021, 03:41:56 PM
I'm sorry I thwarted your Building Plans. In fact, I think you just adapted them ...
I've had to build more light cruisers and destroyers than expected.
As you observed early on, your starting forces had the advantage there.
But I've also had to build extra units for the colonies.
and I wouldn't be building Stormbringer and Mournblade at all if not for your BCs...and the fact your AC classes are all slightly better than mine.
So my build program became more "batches" of classes to fill current needs, rather than the
Planned constant # of hulls under construction at all times I forecast.
Soon I'll be able to take the older ships in hand and retrofit them like the Byzantines have.
I am trying to decide what to do about your 16000t pocket DNs.
They are similar to designs I've considered, but I only had so much resources.
Currently I'm struggling to decide on a caliber and design for new "Light Armored Cruiser" aka heavy cruisers.
The Pocket DN has long been "on the table", with a speed boost to 23-26knots. Those would counter yours.
The new gun tech has enough Muzzle Energy (ME) that even at 40calibers and 80% ME I can field a 255/40 with a big shell that can penetrate PCs/ACs effectively at current combat
ranges, but by time I get done with speed and armor and TDS, they wind up fairly large vessels - effectively a fast
Invincible that can
engage anything under a BC/BB.
Or, if I focus on overwhelming smaller cruisers - primary opponents in scouting/raiding/escorts,
I can do a 180mm vessel with good speed/armor that I can afford in greater numbers.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 06, 2021, 10:16:22 AM
The new gun tech has enough Muzzle Energy (ME) that even at 40calibers and 80% ME I can field a 255/40 with a big shell that can penetrate PCs/ACs effectively at current combat
ranges, but by time I get done with speed and armor and TDS, they wind up fairly large vessels - effectively a fast Invincible that can
engage anything under a BC/BB.
Or, if I focus on overwhelming smaller cruisers - primary opponents in scouting/raiding/escorts,
I can do a 180mm vessel with good speed/armor that I can afford in greater numbers.
I'm also having to heavily reconfigure. But then I had a 'hard reset' of my fleet. Looking at my capital ship programs, I've always wanted to build my battleships in pairs, but I think I'm going to have to work up a 'standard configuration' type capital ship and build on that as singles, with significant overlap in construction. Otherwise I wind up tying up too much of my limited BP into a pair of ships when I have large needs in destroyers and cruisers.
I too have been looking at a lighter Frigate class than the Weapons. The Weapons are excellent, 8x180mm 8x100mm, 4in belt, etc. But they are a 9000t cruiser with the associated costs. In the interests of fleet numbers, I've been seriously considering a smaller variation of that class at 6000t, and also a number of other options to give me sufficient numbers to cover my responsibilities in the Gulf/Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on July 06, 2021, 01:01:23 PM
I too have been looking at a lighter Frigate class than the Weapons. The Weapons are excellent, 8x180mm 8x100mm, 4in belt, etc. But they are a 9000t cruiser with the associated costs. In the interests of fleet numbers, I've been seriously considering a smaller variation of that class at 6000t, and also a number of other options to give me sufficient numbers to cover my responsibilities in the Gulf/Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific.
I rather like my
Maelstrom and
Ranger classes, but I've long fielded 8-10x 165mm 6000t cruisers. The 0.9 hull break is substantial, and a fairly decent vessel can be built.
Fielding a similar vessel with 180mm guns pushes displacement over 6000, and then 1.00 hull is needed, and the entire ship balloons to 8000t.
Which is why the 11-12000 ton 'light armored' cruisers look appealing, that mix between completely dominating the smaller and running from the more powerful.
The real issue for me is Jefgte has a bunch of Armored Cruisers with 200mm armor and 10" guns..or better.
Which brings me back to different ships for the Gulf of Aden fleet battle vs. the territories.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 06, 2021, 01:16:22 PM
I rather like my Maelstrom and Ranger classes, but I've long fielded 8-10x 165mm 6000t cruisers. The 0.9 hull break is substantial, and a fairly decent vessel can be built.
Agreed, with the .9 hull break, doing a 'Leander' type like my Eagle class with 8x150mm at 6000t is rather well balanced for a general purpose fleet cruiser.
Fielding a similar vessel with 180mm guns pushes displacement over 6000, and then 1.00 hull is needed, and the entire ship balloons to 8000t.
Which is what happened to my Weapon class. Also the 180mm is just slow firing enough that a secondary battery becomes needed if they're to fight destroyers effectively, which helped balloon mine up to almost 9000t.
Which is why the 11-12000 ton 'light armored' cruisers look appealing, that mix between completely dominating the smaller and running from the more powerful.
The real issue for me is Jefgte has a bunch of Armored Cruisers with 200mm armor and 10" guns..or better.
Which brings me back to different ships for the Gulf of Aden fleet battle vs. the territories.
That sort of ship is why the Caribbean class exists now. I don't have a gun between 180mm and 280mm, and the 12,000t ship with 180s would just be a 10-12 gun vessel with a heavy secondary battery and a lot of speed and armor. Unbalanced for me. So I went straight to 'light battlecruiser' sizes and to the original concept of the Invincibles. The firepower to annihilate any cruiser afloat, the armor to withstand light and heavy cruisers at combat ranges, and the speed to both run down cruisers and flee from full-up battlecruisers armed with 14in guns or greater. I realized that the Caribbeans are doing the Sultan Ali's functional job (280mm BCs just aren't going to be competitive long term with 340mm BCs in any planet) and they're 5BP cheaper per ship. They require either a tough large cruiser that's willing to get knocked around hard, or a full-up battlecruiser to compete with them, and in wartime they force battleships to escort convoys as they can Scharnhorst the crap out of an underdefended convoy.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on July 06, 2021, 01:38:02 PM
So I went straight to 'light battlecruiser' sizes and to the original concept of the Invincibles. The firepower to annihilate any cruiser afloat, the armor to withstand light and heavy cruisers at combat ranges, and the speed to both run down cruisers and flee from full-up battlecruisers armed with 14in guns or greater.
Which is where I've wound up - I'm calling them "light armored cruisers" to distinguish from the 28,000 ton large ones.
and we've circled around to my tinkering with gun ME and bores to get just the right tool for the job :)
I have a 255L50 in service, and an unused 235L43, either is pretty handy. A new 1915 tech 10" class has the problem of too MUCH ME, the MVs turn out so high you'll wear down the rifling before you'll empty your magazine.....so I can scale down the length and go with a shorter (lighter) gun firing a heavier shell (+10% per 1915 tech)...if I want to take the time to develop it.
Since I'm squeezed on BP...I think I can take that time.
Byzantium needs 6000t cruisers with 6x191 to renew its fleet of old cruisers.
Byzantine ACs are also fast and are classified as scout cruisers (for 21kts BBs).
The downgrading of 500t DDs to Costal TBs forces me to quickly build 2 flotillas of 1140t DDs.
I like the Pocket BBs Kurnaz class very much, they are cheaper than the BB Imperator class or other big BBs.
QuoteI am trying to decide what to do about your 16000t pocket DNs.
They are similar to designs I've considered, but I only had so much resources.
Currently I'm struggling to decide on a caliber and design for new "Light Armored Cruiser" aka heavy cruisers.
The Pocket DN has long been "on the table", with a speed boost to 23-26knots. Those would counter yours.
Originally, these Pocket BBs (
Kurnaz-Kalin)and BCs (
Gaqus-Gadhla) were intended to oppose Japanese BCs & DNs in addition to the 6th and 7th battle divisions to avoid sending "Bigs" to station in Australia.
QuoteCurrently I'm struggling to decide on a caliber and design for new "Light Armored Cruiser" aka heavy cruisers.
Byzance is going to develop OTL County class 8"gun.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 06, 2021, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: TacCovert4 on July 06, 2021, 01:38:02 PM
So I went straight to 'light battlecruiser' sizes and to the original concept of the Invincibles. The firepower to annihilate any cruiser afloat, the armor to withstand light and heavy cruisers at combat ranges, and the speed to both run down cruisers and flee from full-up battlecruisers armed with 14in guns or greater.
Which is where I've wound up - I'm calling them "light armored cruisers" to distinguish from the 28,000 ton large ones.
and we've circled around to my tinkering with gun ME and bores to get just the right tool for the job :)
I have a 255L50 in service, and an unused 235L43, either is pretty handy. A new 1915 tech 10" class has the problem of too MUCH ME, the MVs turn out so high you'll wear down the rifling before you'll empty your magazine.....so I can scale down the length and go with a shorter (lighter) gun firing a heavier shell (+10% per 1915 tech)...if I want to take the time to develop it.
Since I'm squeezed on BP...I think I can take that time.
Conversely I've walked away from the battlecruiser as it is in its historical guise, in favor of keeping the light ish but still capital grade armament a la invincible. I'd love to do a 240mm gun, but I'm opting for the extra penatration and punch of the 11in gun for now.
Stormbringer and Mournblade are fast battleships, the large "battlecruiser" concept was only slightly "cheaper" and so did not prevail over them, and seems unlikely to happen for Parthia.
I don't have any 280mm, 255 is the closest. But I designed the 300L41 and 235L43 to drop into existing PD / AC barbettes, I just haven't gotten around to actually doing so.
The Invincible analog - particularly after Wilno's Archer beat a predread - is much more doable, and looking like my lead contender right now.
Mid-sized cruisers always throw me for a loop. They feel unnatural, an aberration and artifact of naval limitation treaties.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 07, 2021, 06:08:32 AM
Mid-sized cruisers always throw me for a loop. They feel unnatural, an aberration and artifact of naval limitation treaties.
Agreed to a degree. At least the 10,000t cruisers with guns in the6 to 8in range.
I think that without the treaties we would have seen the following naturally happen:
Cruisers like the Leander class of 5-7000t armed with 6in guns as DD leaders, fleet scouts, etc.
Cruisers like the Hawkins with 7-7.5in guns in the 7000-9000t range as general purpose cruisers
Super-Cruisers with 8in-10in guns in the 12,000-15,000t range
Battlecruisers with 13-15in guns in the 25,000-35,000t range
I think that the huge BCs like the Lexingtons would have been an aberration as fast battleships came about and by the mid-20s you'd have seen BCs drop in size with something like a 35000t Renown with 8x15 being the gold standard for the type, but even those types of battlecruisers wouldn't be all that useful with battleships speeding up to around 27kts. Just no reason for 'true battlecruisers' in the guise they had become by mid-WW1 to continue to get built or exist when you have battleships 5kts slower with full-up armor schemes that can duel with their counterparts. Lexington wasn't a very useful battlecruiser anyway, and I'd see that ship being obsolete for its size very quickly as even by the US tendencies a 1920 SD successor class would have 10 or 12 x 16in guns and as you're not going for MORE guns you'd be looking at gaining the 4kts in speed on probably the same 43,000t. Why have a 35kt BC with paper armor on 43,000t when you can have a 27-29kt BB on the same tonnage? Hence my argument that any true BCs built after 1920 would actually drop in size down to 35,000t with fewer big guns and built primarily for either independent anti-cruiser operations or for leading the fleet screens and taking on the larger 12,000t cruisers.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 07, 2021, 06:08:32 AM
Mid-sized cruisers always throw me for a loop. They feel unnatural, an aberration and artifact of naval limitation treaties.
And I absolutely love them! Probably because they are unnatural and an aberration.
Quote from: Desertfox on July 07, 2021, 10:14:33 AM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 07, 2021, 06:08:32 AM
Mid-sized cruisers always throw me for a loop. They feel unnatural, an aberration and artifact of naval limitation treaties.
And I absolutely love them! Probably because they are unnatural and an aberration.
I am completely prepared to buy that explanation.
Me: Why am I getting error warnings about not enough shafts for 31 knots?
Also me: The ship's beam isn't supposed to be 114 metres, is it?
Are you building another round battleship?
For a while, it was a square destroyer.
Not a very effective one, mind you.
That said, I have committed to building something kind of dumb in 1919, so you might not be disappointed.
QuoteThat said, I have committed to building something kind of dumb in 1919, so you might not be disappointed.
1500t DD with 1x12" gun.
;)
You're in the ballpark, Jef.
2/19 is interesting to plan around. I'm planning a second armored cruiser for 1/20 but can't start it early because I'm expanding the dock now. I've got a bunch of new techs finishing and the engine year is turning over so I don't want to lay down a lot of new stuff.
But I've got almost 12 BP unspoken for right now.
Maybe it's time for a refit/refurb binge.
Alright, so I've nailed down a seaplane carrier design for 1920, and it's cute.
I wish I had known in advance. I'd have purchased all 12 BP in a bespoke battleship.
Heck I'm curious to see what I can manage in 1919.0,
I don't have budgets worked out in advance.
I have an excess of ship designs...
which is how I have an idea of which guns to research....but not budgets.
Though Rocky's looking to rebuild his dreadnaught did cause me to
take a look at my Gilgamesh.
That class would have been very well suited for the Battle of the Caicos,
but that wasn't my war.
Still, the ships are robust enough to be upgraded. I will probably replace the guns.
Which means I need to start researching the replacements.
In 1919 Byzantium laid down its 4 seaplane carriers (5550t) and continued its ships currently in shipyards.
The new 1500t destroyers (D10 class) are for 1920.
Once the "Imperators" are completed in 1920-21, it is necessary to build cruisers (C7 class) and new TBs.
New cruisers with 3xT2 or 2xT3, ala Panzerschiff, are coming later.
I'm always a Panzerschiff Fan ;)
Haven't figured how many seaplane carriers I'm building, or of how many classes. The one I did last night is kind of niche.
1920's going to allow me to play with the 1915 carrier tech, diesels, and next-gen submarines, so I have lots to choose from.
2/1919 might be a good time to scale up some drydocks here and there...
Parthia will explore both carriers and seaplane carriers, probably by conversion of old ships in 1919.0
With the 1915 sub tech, both new subs and new ASW measures become available, and some of each will be built to evaluate.
By 1920.0 there will be some limited operational experience to design forward on.
Also, the 1915 subs are getting effective enough that Parthia will likely start building them on a regular basis.
I've been mainly building new drydocks, so damaged ships 'out yonder' have places to go get patched up.
I'll try to fit in a wave of dock expansion, simply bumping out existing docks by ~25m would do wonders.
That's the interesting bit for me. With 2 exceptions, the Scimitars and the Toucans, ALL of my pre-1910 ships were lost in the Caicos War. So my fleet is the 'newest', of course it's also one of the smallest by tonnage.
I suppose I'm not going to find a use for the six sets of 1905 vintage turbine machinery I yanked off some cruisers a few years back. That's almost 6,000 t of metal I should maybe think about converting to scrap.
Unless one of you has a use for all that.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on September 23, 2021, 12:59:08 PM
That's the interesting bit for me. With 2 exceptions, the Scimitars and the Toucans, ALL of my pre-1910 ships were lost in the Caicos War. So my fleet is the 'newest', of course it's also one of the smallest by tonnage.
That's certainly one way to cut down on refit costs.
Well, and I keep reviewing the Toucans and SC-1s. Without a major rebuild there's just not much of a way to make them viable units. Primarily their guns are just wholly insufficient, and they're too small to make good conversions even to seaplane carriers. I need to look at a mid-20s refit to see if I might be able to cram 130s on them somehow and make them passably functional ships for patrol purposes into the late 30s or so.
Relevant for those of us contemplating refurbs and reconstructions: The utility of replacing machinery gets pretty low with anything built after 1910 or so.
Edit: Filled in the gaps in the chart...
Kinda cool to see that graphed.
I knew the gains dropped off, but I didn't know when-ish.
I was tinkering with my 1919.0 budget, and it looks like
I have 7 BP to put towards rebuilding ships.
I presume I will have 7 more BP next HY...
BP is really the limiter, I have the $ for rebuilds,
so I can do something quasi-useful.
My ancient SC-1 class is in the same boat as the Toucans, but much slower.
I am unsure if I can get much of value from them, or if I should scrap them.
Fast mine layer, slow sentry cruiser. Depot ship etc.
One possibility is to replace the engine with a newer/lighter one,
but keep the speed low....and so the engine wt low and BP cost cheap.
Then soak up the saved engine wt with Misc wt, basically making
a mil-built aux for odd jobs.
Interesting glitch just now - designing the little seaplane carrier, set the stern overhang to 1 metre. Finished the design out.
Sketched it in Paint, thought maybe I'd like more stern overhang for greater deck space.
Came back to the SS and increased the overhang to 3.0 metres. BOOM. Hull strength goes from 1.00 to 0.80. All other choices, ranging from no overhang to the original 1.0 metres, changed that. So it's like the initial selection spoofed the program somehow.
Happened to be viewing "Who's Online" yesterday and noticed a guest was signing up for an account. Is that a process that still needs somebody to verify it?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on September 25, 2021, 11:23:12 AM
Interesting glitch just now - designing the little seaplane carrier, set the stern overhang to 1 metre. Finished the design out.
Sketched it in Paint, thought maybe I'd like more stern overhang for greater deck space.
Came back to the SS and increased the overhang to 3.0 metres. BOOM. Hull strength goes from 1.00 to 0.80. All other choices, ranging from no overhang to the original 1.0 metres, changed that. So it's like the initial selection spoofed the program somehow.
I run into that a bit. I don't think its spoofing as much as the program gets confused with the very high freeboard when we do length changes. I could change draft snd width on a carrier concept. But even a 5m length change totally screwed up the strength.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 11, 2021, 05:01:50 PM
Happened to be viewing "Who's Online" yesterday and noticed a guest was signing up for an account. Is that a process that still needs somebody to verify it?
Yes
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 11, 2021, 05:01:50 PM
Happened to be viewing "Who's Online" yesterday and noticed a guest was signing up for an account. Is that a process that still needs somebody to verify it?
Guinness still cruises by and does that.
He has a program/service that backtracks the address to find out if it's a spammer's account,
then bars the ones that are.
Economies as of start of 1/19
Nation - Total IC - Total Income - BP
Parthia - 147 IC - $211.00 - 28 BP
Byzantium - 131 IC - $157.25 - 29 BP
Japan - 113 IC - $154.50 - 26 BP
Vilnius Union* - 113 IC - $147.61 - 30 BP
Rome (1/18) - 100 IC - $116.00 - 30 BP
Azteca Sultanate - 85 IC - $103.75 - 25 BP
*Includes recurring Canal income
Woohoo....still have the award for 'most broke nation'
Someone's gotta cut Parthia down to size a bit... looking at you Jef!
QuoteSomeone's gotta cut Parthia down to size a bit... looking at you Jef!
Multiple attacks in Parthian harbors like Port Arthur 1904...
Or, make an Alliance with Foxy to drive out the Parthians from the Pacific and Indian Oceans => Bring our "Kaiser" to his knees.
;D ;D ;D
Have to admit, I assumed somebody had more BP than I did.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 13, 2021, 05:08:40 PM
Have to admit, I assumed somebody had more BP than I did.
Fineeeeeee, I'll catch up on my reports
The colonial expansion post I put out every turn has the colonial IC on it,
and the most recent had the home IC and BP as well.
Plus I have the Army, Air and Deployment points listed.
So none of the above should be a shock.
...oh and I rather disagree that anyone needs to attack peaceful prosperous Parthia, prolific purveyor of provincial production...
darn it I needed an 'of' ... broke the chain ... 5 Ps in a row isn't bad.
providing provincial production.
Anyway, I hadn't noticed the addition of BP and home IC to the colonial tables, but appreciate that it was there.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 14, 2021, 10:48:18 AM
The colonial expansion post I put out every turn has the colonial IC on it,
and the most recent had the home IC and BP as well.
Plus I have the Army, Air and Deployment points listed.
So none of the above should be a shock.
...oh and I rather disagree that anyone needs to attack peaceful prosperous Parthia, prolific purveyor of provincial production...
darn it I needed an 'of' ... broke the chain ... 5 Ps in a row isn't bad.
Could have said pursuing provincial production
Perfidiously pursuing provincial production...
Attack!? Why we we do such a thing! Just some piecekeeping missions here and there, liberating a province here and there...
Attack? No. I only get in wars with the undisputed world power.
Attack? No, I only get into one-sided skirmishes with hopelessly outclassed pre-dreadnoughts.
See I can't say anything clever here. Sad centurion.
Well, you did sink the entirety of the world's smallest battle line
Quote from: TacCovert4 on October 14, 2021, 07:08:21 PM
Well, you did sink the entirety of the world's smallest battle line
I thought you and Foxy did that to the Mayans.
Oh no, that hasn't happened.....yet. But 1920 is a new year!
It's good to have goals.
So, the Aztec-Japan-Mayan skirmish did happen. And technically the Mayans should still be hostile as a result.
That led to some missing mercantile ships in the Aztec-Roman war which was 6 months later, but as an NPC they didn't try to sally forth and sink the Aztec fleet as it went past their main base.
Snip and I have a worked out a concept for minor NPC decisions, but not major.
I've been working to get Parthia caught up while also doing the various mod-tasks to keep the gears grinding,
so haven't pushed on that. Probably wont until after I get back to storytelling some.
I need to participate in the Panama/Rome threads, unless I've missed already.
The South American war was envisioned as a primarily story-telling effort driven by Maddox, with Parthia and Japan joining the Inca against the Aztec. The new Norse player may have been involved, but vanished before we worked out details. Tac was I think uncommitted.
I looked at it as a nice way for me, wearing the mod/Parthia hats, to participate.
Parthia could get beat up at first, slowly retaliate, and come out about the same.
But what looked to be free time got filled, and the primary player had his personal life hit a bit of an iceberg,
so that ended.
It was unfortunate we lost the new Norse guy so quickly. If nothing else, I'm curious as to what territorial adjustments he was hoping for in Scandinavia.
Hopefully things turn around for Maddox soon.
QuoteHopefully things turn around for Maddox soon.
Yeah, I have sent a mp to my Belgian friend/neighbor ... no answer ...
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 14, 2021, 08:01:25 PM
It was unfortunate we lost the new Norse guy so quickly. If nothing else, I'm curious as to what territorial adjustments he was hoping for in Scandinavia.
Hopefully things turn around for Maddox soon.
Yeah, unfortunately work from home and RL kind of screwed his getting involved right at the point where he needed to get a lot done. I've been actively looking for a replacement.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 14, 2021, 07:43:24 PM
So, the Aztec-Japan-Mayan skirmish did happen. And technically the Mayans should still be hostile as a result.
That led to some missing mercantile ships in the Aztec-Roman war which was 6 months later, but as an NPC they didn't try to sally forth and sink the Aztec fleet as it went past their main base.
Snip and I have a worked out a concept for minor NPC decisions, but not major.
I've been working to get Parthia caught up while also doing the various mod-tasks to keep the gears grinding,
so haven't pushed on that. Probably wont until after I get back to storytelling some.
I need to participate in the Panama/Rome threads, unless I've missed already.
The South American war was envisioned as a primarily story-telling effort driven by Maddox, with Parthia and Japan joining the Inca against the Aztec. The new Norse player may have been involved, but vanished before we worked out details. Tac was I think uncommitted.
I looked at it as a nice way for me, wearing the mod/Parthia hats, to participate.
Parthia could get beat up at first, slowly retaliate, and come out about the same.
But what looked to be free time got filled, and the primary player had his personal life hit a bit of an iceberg,
so that ended.
Still presuming that something is going to go down in Panama. Especially with the highly lucrative canal there now and Japan buying Northern Panama. Just too tempting for a nation that's landlocked and going broke like the mayans.
On the war - it had basically been agreed in concept that something would happen, but not what.
Normally, NPCs are fully functional foes, not storyline opponents.
The Mayans were set up to be a little different, so we can blame them for communist insurgencies, terror attacks, pirates, anything at all.
There's always the problem of my wearing two hats, but the Mayans seemed a reasonable exception as a storyline with some random elements.
I had checked with Snip that my idea of a primarily storyline war with my dicing for 'decision point' battles seemed ethical.
The Norse - he wandered off just after indicating he'd like to be involved, so we hadn't decided it what exactly he'd do.
It was actually right before I planned to have some PM chats to agree on a storyline and pick out some decision points and organize the story arc.
So here's my idea, which I never really got to hash out with the others
My Idea :
I was kinda working with the concept that the Mayans were doing the Khemer-Rouge style 'killing fields' of their South American
territories, eliminating the chiefs and priests and their families and corralling and indoctrinating the rest.
So that's why the stories of fleeing natives into the Parthian areas.
The Parthians aren't terribly interventionist, but - like against the Fulani Jihadists in Mali, are willing to help folks against
fearsome invaders. First with weapons and some safe areas, and then with "volunteers" likely from Mali.
I hoped that would translate well to the other borders.
Maddox's Inca view the continent as theirs, and that would be a good reason to 'liberate areas'.
So he'd pile in, and Fox could come up with a reason.
With their attacks far in the periphery, I expected it would logical for the Mayans to go for Parthia first,
and evict me from the Orinoco delta. Possibly (depending on time/energy) make a stab at Jamaica.
Now since Parthia has a large fleet, and a boatload of deployment points, this is a very bad idea for a smaller navy.
It may take a year, but we will be back.
That would be the point I'd suggest a good opportunity for the Norse if he wanted in.
Storyline wise, Walter and I had worked out the idea the Norse and Parthia had forged old alliances to tag-team the Golden Horde,
and so his Royal family tree has several Parthian Royals married in - corresponding to some wars against the Horde.
Since this was a storyline arc, I wasn't looking for long term gains, just a chance to show off Parthian forces in first defeat and then victory.
Loose some minor ships, smash up Mayan ships in return.
Eventually that would boil over into war. I presume kicked off by Maddox
I was confident Foxy could come up with a reason to get involved.
Key to their victories would be cutting off Mayan resupply by retaking Parthian Orinoco and then taking Mayan Caracas.
At that point, I thought having the Norse jump in to 'repay an old favor' might be a nice way to hook the new guy.
Plus be fun to have a Norse enclave in South America. Who knows, he may have opted for attacking Alabama, or no territory.
Parthia would wind up where she started, minus some damaged ships and infrastructure,
while the Norse/Inca and Japanese would have some gains.
So I felt ok with wearing two hats in that scenario.
I had been exchanging PMs with Maddox as his personal life got exceedingly complicated, and so was not shocked when he had to take a break.
As it was my July was not good, and it would have been very difficult to pull off that storyline.
I am slowly catching up now, and the horizon looks clear...we shall see.
Hi all,
Just letting folks know my phone and internet have been out since Monday.
I was rather expecting to be resolved days ago.
While I've managed to make it through a good chunk of life with landlines never being
a problem... the past several (4?) years it's gone out at least once a winter, problems always at the box
where the line enters the house. They keep patching it, not replacing it.
I am one of the 10% that does not bother with a cellphone...which is fine 95% of the time.
This would be part of the 5% that it's not so great....
So I can check in on break at work, or outside of working hours.
Currently I'm using my rather old laptop at the library.
Yikes. Sorry to hear that.
"Rock," I says to myself, "It's ten in the evening, you're awake but you don't want to write anymore. Why don't you design a ship that planes can land on, but not launch from?"
"Sure," I reply, "But why would I do that?"
"To see if it can be done under the Naval Aviation Rules."
I nod. "Alrighty then."
Landing is easy... the hard part is making the plane still useful after the cra.. landing.
In other news...
I will be departing Friday for a week, off to visit relatives out East for Turkey Day.
I will take my laptop, but last time I was out there was extremely limited internet there.
So I may...or may not...chime in for a week after Friday.
Quick, everyone lets invade Parthia next week!
Well if the pilot can walk away its a good landing!
QuoteQuick, everyone lets invade Parthia next week!
"Are you ready gunners ?
Torpedo boats, prepare torpedoes."
YOU GUYS ARE TERRIBLE, INVADING PARTHIA IS WRONG, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE DOING THAT.
I'm touched that you all think it's a lovely time to come vacation in Parthia :)
Really....
QuoteI will be departing Friday for a week, off to visit relatives out East for Turkey Day.
I will take my laptop, but last time I was out there was extremely limited internet there.
So I may...or may not...chime in for a week after Friday.
I will take advantage of next week to finalize 1920 new Laid Down and make the 1920H1 report.
I work on a new "Where are they" & 1920H2 report.
With new high speed -29-32kts,
I 'm going to increase shipyards lengths 50m=>80m - 80m=>125m - 125m=>175m
80m or 100m (?)
As I noted in my news report, my dock usage is somewhat distorted by insufficient small docks for MTBs, patrol boats and such. They're taking up space in my larger docks, too.
I'm going to increase the 50m docks to 60m so I can build two small fry at a time in each dock, rather than one. Then I'm probably going to play with a 1/21 report before I decide how much expansion I need to do on the larger docks.
The MTBs can be built 2 at a time in the 50m docks.
20m + 10m space + 20m = 50.
Parthia skimped on docks at the start, while she actually bought a larger starting navy, and near maxed the LP/DP.
So Dock space has been a constraint, but not so far a barrier.
I have to say though, Darman ploughed substantial funds into Iberian docks, and it's odd updating a position with such overabundance.
Of course, all the starting Docks were 'at home'. So I've been building 160m in the overseas territories and I am currently extending some docks to 190m.
That way if I have a damaged ship, I can fix it. But I need redundancy.
Do the MTBs have an official size? I'd just gone looking for something historical with similar tonnage and extrapolated from there.
In other news,
I put my 'desired' 1920 new ships - lots of potential new classes - into excel.
I then worked out the average build/cost/HY for them for the numbers I want.
180 ships in ~4 HY...
Then I added in the LP/AP/DP/FP.
Looks like I only need 64 BP / HY.
Well, a little more as I did not budget my reconstructions.
So... my "desired" build plan just slightly exceeds my resources.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 01, 2021, 08:41:26 AM
Do the MTBs have an official size? I'd just gone looking for something historical with similar tonnage and extrapolated from there.
Yes, 20m
That was something I talked to Snip about Pre-game as I was deciding on my Dock Lengths and I wanted to Double-Up.
Good to know, maybe I'll re-think that decision to expand all of my 50m docks in 2/20.
So you gotta make just a few hard decisions about your build program, eh?
Well, darman was also producing a lot for export. He was basically supplying the entire RAN submarine force.
Happy to see you back aboard :)
Quote...I put my 'desired' 1920 new ships - lots of potential new classes - into excel.
I then worked out the average build/cost/HY for them for the numbers I want.
180 ships in ~4 HY...
124 ships for Byzantium in 4HY (1921-22)
116BP
-------
Rocky
I have noted in my Plan:
MTB => 20m then 10m space then another MTB
50m => 2MTB
75m => 2MTB
125m => 4MTB
175m => 6MTB
Yeah, I was allocating 22m or something for a 40t boat, so it didn't quite work for me.
Now I guess it does. Huzzah!
Quote from: TacCovert4 on December 01, 2021, 09:14:11 AM
Well, darman was also producing a lot for export. He was basically supplying the entire RAN submarine force.
The curious thing was he didn't build subs for Iberia.
I did reserve space in Iberia's builds to do those last 3? subs for the RAN.
Anyhow, I have Iberia down to be building 1915 and 1920 subs.
I'm getting booked up already for next weekend, so it may be the following one when I can post the Norse/Iberia.
I mainly needed to know their in-service fleet size and military size, so that part is done.
Quote from: Jefgte on December 01, 2021, 09:21:56 AM
124 ships for Byzantium in 4HY (1921-22)
That will be interesting, at 116/124 that's a fair number of smaller ships.
I was looking more at a series of new classes in all categories,
and then trying to build them in decent numbers for either 4 ship divisions or 2 ship pairs.
So there's a lot of destroyers, subs and patrol craft in my list, but also some bigger ships.
...which is apparently not an option unless I magically get another 35-40BP.
Iberia also supplied a fair amount of the IJN's sub fleet. You can always pad small ship numbers by building Auxiliaries.
Japan has more than enough 300ft (~100m) docks, so I can really pump out small ships without hitting dock limit space. I did run into an issue in that the Fubuki class DDs are 350ft and don't fit into those docks... So some of my "cheap" destroyer studies have more to do with dock space than BP limits.
I try hard to keep my units in the shortest dock they can fit
and still do the design task.
I have more 50m and fewer 120m than I'd like.
Plus I need overseas small docks.
While in peacetime, the small units can be maintained
by rotating through the 160m, in wartime I'll want
the ability to tie those up in repairs.
Further, once I have a small second dock somewhere
like Rio, then I can build local small craft without
blocking potential emergency repairs in the larger dock.
So I'll likely looking at slowly building out additional territorial
docks.
QuoteQuote from: Jefgte on Today at 09:21:56 AM
124 ships for Byzantium in 4HY (1921-22)
That will be interesting, at 116/124 that's a fair number of smaller ships.
Much MTBDs, some DDs & scout cruisers too.
Building the 4 BBs took us a lot of BPs. We have to catch up on the smaller ships backlog.
My math says I'm now in a position to add a new BP every turn. I expect most of you are in the same boat, or close to it.
That will be fun.
I could too.
:)
It' time to buy aircrafts & tanks...
Oups, new rules to come...
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 02, 2021, 09:11:37 AM
My math says I'm now in a position to add a new BP every turn. I expect most of you are in the same boat, or close to it.
That will be fun.
Close. It's about a BP every other turn for me.
I don't have any small (50m) docks, which is nice, but also don't have anything outside of the home islands, which is a big problem and needs to be rectified in the coming years.
I spent everything on capital ships and destroyers, leaving a gaping hole at cruisers. So as I move to building cruisers and big destroyers, there's going to be a ton of dock space open for small cheap auxiliaries.
The BP a half already started...
I've got eleven 50m docks, and the 2/20 report will show them chock full of floating goodness. Ten 40t MTB, four 20t MTB, and four submarine chasers.
1920 is also the first year I can do the BP/turn thing.
I'm also going to build a couple of IC at home every two years. It's not as profitable as colonies, but a lot easier to defend and probably politically important, too.
Had to re-acquaint myself with how immunity zones were calculated. I remembered that the concept existed, but...guess I'm getting old.
Anyway, it's relevant while I figure out what cruiser concept to pursue.
I think the question for Wilno is also if you are concerned with potential fights in the North Sea, given the average visual range is short.
I haven't actively done IZs on my ships yet.
I model the guns with Logis Ballistics tool (in the past I used BigGun, which I can finally use again via DosBox)
That gives me a 90deg pen, and I try to get that armor at roughly the Fire Control range.
Just below that range, shallow angles will keep me safe.
Most of the time, I fit a protective deck, so I have additional interior armor.
The Gilgamesh class has a 420mm belt backed by a 65mm protective deck as it was built for 345mm guns at 6000m.
The fun thing is replacing the engines saves 1000 tons, so I can upgrade the decks.
For Decks, as a minimum fit decks splinter proof to the biggest guns I expect to face.
For some older cruisers I have to up that as the Byzantine 191mm was bigger than expected.
I'm now adding dollops of additional armor to capital ships, seeking to put the deck pen range
out past 21-24km, so not even mast tops are visible.
I'd love to use foresight and slap 150mm decks on... but I haven't been able to justify that.
First time I've thought about it in a long while - notionally for a cruiser protecting trade in the Atlantic. Replacing my old Armored Cruisers rather than taking on battlecruiser roles.
Cruiser level penetrations are a bit hard to find,
but they have them for the Omaha class : http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-53_mk12.php (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-53_mk12.php)
The Omahas had issues with dispersion and barrel life if I recall correctly, but pushed for a max 6".
However, there's reason for great caution there.
1) we don't have a 6" treaty limit. There are a bunch of 180-195mm guns out there.
2) Battleships can see each others hulls out to 18-21km, smaller ships can not. The effective engagement range is likely to be shorter for a cruiser
and even shorter for a DD. Seekrieg actually has a table for that crosswalk. The upshot is >20km should not be a worry. Probably not much over 16km.
3) You can see the numbers I generated for Parthian guns as a frame of reference here https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7037.0.html (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7037.0.html)
4) buried under research -> gun research is :
Quote
High Explosive Shell 'High Capacity' : Nose fused, thin bodied. Will penetrate <1/8 diameter.
Semi-Armor Piercing 'Common' : Nose and base fused, armor cap. Will penetrate < 2/3 diameter
Splinters : Can penetrate nearby armor up to 1/6 shell diameter.
That last - splinters - is useful for guarding your machinery from a superstructure hit. Those intermediate handworked guns in the 7-8" range fielded by many navies
will blow through a 25mm deck.
Gone for a bit for Christmas.
-KPOD
Cheers!
Just the two of us here, as it has been for most of the last two years, so I'll be around off and on.
I'll be there too. I think I'll be a little "tired" on 25-26-31 and 1st.
Happy Christmas everyone.
Jef ;)
I am returned.
Unfortunately I had planned to 'catch up' and then 'get ahead' in Navalism this past week,
but there was a bit of a family medical emergency which is fine now,
which meant I spent my time otherwise.
I will try at least to get the Parthian turns and the various maps updated this weekend :)
May 2022 be better than 2021 !
Glad the emergency's fine now, but sorry to hear it happened in the first place.
We're keeping an eyeball on my mother-in-law. In her words, "Half the residents" in her retirement home have Omicron, and there have been staffing problems on top of that. She's been ill, but not severely, and so with the shortage of tests all over Canada, she's not actually received one.
Hopefully 2022 will be the end of COVID !!!
Well. It won't "end", but I think that omicron is the sign that it's headed towards flu status.....common, but rarely deadly.
I think that 'flu like' is where we are headed. It fits the historical pattern for such things.
Omnicrom...and I keep thinking that sounds like a transformer - Omnicrom Prime, anyhow, it seems to be more transmissible, but less virulent.
I suspect the next round will be 'flu like'.
Plus not only do we know better how to treat, but there's now..2? new pills authorized for treatment, I hear the US Army has it's own vaccine nearly ready,
So the seriousness and consequences are coming down...
and folks are so tired of all this and ready to declare "Good Enuff"
I have mentioned navalism in a wargaming discord I'm on. So we may see a new member or two sign up to see what's going on here and see if this is something they'd enjoy doing.
Nice. I tried flogging us a bit but it doesn't seem to have been fruitful.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on January 02, 2022, 07:41:54 PM
I have mentioned navalism in a wargaming discord I'm on. So we may see a new member or two sign up to see what's going on here and see if this is something they'd enjoy doing.
Shoot me a DM on Discord if/when they register, I can do the needful.
Mrs. Rock has been sick for ten days and the doc reckons it's COVID, despite three negative rapid tests. It's kicking her butt much like a really bad cold, and hopefully doesn't do any more than that.
Hopefully it remains as a bad cold, and goes away as a bad cold. Prayers.
Let's hope for a rapid improvement in her health.
Thanks guys. She seems less awful today, so we'll just keep on that path.
Glad to hear she's improving, keep it up :)
For sure.
Damned if this photo of a "war tuba" didn't just pop up in my FB feed. Caption says:
'The War Tuba'
Japan's Emperor Hirohito inspects the 'Type 90 Large Air Sound Detector'.
This photograph was published in an issue of 'Life Magazine' in 1936.
yep that's one variant.
I've seen pics of both Brit and German ones.
While my Parthians have been fitting them, I figure they
are discovering that they are very directional
and of limited utility for detecting distant MTB/DD squadrons,
while the Enhanced hydrophones...if you are stopped and quiet...can pick them up.
Both are likely of little use underway.
But sprint and drift ships get some value out of them.
I've renamed this formerly "Well", thread to encourage general chatter and conversation without anybody feeling like the thread is strictly for my own blatherings.
Speaking of which, I found myself with a small riverboat that had 4m of beam and 13m bulges and it took me forever to figure out why it had such lousy seakeeping.
From the Book of Bad Ideas:
Soviet destroyer Engels, with a 305mm recoilless rifle on her stern.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/5vfv59/soviet_orfeyclass_destroyer_engels_armed_with_a/
You see a bad idea, I see opportunity...
Hmm. I could spring for a 280mm open barbette mount for destroyers and scout cruisers.
I suppose a deck mount or mount and hoist would be most appropriate for a recoilless rifle sim.
Makes me feel like playing, even though I read the proponent of the Soviet attempt ended up shot in the head for his troubles.
Oh, you were thinking an actual recoilless rifle.
I was thinking about how to get a 280/50 onto a light cruiser.
Somewhere in Navalism 3 I posted one with a 12 inch gun but damned if I can find it.
I stuffed an 8" gun into a destroyer, an 11" one on a cruiser should be doable.
My thinking for recoilless guns was to treat them as torpedo tubes. So just slap down a fixed misc weight about based on caliber size.
Oh no, it worse than a 12"...
https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,3054.0.html
you mean better.
Best I did was a spinal mount 10" on a ~3000 ton torpedo ram
It's hard to differentiate between better and worse in such a scenario.
Scrolling down that thread...
Quote from: Desertfox on November 07, 2008, 11:52:00 AM
Alright, I definately NEED one of those!
Yup!
Well the past several months have been very busy for me,
with a number of unexpected happenings that took up my time and energy.
So, lots of things I said I would take care of did not occur.
Sorry, I try to triage my time as best possible.
Now, I'm looking at a March with precious little on the horizon to devour my free time,
and thinking I can actually make progress on N7 stuff ....
we shall see.
I swear to God I had a good sketch of a CVE somewhere and my laptop must've eaten it for some reason.
Since I lack effective ship drawing skills I am spared that problem !!
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 05, 2022, 11:40:59 PM
Since I lack effective ship drawing skills I am spared that problem !!
It's all good. I have created my 2H/1922 carrier. I think it's a good 1918 tech carrier, in the sense that "good" = "Sounds good in theory but will require a refurbishment to actually make work properly".
Since I fully intend to steal design elements from Rocky, its a problem for me too!
Quote from: Desertfox on April 06, 2022, 10:27:46 AM
Since I fully intend to steal design elements from Rocky, its a problem for me too!
This is true and I know I must take my community responsibilities seriously.
Kind of a shame I can't just build an Argus with the 1918 tech, but y'all will probably enjoy how I throw away 11 BP on this one.
I've considered a 'scratch built' experimental carrier, and then refurbish to something 'usable'. I even have some designs I've tinkered with.
But I'm hoping to lay down a series of cruisers or light armored cruisers, with a carrier or flight deck cruiser as the last of the division
and I won't have that spare capacity for a little bit.
So for now, I'm going with the rebuilt Torpedo Boat Carrier. Might do a 2nd conversion too. Then scrap both when I get real ships in service.
The disconnect is why the note of 1916.5 and 'post 1920'.
The IC/BP haven't been updated in quite some time, the provinces have.
Those two are no longer linked.
Maddox wanted a story setting, I was really hoping his family issues would
resolve and leave him in a better place, but it's been a bit.
I probably should have deleted the Inca from the list.
So I wind up treating them like the Berber.
I'm pretty certain they can choose to expand ~3/turn.
Their IC and maybe even BP will have increased,
BUT, even in 1916.5 they have 10 BP, a minor interest in a Navy and an avowed interest in
South American expansion.
So is it reasonable they are building 3 DP (and or LP) a turn?
Sure.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 06, 2022, 07:52:38 PM
I've considered a 'scratch built' experimental carrier, and then refurbish to something 'usable'. I even have some designs I've tinkered with.
But I'm hoping to lay down a series of cruisers or light armored cruisers, with a carrier or flight deck cruiser as the last of the division
and I won't have that spare capacity for a little bit.
So for now, I'm going with the rebuilt Torpedo Boat Carrier. Might do a 2nd conversion too. Then scrap both when I get real ships in service.
I had a brain-fart last night and completely changed my approach.
I like what I've come up with. It's unique, and not too expensive, and probably doesn't work in practice, but lets the Union learn the hard lessons about deck design and all that jazz.
Was just over at Wesworld snooping about and there hasn't been a new post there in almost three months.
They did hit the 1950 limit on SS3 right? I tried to recruit some but no one bit.
Quote from: Desertfox on April 07, 2022, 12:18:12 PM
They did hit the 1950 limit on SS3 right? I tried to recruit some but no one bit.
It looks like it, yeah, and I guess they moved on to other things.
It had a good, long run, no question.
Yeah when that fellow was looking for alt-history research, I pointed him there and wandered over.
Looks like Hood's archived it. Curiously he stored my Belgian stuff, but not my Dutch.
Was curious who took over the Netherlands after I got pissed off at the Franco-German Union and others and left.
I would have stuck around but then they told the Aerospace Engineer to stop designing airplanes... really killed motivation. Then there was a push towards "realism" and the alt-history got pushed to the back burner.
Ya, it became less fun when it was clear that there was never going to be any meaningful conflict of any kind. For better or worse, having the potential for unwanted conflict is a nice aspect of the game.
Yeah pitting Australia against Rocky's India was fun, as was trying to stir things up in the Caribbean as Mexico. But was hard to do anymore than that without someone else's consent.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 07, 2022, 01:51:33 PM
Was curious who took over the Netherlands after I got pissed off at the Franco-German Union and others and left.
That was the "End of History" there, from my perspective.
Has made me hesitant to jump into big alliances in other games, such as this one.
Quote from: Desertfox on April 07, 2022, 03:51:31 PM
Yeah pitting Australia against Rocky's India was fun, as was trying to stir things up in the Caribbean as Mexico. But was hard to do anymore than that without someone else's consent.
Yeah, I got into the game in 1946, and while I learned a lot, and learned a lot of things that have helped me here vis a vis SS, it wasn't all that great of an experience at that point. A lot of 'that won't work, you shouldn't do it' or 'that isn't the way we do things here'. But WW pointed me towards Navalism, so it was a net win. And here, there's structure, but freedom within the structure, and I think that's the right balance. Unfortunately, everyone I've tried to bring along with me has been a bust, Justin because of time commitment (he's a major player in the International Kriegsspiel Society, that eats up a huge chunk of his free time) and John because he couldn't wrap his head around SS. I am aiming to get us a replacement Iberia/Norse player though!
The "realism" bit being applied to these made up countries really irked me. Within mutually agreed bounds, let people explore.
It's one reason I suggested the Ancient Empires brought forward. Enough 'background' for common touchstones, but with historical departure points 1000 years ago, hard to argue 'Well the Mayans can't build a B-17 because of X,Y,Z, you can only build a handful of obsolete biplanes'. You get to define your nation.
Snip's idea of all the Home territories having 'sufficient' oil is also stellar. One it allows you to build that B-17 without folks whining if you can make the avgas for it, two getting that to the remote island base may be interesting :)
It's also a big reason why I chose to set up non-naval stuff as approximations of strength rather than discrete formations. The idea was to let players who wanted to go the "Here is my TO&E down to how many overflow guests the mess can take" and the "I suppose I have an army" folks be able to play under a common frame of reference. It seems to have worked so far.
I played a while with Navalism and Wesworld at the same time.
I didn't continue because it was taking up too much time of my life.
I had started with Navalism. So I stay with Navalism.
Jef ;)
Just got a reminder that there's a total solar eclipse passing nearby in two years time. Time to start planning a picnic, I reckon.
Why, yes, I am researching truck-mounted anti-ship missile batteries, how did you guess?
You just need 1918 Aircraft...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Bug?wprov=sfla1
Back from the vacation I mentioned :)
Hope it was a good and relaxing time.
I'm spending the weekend planting stuff, as is usual for this time of year.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on May 14, 2022, 10:37:45 AM
Back from the vacation I mentioned :)
Starts frantically getting war plans together.....
That would be good, my next vacation kicks off June 18th, so I have time to resolve fleet battles :)
The area got womped by a bad storm and I might be without power for several days. Won't be posting much in that timeframe.
We've had crew dig up the internet / phone for the area two weeks ago,
then gusty winds for a week, lost power Thursday and slow internet all weekend.
Plus lots of unexpected things popping up in other venues.
Could use a carrier with turbo-electric drive right about now.
I get that reference :)
It'll be nice to have running water again sometime.
At least the generator is working and I was able to buy gas and water in town today (plus a hot lunch and a few snacks). Best case for power restoration now is Thursday - the price you pay for living in a low-density rural area.
But at least we've got wifi back (to a degree) while the generator's running...
ugh,
that's quite a bit for you guys.
I live in a rural area, so occasional outages are just...what you expect.
But...3-4 days.
Though our outlying areas can be out for 1-2 weeks.
Greatly relieved to report I have re-entered the 21st century.
Congrats on the return of electrical power.
Now candlelight dinners and BBQ will be by choice :)
Maybe I spoke too soon.
Hopefully you didn't restock the freezer yet.
Meanwhile, I have power. But if people could stop killing each other, that'd be great.
Watched Top Gun: Maverick, have to say it was even better than the original. Lots of cool aviation easter eggs, gorgeous shots, and nice tribute to the real star of the original. Highly recommend you watch it in theater.
Quote from: Desertfox on June 01, 2022, 02:21:00 PM
Watched Top Gun: Maverick, have to say it was even better than the original. Lots of cool aviation easter eggs, gorgeous shots, and nice tribute to the real star of the original. Highly recommend you watch it in theater.
So a Tribute to the F-14?
Who else could it be? No "Mig-28s" (best supporting actor) or A-4s unfortunately.
What aircraft do they have playing the enemy machines?
Ironically they could have had this against Iran.....and had F-14s as the bad guys
I won't give the spoilers away, but in the trailer you can see a Su-57.
I am definitely hoping to fit this in this weekend.
Had hoped for Tues or Weds night, but stuff came up.
Got my 1922 reports up.
Have we lost our new Storadmiral friend? Is it a Northern Kingdom curse of some kind?
I was going to formally trigger the new HY on Friday.
I was also going to ask about Storadmiral.
He popped up at a bad time for me,
but I haven't seen anything posted since I got back from vacation.
QuoteI was going to formally trigger the new HY on Friday.
I have some work to do on 1922H2 report before posting.
I will try to catch up my half reports on Friday
I actually dreamt that we picked up a bunch of new members and were suddenly booming along.
Prophetic? Wishful thinking? Weird to dream about Navalism at all? Who knows.
Hope brings life.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 08, 2022, 07:11:55 AM
I actually dreamt that we picked up a bunch of new members and were suddenly booming along.
Prophetic? Wishful thinking? Weird to dream about Navalism at all? Who knows.
It would be nice.
We've had Incan, Norse, Iberian,Chinese and Ethiopian players.. all slip away.
I'm somewhat frustrated by the lack of time/energy to flesh out Parthia, and then work on the various mod side projects I started.
I really thought these two weekends before my trip would be 'free', but instead
I'm dealing with sorting out Friends of the Library business because our old treasurer and new treasurer won't talk to each other,
and I was stupid enough not to run away when they made me president.
Overall things popping up and demanding time/energy has been the story of the past year....about when I abruptly stopped posting
Parthian history maps and stories...
Anyhow, I will "gone" June 19- July 10th on vacation. I will likely check in via laptop.
I've had a busy last few months myself that really took me out. But its starting to slow down and I am finally starting to catch up.
Sounds like a full Mayan war is out, but maybe we can have a few minor skirmishes to spice things up?
I agree. Full on war is probably out of the cards for now. I think some minor skirmishes at sea with the Mayans getting increasingly snippy about stuff but unwilling to commit to what would possibly be a suicidal endeavor, or some probing attacks along borders, would all be in the cards.
We can look for another flashpoint time, maybe when Japan starts building stuff in Panama?
When I am back from vacation, an unscripted war should be doable if desired.
I have other ambitions, but I am starting to learn that just because I see
theoretically empty time on my schedule doesn't mean it will be.
Prep for a short trip away, and the trip itself, is completed and maybe I will get to writing about Polish people in Hawaii tonight.
Radio and internet is full of warnings about tomorrow's weather and what storm conditions it might produce, so let's hope it's all for nought.
Historical belt slopes:
Hood: 12 deg
Nerlson: 18 deg
KGV: ?
Amagi (as designed): 12 deg
Kaga (as designed): 15 deg
Dunkerque: 11.3 deg
Vittorio Veneto: 11 to 15 deg (varied w/location along ship)
North Carolina: 15 deg
Interesting.
The real question is if there was a difference in what could be mounted Externally vs. Internally armored belts.
The Italian and USN were internal, with an STS hull outside.
I don't know about the others.
Both Amagi and Kaga, I expect more web searching is needed. Carriers flared to the flight deck, so you may get a different answer for the 'as built' than in the BC version.
As I understand,
KGV did not have sloped belts. What I have read is they felt at long ranges, there was to great a chance of the shell being deflected into the bowels of the ship and going under the belt as a result, either penetrating the TDS or exploding in it.
There was also a concern with internal sloped belts that at just the right angle it would be possible for shells to trace a route from the exterior hull and skim along the belt and go under.
That path apparently is there with the US ships.
I thought KGV was vertical but the single reference I checked - Wikipedia, of course - was silent on the matter.
QuoteI thought KGV was vertical ...
Yes, vertical belt => easier to repair.
Also, external belts = easier to repair.
The question for me is - is there a limit to how much outsloping an external belt can reasonably have?
Oh, and I may - or may not- be silent for several weeks after this as I am leaving on vacation.
Hopefully it's a great break from the routine.
Should be a lovely trip. :)
Battleship design and developement indicates Richelieu and Dunkerque were internal. Hood was external.
It does ay "since it is difficult to streamline a hull with a steeply inclined side, many later designs mounted their belts
internally : Dunkerque/Richeliue, Nelson, South Dakota. On the other hand, such belts were hard to repair in the event
of hull damage, and the light side plating could be torn up by torpedo hits or even by light shell fire.
NorCara apparently was external, relying on the bulge for the TDS depth, as the belt pinched the side.
SoDak and Iowa were internal with external plating.
Montana went back to external - as did KGV.
'An additional problem on inclined armor was that it became relatively easy for a steeply diving shell to dive under the lower edge
of the belt to attack the vitals. This problem began to be appreciated in Britain and in the United States during the 1930s, presumably as both
navies perfected very long range shellfire...." it continues but I've typed enough.
So there probably 'outa be' a design guideline for External Sloping Maximum.
Probably 15 degrees, as at battle ranges the angle of fall is typically is between 15 and 30 degrees. Thst gives a 30 to 45 degree angle of impact which is optimal for deflection and armor maximizing.
I've got some at 16 degrees. I'm not hung up on that, but if the consensus is to go with a lower angle, I'd like to tweak the ships which are over. Just adjust the belt height slightly and push the weight savings to miscellaneous weight.
Quote...push the weight savings to miscellaneous weight.
I agree.
No problemo for Byzantine Battleships, they don't use sloped belt but vertical external belt, easy & quickly repaired.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 19, 2022, 09:03:33 AM
I've got some at 16 degrees. I'm not hung up on that, but if the consensus is to go with a lower angle, I'd like to tweak the ships which are over. Just adjust the belt height slightly and push the weight savings to miscellaneous weight.
Maybe make it 18 degrees then. Take it right to thr edge of unrealistic
That's the spirit!
How about tilting it the other way, more tumblehome style? Anyone try that? Like the old protected cruisers.
Family holidays in Bretagne.
Irregular Navalism connections.
Back aboard Saturday.
Jef ;)
Have fun.
I was out over the weekend, myself.
Wifey and I are heading out to the Canadian maritime provinces for a ten day road trip.
Part of that time will be spent on the shores of Bras d'Or Lake, and I thought, "What ever happened to the experimental hydrofoil named after that lake?"
Turns out that HMCS Bras d'Or is preserved at the Maritime Museum of Quebec, on our route and about five hours from here. Unfortunately, access to both her and an icebreaker are suspended due to COVID and construction, so I'll skip the museum this year and do it another time when I can get aboard and poke around to my heart's content.
Still trying to figure out how an ASW hydrofoil would've worked, and what equipment it would've had.
Bomb around dropping nuclear depth charges at coordinates provided by the helicopter?
Found reference to an intention to carry a variable depth sonar - which wouldn't do squat while hydrofoiling - and a couple of those triple lightweight ASW torpedo carriages.
Id assume it would work kinda like a helicopter.
I guess it'd be hard for a torpedo to hit....if the torpedo is trying to find a ship that's not in the water
Its doable, just have the torpedo explode underneath the hydrofoil, the blast will likely break the foils and do serious damage, the problem is hitting a ship capable of doing 45kts.
ASW Jet Ski...Wheeeeee
BTW I have returned home from Scotland,
so we're on course to ring the turn bell this Friday.
Back to the rat race !
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 10, 2022, 05:07:50 PM
BTW I have returned home from Scotland,
so we're on course to ring the turn bell this Friday.
Back to the rat race !
So, enjoyed your little foray into Roman Britannia?
I did indeed,
got to see a wide swath of the country,
the major cities and castles/arch sites/etc.
Did make it down to Northumbria
to see part of Hadrians Wall - an excavated
Roman fort from the times of Roman Britannia.
Do you have Scottish ancestry?
;)
A fraction, yes.
My Great Grandfather and Grandmother were from there.
We don't know the exact locations, they seem to have met in Glasgow.
His family name places him in the Borders, but no specific location other than the Liddle water. So Toured there and saw Heritage Castle - the home of the Laird of Liddlesvale.
Her clan name places her outside Aberdeen, so went to Fraser Castle, which should be the clan seat.
For Great Grandpa, after he came to the US, served in the USMC during the time of the Boxer Rebellion.
We have a picture of him on a US Warship (can't ID it), Corporal's stripes and a Krag-Jorgenson rifle.
His USMC belt has a listing of ports of call, US Asiatic Station.
Very different than going back to Ireland where I can still meet family members and
visit the homeplaces folks came from.
Meanwhile, as a bonus prize I seem to have gotten a mild case of Covid on my return trip,
which basically means my nose is plugged and I'm sleeping a lot. So not terribly active.
Hopefully the covid stays mild.
so far mainly just really tired and a stuffed nose.
Mostly sleeping.
Just popping o to post mostly done ships :)
So I'm on the road for vacation tomorrow night through to Tuesday the 26th. I'll probably check in at night, here and there, for my own amusement, but will not have my laptop and will not be posting in a substantive way until afterward.
The important thing is that the World Tour will finally end without undue drama and I can post a couple of lessons-learned pieces afterward.
Quoteso far mainly just really tired and a stuffed nose.
Mostly sleeping.
My wife and I had covid in May. also great fatigue and muscle pain. It lasted 7/10 days. Today, no more sequels.
Be patient.
;)
Currently rocking and wobbling aboard MV Fundy Rose in the Bay of Fundy.
I should sim her when I get home.
neat :)
Hope you're having Fun(dy)
Quote...Bay of Fundy...
Originally: "Baye Francoise" in 1603.
"Fundy Bay" in 1720.
Well, the vacation is over but the COVID is beginning. Mrs. Rock has it, I'm sure I'll get it.
But maybe I'll find a bit of time in the next few days to post a bit.
Sorry to hear that.
For me it was very mild, was mainly just sleeping a great deal.
Hopefully you two will be asymptomatic or just at that mild level.
The thing I did not expect is I kept testing positive.
At day 11 ...positive, by day 14 negative.
Felt good after day 2, an 'well' after day 4...
So I worked from home and kept isolating.
Groceries and basics for that time period started running low,
and friends offered to help.
We're good for a lot of basics but junk food is in short supply. I suppose we could set up an Amazon delivery for some stuff.
More problematic is that Mrs. Rock is supposed to be matron of honor at a wedding in ten days, so the bride has been notified.
The big problem is how widely varying the recovery period is. I had symptoms for 2 weeks, while my wife only had them for 1. Hopefully ya'll recover quickly!
QuoteThe big problem is how widely varying the recovery period is. I had symptoms for 2 weeks, while my wife only had them for 1. Hopefully ya'll recover quickly!
This is unfortunately true, 100% recovery can be spread over several weeks. I hope yours will be very quick.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 27, 2022, 09:14:58 AM
More problematic is that Mrs. Rock is supposed to be matron of honor at a wedding in ten days, so the bride has been notified.
Well, I suppose a 'special sort of gift' would probably not be appreciated.
I lucked out at the beginning of the Pandemic.
A friend had a wedding...superbowl weekend...and a pair of guests missed with the flu....which later turned out
to be an early case of Covid.
Looking at the calendar and our trip, my uneducated guess is that last Tuesday's two hour ferry ride was our problem.
The Missus had a really rough day yesterday and I was pretty close to hauling her off to the hospital given her difficulty breathing, but today is less terrible. I'm developing a sore throat, which tells me how my impending long weekend is likely to go. I'll do some extra farm chores today in case I have to flake out over the next few days.
On a different note, I learned that the Maritime Museum of Quebec is about six hours from our home, just off the main highway. We skipped it on account of the ships being closed for COVID precautions (ironic) but they have a small icebreaker and Canada's experimental ASW hydrofoil there normally available for tours. Maybe next year.
Glad to hear she's improving, may your sore throat be a mild whatever at worst.
The hydrofoil would be neat to see.
Spending some awake time adding the appropriate .sship files to my encyclopedia. Gives me a little insurance against computer failures.
Looks like I'm good back to around 1913-14, then stuff is lost on the old computer. Stuff before that exists if I've rebuilt the sim for refurbishment planning. But that's probably fine. Not a lot of old hulls likely to get reworked.
I know that feeling. My older stuff, unless I re-sim it all, is just going to be FC upgrades and then scrap.
I popped my head into Wesworld and apparently Bruce Duncan passed away last year, so that's sad.
Oh wow. I've popped in a few times and missed it. We had our differences, but he was very knowledgeable and active player, did some great stuff with Germany. Will be missed for sure.
I rubbed shoulders with him when I played Wesworld for a while.
It's always sad to hear of the death of a good player.
Rest in peace Bruce
That's sad to hear.
Frankly I worry that the same happened to Walter,
he stopped participating or responding just when the first covid wave
was in the Netherlands.
Hopefully he's well and just found other things.
I've had the same thought about Walter and agree I'd much rather learn that he's found new interests.
I'm abruptly transitioning to a new laptop and y'all gotta remind me what version of SS we're using, because what I've downloaded doesn't quite look right.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on September 01, 2022, 07:12:56 PM
I'm abruptly transitioning to a new laptop and y'all gotta remind me what version of SS we're using, because what I've downloaded doesn't quite look right.
Under Ship Design Guidelines, Snip wrote (well I added the Citadel length bit):
SpringsharpSS3b3 is the program we use. We do not use SS2 or any other software. If the ship can not be designed from scratch in SS3b3 using our design guidelines and naval technology trees, the design is invalid.
Citadel Length :
Changing the length of the main belt on the Armor tab does not change the amount of deck armor.
The length of belts, and associated decks, should be changed by adjusting the Freeboard tab "Length (% of LWL)" values, and then hitting "Default" on the Armor tab.
Weapons Tab :
We do not use the Torpedo/Mine/DC portions of the weapons tab, these are described and accounted for under Miscellaneous Weight.
Please include the diameter of the torpedoes intended.
Torpedo defense systems (TDS). Use the "Additional Bulkhead" setting.
Thanks, I failed to see that.
It happens to all of us. When I got my new laptop I installed Springsharp. I knew SS2 wasn't it, but the newest version seems to be SS3b4 now.....which does look a bit different. Looks like someone has started making some efforts to turn the non-functional features of SS3 into workable bits.
Q: Why is the light displacement of this ship 900 t heavier than I expected?
A: Cruising speed 16,400 knots, range 10 nm.
Oh lort
Hmm that's kinda like a Bugatti, enormous max speed, but I've been told it runs out of gas just before the tires give out.
I can never seem to find that chart of what Coast Defence BP gets you when I'm actually interested in that.
Is it in the Rules forum? If not, can it be moved there?
I was rather impressed by how martinique held up. Plus the mortars managing a hit. Those things could be devastating if they got a hit in, I've been in the pits of an abbot quad at ft Caswell. Basically impossible to take out unless you have aircraft to bomb it or send infantry ashore. And flinging 900lb shells that are functionally hitting on the vertical......while precision is iffy....any hit would severely maul the ship.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 06, 2022, 06:35:47 PM
I can never seem to find that chart of what Coast Defence BP gets you when I'm actually interested in that.
Is it in the Rules forum? If not, can it be moved there?
It's stickied in Meeting Room as "Working Draft : Land and Air combat"
The chart is about halfway down.
They didn't get much comment when posted.
The entire process is one that I had on back burners when the Caicos war required..something.
and I keep fiddling with a little.
Then for this, I pulled other things off those back burners and shot them to Snip,
but only partially enacted.
We as a group have always focused on the Sea Techs, and the entire land/air
bit was/is poorly defined. Major Land wars were not in Snip's vision,
he expected the Homelands to avoid a WWI style battle. Which is
also why conquered homeland provinces are basically worthless for decades.
I screwed it up a bit by adding the playable NPCs, but at the time we supposedly
had a full Old World and new players, and I wanted to ensure we could add more.
Heck we *almost* had a Chinese and a Ethiopian player, though I wanted Laksmanavati for that.
Instead we've churned players in Norse and Iberia.
This entire war will probably serve as the impetus for a post discussion if things are working reasonably.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on October 06, 2022, 06:48:21 PM
I was rather impressed by how martinique held up. Plus the mortars managing a hit. Those things could be devastating if they got a hit in, I've been in the pits of an abbot quad at ft Caswell. Basically impossible to take out unless you have aircraft to bomb it or send infantry ashore. And flinging 900lb shells that are functionally hitting on the vertical......while precision is iffy....any hit would severely maul the ship.
They got very lucky. I was surprised.
It was not unaimed fire- there are OPs all over as part of just 1 pt coast defense.
But frankly I screwed up, as I didn't check the ROF for them, just the range.
On the other hand they were in installations and may have had loading facilities,
and I was worried I had the Mayans reacting to quickly and decisively to the unseen and unknown threat- no actual reconn
So those probably balance out.
Put yes, the vertical plunge means they are a potential ship sinker.
Mayan Deck armor is surprisingly good, but most of the ships would be vulnerable.
12" Turkish Mortars at the Bosporus were enough to send the QE class scooting for safer waters.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 07, 2022, 01:34:25 PM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 06, 2022, 06:35:47 PM
I can never seem to find that chart of what Coast Defence BP gets you when I'm actually interested in that.
Is it in the Rules forum? If not, can it be moved there?
It's stickied in Meeting Room as "Working Draft : Land and Air combat"
The chart is about halfway down.
They didn't get much comment when posted.
The entire process is one that I had on back burners when the Caicos war required..something.
and I keep fiddling with a little.
Then for this, I pulled other things off those back burners and shot them to Snip,
but only partially enacted.
We as a group have always focused on the Sea Techs, and the entire land/air
bit was/is poorly defined. Major Land wars were not in Snip's vision,
he expected the Homelands to avoid a WWI style battle. Which is
also why conquered homeland provinces are basically worthless for decades.
I screwed it up a bit by adding the playable NPCs, but at the time we supposedly
had a full Old World and new players, and I wanted to ensure we could add more.
Heck we *almost* had a Chinese and a Ethiopian player, though I wanted Laksmanavati for that.
Instead we've churned players in Norse and Iberia.
This entire war will probably serve as the impetus for a post discussion if things are working reasonably.
Thanks for that.
From walking through real-life facilities....they have loading facilities.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on October 07, 2022, 01:57:58 PM
From walking through real-life facilities....they have loading facilities.
I've seen the turntables, so I knew that part,
and kinda assumed that a fixed emplacement would also provide for
something other than manual reloading...but wasn't sure.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 07, 2022, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: TacCovert4 on October 07, 2022, 01:57:58 PM
From walking through real-life facilities....they have loading facilities.
I've seen the turntables, so I knew that part,
and kinda assumed that a fixed emplacement would also provide for
something other than manual reloading...but wasn't sure.
I've walked inside Fort Caswell's WW1 defenses. There's a command post for each pit, which contains 4 mortars. There's also rail track for hand-carts, a sort of gantry thing, and other bits. Basically each mortar pit has its own magazine and railway for moving shells and powder, as well as the points to use a light crane of sorts to load.
Interesting.
Good to know.
I've seen the casements for the 16" guns above the Golden Gate.
I *may* have been to the mortar sites, but don't recall them,
but have seen pictures. One reason for my splitting them in
2 x 4 gun batteries.
I figure intermittent 240mm would make establishing a beachhead
on Martinique unpleasant. So I sited them accordingly.
Let me know if ya'll want pictures of the coastal defenses around the Bay Area, I've been to quite a few of them, have some pictures and can always take more.
Ah, the joys of costing out a ship with a low mass, high volume payload.
Quote from: Desertfox on October 08, 2022, 10:32:01 PM
Let me know if ya'll want pictures of the coastal defenses around the Bay Area, I've been to quite a few of them, have some pictures and can always take more.
I'd be curious to see a few when you have the chance.
Had fun designing that ship and look forward to sharing it with y'all in the far future year of *checks notes* 1924.
Apparently I've laid down some ships with a two-gun 130mm mount and hoist that I haven't yet researched.
Guess I'd better research that right quick and refit the affected ships.
QuoteApparently I've laid down some ships with a two-gun 130mm mount and hoist that I haven't yet researched.
::) :-[ :o ;) :D ;D
Maybe I've invented the idea of "Fitted for but not with".
My problem tends to be getting the wrong barrel length or ammo wt.
Or wanting to lay the ship down before the mounting is ready.
Right now I've been designing some 1924-26 ships with a 0.1 knot extra speed
to represent auxiliary diesels....but I can't do diesel propulsion
until after I've researched that.
I wish that engine tech tree was maximum power plant size by type.
oh well.
I have that problem with the new 15mm machine gun which has a barrel length of 90 calibers. Or maybe 70. And then I just forget to change it from 45.
Noting for self that my list of BAD SHIPS with the non-existent 2-gun 130/45 M&H are:
-1 Labedz class CV
-1 Vanem class oiler
-1 Straznik class armored cruiser
-2 Encke class battleships
All of which are under construction.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 31, 2022, 06:37:04 PM
Noting for self that my list of BAD SHIPS with the non-existent 2-gun 130/45 M&H are:
-1 Labedz class CV
-1 Vanem class oiler
-1 Straznik class armored cruiser
-2 Encke class battleships
All of which are under construction.
If they are completed after the gun research is done he matter could easily be resolved
Ships can undergo a Basic Refit when the hull is 75% completed for no additional cost or modification to construction time.
The oiler and the carrier might finish early, but I might just re-sim them with a twin mount.
Had that thought about the capital ships, though.
I'm mildly relieved the list is that small.
Working overtime today, in a very frustrating and inefficient group writing thing. Not a good way for my employer to ask for a lot of money but I suppose the higher-ups aren't going to care.
heh, I'm currently working on trying to facilitate a group re-write of the Friends of the Library bylaws.
Group texts are problematic in the best of times.
I think the time of overtime is over.
Fifteen hours on the weekend really sucked. Monday wasn't bad, but yesterday ran pretty late.
I could have volunteered to work Saturday, but since I
had originally expected to be out of town, I didn't
have to show up.
I worked until 19:30 both Monday and Tuesday,
but no overtime on the horizon after that.
Still busy...
But yeah I hear you.
Out of curiosity, is anybody else building IC in their homeland these days?
While it is not the most profitable way of investing money, I like the idea of building up some of the wealth of one's empire in the core territory rather than have it all out in the colonies that will inevitably break away and do their own thing one day.
Jefgte is doing it and has been.
I noticed it reviewing turns for the 'Colony Count'
I decided it was a good storyline point, in that the 'Home folks' should see economic growth,
so Parthia is fairly far along on building an IC in each home region. Should finish all 5 in two turns.
Hopefully everybody enjoyed their holidays and had better weather than I did.
I'll get back to it maybe Wednesday - tomorrow's our anniversary and I expect posting ship sims is not what Mrs. Rock has in mind.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 26, 2022, 08:47:41 PM
Hopefully everybody enjoyed their holidays and had better weather than I did.
I'll get back to it maybe Wednesday - tomorrow's our anniversary and I expect posting ship sims is not what Mrs. Rock has in mind.
I think anniversaries and other sorts of real life celebrations with family are a great deal more important
than our interesting little hobby time here.
Enjoy, have a marvelous time :)
The cold wave is receding. Higher T° for North America in the next days.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=42.3;-97.6;3&l=temperature-2m
Now everything has been melting for days and the sump pump is running continuously.
Okay, so actual question: Have we landed on a cost for converting a 1918-tech carrier to a 1922-tech carrier?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 31, 2022, 04:08:06 PM
Now everything has been melting for days and the sump pump is running continuously.
Okay, so actual question: Have we landed on a cost for converting a 1918-tech carrier to a 1922-tech carrier?
I don't recall it being asked.
Quote
1918: gunpowder catapults for floatplanes; separate landing and taking-off decks for wheeled aircraft. Early Air-Launched torpedoes. Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs limited to single aircraft.
1922: hydraulic catapults; full length decks for wheeled aircraft; arrestor wires. Primitive Anti-Shipping Bombs. Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs limited to single squadrons
"A basic refit is limited" to changing external fittings, specifically: ..."
Converting from separate decks to a full length deck does not fall apults under that. Likewise hydraulic catapults and any elevator/ramp system would not be here.
My early opinion would be that modifying the superstructure extensively is still not moving around internal bulkheads,
and so falls under '
Refurbishment' and would be paid under the following clause :
"Hull, fittings & equipment
The waterline may be raised or lowered by 10%. The trim may be changed.
No BP cost; $ cost is equal to (tonnage/5000)"
Alternate suggestions are welcomed.
I wasn't sure if the topic had come up before.
Anyway, I think that's a reasonable approach.
Quote...I think that's a reasonable approach.
I agree too.
------------
Happy New Year to forum members.
Watch over yourself and your loved ones and enjoy life.
Jef ;)
BTW, I'll be pretty much out until Weds.
Did some plonking with different sims to see if there is a consistent pattern to range versus speed.
Seven ships, engine year ranging from 1912 to 1927, hull strengths from 0.55 to 1.00, natural speed for length ranging from 17.8 to 26.7. All are fully oil-fired.
The chart on the left side of the sheet is speed versus actual range for the seven types.
The chart on the right is speed versus (range as a fraction of the range at 10 kts) for the seven types. It's actually a fairly consistent curve. The natural speed for length may make a slight difference - the sloop with 17.8 is least fuel efficient, the AC with 26.7 most fuel efficient - but it's not dramatic.
On average (nine designs, 1700 t sloop to 39,000 BB, all oil-fired), multiple the range at the slow speed by __ to get the range at the higher speed:
10 kts to 12 kts: x0.69
10 kts to 15 kts: x0.42
10 kts to 18 kts: x0.27
10 kts to 20 kts: x0.21
10 kts to 25 kts: x0.11
10 kts to 30 kts: x0.07
12 kts to 15 kts: x0.61
12 kts to 18 kts: x0.39
12 kts to 20 kts: x0.30
12 kts to 25 kts: x0.16
12 kts to 30 kts: x0.10
15 kts to 18 kts: x0.64
15 kts to 20 kts: x0.50
15 kts to 25 kts: x0.26
15 kts to 30 kts: x0.17
18 kts to 20 kts: x0.78
18 kts to 25 kts: x0.41
18 kts to 30 kts: x0.26
20 kts to 25 kts: x0.52
20 kts to 30 kts: x0.33
25 kts to 30 kts: x0.64
If converting from higher to lower speed, divide instead of multiply.
Ships with lower "natural speed for length" figures may be 0.02-0.03 lower than this average. This might impact shorter hulls but not sure if L:B ratios are a factor.
Nice !
For what we do, that's quite useful.
OTL wasn't that simple, as gearing ratios meant there were defined cruising speeds, affected by hull form, and fuel efficiency would get worse at other speeds.
But that's probably a level of realism we don't need to add !
Anybody remember how SS determines if a ship is wet forward? I'm sure there's more to it than bow height but my googling is not accomplishing anything.
As far as I know it's strictly based on the height of 'freeboard forward' spot.
Usually the Default means no warning,
while 0.01 under the Default gives that Ship tends to be wet forward
On rare occasions, the default is not sufficient, and you need to add 0.01 to the 'freeboard forward'.
The most recent iteration of Flight Deck Cruiser I'm working on- has a default of 8.10m.
but that gets the Wet Forward,
but 8.11 does not.
Reducing from 29 knots to 24 knots (Hull natural speed)...does not seem to change that.
Sorry, I wandered away for a little bit unannounced.
Instead of life slowing down Late-January, it just got more busy.
I still managed to tinker with ships a bit, but no time for more.
However, I seem to now finally be at a point where I
can start catching up on things, so hopefully I can work on Foxy's Mayan problem.
...and finish my carrier efforts. Rome is SO far ahead...
Do as the Romans do...
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on February 18, 2023, 07:59:36 AM
Do as the Romans do...
Attack a nearby power with a weak garrison in the Americas ?
Hmm, let me think about that...
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on February 18, 2023, 01:56:36 PM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on February 18, 2023, 07:59:36 AM
Do as the Romans do...
Attack a nearby power with a weak garrison in the Americas ?
Hmm, let me think about that...
Looks at Arizona
Sends Telegram to Dept. of Military Engineering
Quote from: TacCovert4 on February 18, 2023, 08:52:57 PM
Looks at Arizona
Sends Telegram to Dept. of Military Engineering
Parthia can only send about 31 Land Units by Amphibious Task Force,
who would find that threatening?
...but the time to take protective custody of San Diego/ Arizona seems past....
Hey now, no scheeming without me.
Speaking of scheming
Diesels and Destroyers
I'd like to explore it. But I'm unsure if the extra tonnage we add for diesels would be counted as machinery. It definitely is machinery, and compact high performance engines like diesels would be an ideal option for getting Destroyers with oceanic cruising range and rapid response acceleration.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on February 19, 2023, 10:01:56 AM
Speaking of scheming
Diesels and Destroyers
I'd like to explore it. But I'm unsure if the extra tonnage we add for diesels would be counted as machinery. It definitely is machinery, and compact high performance engines like diesels would be an ideal option for getting Destroyers with oceanic cruising range and rapid response acceleration.
Snip wrote the section.
So most certainly as
Mod Emeritus gets to chime in.
I think the key question is - In that period can you you make higher power-weight, but less reliable, lightweight diesels ?
That is essentially what they did with steam plants for Destroyers, then Cruisers.
My perception is the weight in SS is if you have a Battleship-type installation, and we use the Comp Hull as kludge to compensate for the engine weight.
Foxy wanted to do Turbo-electric, and I ruled that Turbo-generators did not count.
Turbogenerators are separate plant, and had less efficiency gains than steam plants over time, so they did not get greatly lighter in tons : KW.
So they would not scale the same.
QuoteShips built to Destroyer Architecture must have at least 50% of the Distribution of weights at normal displacement section of their Springsharp allocated to Machinery
I read that as the Machinery section of the report must be at least 50%, any MISC weight adjustments based on engine type would therefor necessarily be in addition to that minimum, not counting towards it.
Re: guns, to move the convo from Jefs ship thread.
My interpretation of the gun rules is that the fire control systems are optimized for the type. So a QF gun is going to have proper FC for anti shipping. And operate at reduced efficiency against aircraft if it's something capable of that at all. Conversely, an AA gun can shoot at ships but only with HE shells and over local open sights.
So a 90mm AA gun really isn't going to be a good surface gun, it has the punch but not the fire control to be truly effective. But something like a 40mm pom pom works ok as a last ditch anti MTB weapon.
Quote...So a 90mm AA gun really isn't going to be a good surface gun, it has the punch but not the fire control to be truly effective...
From Capital ship architecture
Quote...1926: Primitive DP secondary batteries
1932: Improved DP Secondary batteries. De-Capping plates
1940: Advanced DP Secondary batteries.
1946: Automatic Secondary Guns
This could be identical for AA guns in Anti Surface use.
Correct,
Once you get Dual-purpose mountings, - which are a separate toggle on SS- then the guns can be used against either.
Fire control and fusing systems provided, ammo feeds - are assumed to cover both options.
Currently, no one has DP guns.
So Tac's version should be correct.
Most- not all - AA / HA mountings could be depressed to fire against surface targets. But you're not going to be integrated into the overall FC for it.
My understanding is QF / LA mountings had issues with room for recoil and loading at the breech when elevated, were not designed to elevate much,
and weren't equipped with AA sights/ FC. They can certainly fire at planes they can bear on, but it's unlikely to be effective.
Quote from: Jefgte on February 25, 2023, 12:55:17 AM
In your rules,
I would like to know if you consider that an AA gun, the 76.2 for example, is also anti-surface?
Or is there a barrier in the use of weapons?
AA is only AA.
Sorry, missed this earlier post in the design thread.
The tech tree and Springsharp both place 'dual purpose' guns
as a separate category, in this case being researchable later.
Guns before that can be QF/BL or AA.
"Machine Guns" are presumed to be light and flexible and short ranged enough to be used for either.
Non-AA guns will not engage Aerial targets with very limited exceptions.
example : Main / secondary guns might be used to make splashes vs. torpedo planes - historically used.
Since there was otherwise virtually no AA, was allowing Fox's rotary 2" to shoot at Mayan planes, but at a severe penalty. There's 25mm MGs on some ships, but nothing else. 25mm can really only be used for self defense. The lack of a decent mid/heavy AA weapon was an issue with warding off the Mayan aircraft.
Likewise the Mayans had light guns which seemed best suited for AA, not QF, so I treated those as AA. The planned FC refit pre-war
would have been the opportunity to swap out/upgrade those deck guns.
A gun tabbed as "Anti-Aircraft' will generally not be used to fire against surface targets.
The exception would be as a 'close in' weapon, using the sights on the weapon.
This would be equivalent to the 1905 fire control, which has very limited effective range.
A 'Dual-purpose' gun would be used for engaging vs. surface or aerial targets
and is integrated into the ships fire control for both.
This is an interesting article, but I rather suspect the author 'cherry picks' data to
present things in the most favorable light. For example, the Musashi's sinking
is discounted, but it's being the focus of concentrated attacks and so helping the rest
is not really made clear.
I expect the numbers are right, I've done such things as to figure the hit % on
Task Force Z myself. I just think that it may be a bit biased.
Still, it's an interesting bit.
https://www.navygeneralboard.com/aaa-umbrella-vs-rain-of-bombs-naval-anti-aircraft-vs-aircraft-in-world-war-ii/ (https://www.navygeneralboard.com/aaa-umbrella-vs-rain-of-bombs-naval-anti-aircraft-vs-aircraft-in-world-war-ii/)
on a completely unrelated matter : I've long found this article on the IJN torpedo hit rate interesting.
There's a chart at the very bottom of the article thats nifty.
It puts success in terms of #tube:hit, while the text above discusses the individual fight.
For example the battle of Java sea, the IJN made something like 164 torpedo launches for 3 hits, which shows on the chart as 54.67:1.
You can see that in general rates declined during the war, the Long Lance had the additional advantage that in the earliest battles, the ships did not realize they were in range and being attacked, then there were some good hit rates in night fights as well, but when ships knew they were under attack, hit rates dropped.
battles like
http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.php (http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.php)
Harking back to my days as the Netherlands in Wesworld,
the Floatplane Destroyer :
https://forummarine.forumactif.com/t8518-destroyers-neerlandais (https://forummarine.forumactif.com/t8518-destroyers-neerlandais)
As for class Stats :
https://www.netherlandsnavy.nl (https://www.netherlandsnavy.nl)
In my quest to make Orders of Battle much less painful, I have managed to nerd snipe (https://xkcd.com/356/) myself into creating an Access database for hosting my fleet information. If/When I finish it, I'll accept any pocket protectors you may have.
Your Nerd Fu is strong, no doubt.
Heh,
New term to me, works for me, doubt I'll use it to replace 'squirrel !' as an explanation.
Sadly my encyclopedia and other things are stuck at HY1 1922.
I've just started moving ships from my ship thread to the encyclopedia.
I've already discovered that instead of the 14000t FDC posted, I lay down my 14500 ton version...which would be among
the designs that went missing consolidating my laptop and primary computer... I apparently failed to transfer them.
...
So, yeah, I'll get to my OOB...soon...yep, soon. Like ya know, soon !
Storm-related power outage, won't be on much for a day or more.
At least I've got the generator up and going again.
Would hate to think that catastrophic spring storms are the new normal around here.
Power is good... we're getting a good soaking, kinda like the 90s, but the utility has done a ton of tree work, so main town hasn't lost power except flickers.
Looks out window.
Glorious English weather this weekend.
I decided to post an updated (as of 1925) naval infrastructure list in my encyclopedia; lo and behold, my turn sheets had somehow lost three drydocks (a 150 and two 100s) over the course of time. So it was worthwhile, just not how I thought it would be.
I update "Where are they" the latest is from 1918.
&, I start to work to 1926H2.
I had really hoped to get my OOB and Tech and gunnery tables updated this past weekend,
but I had an unexpected crush of things to do which sapped both time and energy.
Which I'm now mostly through.
I've got vacation in June, but will take my Laptop and should be able to chip away on things
and stay involved.
Hi Folks,
I am on vacation.
I for some reason expected that at the end of each day, I'd have a couple hours I could do things in,
but so far things are pretty much running until 10pm....11:11pm now and I finally have down time.
Not nearly the freetime I anticipated to post the things I planned.
So kinda an unannounced absence...which is bad form.
Anyhow, I have hope for tomorrow...but I had hope for today, and yesterday, and the day before.
I have several storylines I want to advance this half-year....
Yay, vacation.
I'm a bit wrapped up with unexpected D&D dungeonmastering and expected gardening, but will hope to put out the turn report on the weekend.
=> The Admiralty Design Office is still in operation.
;)
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 14, 2023, 07:49:58 PM
I'm a bit wrapped up with unexpected D&D dungeonmastering
Envious, I don't have a group of folks for that in my area any more, and never got into remote play.
1st Oregon trip - Done
Ireland trip - Done
2nd Oregon trip - next weekend.
I really expected to post during the first two trips, but basically every day ran late, I didn't have downtime after dinner as expected.
I did on last year's Scotland trip, but not on this one.
Anyhow I'll start rolling out some posts :)
Ireland sounds interesting but I'm sure Oregon is neat too.
I lost a lot of the last two weeks planning for back-to-back-to-back D&D weekends, although today got cancelled on short notice and the Mrs hauled me out on a road trip instead.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 25, 2023, 08:46:13 PM
back-to-back-to-back D&D weekends
I am vaguely hoping to find a path to a live RPG again. However that has failed in the past as well. :(
Enjoy them when you get to them.
I do, but I'm DMing everything from homebrew and that middle game was kind of sprung on me with six days notice. Didn't give a lot of time to work out the session, build character sheets for everybody, and research how to optimize for a child with ADHD.
It's been a long time since I've been on Wesworld.
Wesworld seems completely off to me.
Bruce's death was a blow to all members.
It looks like it outright ended, although they hit 1950 and that was a logical stopping point because of Springsharp.
We might be able to hang some WesWorld players.
We have free Empires...
Are folks spending on coastal defence installations? I poked around the encyclopedias a bit but didn't see anything.
Some. The Caicos and martinique, and my major ports all have notable coastal defenses.
...Byzance ports have coastal defenses.
Generally speaking, I've built up my important facilities to the point in coastal defenses that they have mortar, main, and intermediate batteries plus at least a battalion of defense troops in addition to the light concrete positions for the LP stationed there. With the Rappaproachment with Rome, I haven't needed to build up the outer gates to Atlantic Wall levels, though with the Mayans actions against Martinique, I just might do so.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 08, 2023, 11:01:03 AM
Are folks spending on coastal defence installations? I poked around the encyclopedias a bit but didn't see anything.
Parthia is now investing in (more) coastal defenses.
I am slowly building them up, you'll find them on the turn sheet under the Non-Naval tab
where at the bottom - beyond the air point allocations - is the fortifications.
Because of the "Region" aspect of them, it's a little frustrating, as really I want to guard my ports with guns,
and have watch towers scattered elsewhere.
Land Forts in colonies, the way Snip wrote it, don't pay off as well. Less bang for the buck...overall I think I made the Japanese forts in the Mayan war overperform.
Coastal defenses though, we ran into the "what does this "point" mean problem" in the Sino-Japanese and so there's the coastal fort table for what it means.
Quote from: Jefgte on July 07, 2023, 03:57:56 PM
We might be able to hang some WesWorld players.
We have free Empires...
It would be lovely to get more players.
That's why I kept the PCs and NPCs expanding during colony acquisitions, to make viable positions.
Both the Norse and Iberians would make life more interesting.
After that, there's some major NPCs that could be played.
I think seating someone in Ethiopia is too late right now, complicate Byzantine's plans to much.
Rajasthan and United Berbers are a bit of the same- little late to introduce.
But Laksmanavati would be fine, Foxy might enjoy a resurgent China, and the Deccans would work.
5 Tribes has a reasonable setup, squished between two majors but with some territories.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 09, 2023, 07:42:47 PM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 08, 2023, 11:01:03 AM
Are folks spending on coastal defence installations? I poked around the encyclopedias a bit but didn't see anything.
Parthia is now investing in (more) coastal defenses.
I am slowly building them up, you'll find them on the turn sheet under the Non-Naval tab
where at the bottom - beyond the air point allocations - is the fortifications.
Because of the "Region" aspect of them, it's a little frustrating, as really I want to guard my ports with guns,
and have watch towers scattered elsewhere.
Land Forts in colonies, the way Snip wrote it, don't pay off as well. Less bang for the buck...overall I think I made the Japanese forts in the Mayan war overperform.
Coastal defenses though, we ran into the "what does this "point" mean problem" in the Sino-Japanese and so there's the coastal fort table for what it means.
I do wonder if one of us needs to whip up a similar table for 'land fortifications', just so we know where the breakpoints are in flavor.
Honestly, a replacement of the land/air/fort combat rules with something stolen from a game might be best,
but the entire Region vs. Point interface continues to cause problems. Land/Air/Forts are all regional and cost the same regardless of the number of provinces in that region, while our navies are point. Answer the question of what happens when this squadron goes here is problematic.
"The first sub-category of non-naval forces is Fortifications. Fortification points are placed in a region when constructed and cannot be moved. Fortification Points provide a 1% bonus per point to the side on the defensive in an engagement. Fortification points in the homeland provide a 3% bonus instead. There is a cap of 50 Fortification points per region."
Is what's in the rules. Nothing about how coastal def are supposed to work. Which is why I had to 'come up with something' in the Sino-Japanese war when Fox wanted to know what the coastal defenses of various ports was. Worked up the chart post war based on what I roughed out.
The use of % for various non-naval warfare is why I had to invent a system that was kinda 1-100 based instead of just pulling out a wargame and adapting a 1d6 or 2d6 system.
However the % is so low, that it means investing in extra land forts is silly in the territories....and likely at "Home" where you don't need DP to support them. Though masses of forts would add up.
When I saw that Fox had put $/BP into some forts in Central America, and was obviously counting on them to DO SOMETHING...
just giving him a +/-1% per fort modifier would have led to no chance at all. Which seemed unfair. Rebalancing the forts seemed needed.
I departed from the rules* and tried to make them 'worthwhile' , still cost $1 and 1 BP, but stationary/all defense/no offense point vs. a land point ...
so they became a 6th a "target" per unit, which I think wound up being slightly too powerful, they should have just been a bonus "hit"...I think.
LPs are 4 maneuver units + Fire support (art/tanks/etc)
A unit that lost 3/4 of it's maneuver portions kept 1 maneuver, 1 FS and 1 fort. ...for each province in the region.
*probably shouldn't have without a roundtable discusion , but I have been jammed for time for years, so just went for it.
I can see the land forts working as you've got them, if positioned in a specific province rather than a region.
Coastal defence...well, I kind of like the idea of a coastal watch, but not the cost of one. If we go to province-by-province thing, though, I'd just skip it entirely.
Perhaps we could work out a simpler and less expensive table for coastal defence, and apply that to individual provinces. Skip the garrison bit, maybe skip the minefields since I think all of us build small minelayers anyway. But build stats for some generic shore batteries that can be bought, like (hypothetically, costs strictly for example):
-Basic battery (6 x anti-TB guns (50-75mm), machine guns, light AA coverage: $0.1, 0.1 BP
-Light battery (Add 6 x anti-DD guns (76-119mm), MG defence against landings increases to X, AA rating increases to Y): $0.2, 0.2 BP
-Etc
That was the old system that Snip discarded.
From what I understand, He really wanted to avoid *making* people detail such things for a couple reasons.
First he felt extra complexity was detrimental to gaining and keeping players, so he wanted to keep it simple.
I tend to like to go for complexity myself, but...
Tracking what the provinces are named, what the ports are named, and what's at each specific location adds a burden
that not everyone would want - or in my case- have time to do.
Second he wanted the land to be very secondary to the Naval aspects, hence the point and region system.
I believe his idea was small territorial wars. I think that was part of the 3% Home Fort vs. 1% territorial,
Wars between Homelands were intended to be non-productive WW1 type affairs, which is also why the
delay in turning captured homelands productive is longer than captured territories.
I think there was a third as well, it might be that the starting BP was based off a guess as to
the construction needs for an Italian-Japanese size combat fleet, with things like tenders, minelayers, etc
being optional. Again to reduce the required workload. You can build and maintain defensive minelayers- which are mobile,
or simply invest in defensive points...which aren't but are simpler for bookkeeping.
Fair.
Alternately, scale something along the lines of:
Province's defensive value = IC in the province, + 1 if a port, + 1 if the regional capital/fleet base/special place (max one per continent?)
0 = Coast watch
1 = Anti-TB and light AA
2 = Anti-DD
3 = Anti-cruiser
4 = Anti-BB and heavy AA
Although that leaves the problem of "I have spent all this cash and BP on specific fortifications, now what?"
Edit: To clarify, that'd be defensive value against naval bombardment, amphibious landings, and air attack. Figure out land stuff some other way.
Doing that thing where I have 0.28 BP unspent and have an urge to spend it on something weird and small rather than save it to the next turn.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 10, 2023, 05:18:14 PM
Fair.
Alternately, scale something along the lines of:
I try not to repeatedly jump into rule proposal conversations, as I don't want dampen player debate.
So, if we come up with a more popular alternative to my Draft...that's fine. That is why it still has the draft moniker.
In discussion of the current iteration,
-It would simplify the chart if minor/major/naval had simply higher CD numbers.
- I have no objections to upping the 0 coast defense to 'coast watchers', I will observe that even a watchtower and communications sytem takes organization and resources and historically has been a matter of investment- even the Australian coast watchers of WWII was a deliberate force established and provided with equipment. We can however handwave and say it's base level of defense. Heck we could specify batterys of 75QF everywhere if folks wanted.
- I do have objections to the coastal defenses scaling up so fast. If we want to have base strikes and port bombardments be reasonable, then Anti-BB level defenses need to be rare and precious investments. If 4 BP is all it takes, then build coastal def instead of building 2 modern battleships gives Anti-BB level defenses to ~22 provinces..which would cover most players main bases and ports. Right or wrong, in the draft I was trying to make it hard to heavily fortify all over, making it a real choice to make.
- I am still hopeful that we can see fights by distant raiders or Von Spee style divisions against sprawling empires like Parthia. Having BB level defenses be easy and possibly common could make that very difficult. Amphibious attacks on peripheral territories could also become much harder.
- I don't think complicating the tracking by changing from Regional to Province is a winner at this time. It could make defending a region more difficult (build per coastal province) and so offset the lower fortification levels, but as many regions only have 1 major/naval base, I think generally it would make such things more easy to give battle-ship level defenses.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 12, 2023, 02:08:02 PM
Doing that thing where I have 0.28 BP unspent and have an urge to spend it on something weird and small rather than save it to the next turn.
I have a casement armorclad design for rivers that's about 200 tons.
If you want, you could buy me one...
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on July 12, 2023, 09:59:15 PM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 10, 2023, 05:18:14 PM
Fair.
Alternately, scale something along the lines of:
I try not to repeatedly jump into rule proposal conversations, as I don't want dampen player debate.
So, if we come up with a more popular alternative to my Draft...that's fine. That is why it still has the draft moniker.
In discussion of the current iteration,
-It would simplify the chart if minor/major/naval had simply higher CD numbers.
- I have no objections to upping the 0 coast defense to 'coast watchers', I will observe that even a watchtower and communications sytem takes organization and resources and historically has been a matter of investment- even the Australian coast watchers of WWII was a deliberate force established and provided with equipment. We can however handwave and say it's base level of defense. Heck we could specify batterys of 75QF everywhere if folks wanted.
- I do have objections to the coastal defenses scaling up so fast. If we want to have base strikes and port bombardments be reasonable, then Anti-BB level defenses need to be rare and precious investments. If 4 BP is all it takes, then build coastal def instead of building 2 modern battleships gives Anti-BB level defenses to ~22 provinces..which would cover most players main bases and ports. Right or wrong, in the draft I was trying to make it hard to heavily fortify all over, making it a real choice to make.
- I am still hopeful that we can see fights by distant raiders or Von Spee style divisions against sprawling empires like Parthia. Having BB level defenses be easy and possibly common could make that very difficult. Amphibious attacks on peripheral territories could also become much harder.
- I don't think complicating the tracking by changing from Regional to Province is a winner at this time. It could make defending a region more difficult (build per coastal province) and so offset the lower fortification levels, but as many regions only have 1 major/naval base, I think generally it would make such things more easy to give battle-ship level defenses.
I concur. I don't think at this juncture it's really reasonable to do that. Unless we were to greatly increase the cost or something to account for the positions.
It was an example rather than a proposal.
For my part, I was quite satisfied with our approach in N3: Here are the guidelines for simming coastal defences, go sim them and stick them precisely where you want them.
As in that sim, I would sim out a few generic units and then spam them around much as I do with minesweeping/MTB/light ASW forces already.
As a general principle, I'd rather have that than a thirty-row table which applies to an entire region.
Even with the 30 row table for coastal defenses as we have, I see it more as a 'guideline' of what's there. And that the actual importance given to specific pieces in that 'region' is what defines, subjectively, how things are distributed.
Take the Caicos for instance, as they're one of the most heavily fortified per acre area on earth at the moment. Most of the islands aren't major installations, so they've got something along the lines of 'concrete lined trenches that won't just collapse on their own weight' and 'pillboxes' covering beach approaches etc with some more field artillery positions with ammo bunkers. Basically something designed to give a Company and a Battery a strong fighting chance against a regimental force trying to make landfall. In the middle, Providenciales has about the same, but also with a somewhat significant light and medium gun array including permanently emplaced guns because it is also the location of the primary airfield for the northern portion of the Outer Gates. And then we have Grand Turk, which is literally the HQ of SubFlt, as well as being a major naval base, acre for acre rivaling Veracruz in importance and size. This is where I consider the bulk of the artillery positions, including all of those heavy mortar and heavy artillery positions, to be placed, along with significant command complexes and other bunker complexes turning the island into a warrens den of tunnels between positions. Not to Atlantic Wall yet, but definitely VERY heavily fortified compared to the other islands because of its relative import.
For Byzantium, Perim island & Dardanelles are the most fortified.
It is obvious that fortifications are all placed in strategic places.
Well this seems to have hit pause, so I'll try to respond :)
Let's start with a bit of background, and my view as the difference between 'Rule' and 'Draft'
I'll put it in italics so folks can skip if they want.
First, as a general guide...my role as "mod" is a little undefined.
Basically I figure that when we choose to play, we accept the ruleset...which needs a bit of interpretation.
That's what I do, with input/oversight from Snip, the designer of this particular version.
Snips approach was simplification, mine is more detail...but I try to do it his way.
BUT New rules need to be gone over by the players and crafted to be generally acceptable.
Like the carrier rules. That was a good group effort.
The Land/Air/Fort points were not defined, and what I understand, were a bit of a placeholder
so the game could get started and we'd figure that detail out later.
Thats why the 1910 "no wars" rule..which thwarted my plans...
Fast forward to 1912...and I was now wearing the mod hat, and had to answer questions
about first the Sino-Japanese war then the Azteca-Roman war. Part of that was
landing of scout parties and raids on various ports...which led to the question...what do
these Coastal Fort points MEAN at this fishing village vs. this island vs. this major naval base.
Now, not surprisingly since I came up with chart, I'm fine with it... but
Like I said, I tend to like complex, so I simply asked what were the various types of areas
that we needed to define the defense at so naval forces could interact.
Then folks could provide a specific level of coastal defense to meet their need, while avoiding
tracking of whats at Point A, vs Point B, and having to do maintenance and what ever.
That worked in the Mayan war, they had a defined level of coastal defense, higher by the
Aztec, and weaker in the south. The chart worked well for deciding what defenses were
at any given spot. The only place I had difficulties was when Foxy tried to ascend the river that
formed the former border, where the Mayans had pretty heavy land fortifications. Batteries to
control the river crossings would be a logical part of that design on top of the coastal defenses.
The river meant short engagement ranges with flat firing QF gun emplacements, and little maneuver room.
For the minor ports in the south it meant the lagoon entrances in the south had batteries of QF 75mm class guns,
which could hammer small combatants, but would not have stopped a large landing force,
while the naval bases on each coast were fairly heavily fortified and hard to attack without serious losses.
So overall for my purposes...it worked.
However, the Coastal Forts are Draft, and can be changed around minorly easily, and could be adopted...
but we could even take time to try to scrap and replace with a new rule if that's a big need. I'm not partial to the latter.
And someone else gets to work up the proposal !
The easiest part would be to move certain categories - like minefields- up or down the chart columns.
Looking at Rocky's take, I'm getting that simplification of the chart is his main thing.
With a little redesign we could probably change the chart to be the +1/2/3 system
he proposed.
Since Tac's committed a fair bit to Coastal Defense, the 'Naval Base' level should remain the same,
and have the others scaled off that.
Not looking at the chart, that would be Fort Value = Naval Base, -1 =major port -3 = minor port -5= country side....
Looking at Jefgte's comments, I noticed long ago he was specifying that his coastal forts were controlling
the entrance to the Red Sea, and I kinda viewed that as 'storytelling' as the ruleset clearly sets them up as
Regional and dispersed.
However, it would be pretty easy to add "Strategic Points" to the 'Naval Bases' category, so the
straits get their guardian batteries. For me, that would be a huge incentive to fortify the Kingdom of Svrivijaya,
controlling the straits of Malacca and Sunda. It would also mean Hormuz was guarded by batteries on each shore,
in addition to the scores of MTBs that hide in the inlet leading to Khesab harbor on the south side.
Back from a week-long road trip that was entirely unrelated to ships except for the book I bought on an aborted Lake Huron - Ottawa River canal proposal from a century or so back. Gonna have to see how the route compares to map ownership in the N-verse.
Welcome back.
I've been eyeing the Caspian-Indian ocean canal ideas myself.
I wonder how much they would cost in Navalism terms,
but then I hit that time/energy/priority/laziness nexus and it stops.
Out of curiosity, at what point are we bringing transom sterns into the equation?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 03, 2023, 07:04:43 PM
Out of curiosity, at what point are we bringing transom sterns into the equation?
...as he notes that his version of springsharp doesn't factor transom sterns into the math anyway, regardless of what is clicked.
Good question.
I really don't know what Snip was intending.
My version of SS does modify hull strength when I click transom off and on.
And I get different results with 'Large' and 'small'.
I believe one of my Battleship books mentions the first that had a transom, which might have been HMS Nelson.
but I don't know about cruisers and when it popped up there.
For now, lets just say no earlier than 1929... so folks can move on while we try to figure that one out.
So we have "primitive DP" guns under the Capital Ship tech but nothing specified for other ship techs or the naval artillery tech.
Do I have to wait to finish the capital ship tech before I can design the guns, or can I have them ready to introduce on new ships as soon as the cap ship tech is done?
If we get around to a rules fix, there might be better tech spots to fit DP under.
The presumption I'm running under is that where things are called out in one tech tree - that's the 'unlock' tech for others.
So one must have that DP tech from the Capital ships before you can design such guns or introduce them on cruisers or elsewhere.
That works for me.
Mildly cool that we passed 100,000 total posts within the last few days, nice job folks.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 12, 2023, 07:56:41 AM
Mildly cool that we passed 100,000 total posts within the last few days, nice job folks.
Hey you're 10% of those !
Get cranking so we can hit 200k !
Stupid statistic of the day:
There are 1,015 vessels in service with the Vilnius Union as of 31/12/1927. That includes auxiliaries.
They have a total light displacement of 1,269,666 t (counting auxiliaries at full displacement.
That means the average light displacement of a Union ship is 1,251 t.
That reminds me I haven't done the 'colony count' for a bit.
Just jammed for time.
But that was one of the things it reported- Warship and Aux tonnage per Empire.
As of ..well 7/1/27... Comparable Parthian would be something like
1,493,665 total light tonnage
1206 vessels
1238/vessels
I have a nearly 200 Aux ships with over 250,000 tons that boost that.
I should probably sort my spreadsheet and see what the mean tonnage is. I suspect half my ships are under 500 tonnes.
Kinda illustrates that even commanding a destroyer is a bit of a big deal for an officer.
It's one thing I've tried to show with the sultanate after ironclad bay. The loss of so many senior officers putting much more responsibility in the hands of a new generation.
I would bet my fleet is far more elderly than either of yours. I have a number of ships from the 1890s still in service.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on August 12, 2023, 03:34:05 PM
It's one thing I've tried to show with the sultanate after ironclad bay. The loss of so many senior officers putting much more responsibility in the hands of a new generation.
That could be a positive :)
I had intended to follow the commander of an elderly cruiser as she promoted through the ranks,
and that would be my avenue to expound on naval theory and building choices.
... no time. She got 1 story right in the beginning, that's all.
The Emperor was the infrastructure angle- competent long sighted administration,
while Vache was the land military side.
Shirin was to have some stories, but I thought it likely she'd be shipped off to Walter for him to direct.
And now Shirin is forging her own path. Or potentially blending paths with a different players character.
How wide do you reckon a carrier would need to be in order to have parallel landing and launching decks? Assuming there's an island running down the centreline. Sixty feet on each deck, plus the island width?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 17, 2023, 07:50:13 PM
How wide do you reckon a carrier would need to be in order to have parallel landing and launching decks? Assuming there's an island running down the centreline. Sixty feet on each deck, plus the island width?
I think looking at some of the smaller Escort and Light carriers to see the minimum beam.
I expect the width on landing is more critical to allow drift in crosswinds.
I believe the
Independence class was felt cramped, I know the extra 8ft beam of the
Saipans was viewed as desirable.
Ryujo was meant to be small as possible as well, and might be a decent model as she was designed during the biplane age. She was 20m at beam and 23m on flight deck.
Independence was 21.8 beam, but 20.3 waterline beam (sans bulges), and 33.3 'flight deck and projections'.
So guessing the
Ryujo is a better base.
Could simply double it, or plan on some 'overlap'... on which I have no idea.
Howev
QuoteHow wide do you reckon a carrier would need to be in order to have parallel landing and launching decks?...
Landing 22m, launching 18m => 40m minimum
Built IJN Shinano ;)
Playing with the armament on a carrier design, the light displacement suddenly drops 2,000 t and the hull strength plummets to 0.77.
Yet I haven't changed the hull dimensions, and the armament is reasonable enough. What have I done?
Oh, there it is, each of the sixteen 50mm guns has a magazine of 51,000 rounds. That'll do it.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 26, 2023, 09:33:00 PM
Oh, there it is, each of the sixteen 50mm guns has a magazine of 51,000 rounds. That'll do it.
Figure 2.5kg / round, you added 127.5 mt per gun, for 2,040mt...a destroyer's worth of ammo !!
I decided that was possibly excessive.
I dunno, if you could figure out how to fire it all at once you are sure to hit something.
Try 51,000 barrels and 1 round of ammo...
I feel like simming that just to see what the recoil rating is.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2023, 05:42:16 AM
I feel like simming that just to see what the recoil rating is.
I'm intrigued that the recoil is above 1.00, but there is no warning while the accommodation/working spaces is supposedly excellent.
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1928
Displacement:
65,270 t light; 66,756 t standard; 68,864 t normal; 70,550 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(984.25 ft / 984.25 ft) x 114.83 ft x (32.81 / 33.49 ft)
(300.00 m / 300.00 m) x 35.00 m x (10.00 / 10.21 m)
Armament:
51000 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 3.85lbs / 1.74kg shells, 1 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1928 Model
25500 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 196,171 lbs / 88,982 kg
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
4th: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 45,284 shp / 33,782 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,794 tons
Complement:
2,125 - 2,763
Cost:
£51.521 million / $206.084 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 36,353 tons, 52.8 %
Armour: 14,201 tons, 20.6 %
- Armament: 14,201 tons, 20.6 %
Machinery: 1,410 tons, 2.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,306 tons, 19.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,594 tons, 5.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
37,549 lbs / 17,032 Kg = 347.7 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 2.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.37
Metacentric height 10.7 ft / 3.2 m
Roll period: 14.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.86
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.33
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.650 / 0.652
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.37 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 26 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
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: 20.00 %, 34.51 ft / 10.52 m, 21.95 ft / 6.69 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 21.95 ft / 6.69 m, 21.95 ft / 6.69 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 21.95 ft / 6.69 m, 21.95 ft / 6.69 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 21.95 ft / 6.69 m, 21.95 ft / 6.69 m
- Average freeboard: 22.95 ft / 7.00 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 138.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 170.3 %
Waterplane Area: 86,581 Square feet or 8,044 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 56 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 315 lbs/sq ft or 1,537 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2023, 07:24:05 AM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2023, 05:42:16 AM
I feel like simming that just to see what the recoil rating is.
I'm intrigued that the recoil is above 1.00, but there is no warning while the accommodation/working spaces is supposedly excellent.
Well, the recoil is 1.86, but I presume that means if they all fired on the same beam.
As long as you ensure that 25,500 fire one way, and at least 21930 fire the otherway,
should be fine....right ? Then flip the ship around and you have 3,570 barrels left to go !
And of course the accommodation is fine.. wait...no that doesn't make sense at all.
Or how about the 25,500 twin guns and 2125-2763 crew...
I am also bemused the ship has 20.6% displacement in armor...in the 20mm gun shields.
I suppose the guns shooting to port cancel out the recoil of the guns shooting to starboard.
I have done an updated OOB for the Sultanate. I have the OOB updated to what it will be January 1929. 264 ships and submarines in active service in January 1929
Quote from: TacCovert4 on September 11, 2023, 08:02:13 PM
I have done an updated OOB for the Sultanate. I have the OOB updated to what it will be January 1929. 264 ships and submarines in active service in January 1929
Nice.
I will get there...really....truely...
Just found this old sketch and damn she'd have been pretty.
At another place, I am watching BUT NOT POSTING IN a thread in which a fellow proposes to build a line of thirty offshore ASW platforms, about 30nm apart, from the southern tip of Texas to the Florida Keys.
The argument is that these platforms offer safe havens for submarine hunters, anti-submarine aircraft, and so forth, in a manner that is more effective and more cost-effective than using ocean-going warships and other aircraft.
Engineering considerations appear not to be taking a front seat in the discussion. Or costing issues, for that matter.
So basically build Deepwater oil platforms that don't produce oil.....and hope a hurricane doesn't come?
Yes, and apparently nobody can/wants to torpedo them, either.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 14, 2023, 04:57:03 PM
Yes, and apparently nobody can/wants to torpedo them, either.
Or just shell it?
Apparently not. Seems to be a lot of hand-waving going on.
Hello everyone, I am new to the Forum and to Navy stuff in general looking forward to learning from everyone.
Welcome aboard.
Jef ;)
Well hi there!
Quote from: SmokeGrenadiers on October 14, 2023, 11:59:51 PM
Hello everyone, I am new to the Forum and to Navy stuff in general looking forward to learning from everyone.
Let us know if you have questions, or feel free to chat and so forth, of course.
Quote from: SmokeGrenadiers on October 14, 2023, 11:59:51 PM
Hello everyone, I am new to the Forum and to Navy stuff in general looking forward to learning from everyone.
Welcome :)
feel free to ask questions, there's a "Knowledge Base" area with a variety of information.
If you want to try your hand at springsharp, folks will be happy to help with that.
Likewise, if you have comments/observations on the designs posted, feel free to ask :)
Fairly soon we will likely be having 'design contests' to provide vessels for the unplayed positions.
Those will be open to all too.
I've been looking around the threads and realized you guys had a sim going with many different nations and would be interested in the Northern Kingdom if that's a possibility. :)
It would certainly be nice to have a neighbour.
Quote from: SmokeGrenadiers on October 15, 2023, 11:01:17 PM
I've been looking around the threads and realized you guys had a sim going with many different nations and would be interested in the Northern Kingdom if that's a possibility. :)
Absolutely.
The Norse are several years out of date (6?)
If you don't mind, I'd like to get their turns up to date - 1928.5 for you,
I can leave "placeholder" tonnage in the build order.
As I have their sheets already, that should be doable this weekend, if it' ok with you.
That way you can start with tinkering with warship designs - kinda the core concept here.
not trying to grind through a bunch of turn updates.
"History" is that the Romans in particular, and Wilno secondarily are the Norse's competition.
The Five Tribes (Iroquois confederacy+) have some ships too, but a history of Peace with both Wilno and Norse.
That gives you some 'opposing forces' to look at and consider designs to counter.
Also look over the Norse encyclopedia, they've got a fair range of guns already researched,
so you probably do not need to research new gun designs to start.
The rules -> ship design, and -> tech will be informative, but we're happy to chime in on designs.
Walter - the original player- wrote up a bunch on the Norse.
That gives you the background, but the future will be yours.
In game, the Norse monarch has fallen in a coma and their political system is dysfunctional,
so they've relapsed to isolationism. What comes next is yours.
But ...stories are optional..
Overall, you don't need to know N7's history much
Core concept - Ancient Empires survived to the present day.
To do so, a minimal number of key historic events were changed, but if State A and B had a war in 1750,
which ever powers are there in N7 probably had a war in 1750.
The Parthian (me) and Norse Royal families intermarried several times over past centuries to cement alliances against the Golden Horde (Russia),
who is an isolationist NPC...with the biggest army out there. There seems to have been a joint "PC" vs. the Horde around 1876, last major war they were in.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 17, 2023, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: SmokeGrenadiers on October 15, 2023, 11:01:17 PM
I've been looking around the threads and realized you guys had a sim going with many different nations and would be interested in the Northern Kingdom if that's a possibility. :)
Absolutely.
The Norse are several years out of date (6?)
If you don't mind, I'd like to get their turns up to date - 1928.5 for you,
I can leave "placeholder" tonnage in the build order.
As I have their sheets already, that should be doable this weekend, if it' ok with you.
That way you can start with tinkering with warship designs - kinda the core concept here.
not trying to grind through a bunch of turn updates.
"History" is that the Romans in particular, and Wilno secondarily are the Norse's competition.
The Five Tribes (Iroquois confederacy+) have some ships too, but a history of Peace with both Wilno and Norse.
That gives you some 'opposing forces' to look at and consider designs to counter.
Also look over the Norse encyclopedia, they've got a fair range of guns already researched,
so you probably do not need to research new gun designs to start.
The rules -> ship design, and -> tech will be informative, but we're happy to chime in on designs.
Walter - the original player- wrote up a bunch on the Norse.
That gives you the background, but the future will be yours.
In game, the Norse monarch has fallen in a coma and their political system is dysfunctional,
so they've relapsed to isolationism. What comes next is yours.
But ...stories are optional..
Overall, you don't need to know N7's history much
Core concept - Ancient Empires survived to the present day.
To do so, a minimal number of key historic events were changed, but if State A and B had a war in 1750,
which ever powers are there in N7 probably had a war in 1750.
The Parthian (me) and Norse Royal families intermarried several times over past centuries to cement alliances against the Golden Horde (Russia),
who is an isolationist NPC...with the biggest army out there. There seems to have been a joint "PC" vs. the Horde around 1876, last major war they were in.
that would be perfectly fine, I'm always around if you need anything from me, although I'm not much of a story teller I can give it a go.
Quote from: SmokeGrenadiers on October 17, 2023, 12:52:26 PM
that would be perfectly fine, I'm always around if you need anything from me, although I'm not much of a story teller I can give it a go.
Storytelling is not required, some like it, some are not into that. Then some of us use it as a way of presenting our design considerations, or how our nation works.
It's an option :)
I put up a 'primer' for you, it's meant to help... really.
An awake Norse, guess it's time to wake Rome up. Now where was I...
Quote from: snip on October 18, 2023, 02:23:17 PM
An awake Norse, guess it's time to wake Rome up. Now where was I...
I'm sure we'll be great neighbours ;)
Great adversaries at least. It was decided back in the map building phase that Rome and The Norse would be at best unfriendly-neutral with each other. This is to prevent a Roman-Norse alliance from locking the Wilno out of the Atlantic.
Quote from: snip on October 18, 2023, 09:53:38 PM
Great adversaries at least. It was decided back in the map building phase that Rome and The Norse would be at best unfriendly-neutral with each other. This is to prevent a Roman-Norse alliance from locking the Wilno out of the Atlantic.
That's the fun part
I hope this works.
Hello everyone. I was invited to this forum by TacCovert4, who suggested it to me. I'm curious about the sim you all have, and I look forward to learning more about it.
If I can figure out how to navigate the forum, of course. /j
Hi there and welcome. If you've got questions, let us know and we'll try to help.
Welcome !
Poke about,
ask questions, make comments.
Down the road we should be having 'design competitions' to update the various
NPC nation's navies, and everyone can join in.
If things prove of interest there are empty spots available.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 21, 2023, 09:16:06 PM
Welcome !
Poke about,
ask questions, make comments.
Down the road we should be having 'design competitions' to update the various
NPC nation's navies, and everyone can join in.
If things prove of interest there are empty spots available.
For sure! I'm interested in maybe taking up a spot, but even just doing some basic designs for the fun of it sounds interesting as well. I'm talking with TacCovert about the sim, and he's already promised to help introduce me to using springsharp.
Welcome aboard.
Jef ;)
For both Knight and Smokegrenadiers, I put together that little 'Springsharp guide'.
I do not think it would lead them terribly astray.
Other folks are welcome to look at it and tell me what I should have said :)
I have some things that need doing this next weekend but after that
I will plan on starting the Iberian update with placeholder ships and
then chipping away at it in the following week.
I may write up a brief primer as well.
If either Smokegrenadiers or Knight have any questions/comments, please let us know.
Are we tapping the brakes while Kirk gets Iberia and the North caught up?
Norse & Iberia Status :
Iberia is up to 1927.5
I need to do the fleet AA refits in 1928.0
Then the 1928.5 turn and it's good to go.
I believe I have time this weekend for all that,
and start moving things to the Encylopedias...that will be slower.
Rule Proposal Enclaves :
Still need to post the final phrasing.
Turn 1929 :
It is the first full weekend in November,
but I'd like to get the Iberians and Norse as close
to that 'start' line as I can before
moving to 1929.
Say November 10th?
That works for me.
I post my 1928H2 this week end.
Jef ;)
Works for me as well. I've gotten a bit behind in my RP side of things.....I intend to get that caught up over the weekend and into next week.
Between the long hours at work and moving countries, Navalism had sadly slipped my mind. Didn't even remember until I found a page of my notes on ship design formulas. Felt like it was just yesterday when I was here until I checked the date of my last post; it has been a long time.
I doubt I'll be able to make the hours to return to the sim, but its great to see the forum is still going strong and everyone seemingly in good health.
Good to see you, Logi.
Quote...I doubt I'll be able to make the hours to return to the sim...
Too bad.
I believe that old Players come to visit us from time to time.
And the (free) Guys from Wesworld...Where are they?
Real life can claim suprising amounts of time :)
Glad to see you drop by and give a little update.
I believe it's your..at least I think of it as Logi's... little Ballistic program I've been using for penetration in most of our battles :)
Quote from: Logi on November 04, 2023, 09:41:40 AM
Between the long hours at work and moving countries, Navalism had sadly slipped my mind. Didn't even remember until I found a page of my notes on ship design formulas. Felt like it was just yesterday when I was here until I checked the date of my last post; it has been a long time.
I doubt I'll be able to make the hours to return to the sim, but its great to see the forum is still going strong and everyone seemingly in good health.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on November 04, 2023, 10:53:27 PM
Real life can claim suprising amounts of time :)
Glad to see you drop by and give a little update.
I believe it's your..at least I think of it as Logi's... little Ballistic program I've been using for penetration in most of our battles :)
Yes, that was something I wrote. Nice to see that it's still getting use.
Of course we stop in to read what's going on now and again.
So Hi Everyone...
Charles
Dude!
Nice to see the old gang members dropping by :)
Quote...I believe that old Players come to visit us from time to time...
Nice to see you Charles.
Thanks I stop in now and again to see whats going on and to read all the old stories
I've got slim pickings for ship design the next few weeks. Between waiting for all my dual-purpose armaments for 1931 and wanting to see how the Nords and Iberians are caught up, I'm not really committing to any specific 1930 designs right now.
That said, I'm going to be spending the vast majority of the next few weeks on this couch, so if there's specific NPCs in need of updating, throw it at me.
I'll take you up on that for either Laksmanavati or Rajasthan.
I'm traveling this weekend, so if I don't manage to get stuff to you
tomorrow, it may be Monday of next week.
QuoteI'll take you up on that for either Laksmanavati or Rajasthan...
These interests me.
Quote from: Jefgte on November 14, 2023, 12:26:43 AM
QuoteI'll take you up on that for either Laksmanavati or Rajasthan...
These interests me.
This is in response to your interest in Australia.
If Rocky can manage one, we can probably have design competitions for the other.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on November 14, 2023, 08:18:27 AM
Quote from: Jefgte on November 14, 2023, 12:26:43 AM
QuoteI'll take you up on that for either Laksmanavati or Rajasthan...
These interests me.
This is in response to your interest in Australia.
If Rocky can manage one, we can probably have design competitions for the other.
The other would probably mean I can stop my fever dream of designing ships I'll never build.
I can stop with "what is the shallowest draft I can float this gun on?"
Sorry, shallow draft and big guns might just be viable....
Conceptually part of the Rajasthani fleet concept is a heavily defended coastline and a 'fleet in being' able to ascend behind the forts up rivers, such as the Indus to Port Qasim.
Then that is augmented by a commerce warfare ability.
That makes it difficult for the Parthians to engage them decisively, while emerging with concentrated force at their own choosing. Those ships also have to operate offensively against the Deccans. Meanwhile the cruisers could do damage to the Parthian trade, Deccan Trade, or Laksmanavati trade. Since 1910 the new overseas obligations would probably add some ship types, and the entire fleet would have basically turned over.
Laksmanavati should have a more traditional fleet, though oriented towards longer range power projection, as their economic interests cover from China to Byzantine, and they need their trade to pass the Deccans and Rajasthanis.
hmm, I probably should have re-read the write ups instead of just running off memory.
They probably align..
Rajasthan
Naval viewpoint : The navy is for coastal defense and to interfere with the trade of any warring neighbor. They have chosen strategic footholds at the edges of the Indian Ocean, so that they may protect their trade, or harass those of other nations.
Laksmanavati
Naval outlook: For five hundred years, traders from Laskmanavati have roamed as far as the Swahili coast, China, the Philippines, the Spice islands, the Sunda islands, and western Australia. The Deccan navy is their true adversary, and they maintain a cruiser force capable of countering it.
...close enough
I am traveling for the Thanksgiving Holidays,
I will likely have internet and can join in by Sunday the 19th.
Meanwhile I've completed my one out-of-state trip for the year to assist my mom after a minor surgical procedure. Of course this had to happen during a pair of back-to-back storms which broke our record for earliest to 40" of snow by weeks, hit near enough half of our yearly average before November was half over, and once again exposed how incompetent our mayor is at dealing with anything other than being all-but nakidly corrupt. We now return to your regularly scheduled refits.
Quote from: snip on November 16, 2023, 09:38:24 PM
Meanwhile I've completed my one out-of-state trip for the year to assist my mom after a minor surgical procedure. Of course this had to happen during a pair of back-to-back storms which broke our record for earliest to 40" of snow by weeks, hit near enough half of our yearly average before November was half over, and once again exposed how incompetent our mayor is at dealing with anything other than being all-but nakidly corrupt. We now return to your regularly scheduled refits.
Mrs. Rock has a friend out your way who mentioned the delightful weather.
Glad you weren't buried, but the season is young.
Turns out 2/29 is the last turn I'll have anywhere I can build an IC for $10 (other than enclaves).
After that, the empty spaces are at least $15.
Well, unless I emulate Jef and go invade somebody.
From Jefgte's post I get the hint that the Laksmanavati navy is the one that needs updating.
So I'll shift my nascent efforts to that, and spam Rocky.
Sorry been quiet a couple days.
Traveling back to the home coast,
then some new things popped up,
and a bit jet lagged from it all.
I am updating the Byzantine Imperial Navy.
All ships receive 40/39 pompom and 12.7/62 Vickers to replace the old 76.2 AA and MG7.7.
Some rebuilt ships have not been recorded.
it's done now.
I have to update the artillery and define the planes on the aircraft carriers.
Depending on the composition of Laksmanavati's Navy, I will perhaps change the composition 1929h1 of ships dedicated to this conquest.
More small ones, fewer big ones.
Well I'm flying solo for most of the holidays.
Mrs. Rock hasn't been home in a decade and her Mom's health is not great, so we agreed I'd mind the farm and she'd go back for a visit. Since her respirologist was dead-set against her flying, she's driving out and back. Five days each way on top of the visit.
I've got the next three weeks off work so will be doing a lot of puttering and little tasks, ideally some writing too. I'll have Christmas dinner with the friends we do D&D with, as that sounds pretty low-key and I might even enjoy the company.
What are you guys up to?
Lady Tac is finishing up her vacation to Universal Studios, so it's been Daddy Daycare for the past week, plus working and working contract overtime. I'll be working Christmas Eve on contract overtime, and working New Years Eve as well. As far as holiday seasons go, mine have returned to what their normal was for the 10 years before I went to Major Crimes....aka working all the major holidays.
So far this season : Flew to Florida for Thanksgving, had 4 holiday get togethers, I'll head south on Friday or Saturday. Do both sides of the family as best possible. Then on my way North I hope to arrange a meal with friends, and need to drop by a particular liquor store with a good selection to see if they have certain items...then back home for the remainder of the week off. Though I can always wander into work and save the time off for later...I don't seem to ever do that.
Once upon a time it seemed like an annual ritual for the river to close the southern coastal highway, treefall to close the northern coastal highway, and then landslides to close the highway inland. Then the power would go out. ... which would be reason to say 'to heck with it' and go to work , get a chainsaw and go do storm patrol on roads. Or carry watersamples around in the research watershed.
....but they've put a ton of work into clearing trees from around the power lines, so I expect I'll have power.
Power does have its virtues.
We've got a heavy rainfall advisory in effect, which seems a bit off-season but whatever. The sump pump is working.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 17, 2023, 06:04:18 PM
Power does have its virtues.
A couple years ago we had fires in the Unit, so I was working over the hill making the Fire Maps-updated daily- for them.
Then I'd drive home (because I'd rather sleep there than a hotel)...but since the power was off in the entire area...I got to use
a campstove to cook and any other provision for hot water. Went on a couple weeks, folks were having conniptions as the cell towers
powered down, but we of course have our own radio repeaters and generators.... still got very old very fast.
Quote...What are you guys up to?
On the 25th, Christmas meal at our house with the children and grandchildren (6, 9, 9,10 years old).
There will be entertainment around the Christmas tree.
On the 31st, New Year's Eve with all the brothers and sisters-in-law.
...Salmon, foie gras, capon, Saint Emilion and Champagne...
Calm and gray weather, temperature 5°C, the mildness of the Atlantic.
Sounds like good times, Jef.
Enjoy your holidays Jefgte :)
*Looks around for reminder of what historical carrier development in this time period was like:
RN: Half-dozen conversions of various utility, plus Hermes. Oh.
USN: Big-arsed conversions and Ranger. Oh.
IJN: Big-arsed conversions and Ryujo. Oh.
MN: Bearn. Oh.
Hermes and my Bazdari are similar in many ways :)
Don't forget the IJN"s Honsho :)
But yes carriers of the 20s-30s were more limited, for good reason.
The 1920s saw a great deal of aircraft carrier development that
made them much more effective later, and the late 1930s-1940s saw
leaps in aircraft performance.
Looking at Wiki, in 1929 the Royal Navy had :
Argus, Hermes, Eagle, Furious, Couragous/ Glorious : 6 carriers , 200 aircraft.
While I was thinking the Washington Treaty effected this, perhaps not.
The treaty limited carriers, but basically excluded the first 4 from the tonnage as 'experimental'
and allowed Couragous/Glorious over the size limit as conversions.
So the Brits could have built new carriers up to 27,000 tons , or those under <10,000 didn't count.
However they also had superiority and budget problems. So why build more?
I believe Wesworld had a rule that allowed a player to receive scrap value for a ship that was preserved as a museum piece. While the museum ship still physically existed - like a contemporary Mikasa or Averoff - it no longer had military value and could never regain military value.
I am curious if there's interest in adding a similar rule to this sim.
I do not happen to recall that. My Dutch never did anything meriting a museum ship, always a Tier 2 or 3 power. Not like the mighty Mughal Empire !
Personally, so long as the ship is permanently removed from service, never ever available to be refurbished and returned, and no functional parts surviving intact to be grafted onto other vessels... I don't care if there is 'scrap' claimed. Call it a tourism boost...
Really? Am I thinking of N3 then?
Well, anyway, it doesn't matter if you and the gang are good with it.
I don't really care. I put one of the Scimitar class out for museum ship as a Caicos war Veteran. Ultimately I'll probably put HMS Osprey or something up as a museum ship when I retire them, as a key player in the Mayan situation.
A museum ship is no longer a warship.
Concur. When I did it, I simply listed it for scrapping, but didn't take the 15% from that particular ship. Of course 15% of 500t isn't anything anyone cares about.
Kirk, Tac - you guys in the path of the April eclipse?
Pretty sure it isn't going to hit France so Jef is out of luck.
I remember well the solar eclipse of August 11, 1999.
During the total eclipse, the countryside turned purple.
The temperature dropped by 10°C.
But the most surprising thing was the total silence,
no more birds singing, no more barking dogs...
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on January 31, 2024, 06:54:33 PM
Kirk, Tac - you guys in the path of the April eclipse?
Pretty sure it isn't going to hit France so Jef is out of luck.
I appear to be well out of the Path.
Tac should partially get it.
Looks like it just about passes over my buddy's place in Maine.
Well this time the power outage was less than 24 hours.
Which is nice :)
...folks outside town limits who are still out may not agree...
You're caught up in that atmospheric river event?
Kinda, NorCal not SoCal. Coastal - if I look out the window at work, I can see the Pacific several blocks away.
Played out more like a good winter storm here than what's going on SoCal.
Only 5-7 inches or so here, don't seem to have had (found) any major landslides, which is a bit surprising as the soil is saturated.
1/4 of the county residents were out of power at one point, and all 3 local highways shut down at times.
Spent the last couple work days checking forest roads to remove fallen trees- but surprisingly few.
Makes me think the wind warning of 95mph gusts was either wrong, or didn't extend to this area. Guessing no more than 50-60mph. So winter storm.
Last time we got winds at that speed (95), we lost a bunch of trees and it just wasn't safe to be working in the woods those days. I tried... had to come back in.
You will have all the weather informations on VENTUSKY
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=36.8;-93.2;3&l=gust&t=20240206/2300
;)
We're having an unusually and unsettlingly mild winter here. Far less snow than usual, virtually no significant cold. Lot of worry about plants and bugs getting fooled, breaking dormancy early, and getting clobbered by late storms like we had last April.
We're having a pretty average winter. Which is to say it gets to freezing every night, and sometimes it stays below freezing until lunch
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on February 06, 2024, 04:31:50 PM
We're having an unusually and unsettlingly mild winter here. Far less snow than usual, virtually no significant cold. ,,,
While my buddy in Maine is complaining about the Snow, and it's been fairly cold. The attachment on the tractor is broken, and he's tired of the walk-behind blower.
My little area is somewhat between two weather patterns centered ~100mi North and South. So we get a mix which makes the forecasts shaky.
For Weather, I tend to use a variety of NOAA sites, there's a nice 14 day forecast one, and I rather like Windy.com for a more granular look at the days ahead.
I'll have to take a peek at Ventursky.
In NC the standard is to wait 5 minutes and the weather will change.
Here's more that it may forecast rain, and we wind up showers and patchy sun, or vice versa. Depending if we're getting the Northern edge of a storm from the South, or the Southern edge of a Storm from the North.
Broadly speaking, rains r threatens to from mid-November to mid April, with scattered sunny days. Luckily I like rain. I have good raingear :)
Then we'll have winds. Ick.
Then comes summer, where inland heats up and drags a fog blanket over town two days over three.
Many the day I've been sweltering 10 miles inland in the woods, only to find fog the first 3 miles from the coast.
Finally fall tends to be nice.
Last/Only time in NC, I discovered my tent was no longer fully waterproof, as I caught a sudden storm in the Great Smokies. Though I may have been in Tennessee there... caught similar in Virginia + heavy gusts. Weather was indeed a bit more varied. A hurricane had just gone through when I started and so it was very humid in Chattanooga, kinda like NY in the summer. Not my thing.
Well, I suppose this is Hello again. TacCovert invited me a couple months back, and I've only now been able to get back online, and I was wondering how I could best participate in this Sim.
Quote from: Knight on February 09, 2024, 09:19:22 PM
Well, I suppose this is Hello again. TacCovert invited me a couple months back, and I've only now been able to get back online, and I was wondering how I could best participate in this Sim.
Welcome back :)
Step one was stopping bye to say Hi again.
Now I'm heading out of town tomorrow, and am pretty busy with Super Bowl Stuff on Sunday,
but the others are helpful and a great resource, it's collaborative thing.
As I recall, we were setting Iberia aside for you, but you are not locked into that.
Iberian history is here : https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,8009.0.html (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,8009.0.html)
I think getting comfortable with how springsharp works and then being able to design your own ships is important.
So step two I think would be to tinker with some designs.
Even if you don't choose to to play the Iberians, you can use their ships as a training sandbox.
There is an Iberian design thread that lists ship needs and you can post in, and folks will be happy to comment and help improve the designs.
https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,8008.0.html (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,8008.0.html)
Part of the challenge is looking at other folks ships some, to ensure what you are considering will match up,
but folks will be helpful in sharing information on how that ship matches up.
To try to help both you and Smoke Grenadier, I made a little Springsharp primer, and since none of the others laughed at it, must not be that horrible.
Unfortunately you need to click on the different pages to see them at a readible size...
That's here https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,8007.0.html (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,8007.0.html)
Though of course sometimes what you are evaluating is if
say 2x 34,000 ton BBs + 2x 8000t Cruisers + 6x 1000t DD are better/worse to invest in than 2x 45000 BB.
That part comes when you're running the nation and doing budget, but that's not as critical. We've had folks help each other with turns in the past, and the Iberians are pretty caught up, so let's just focus on getting you comfortable with Springsharp :)
Iberian guns are :
| | | | | | | Partial List | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Naval Weapons | | | | | | |
| Gun | Tech Year | | Mountings | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | True Quad | Quad | 3G | Triple | 2G | Twin | Single | Casement | Octuple | |
| 405/50 | 1920 | | T | | T | | T | | | | | |
| 405/50 | 1915 | | T | | T | | T | | | | | |
| 405/45 | 1910 | | T | | | | T | | | | | |
| 250/55 | 1915 | | | | T | | T | | | | | |
| 205/55 | 1915 | | | | T | | T | | | | | |
| 155/55 | 1915 | | | | T | | M&H | | | | | |
| 155/50 | 1910 | | | | | | | T, M&H | | | | |
| 120/50 | 1915 | | | | | | M&H | M&H | M | C | | |
| 120/50 AA | 1915 | | | | | | | | M | | | |
| 100/50 QF | 1905 | | | | | | | | M | C | | |
| 75/55 AA | 1920 | | | | | | M&H | | M&H | | | |
| 75/55 QF | 1920 | | | | | | | | M | C | | |
| 75/55 QF | 1915 | | | | | | | | M | C | | |
| 75/55 AA | 1915 | | | | | | | M&H | M | | | |
| 57/50 QF | 1910 | | | | | | | | M, M&H | C | | |
| 37/60 AA | 1915 | | M | | | | | M | | | M&H | |
| 25/90 AAMG | 1915 | | M | | | | | M | M | C | | |
| 15/90 MG | 1910 | | | | | | | | M | C | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The
Quote from: Knight on February 09, 2024, 09:19:22 PM
Well, I suppose this is Hello again. TacCovert invited me a couple months back, and I've only now been able to get back online, and I was wondering how I could best participate in this Sim.
Good to see you back, let me know if I can help in any way.
Sorry been quiet.
Daylight Savings time change always mucks me up.
And I start "practicing" by having the alarm go off early
well in advance, but this past Sunday's change in time
did not go well...which is typical for me- and apparently common
in "Night Owls"...which I am
It's just the absolute worst thing, really.
I agree.
Staying up late..or all night, pretty easy. Makes working night shift on big wildfires easy.
Put getting up just an hour early just wrecks me for a while.
Yeah, I was up at six Tuesday and Wednesday for office commutes and was not feeling it at all.
I'm sure there isn't a single living soul in Canada who likes it, but the politicians seem to think there will be economic damage if we abolish it and America doesn't.
Quote...Put getting up just an hour early just wrecks me for a while...
"dicere, dictum"
dito
Savings time didn't bother me, it's annoying but not life altering. However, I've been consistently working 60+ hours of overtime a month, so I've just been in a general state of exhaustion.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on March 14, 2024, 07:24:00 PM
Savings time didn't bother me, it's annoying but not life altering. However, I've been consistently working 60+ hours of overtime a month, so I've just been in a general state of exhaustion.
Been there done that...really not fun. Campaign fires I work 14hrs/travel 2, 7 days/week, more at the beginning getting all the fire maps up and running. Can take a bit to recover from.
But valuable - really good work on that bust you posted about.
Hope you and your fellows feel damn good about that.
FYI, I'll be gone this weekend.
Next weekend should be the new HY
Have a good weekend.
1931H2 nearly finish for Byzantium.
18510t - 2T3x381 choosed for Koloni BB
When BBs Koloni 'll commissioned, old PDNs with 254 guns will be scrapped.
Bah Humbug.
I wrote a long post last night and it does not show.
Second time on the new forum design that's happened.
Sessions time out and it goes to a new preview/post page.
I'll get used to it.
Synopsis :
Long weekend, fun weekend, very busy weekend.
I find the Koloni choice interesting as another example of parallel design between us.
My current similar ship design is a 1931 laydown, 2T4 333L43, with enough speed margin over the Byzantine battleline to stay away. I simply am unsure if I will free the resources to build it.
Hy1 1931 still in progress
I want to go through the most recently commissioned ships and make sure I haven't missed something that effects my design parameters.
I also want to figure out the performance of my new guns.
That will help me evaluate between the armor schemes of hypothetical cruiser design XXI and XXIV, etc.
I *think* the new 165L55 makes the new cruiser a good idea, and I *think* the new 215L47 makes the 'light armored cruiser' a viable concept...but
I use Logi's Ballistics tool for gun performance.
It has coefficients you enter for DECK and BELT penetration.
For 1925 Artillery and shells, you need OTL 1929+ gun data.
Unfortunately that was the Treaty Period...and the Great Depression.
NavWeaps has 1935 British estimates. Most USN tables with Pen seem to be based on 1942 Empirical.
From Nathan Okun's discussion of shells vs. Bismarck's armor, I have the impression that the mid-30s onward USN
shells had superior performance in most conditions, though the superheavies had issues in some situations.
So the 1942 data probably overestimates Belt penetration.
Unless we add a 1930ish Naval Artillery Tech..and we probably should have 1 or 2 more...the 1942 seems appropriate.
Also, I can really only fine tune Logi's tool for "correct" for a ~5000m range band.
That can be 10-15km, or 15-20km etc. After which the values diverge.
When battle ranges were 10-15km, that mattered little.
When they are 15-30km, that matters more.
I will probably try to get the BELT numbers accurate for 15-20km, what the Brits felt was decisive range,
while the DECK I will try for 20-25km, as the longest hits were about 26km.
Heading out to chase the eclipse in an hour. Wish me clear skies.
Good luck on the Clear skies !!
My buddy in NE Maine is right in the path, dunno if they are planning to watch.
Enjoy guys, an eclipse is unforgettable.
Yeah that was pretty cool and I look forward to Ottawa's next eclipse in 2099.
I recall seeing one in grade school.
Several years ago there was a partial one while I was working in the woods. Got dim(mer) under the trees.
This one was only ~30% in my area, my boss actually had some spare glasses so I could look.
My Maine buddy posted up some pictures ...but of his yard going dim, not the sun.
QuoteBah Humbug.
I wrote a long post last night and it does not show.
Second time on the new forum design that's happened.
Sessions time out and it goes to a new preview/post page.
I'll get used to it.
Same problemo in "Byzantine ship 1930"
"The 8000t class C13 and C11 cruisers receive 114/45DP instead of the 120/45QF
Cost:
C13 => 2,168BP & 2.168$
C11 => 1.07BP & 1.07$
Minor weight adjustments are made to Misc. Weight.
36 x M2x120 mlle 1926 -1930 of these very recent cruisers could be installed on DDs (?)
So... server record or not!
"
On the bright side, happy to have the forums,
even if that new double-post thing is annoying,
I am learning to double check that something actually posted.
and there is not a need to hit post the second time.
Been seeing a lot of unfamiliar photos of historical ships on social media of late. There have certainly been a lot of times where I'm inclined to call it AI but maybe forgotten stuff just gets found and posted, I dunno.
The 12,000 t USN submarine with 4x2 8" turrets (Lexington/Sara types) was certainly a puzzle.
On the other hand, I've also stumbled across a couple guys who do 1:350 and larger ship models and some of the close-up photos they post are certainly helpful to me in understanding the size and location of bits like boats and lights.
The USN experimented with cruiser subs like anyone else, but I've never heard of one that big
Sorry folks, haven't been gone, but have been busy & tired, so wasn't doing much here.
Plenty I want to do, but energy has been lacking..
-KPOD
No worries. Been the same. Hopefully this upcoming hy will be more active for me.
On the bright side, I had so many refits and reconstructions in 1932.1 that I did 1932.2 as well to ensure I could pay for everything.
Of course, once all the Destroyer -> TB refurbishments are done,
I'll have to redo all my destroyer / MTB / Coast guard squadron allocations...in 1933.1.
As general information, the next 2-3 weeks look to be ones where I will be very busy. I will likely check in now and then but I doubt I'll be able to anything substantive.
I just got promoted, so Sgt tac is now working shift work again
Quote from: TacCovert4 on June 08, 2024, 06:20:36 PMI just got promoted, so Sgt tac is now working shift work again
Congratulations.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on June 08, 2024, 06:20:36 PMI just got promoted, so Sgt tac is now working shift work again
Again, Congratulations :)
Congratulations TacCovert4.
Jef
That sad feeling as I start 1/33's spreadsheet, slap in all the recurring stuff, add the scheduled aircraft carrier, and have pretty much 1.0 BP left over for actual new ideas.
Hopefully I can get some stuff in wednesday or thursday night
Family holidays on the Atlantic coasts.
My PC is in holidays too.
Back aboard june 19th.
Jef
Have a good time.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 11, 2024, 05:31:14 PMThat sad feeling as I start 1/33's spreadsheet, slap in all the recurring stuff, add the scheduled aircraft carrier, and have pretty much 1.0 BP left over for actual new ideas.
Ah yes, a fun feeling..and why so often I have ships conceived years and years before I finally manage to lay them down.
The AA/FC refitting and refurbishment of large numbers of ships has been one of those "where did my funds go" events for me. 2/32 was looking tight enough I roughed it out before 1/32 was posted. However 1/33 is I think much clearer.
After this weekend, I should have some time & Energy to put into N7.
I will try to prioritize the 1930s techs as a proposal.
We had covered much of what folks identified as issues. I think I can form reasonable techs off that.
I think I can do new mine types fairly quickly, US Naval weapons details their USN availability, and NavWeaps has a section.
Signals Int I really hadn't gotten far though. Really not a subject I've delved into much. The bits of extended radio ranges from US Cruisers can be slotted in, but I expect it will remain generic.
No promises, I keep thinking I'll have free time/energy and then it gets used up by other things.
Sorry, unexpectedly was absent...
normally I try to announce ahead of time,
but I expected I could use the Hotel Wi-fi..but it was full and so I could not get on.
No worries.
Largely pre-occupied with other priorities myself at the moment, other than the age-old question of WHAT NEW SHIP DO I BUILD IN 1934.
I have some 1934 designs, not that many though.
The ~1930 fire control and AA upgrades led to several new classes,
which I will be building for a couple years.
The cruiser changes are most likely to spur new vessels, which may
be adaptations of the old.
Yeah, the prospect of transoms in 1935 definitely makes me hesitant to commit to some of the faster vessels I could lay down in 1934.
I haven't tried exploring destroyers. Both the 'Lion' and 'Fox' classes are just entering series production after their lead ships have done trials.
I have enough challenges with hitting that 50% and making them suitable for deep-ocean crossings as well. I really want to have 1.0+, even though 0.76 is acceptable for shorter ranged destroyers. I am unsure how adding a transom effects that without making seakeeping more of an issue.
It might make dusting off my old 'Coastal Destroyer' series worthwhile.
The cruisers, the combination of turrets and transom is something I need to explore further. I've adapted the USS Cleveland design to feature a couple different types of Parthia's armanent, and it's intriguing. So lots to explore.
The carriers...not terribly effected. Big and with so many other weights. Mainly need to chase down the roots of our armored box carrier design, as I expect the deck presumes a Main Deck of X thickness and a Hanger floor of X/2, which would explain that formula and mean a line of clarification is needed.
Capital ships - probably will effect my next AC/BC most. The Xiyons will benefit from the transom, but The more I look at the Dahae the less I like the tradeoffs, and Jefgte's response is superior so it will not be directly copied.
A bit distracted here with social thingies.
More distracting, though - we appear to be acquiring a teenager. Her parents just separated, her mom doesn't have room in her new place for all eight kids, and she doesn't want to stay with her father. She's taken care of our place and our animals the last couple of summers when we do vacations, she considers Mrs. Rock a second mom, and we get along pretty well, so we've offered her a spot to land and she might be here for a couple of years.
Don't think I'll convince her to take up Springsharp, though, sorry.
QuoteMore distracting, though - we appear to be acquiring a teenager. Her parents just separated, her mom doesn't have room in her new place for all eight kids, and she doesn't want to stay with her father. She's taken care of our place and our animals the last couple of summers when we do vacations, she considers Mrs. Rock a second mom, and we get along pretty well, so we've offered her a spot to land and she might be here for a couple of years...
Taking care of animals is an activity that changes your mind and soothes you.
Taking in a teenager is a gesture that honors you.
Big changes, and Jefgte put it very well.
Well done.
In other exciting news, the wife has COVID and my nostrils are tingly.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on September 03, 2024, 06:09:32 PMIn other exciting news, the wife has COVID and my nostrils are tingly.
You have to work on your encore performances.
Getting an eye lasered tomorrow and that might keep me offline for a bit, I dunno.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on September 23, 2024, 11:18:25 AMGetting an eye lasered tomorrow and that might keep me offline for a bit, I dunno.
Like rangefinding layered?
Or are you now going to be able to shoot down drones?
J/k. Get well soon
QuoteGetting an eye lasered tomorrow and that might keep me offline for a bit, I dunno.
Byzantium has new hospital ships since 1933...but, I don't have laser technology, sorry.
Get well soon.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on September 23, 2024, 11:18:25 AMGetting an eye lasered tomorrow and that might keep me offline for a bit, I dunno.
Sounds better than a sharp stick to the eye ...
Have...fun ?
Um, how about best fortune and speedy recovery !
Now I understand what Alderaan felt like.
Tac, you're not down around the hurricane-stricken areas, are you?
I believe he is in the Eastern part of the State.
Hopefully all is good for him and his, but I expect he'll be in emergency response mode.
I'm currently closer to Rocky, as I'm in Northern Maine visiting friend.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on September 28, 2024, 07:52:48 AMTac, you're not down around the hurricane-stricken areas, are you?
No. I live down east.
Right now I'm cursing British airways to a special place in hell because they delayed so long that I missed my connection and am now on leg 3 of 5 to get home.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on September 28, 2024, 04:35:11 PMQuote from: The Rock Doctor on September 28, 2024, 07:52:48 AMTac, you're not down around the hurricane-stricken areas, are you?
No. I live down east.
Right now I'm cursing British airways to a special place in hell because they delayed so long that I missed my connection and am now on leg 3 of 5 to get home.
ooh, that sucks.
I made my connecting flight by 6minutes and was unhappy with that margin, but missing it....screws everything up.
Hope it's smoother sailing from here for you.
I've survived three days of prep work and then the full day horror-themed photoshoot that Mrs. Rock arranged for yesterday. Four guys playing killers, five gals playing campers/victims, four photographers. The weather held off just long enough for us to finish.
Now I can think about ships rather than practical effects for fake medical malpractice.
'horror themed photoshoot'....is Mrs. Rock a Halloween buff, or a film buff?
As for me, the ~14hours of traveling yesterday seems to have left me tired today.
Luckily I had the day off.
She's a film buff who loves the spooky season.
Got my ship sims caught up, now I have to catch up on where I've built IC so I know where to do new ones. My maps are now three years behind.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 11, 2024, 07:30:06 PMGot my ship sims caught up, now I have to catch up on where I've built IC so I know where to do new ones. My maps are now three years behind.
I have a bad feeling I have ships that have not migrated from the Design thread to the Encyclopedia, but I'm also fairly sure they are not yet completed and in service...
I was going to work on maps on my new-to-me laptop, but paint.net demands an update that is not working out.
Meanwhile I'm trying to decide as to what exactly I want/need for the next Armored cruiser type.
I know what the Byzantines have built to reply to the
Dahae class, but I also need to counter what I presume are IJN BCs- which I may use Roman ships as proxies for.
From what Tac posted about Foxy's cruiser intent, the IJN may have also echoed the Romans in fewer, but large cruisers - in which case my
Manzikert and
Xiyon classes might be appropriate.
Foxy was rather clear he saw Parthia as the power to oppose in the Pacific theater. The Japanese sacrifice of armor for speed - and hideous deck armor(1) has long meant my older refitted ships couldn't catch them, but could probably beat them consistently. Even my 18000 ton
Zemaka ACs had only a narrow band where they could not critical the IJN BCs, at most ranges we could hurt each other, but I had a higher ROF and he had bigger shells.
So I need to do some research as to what I think the likely Threat vessel may be,
and then which gun I want to oppose it with. I have new 215, 255, 265, 300 and 333mm guns to choose from and a range of designs featuring them.
Quote...I know what the Byzantines have built to reply to the Dahae class...
Dahae class 1928 - 29kts - 24500t - 2T4x333
=> Byzantine had 4 x 29kts BBs
Eupatoria class - 1910 - 28590t - 3T3x343
Konia class - 1928 - 37000t - 3T3x381
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 11, 2024, 09:59:40 PMI have a bad feeling I have ships that have not migrated from the Design thread to the Encyclopedia, but I'm also fairly sure they are not yet completed and in service...
I've got a lot of refits that have been posted to the design thread but not to the encyclopedia. That's a problem for later.
Yesterday's problem was working out the new refits for 1934, so I could lock down that portion of my 2/34 report.
I am happy to say I am ...temporarily ...not refitting/rebuilding
Actually I'm scrapping some old ships as their replacements come into service.
I will get back to the rebuild grind soon :)
Quote from: Jefgte on October 12, 2024, 01:03:53 AMQuote...I know what the Byzantines have built to reply to the Dahae class...
Dahae class 1928 - 29kts - 24500t - 2T4x333
=> Byzantine had 4 x 29kts BBs
Eupatoria class - 1910 - 28590t - 3T3x343
Konia class - 1928 - 37000t - 3T3x381
The Dahaes were meant to counter the Eupatoria class, and so were similar. Something to support the scout line. Also a good size to counter the Japanese vessels(1)
The Konia class Parthia is aware of, but is not sure how the Byzantine plan to use them, or how many they will make. At that tonnage, that's just as valuable as the battleline units, so it makes an unlikely scout. So right now we're not really building a direct counter, though I did post some 30knt BBs when deciding on the
Arwand BBs.
Edit : Anyway, the OTL B-65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_B-65_cruiser
fits my expectation for what Foxy might make in N7. Hard to compete in BP and massive battlewagons, so I'd expect him to be asymmetric and try to field ships that can catch and kill my ACs and Cruisers, but dance away from my battlewagons. True battlecruisers
I've long expected my older DNs would then fill the role of the
Revenge class as heavy escorts capable of killing such intermediate IJN ships.
The 10" guns on the Zemakas and Asabara can penetrate a B-65's belt at most combat ranges, as can the Dahaes. So a B-65 with thinner decks and a bit more belt seems likely.
(1) many of the IJN ships have a problem with Deck Armor though, as Foxy extended the forecastle and shrunk the citadel. So the citadel deck armor does not cover the vitals. Which was likely not the goal.
It seems unreasonable to think they would actually have been built that way. So what is posted is not even going to be accurate. Probably the 'fairest' way to fix it is to redo the ships with proper forecastle/fore/aft/stern breaks, and the
same tonnage of deck armor, just thinner. Which may make the IJN ships rather vulnerable.
It is not fun to go to save a springsharp design, and instead of 'save data file' you click on the next one down....
'clear all'.
That would not be fun. No sir.
Any particular reason one couldn't make an armored box flight deck cruiser?
It would be weird, no question. But you've got stuff on the outside of the box in full-length box carriers.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 10, 2024, 06:17:36 PMAny particular reason one couldn't make an armored box flight deck cruiser?
It would be weird, no question. But you've got stuff on the outside of the box in full-length box carriers.
There are probably solid technical reasons not to do it - lots of weight high forward or aft, rather than amidships, etc.
But from a strictly SS perspective, it isn't terrible. Halving the airgroup for the flight-deck design is not terrible because all that armor doesn't allow for the weight of a full air group anyway.
On the other hand, if you consider a flight deck cruiser the bastard offspring of a cruiser and a carrier, an armored box flight deck cruiser probably just makes things worse. I got a quad 150mm, 24 planes, 32 knots, 100mm belt and 100mm deck on...19,000 tonnes. I can absolutely build a full light cruiser and a light carrier (albeit not as well protected) on that.
Theoretically it could be done.
It's not actually covered, so figuring out how to merge the two types might take some consideration.
I think the weight cost would wind up being close to prohibitive, but one could try.
There's already a couple clarifications want to add to the flight-deck cruiser rules,
- basically the rule as written has you dedicate either the aft half, or the fore half to the hanger & flight deck, but that was in fact meant to be a concept place holder.
That said, it fails to say you could move the amidships point to model different flight deck lengths, it doesn't say you can't, but that's relevant.
Also, that elevated area was either fore, or aft - as modeled - or amidships.
It's not clear in the text that you model it one way, and then state in the text what the actual arrangement is.
The reason was in SS, modeling Amidships is hard - you needed either aft deck or fore deck at 'normal freeboard'.
For a 'cruiser' you want a normal-freeboard height deck to place your main battery on,
so you do not 'pay' for an extra height Barbette, or get penalized in the stability/recoil formula.
Another thing on my 'I should do that' is round up the various flight deck lengths I've seen mentioned as needed for various planes. For example. the RN for the MAC wanted 140m @ 15knot for landing and takeoff as a minimum. But if you are willing to alternate, you can manage less - they settled for 120m as a minimum- but that was also to launch a Swordfish torpedo plane, so a fighter should be able to do less. I know my US Cruiser book lists a couple lengths, and discussions on CVEs also include some lengths.
Happy holidays.
Am celebrating by being sick.
Have you caught a cold or the flu?
Get well soon and have a great holiday season.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on December 25, 2024, 03:19:30 PMHappy holidays.
Am celebrating by being sick.
I tried that for my 7th or 8th Birthday, I wouldn't recommend it.
Anyhow, wishing you a speedy recovery,
and may 2025 smile on all of you.
May 2025 be the year I design a large transom DD that meets all design requirements.
I've given up on 2500t designs as I'd have to pull too many guns off to do it without them being horrifically imbalanced. Played with 1900t designs last night, those were closer but no dice. Thinking about going down to 1000t and seeing if I can build a super TB or something using the large transom......should be 36-37kts on that size.
Quote from: Jefgte on December 25, 2024, 03:31:04 PMHave you caught a cold or the flu?
Get well soon and have a great holiday season.
Tis a cold. Not quite over it, but certainly better.
When I was a teen, we used to fly back to stay with my grandmother for Christmas. Every single time, we got sick.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on December 28, 2024, 02:31:38 PMMay 2025 be the year I design a large transom DD that meets all design requirements.
I've given up on 2500t designs as I'd have to pull too many guns off to do it without them being horrifically imbalanced.
I found that a challenge as well. The
Kastar did wind up acceptable by my standards.
At 25% heavier than the
Sher it can have 1/3 more guns, and 20% more misc weight,
but overall discretionary tonnage moves from 177 to 209, only +18%. 3 years later and 2 knots faster,
with *almost* the same range - 40nm difference.
Dropping the average free board ~0.3m dropped seakeeping from 1.0 to 0.9, but increased that discretionary weight to 246, +39% compared to the
Sher.
The negative is the larger hull has only 100lbs more floatation than the smaller, failing of a tight design.
Happy new year to all who acknowledge the existence of years.
I'll shake the dust off and get back into it. I think I had some refits to figure out before I could finalize the 2/35 report.
Happy New Year to Navalism Members and to all our visitors who follow us regularly.
Jef
Happy New Year to all.
Man, we have not been social lately.
Anyway, just a question: I assume well-decks are not considered to be included in the existing Amphibious tech options, yes?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on February 15, 2025, 02:39:52 PMMan, we have not been social lately.
Anyway, just a question: I assume well-decks are not considered to be included in the existing Amphibious tech options, yes?
Not in the existing tech.
I'd say a hypothetical 1938 amphibious tech would probably introduce well decks and specialized large amphibious ships
Yeah, and I'm not too fussy given that our landing ships are part of the generic deployment point cost - but I do like the idea of sticking well-decks in hospital ships and that isn't currently viable.
Sorry folks, late in my evenings I've been tinkering with ships and my HY2 1936 turn.
But mostly I've been busy and tired the past several weeks and busy on the weekends,
so I've been of limited presence.
I should be able to start interacting more this week, and the weekends to come are currently fairly free of traveling or guests.
I consistently fail to remember how large the 5"/38 gunhouse is when I'm sketching out my own 130mm guns. But I also fail to appreciate that on the Cleveland class cruisers, the centreline mounts are on the same level as the B/X turrets and not double-superfiring.
Just skimming though the design ramblings in US Cruisers, the preceding USS Helena was 'outdated and topheavy'. For CL55 they wanted to expand the beam by 2 feet, and added the centerline 5" mounts.
Looking at the pictures, the aft 5" mount could fire directly aft at 0 elevation, it looks like the fore mount can not as the muzzle is slightly below the roof of "B". The difference looks to be about 1 foot, so it could fire at shallow elevations - like 5 degrees. For our purposes I'd call that double superfiring.
Additional text "The increase in beam had been just enough to restore the new cruiser to the ranks of acceptably stable warships; it would take very little to push her back out. <discusses additional armor desired>.. Estimated stability was now considered dubious."
It continues with the ordering of CL 55 & 56, but changes being considered for CL 57 & 58 to address additional AA needs and a triple bottom.
It goes on for a couple more pages discussing the options explored to fit more light AA,
they didn't like dropping the 5"/38 to singles, or using 5/25s (which fired faster),
and so chose to go with ballast.
Then the naval contractor suggested changing the belt from sloping inward (why inward) 2 degrees to outward 6 degrees, and widening the beam from 61'5" to 63'2", which removed the need for ballast. They also deleted a crane.
So I suspect the 5" guns were superimposed to the absolute minimum necessary to give decent sky arcs.
There's a lack of 0 degree dead ahead fire from the fore centerline 5", but both wing mounts bear.
Further, 0 degree elevation should only matter at very short ranges. The IZ of these were intended to be 9000-21700yards. According to Navweaps, 6.34 degrees elevation was needed for 8000yards. So that 0-7000 yard lack of coverage I would guess was deemed acceptable.