Rebuilds and Refurbishments...

[Carthaginian]

Ok, let's say that I'm rebuilding a ship. I stripped off a large number of small guns and as a result their ammunition. After this my ship's light displacement increased by 16 tons.

My question is: could I- if and only if the BC and hull dimensions remain exactly the same- be allowed to subtract this 16 tons from the ship's 'normal' weight? The light displacement is within +/- 1 ton of the original, and the ships physical specifications have not changed.

It's really just like the guns, which once drove up the weight, of the ship are just no longer mounted on the hull.

[Guinness]

I think that's fine.

Alternately, you could probably just add back 16 tons of fuel or ammunition for other embarked guns to get the light displacement back up to where it was, and I think that would be ok too.

[Carthaginian]

I think that's fine.

Alternately, you could probably just add back 16 tons of fuel or ammunition for other embarked guns to get the light displacement back up to where it was, and I think that would be ok too.

LOL... changing the tonnage of bunker and main gun ammunition would add several dollars to this refit.
Basically, I'm taking the twelve 3.5" casemate guns off the Okie and her sisters, and replacing them with three deck mounted 3.5" anti-airship guns. I'd figure that the loss of the other nine guns would subtract enough weight to justify this little 'fudge.'

I managed to increase the range to almost exactly that of the Lady A and get the speed close to the refit Triumphante, while only requiring some new engines (21 tons lighter than the original set) and about 10 tons of new weaponry (almost completely AAA). Adding in the fee for diddling with the main gun ammunition numbers would really drive up the cost of a refit that I have managed to keep extremely reasonable in price so far. Considering the fact that I've only been subtracting weight during this refit, it kind of makes sense.

[Guinness]

Ok, actually re-reading the rules, all "tonnage" for refurbishments is the tonnage as reported by SS's "Distribution of Weights at Normal Displacement", so actual changes in light displacement shouldn't matter.

[Carthaginian]

OK... so basically, my loosing the 16 tons would pretty much be compensated by the fact that the engines are 20 tons lighter in this refit.

That actually makes things a lot simpler, as the loss in weight would show up in the 'normal' ship more so than the 'light' ship.

[Blooded]

I have yet to find a cheap way to replace engines. I get the feeling that if 'fiddling with ammo weights' increases your costs alot that you may be calculating something wrong.

Keep in mind that you have to pay the entire new machinery cost, not just the difference in weight of old and new.

Example: Old 1905 engine= 2000 tons give 15,000hp allowing 18 knots
New 1920 engine= 2000 tons and gives 40,000hp allowing 23 knots but costs $4 and 2BP
New 1920 engine= 1000 tons and gives 15,000hp allowing 18 knots but costs $2 and 1BP but frees up 1000 tons for 'whatever'(which then costs more).

Add to that the 20% or 25%(+BP) basic costs, then the well if I do this.... then I should also do that, since I am already paying the 20% base fee. Next thing you know... it costs 75%+ of a new ship but only 50%+ in BP... for a decent 'modernized' vessel. Or you then compare having an old crappy 'reserve' ship plus a new 'more effective modern' ship that is still smaller and better. Always remembering that at least the rebuild saves alot of time in addition to the BP... Then the 'realism' and 'hindsight' bug kicks in and says, who on earth would really approve this project? It is a vicious cycle which never ends, at least for me(because of the green section).  ;D

[Carthaginian]

Meh... I did figure out what I needed to figure out, and I knew to pay the entire fee for the new equipment, Blooded. My only problem was, like I said, that a realistic and somewhat historically correct refit was exposing a slight flaw in the rules.