Armored Carrier Cleanup

[Jefgte]

1933 CV new rules => Modifs SS from CV3 class - 20940t - LD 1932

Ships can undergo a Basic Refit when the hull is 75% completed for no additional cost or modification to construction time.

Puzuldeniz 13340t => 64% built
Kripodeniz 8840t => 42% built

[Kaiser Kirk]

1933 CV new rules => Modifs SS from CV3 class - 20940t - LD 1932

Ships can undergo a Basic Refit when the hull is 75% completed for no additional cost or modification to construction time.

Puzuldeniz 13340t => 64% built
Kripodeniz 8840t => 42% built

Not entirely sure the question here or how it relates to the Armored Carrier Discussion
...Ah I see,
you're talking about modifying a vessel previously laid down as a flight deck carrier
into an armored carrier?

That would be far more than a Free Basic Refit. The 75-100%. Free Basic refit allows you to bolt on your most recent Fire control, light guns, torpedoes etc onto the ship as it finishes.

Reconstruction of ship from flight deck carrier to armored carrier was not an option I had considered.
I had considered that any existing or under construction Armored carriers (I do not think there are any) would get a free reconstruction.

1928: armored box carrier Improved Air-Launched Torpedoes. Early Anti-Ship Dive Bombs

The fact the carrier tech is 1928, and so most have had it for a year or two, but not trying armored carriers suggests it is an option not taken. Maybe if the revised rule had been in place, it would have been taken.

I was going to take it because I think at least 1 as a test of concept was needed, but I was thinking my first would be the last because of the huge tonnage costs of the 150% rule.

Ultimately, I think the number of completed carriers that could have been laid down and completed as armored carriers is very small or none. For most of us, we have only recent gotten the 1928 tech.

So modifying the ships building to take advantage of the revised, 'unbroken' rule should not be disruptive.

A wide ranging change in the numbers and size of building carriers could be disruptive.

My Proposal - For Player Comment and Acceptance/Rejection :
When the Aviation Ship Armored Box Carrier language is adopted in 1933HY2 :

Players may revise the Springsharps of any carriers laid down between discovering their nation 1928 tech
and 1933HY1,to change them from flight deck carrier to armored carriers. Subject to the following restrictions
- Length Overall may not increase.
- Light tonnage of the completed may not increase more than 10%.
- The Springsharp must be posted as usual, and list the turn the 1928 tech was discovered, and the original length & tonnage.


Comments/Critiques/counter proposals ?

[Jefgte]

My Proposal - For Player Comment and Acceptance/Rejection :
When the Aviation Ship Armored Box Carrier language is adopted in 1933HY2 :

Players may revise the Springsharps of any carriers laid down between discovering their nation 1928 tech
and 1933HY1,to change them from flight deck carrier to armored carriers. Subject to the following restrictions
- Length Overall may not increase.
- Light tonnage of the completed may not increase more than 10%.
- The Springsharp must be posted as usual, and list the turn the 1928 tech was discovered, and the original length & tonnage.

As noted in the new SS => "Hull and engines => no modifs."
Original SS => LD 1932 - 20940t new SS 21050t
1928 Armored box carrier => techno start 1928H1- valid 1931H2

[Kaiser Kirk]

The increase in tonnage you have what I included the 10% provision for.

Other players may want to look at what they DID lay down and see if they want to adapt to a slightly different, but armored carrier.
For me, I may look at my Kam Baz carriers a bit more, I doubt I can do armored box on that hull size, even with +10%.
 

[Jefgte]

...For me, I may look at my Kam Baz carriers a bit more, I doubt I can do armored box on that hull size, even with +10%...

You can always try.
Lighten the armament, distribute the armor differently...
No change for the engines if already installed in the hull, obviously.

[TacCovert4]

Meanwhile I'm deciding on whether I want to build an armored carrier or multiple smaller ones

[The Rock Doctor]

I don't think I'm comfortable with retroactive re-designs quite like that. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I don't think I'm comfortable with retroactive re-designs quite like that. 

Good to say so, this is why we discuss these things.
I tried to cinch down the proposal so any modifications would be limited.

BUT...
I think it would need to be Unanimous;
if we do not have all players Ok with it, then it should not happen.

So the proposed 10% alteration will be scrapped.

Saves me effort seeing if I can produce an armored box version of the Kam Baz
So far I've been concentrating on smaller decks for 'Fighter carriers' to contest the air over the various fleets.
I've had the ability to build armored carriers since 1929, but not the spare tonnage for the various larger
carriers I could build. 
My 'wrong' way of doing them - paying full for the armored sides and decks, but not 150% for deck and just hanger heights, worked out similar weight wise- very expensive to make an armored carrier, and with all the refits & rebuilds I was doing, big big carriers were not the priority. 
But a modified Kam Baz into a lightly armored carrier could have been an option.

Next topic
This creates a problem in that there are several player positions that
do not have 1928-1932 ships yet.

This potentially could have them building armored box carriers with the modified rule that the rest of us could not.

The logical thing is to make the original rule apply to armored box carriers prior to 1933 and
the revised rule apply from 1933 onwards.

Discussion ?

[Kaiser Kirk]

So normally after posting in a rules thread, I stay away a bit to let things percolate.
But no one was posting, so I figured I'd check.

Looks like I again fumbled the Post effort.
ARGH.

Background :
The 1928 tech normally would 'finish' in 1931, allowing 1932 laydowns.
HMS Illustrious was a 1936 program, 1937 laydown.
Aircraft are "advanced" compared to historical, as are aircraft-adjacent, but 5 years early is a fair bit.

With the revised ABC rules, and the no 1927-1932 revisions, we have a need for 2 sets of ABC rules.
1932 techs would normally (Parthia did this early) 'finish' in 1934, allowing 1935 laydowns, 2 years "earlier" than historical.

My Idea :
Call the original 150% Armored box carrier rule "Basic Armored Carrier" and attach to the 1928 tech.
Call the revised Armored box carrier rule "Improved Armored Carrier" and attach to the 1932 tech

Ok now to post...and not just close the tab... but see if I need to scroll down to hit post a second time.

[The Rock Doctor]

That would be fine with me.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well since there doesn't seem to be discussion / debate/ dissension regarding it,
I will move it to the rules this weekend.

...and now I'll actually have to figure out what I'm building in 1933...

[Kaiser Kirk]

Ok, revised Section 6, Armored Box Carriers to reflect the 1928 Early vs 1932 Improved designs.