TB/DD tech tree?

[miketr]

I want to try to wrap up the rules set so we can get started.  So any comments on the following suggested tree?

Without Tech Establishment / With Tech Establishment - Available size in normal tons

1880/1875 - 33 tons (0.5 strength and at least 50% of mass to engines) (single TT)
1885/1880 - 67 tons (" " & " ")
1890/1885 - 100 tons (" " & " ")
1895/1890 - 250 tons (" " & " ") (TBD's)
1900/1895 - 500 tons (" " & " ")(twin TT)
1905/1900 - 750 tons (" " & " ")
1910/1905 - 1,000 tons (" " & " ") (triple TT)
1915/1910 - 1,500 tons (" " & " ")
1920/1915 - 2,000 tonns (" " & " ") (quad TT)
1925/1920 - 2,500 tons (" " & " ")
1930/1925 - 2,500 tons (" " & " ") (quintuple TT)

[Jefgte]

French TBs
The first one are strictly the N°1 - 9 & 41

-1875-Torpilleur n°1-38x4.2x1.25-2.6-101t-800shp-14.37kts-1TT356mm-proue+1TTpoupe

-1875-Torpilleur Thornycroft-n°9-27t
26.4x2.93x0.98x300shp-18kts
hampe1TT

-1876-Torpilleur de 27m-Normand-N°41-27x3.55x0.54-30.5t-320-500shp-18kts-1TT

-1877-80t-38x4.2x1.31-2x37+2ttx356-125nm-10kts-1050shp-18.7kts

-1878-80t-38x4.2x1.31-2x37+2ttx356-125nm-10kts-1120shp-19kts

-1879-100t-40x4.4x1.48-2x37+2ttx356-150nm-10kts-1600shp-20.2kts

-1880-Manche class (Channel class)- 200t-50x6x1.75-2x47+4TTx356-250nm-10kts-3000shp-21.7kts

From 1877 to 1880, all Torpilleurs are:
"Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
"
That is not la "Jeune Ecole" but la "Jef Ecole"

After the first tests of the historical TBs, in 1877, the French Minister (me) decide to increase to 80t the size to have better seaboat.

With Mike rules, I must cut down the displacement...  :'(


Jef  ;)

[Sachmle]

For the sake of non-oddball sizes why not up to 35t and up to 70t for the first 2 groups instead of 33 and 67?

[miketr]

After the first tests of the historical TBs, in 1877, the French Minister (me) decide to increase to 80t the size to have better seaboat.

With Mike rules, I must cut down the displacement...  :'(


Jef  ;)

If you accept that anything to you build for about 10 years has little more range than a harbor defense craft and the seakeeping of brick it will make for a much less painful life.

Michael

[miketr]

For the sake of non-oddball sizes why not up to 35t and up to 70t for the first 2 groups instead of 33 and 67?

1880/1875 - 50 tons (0.5 strength and at least 50% of mass to engines) (single TT)
1885/1880 - 75 tons (" " & " ")
1890/1885 - 125 tons (" " & " ")

How about this progression?  Rounder numbers and large size to work with?

Michael

[Walter]

For the sake of non-oddball sizes why not up to 35t and up to 70t for the first 2 groups instead of 33 and 67?

Seems obvious that the fist is 1/3 of 100 tons and the second is 2/3 of 100 tons, so there's nothing odd about them at all. Now 35t and 70t on the other hand are oddball sizes (7/20 and 7/10 respectively). :)

[Carthaginian]

For the sake of non-oddball sizes why not up to 35t and up to 70t for the first 2 groups instead of 33 and 67?

1880/1875 - 50 tons (0.5 strength and at least 50% of mass to engines) (single TT)
1885/1880 - 75 tons (" " & " ")
1890/1885 - 125 tons (" " & " ")

How about this progression?  Rounder numbers and large size to work with?

Michael

I kinda like this one better- it IS slightly harder to do something on a given tonnage/size in SS3 than in RL, so we do need a bit of extra wiggle room. This is a nice compromise without stretching too far from reality.

[snip]

Tonage limits are good, but I am digging the 50% engine rule. Makes it so no mini CLs will be running around for a long time, it ever.

[Jefgte]

1880/1875 - 50 tons (0.5 strength and at least 50% of mass to engines) (single TT)
1885/1880 - 75 tons (" " & " ")
1890/1885 - 125 tons (" " & " ")

The first  TBs were really poor ships & fragile.
We could correct these ancestral default by the size of the ships.

Your new numbers are in that way.

OK for me


Jef  ;)