1/1918 Rules Updates

[Borys]

Ahoj!
As SS is not perfect, maybe lets go with Mike's suggestion ...
Borys

[Kaiser Kirk]

Why not make it simple...  Any gun house that mounts more than... 2" of armor requires a full turret design and anything less can get away with a mount and hoist design.

Michael

Because the 5"/38 twin mounts armor ran from 0.25" to 2.5" on the battleships.
# and size of the barrels seem to have mattered as much or more.

Looking further, I see the notation " The Mark 21 pedestal mount was at the limit of turning masses that could be easily manhandled."  which ran 15-16tons. Which fits the single 6" and the triple 4" as non-powered mounts.

Actually, I recalled the IJN Furutaka class, which had single 8".  Unfortunately that just muddied the issue.
Navweaps calls those mounts, and the twin 8" turrets. While I would expect the single 8" to be a turret, the weight is given as only 56.6tons.
Digging on the web, I found the armor, and it gives 1" for the turret and 2.2" for a barbette. So it was likely a turret.

[miketr]

No solution is going to be perfect.  Any specific suggestions?

[Kaiser Kirk]

I suppose Rocky's suggestion a bit back to split the tech off into a separate side research is easiest, much like inclined belts.

Having just looked back at all this again for this discussion, I'd put forward the idea that simple mounts are limited to 16* tons, powered mounts 60 tons, and if you want to go larger you need a turret + barbette.

Easily simmed by sticking your turret/mount in a blank springsharp when you research it- people already track their mount/turrets as it is.

However, I expect there are folks that wouldn't want to bother, especially this far in.

*edit : could bump that to 20t, a nice round number.