Random thoughts on future techs

[Kaiser Kirk]

Information
Current "aviation ship design"

Conversions
Conversions are inherently inefficient. Multiply required weights by 1.5.

That was based on the oddly small airgroups of the BB/BC conversions.

Going forward, should be changed to 'weights and space'


Comment / Explanation :
One great concern to me is that carriers & in particular their air groups are underpriced in Navalism.

I feel that we look at WW2 and the host of small carriers the RN and USN had, and feel we should have some of the same.  However, this neglects these were a wartime contingency the two largest economic powers in the world, larger and richer than any N7 PC.

That is why I was proposing the brand new 'mercantile construction carrier'
to meet these historical categories, which would be cheaper but not cheap.
I freely admit it violates Snip's KISS, so folks may not wish to explore that route. 

[Jefgte]

...We'd build the original hulls of a Langley or an Argus as mercantile hulls (1/4 cost) and get a warship out of it - that would be the problem.

1/4 cost, certainly not , air groups count as armament therefore would exceed 2% => Cost 100%.

"A 12,000t oiler costs $3 & 3BP (armament 2% max) with mercantille rules.
If you rebuild it as an aircraft carrier, its weight will be a maximum of 12000t, its additional cost will be 9$ & 9BP."

[Kaiser Kirk]

This has been quiet for a couple days, so I'll try to write a considered post tomorrow (Weds) to move the conversation forward :)