www.navalism.org

I am against the inclined belt on Korpen's battlecruiser. I think it is too early, unjustified by the battles fought in the war, and they need the hindsight of the next level FCS to be effective.

My argument is that it should be included in the armor tech, decreasing the weight of the plating for the same level of protection. And in a battle sim its application would be the most straightforward.

Quote from: P3D on May 14, 2008, 01:25:07 PM
I am against the inclined belt on Korpen's battlecruiser. I think it is too early, unjustified by the battles fought in the war, and they need the hindsight of the next level FCS to be effective.

I disagree on all points.
It is in the same era as it was introduced on historic battlecruisers. It is motivated by battle experience, as inclination have a larger effect on short range then it has at long, and therefore is irrelevant to FC tech as such.

QuoteMy argument is that it should be included in the armor tech, decreasing the weight of the plating for the same level of protection. And in a battle sim its application would be the most straightforward.

Inclination does not have that effect, so that would be a very poor solution. If one wants them, one have to be able to show how (with a pretty drawing), and calculate its effect when asked to.

But for me this is really a quest about style. Do we want and encourage players to put down time and effort in drawing and designing ships and working on concepts, or just post cloned springsharp files without any originality and absolutely no drawings?

I'm no real expert on armour, but having searched in the internent in the past regarding certain ships, I found out that Hood had inclined armour. Are there ships before Hood that used inclined armour?

If you want to make things interesting, it should require both 1911 BB/BC tech and 1915 Armour tech. :)

I think that if a tech is needed, it would automatically fall under the "1911: Improved protection schemes (e.g. AoN), quad turrets, turreted secondaries".

Quote from: Korpen on May 14, 2008, 01:55:03 PM
I disagree on all points.
It is in the same era as it was introduced on historic battlecruisers. It is motivated by battle experience, as inclination have a larger effect on short range then it has at long, and therefore is irrelevant to FC tech as such.

Er... 20% inclination  has more than twice the effect of a 10% one. 10* change in inclination has more effect when the angle of fall is larger. Larger the AoF, the more prominent the drop in penetration.

QuoteInclination does not have that effect, so that would be a very poor solution. If one wants them, one have to be able to show how (with a pretty drawing), and calculate its effect when asked to.

But for me this is really a quest about style. Do we want and encourage players to put down time and effort in drawing and designing ships and working on concepts, or just post cloned springsharp files without any originality and absolutely no drawings?

You can calculate it. I can. No other member of the board has shown any inclination yet to play with NaAB to that extent - at least no one metinoed it here. That means if someone sims a battle, it is either you or me to run it, or such fancy (and not so fancy) effects as inclination  - the extent of a main belt, different shell weight, or even gun length - would not be taken into account. I know the system Ithekro used was even more simplistic, that could not take into account nonstandard calibers and not having 4 main guns.

I am trying to cobble together a system that could be used to sim battles and take into account at least some of those small differences we account for in an out of SS. That is, arbitrary gun caliber, shell weight (at least differentiating light and heavy shells), the actual extent of the armored belts (i.e. different hit location table for every single ship).
Or if these are chosen not to be important at all, just design ships with minimal armored belts, and no need to get into the details.

BTW If you want to help me, you are welcome.

Quote from: Walter on May 14, 2008, 02:21:28 PM
I think that if a tech is needed, it would automatically fall under the "1911: Improved protection schemes (e.g. AoN), quad turrets, turreted secondaries".

I tend to agree w/ Walter here. But I also, having looked at the diagram, conversations w/ Korpen, etc... Think that the belt is only inclined due to the hull form. The ships has a very pronounced "V" shape by comparison to other ships w/ their "U" shaped hull. I don't think it's out of the question to use it in this case. It's not like he wants an internal belt e.g. Iowa, just one that conforms w/ his hullform.

Quote from: Sachmle on May 14, 2008, 03:01:46 PM

Quote from: Walter on May 14, 2008, 02:21:28 PM
I think that if a tech is needed, it would automatically fall under the "1911: Improved protection schemes (e.g. AoN), quad turrets, turreted secondaries".

I tend to agree w/ Walter here. But I also, having looked at the diagram, conversations w/ Korpen, etc... Think that the belt is only inclined due to the hull form. The ships has a very pronounced "V" shape by comparison to other ships w/ their "U" shaped hull. I don't think it's out of the question to use it in this case. It's not like he wants an internal belt e.g. Iowa, just one that conforms w/ his hullform.

It's inclined even amidships, then add the bulge. Like Hood. Most BBs have slightly inclined belt at the barbettes due to hullform, even if it is nominally vertical.

Really inclined belt technologie since 1916
Great Great year for BBs & BCs

Jutland & Hood Laid down this year.


Jef

To me, this should wait till SS3 and proper implementation of the effects.

Otherwise, it just seems like a way to trim weight off for other things, and then claim better protection than what you devoted to it.

I'm not sure that it is.  An inclined belt can be thinner, but it also has to be longer to protected the same vertical depth.  I'd think that the overall weight of armor would be about equal.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 14, 2008, 07:39:03 PM
I'm not sure that it is.  An inclined belt can be thinner, but it also has to be longer to protected the same vertical depth.  I'd think that the overall weight of armor would be about equal.

No. For the same 'line-of-sight' thickness (and thus weight) the inclined armor is more effective. More of the shell's moment will be directed sideways, not through the plate.

Quote from: Carthaginian on May 14, 2008, 07:15:52 PM
To me, this should wait till SS3 and proper implementation of the effects.

I am taking a dim view of SS3 at the moment. It produces seriously underweight designs.
Compare what Delcyros and I came up with here:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6105
Borys

Still has a bit to go, Borys. :)
Remember, the engine slider isn't on yet. When that happens, the settings for the engine weights can be codified to make up for that difference... hopefully.

Korpen, did you sim the main belt as its true height and width, or as its vertical extent and apparent horizontal thickness?

My perspective at the moment is that if inclined armor should fall into a tech, the battleship tech (which implies to me structural engineering) seems more appropriate to me than the armor tech (which implies to me metallurgical advances).  However, I'm not commiting myself to voting in a poll at this point.

I'm more interested at this point in ensuring that the true weight and placement or the armor is accurately simmed, and that there's some sim-historical validity to introduction of inclined armor at this time. 

Somebody mentioned Jutland in connection with this - can this be elaborated on?  Inclined armor is not one of the things I'm used to hearing as resulting from Jutland.

Can somebody - either Korpen or the mods who simmed the Pacific War battles - advise on the engagement ranges between Swiss and Dutch battlelines?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 15, 2008, 10:38:49 AM
Korpen, did you sim the main belt as its true height and width, or as its vertical extent and apparent horizontal thickness?

I simmed the true size of the slab of armour, and compensated for the loss of height in the drawing (about 25cm shorter vertical height). I feel this is the only accurate way to sim it, it also requires far less calculations.

The way I sim inclined armor is with horizontal-line-of-sight thickness, just divide thickness by cosine(inclination). E.g. 25cm plate 108 inclined should be simmed with 25/(0.9848)= 25.39 cm thickness.

The major battle between first-line capital ships was the Battle of Tarakan, with 10-12ky firing distances. Lack of Swiss FC counted here.

Rocky,

the problem is that metallurgical advances are pretty limited. Over KC, I can imagine only two techs (giving 10% and +20%). Combining it with inclined stuff might allow one or two more  tech in the 1910-1940 timeframe.
The other thing is that it makes the task of the poor guy who is running the battle much easier. Inclination would be one more additional factor to be considered, needing one or two more dice rolls per hit and two additional tables to look up.

Fair enough, but I don't see virtue in adding to the armor tech tree for the sake of causing more research.  If that tech reaches the end of its effective evolution, so be it.

Quote from: P3D on May 15, 2008, 04:06:46 PM
The way I sim inclined armor is with horizontal-line-of-sight thickness, just divide thickness by cosine(inclination). E.g. 25cm plate 108 inclined should be simmed with 25/(0.9848)= 25.39 cm thickness.

Both ways should produce identical results, with the exception that my way overestimates the weight of the transverse bulkheads slightly.

QuoteThe major battle between first-line capital ships was the Battle of Tarakan, with 10-12ky firing distances. Lack of Swiss FC counted here.

The relatively short range was also an effect of the fact that most Dutch ships had very small main guns, mainly 24 and 26cm guns without APC shells. This meant that combat range got shorter. And it is the reason why post war ships mount the largest possible guns, to make impressions at long ranges.

Quotethe problem is that metallurgical advances are pretty limited. Over KC, I can imagine only two techs (giving 10% and +20%). Combining it with inclined stuff might allow one or two more  tech in the 1910-1940 timeframe.

I think that reducing the numbers of tech is a good thing, so the sooner things cap out, the better.

QuoteThe other thing is that it makes the task of the poor guy who is running the battle much easier. Inclination would be one more additional factor to be considered, needing one or two more dice rolls per hit and two additional tables to look up.

Non-issue if one use my suggestion.

Must say that all this "it is a battlecruiser, lets find ways to ban it"- debates are making be quite disillusioned. I have put down more work and thought on that design then I care to admit, and that the first reaction seemed to be outrage over a well integrated feature only because it is not included one way or the other in the rules almost made me resign on the spot. For me this issue is about either encouraging innovative, original and well thought out design, or force player to in practice build identical ship of a set number of fixed designs (like seems to be the case of subs now).
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=898.msg24438#msg24438
Started a long reply, but felt it fitted better in the capital ship thread:

Korpen,

you'd have really liked to see such ships laid down in 1906?:

HMS Hindsight, laid down 1909

Displacement:
   32,944 t light; 34,549 t standard; 37,997 t normal; 40,755 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   720.00 ft / 720.00 ft x 103.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
   219.46 m / 219.46 m x 31.39 m  x 9.14 m

Armament:
      8 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,687.50lbs / 765.44kg shells, 1909 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      12 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1909 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
     12 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
      12 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1909 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 14,958 lbs / 6,785 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100
   4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   489.00 ft / 149.05 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   231.00 ft / 70.41 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Upper:   6.00" / 152 mm   489.00 ft / 149.05 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 104 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      2.00" / 51 mm   489.00 ft / 149.05 m   30.00 ft / 9.14 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   14.0" / 356 mm   7.00" / 178 mm      13.0" / 330 mm
   2nd:   6.00" / 152 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 14.00" / 356 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 99,313 shp / 74,088 Kw = 27.00 kts
   Range 8,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 6,206 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   1,359 - 1,768

Cost:
   £3.419 million / $13.675 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,870 tons, 4.9 %
   Armour: 12,122 tons, 31.9 %
      - Belts: 5,171 tons, 13.6 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,086 tons, 2.9 %
      - Armament: 3,022 tons, 8.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,503 tons, 6.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 341 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 4,966 tons, 13.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,686 tons, 36.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,053 tons, 13.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 0.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     43,193 lbs / 19,592 Kg = 25.6 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 6.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 6.5 ft / 2.0 m
   Roll period: 17.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.598
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.99 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.83 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      27.00 ft / 8.23 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Mid (52 %):      23.00 ft / 7.01 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Stern:      15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.48 ft / 5.94 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 102.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.7 %
   Waterplane Area: 54,126 Square feet or 5,028 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 188 lbs/sq ft or 917 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.00
      - Longitudinal: 1.09
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Quote from: P3D on May 19, 2008, 02:43:02 PM
Korpen,

you'd have really liked to see such ships laid down in 1906?:

Apart from the speed she looks like a superbe with some armour removed...
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1545.msg20288#msg20288
So I would say we already have ships like that.

But you missed my main point, but i can state it clearer; we do not need more rules, and the ones we got would benefit from a look-over to see which ones can be removed.

Rules should be a help and aid, not straight-jackets to force players to conform to someone's view of what is "right" or "motivated". I have no problems with rules imposing some limits (or I would have never ended up here in the first place), but when pretty much any design that falls outside a quite narrow band of very conventional designs (armour shape, amount of splinter protection or L:B ratio to mention a few reason) gets to hear that it either is outside the rule, or that it should be and that the rules should be corrected to forbid the ship, I think we got a problem.

We already got rules that forbid a huge % of historical designs, especially if we look away from the UK and possibly Germany. An example, Swedish armoured ships (Pansarskepp) never used casemates, but hade the secondaries in turrets from the late 1800;s. Not saying that we should twrow away everyting we got. But.
We really do not need more rules or new limitations added unless there is really good reason (and I do not rate "it look a bit early, or it *might* be a problem as good reason).

There is rational progression and then there are rules.  Rational progression would state that a nation that has been at war would likely make use of the leasons learned in that war.  Rule are to keep things from getting to far out of hand.

P3D's ship would be an example of things getting out of hand without progression behind it first.  Most ship classes have a logical predicessor to it.  Naval designers and those that hold the purse stings will make intramental changes to designs as progress happens.  Sometimes there are radical designs, but they usually come from the experiance of war, or the results of someone else's war or contruction projects.

Truely radical designs out of the blue are quite rare as those holding the purse strings and the Admiralty are generally old men who detest change and like the old way of doing things.  Also such leaps in technology are also rare.  Plsu getting those that hold the purse strings to fund a new project that is grossly twice the size of the previous model would be rare to unheard of unless it somehow helped them in the process (or the military wants it and controls the purse strings).

Quote from: Korpen on May 19, 2008, 03:23:55 PM

Quote from: P3D on May 19, 2008, 02:43:02 PM
Korpen,

you'd have really liked to see such ships laid down in 1906?:

Apart from the speed she looks like a superbe with some armour removed...
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1545.msg20288#msg20288
So I would say we already have ships like that.

Yes, a measly 7kts speed difference, negligible in all combat circumstances ::).

Quote
But you missed my main point, but i can state it clearer; we do not need more rules, and the ones we got would benefit from a look-over to see which ones can be removed.

Rules should be a help and aid, not straight-jackets to force players to conform to someone's view of what is "right" or "motivated". I have no problems with rules imposing some limits (or I would have never ended up here in the first place), but when pretty much any design that falls outside a quite narrow band of very conventional designs (armour shape, amount of splinter protection or L:B ratio to mention a few reason) gets to hear that it either is outside the rule, or that it should be and that the rules should be corrected to forbid the ship, I think we got a problem.

We already got rules that forbid a huge % of historical designs, especially if we look away from the UK and possibly Germany. An example, Swedish armoured ships (Pansarskepp) never used casemates, but hade the secondaries in turrets from the late 1800;s. Not saying that we should twrow away everyting we got. But.
We really do not need more rules or new limitations added unless there is really good reason (and I do not rate "it look a bit early, or it *might* be a problem as good reason).

I see no huge % of not allowed historical designs (laid down after 1900). Panserskepp, Fylgia, Moltke and Goeben (simming for SHP), Swift, three French ACs, the US ships with superimposed turrets (if there'd been any, they would've been allowed, though) and that's it.
Players insist that any invention that existed should be available for their (thus every) country. I'd rather have few inventions that were followed only 20 years later be ignored than make it available for everyone.
Saying that, I'd have chosen a different tech approach, if continuity from N2verse wouldn't have been a priority.
And justifying post-Jutland ships designs after the lessons learned from the Battle of Port Arthur is IMHO too much of a stretch.

Quote from: Korpen on May 19, 2008, 10:34:40 AM
Non-issue if one use my suggestion.

How many people would be able to determine the effect of inclination at arbitrary target angles and angle of fall, even for a single caliber of guns, without spending several hours on how to figure it out? Or do you want to restrict the use of inclined belts to those who can do that? Would you trust everyone to get at least roughly the same results as you?

Quote from: P3D on May 19, 2008, 04:06:43 PM
I see no huge % of not allowed historical designs (laid down after 1900). Panserskepp, Fylgia, Moltke and Goeben (simming for SHP), Swift, three French ACs, the US ships with superimposed turrets (if there'd been any, they would've been allowed, though) and that's it.

You forgot a few, like HMS Tiger, HMS Lion, HMS Princess Royal IJA Kongo , the Italian Caracciolo-class battleships (never compleated), Monmouth Class ACs (6" turrets), certain i can find more if i do a real search for them.

QuotePlayers insist that any invention that existed should be available for their (thus every) country. I'd rather have few inventions that were followed only 20 years later be ignored than make it available for everyone.
Saying that, I'd have chosen a different tech approach, if continuity from N2verse wouldn't have been a priority.

I think that argument is fauly, as the question is that in allot of cases, hindsights is not an asset, it is a liability. Classical one; All or nothing protection is no advantage below 12-15hm as the number of hits is likely to be quite large during an engagement, and that those range penetrations are still quite likley. It is rare for features on a ship to be present without a decent reason, and designers usally had reason for building ships the way they did.
So why, in itself would it be a problem if people mounted say 6" guns in turrets?

QuoteAnd justifying post-Jutland ships designs after the lessons learned from the Battle of Port Arthur is IMHO too much of a stretch.

Unlike the no motivations that i have seen for the French 10x38 monsters, the UNK ships with 38cm belts or the Orange 29kts cruisers, all of the out of the blue?
I think i have stronger arguments for the design choices i made in this ship then i have seen for any other design here.

Quote from: Korpen on May 19, 2008, 04:42:52 PM
You forgot a few, like HMS Tiger, HMS Lion, HMS Princess Royal IJA Kongo , the Italian Caracciolo-class battleships (never compleated), Monmouth Class ACs (6" turrets), certain i can find more if i do a real search for them.

HMS Lion and Princess Royal - they can be laid down 15 months later in Nverse, rest below 80,000SHP and late.
I don't see anything that would make simming Caracciolo impossible (at least if you take it into account that 28kts was designed trial speed). You have 4 month delay in earliest lay down date.
The propulsion techs were designed to allow most (say 95%) of the historical designs available at the same laying down date while having techs, but as few as possible - if you allow for a 10% SHP margin, or for some minimal delay all is covered.

The 'no 6" turret until 191x' rule was intentional.

QuoteUnlike the no motivations that i have seen for the French 10x38 monsters, the UNK ships with 38cm belts or the Orange 29kts cruisers, all of the out of the blue?
I think i have stronger arguments for the design choices i made in this ship then i have seen for any other design here.

What argument besides the 'bigger  guns on a faster ship' one?

Hmmm, if I recall you are arguing about the belt armor, not the guns on the ship.  Belt armor adjustments on the table I use is fairly easy...if the difference is enough to justify the armor acting like it is thicker, then it goes up a step on the chart, otherwise it does nothing different.  On Korpen's design, within the armor thickness standards of the system I use...it probably won't even go up a step unless the armor quality is better than KC.  Then it may go up a to the next bracket.

It has 250mm of armor.  Should be KC armor at this point.  Effective incline suggests 25mm more armor, so 275mm equivalent..nearly 11 inches of armor...that is still "aaa" armor protection either way as defined by Jane's Fighting Ships in 1914.  So it does effectively nothing game wise from my point of view.  At least for this vessel. 

The "A(7)" penetration guns (British 13.5" -  American 14" - German 12"/50 cal?) used by most navies shouldn't have a problem with it except at extreme ranges with a slight chance of resisting at long ranges.  Even the 12" guns of most nations ("A(3)" - "A(6)" depending on quality and barrel length) shouldn't have too much of a problem with it except at extreme (over 100hm) and long ranges (over 60hm).

QuoteYou forgot a few, like HMS Tiger, HMS Lion, HMS Princess Royal IJA Kongo , the Italian Caracciolo-class battleships (never compleated), Monmouth Class ACs (6" turrets), certain i can find more if i do a real search for them.

Don't bother. I asked many of these same question quite a while back. Mainly because the rules seemed target at NS specificlly. Remember my 'Speed is all' designs? I had to scrap all the follow on designs despite them having a clear back history and design rationale, due to the rules. I could build a 24knot fast battleship with 8x14" guns in 1905 (which clearly has hindsight involved) but could not build a 27knot cruiser with 8x8" guns.

Looking at some of the crazier unbuilt historical designs out there, I would say that if anything the rules promote better more balanced ships. Just look at the USN 1912 BC designs...

Ithekro:
Jane's penetration figures and determination mechanism is obsolete, imho. They are based on the Russo-Japanese war.

Desertfox:
We did not want WWII CAs (even if only 27kts) to appear in 1909. As Armored Cruisers are supposed to use BB machinery, the same tech should be valid for them. I won't repeat my argument the Nth time why such rules were necessary.

Besides, the 'turbine engine year' was not even determined uniformly in N2-verse. Players had ships with 1905 and 1907 (even designs with 1908/09 ones, but I don't remember exactly) engines laid down in the same year with the same tech. The difference is significant.

True, but even with the advent of Fire Contol, our "effective" combat ranges are no greater than those of the Russo-Japanese War until the second Fire Control tech is finished and applied on warships.  It is just easier to hit at this point.  Our shells and gun designs are not yet above those in use during the Jane's system era.  Almost, but not yet.  The 15" gun of the QE-class is the top end that the Jane's system could use.  They briefly had the 16" guns from the Japanese Nagatos and the American Colorados but dropped the system around that time.  A(9+) penetration and armor thicknesses were just too much for the 1898 system to handle.

Quote from: Ithekro on May 19, 2008, 07:54:32 PM
True, but even with the advent of Fire Contol, our "effective" combat ranges are no greater than those of the Russo-Japanese War until the second Fire Control tech is finished and applied on warships. 

Well i happily admit that my expectations of what the first level of FC is capable of went up significantly with the changes to the FC tech.
That said I am so presumptive as to count on that ships here with the best possible FC that we can develop is about as capable as the historic ships at the same date. The present FC level is the only one until 1916, so I think it is perfectly logical to look at early ww1 for a guide to practical capability.
Generally I think that adding 50-60% on the range as maximum under good conditions makes good sense, so under good conditions ship with out FC can score hits regularly out to about 13km, and the first FC tech out to around 18km under good conditions. I do not expect that kind of ranges while fighting in a rainy, stormy and foggy winter day in the North Sea.

Quote from: P3D on May 19, 2008, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: Korpen on May 19, 2008, 04:42:52 PM
You forgot a few, like HMS Tiger, HMS Lion, HMS Princess Royal IJA Kongo , the Italian Caracciolo-class battleships (never compleated), Monmouth Class ACs (6" turrets), certain i can find more if i do a real search for them.

HMS Lion and Princess Royal - they can be laid down 15 months later in Nverse, rest below 80,000SHP and late.
I don't see anything that would make simming Caracciolo impossible (at least if you take it into account that 28kts was designed trial speed). You have 4 month delay in earliest lay down date.
The propulsion techs were designed to allow most (say 95%) of the historical designs available at the same laying down date while having techs, but as few as possible - if you allow for a 10% SHP margin, or for some minimal delay all is covered.

While it does allow for the majority of ships, when talking about battlecruisers, there are more historic ships disallowed then allowed. But that is in line with our rule to discourage fast capital ships. And if we go by speed rather then shp, the difference is even larger, as most BCs seemed to get about 1kts more speed out of the same shp as a SS ship.If minimal delay is "waiting for the next tech level" or "extend the rule to fit" then sure, everything fits.

QuoteThe 'no 6" turret until 191x' rule was intentional.

That I am well awere of, but it does disallow quite a large number of historic designs.

Quote

QuoteUnlike the no motivations that i have seen for the French 10x38 monsters, the UNK ships with 38cm belts or the Orange 29kts cruisers, all of the out of the blue?
I think i have stronger arguments for the design choices i made in this ship then i have seen for any other design here.

What argument besides the 'bigger  guns on a faster ship' one?

*sigh*
I think I have already posted that one, repeatedly.

I have no real problems with tech limiting things differently from IRL, but i do have an huge problem with the hypocritical argument of blocking one context motivated feature with the "too early"-argument while at the same time forbidding features witch were common IRL with what amount to a "I do not want it"-argument.

The Mods have discussed the issue.

We note that Tarakan was initiated at 12,000 metres, and reflects a trend towards increasing battle ranges.  Nations with this combat experience - and some access to fire control techniques - can infer that this trend will continue.  Navies looking to concentrate on long-range battles can also be expected to look at the nature of the return fire they will receive, and how to protect against it.  The Netherlands has the combat experience, the technical knowledge, and the follow-up doctrine (as demonstrated in Korpen's post-war analysis articles) to indicate that sloped external belts could be of benefit in the longer-ranged engagements they expect to favor.

We've also decided that this should be reflected in the tech trees, and have incorporated it, along with "All or Nothing" protection, as a new 1912 entry in the Armor tech.  It is a stand-alone tech, much like underway coaling is within the propulsion tech tree.  You do not have to research it to progress to the 1915 Improved KC Armor and beyond; if you don't want it, don't research it.  The new tech reads:

Quote1912 Sloped external belts; "All or Nothing" Protective Schemes

Korpen will be adjusting his 1912 reports to include research into this tech.  We will allow him to build the three frigates as he's designed them while the research is in progress, but will require the research to be completed prior to any further use of inclined external belts or any usage of AoN protection at all. 

We doubt this is a solution that entirely pleases anybody, but This is not a solution we expect to please anybody 100%, but we think it ought to be an acceptable compromise.  Please note, however, that the appropriate thing to do is chat with the Mods before you go public with plans to introduce a potentially controversial innovation, so we can determine whether it's period-appropriate and whether it needs to be in a tech tree.  Imposing band-aid solutions is not the way to go about things, and we will not be as inclined to accommodate in the future.

On a related administrative note, we have adjusted the BB/AC architecture tech to read:

Quote1912: Futuristic: Quadruple turrets

This reflects the removal of AoN to the new armor tech.  We have also deleted reference to the turreted secondaries - whether or not it's technically possible, we need to reconcile this with the protected cruiser tech in some fashion.  Since the 1912 BB/AC tech is now a matter of "you can install quads", we're also dumping the "Double-Time" requirement.  It's not a big hurdle to progress from triples to quads as far as sticking them in ships is concerned, and you still have to design the quad turrets themselves.

The old BB/AC tech was for 1911, and we'll allow the one or two people who actually were researching it to continue from when they started.  The rest of us, having not started it, will not be adversely affected one way or the other.

Now that I've strapped on my kevlar vest and asbestos underwear, any questions?

Ahoj!
As long as I don't have to research inclined armour (which the KKK considers not be worth the trouble) to get to 1915 armour plate, I'm happy.

But I'm not so sure about lumping AoN with the inclined belts? I'd prefer AoN to be stand alone, or
retained within BB/AC architecture.

On the other hand, maybe dump quads from the tech tree completely? Once somebody has mastered triples, putting two twins together (the French approach) does not seem to be like a big deal?

OK about the dates and the band-aiding.
Borys

Hello,

OK by me I think.

QuoteWe will allow him to build the three frigates as he's designed them while the research is in progress, but will require the research to be completed prior to any further use of inclined external belts or any usage of AoN protection at all.

3 frigates? I thought this was all about one 'one-off' design.

QuoteWe have also deleted reference to the turreted secondaries - whether or not it's technically possible, we need to reconcile this with the protected cruiser tech in some fashion.

So we can put 6"or smaller secondaries in turrets on anything other than a DD now, yes? After the mounts are researched of couse.

Ahoj!
We can put 6" or smaller secondaries in turrets on battleships and armoured cruisers.
Light cruisers have a separate tech tree.
However, at this point in time the main gain from turreted secondaries is that they are on the weather deck, and not so susceptible to wave action. Casemattes are much lighter. Had it not been for flying thingies, casemattes would still be used today :)
Borys

I agree with Borys that quad turrets alone do not warrant a separate tech. Either lump it together with something else, or drop the tech.

Quote from: Borys on May 24, 2008, 01:31:56 AM
However, at this point in time the main gain from turreted secondaries is that they are on the weather deck, and not so susceptible to wave action. Casemattes are much lighter. Had it not been for flying thingies, casemattes would still be used today :)
Borys

Some general musing about casemates.
I doubt that they would survive very long even without aircrafts.
The advantage of casemates simply disappeared when a few things happened:
Switch from incremental armour to AoN (or any other protection scheme without an extensive upper belt), this removed the upper belt protection that hade been used by the casemates on battery deck.
Fewer main gun turrets, and/or no wing turrets, this allowed designers to place secondary (or tertiary in case of pre-dreads) on the weather deck without interfering with firing arcs of the main artillery.
The fact that casemates had show themselves to be quite prone to take on allot of water only added speed to the process.

The advantage of casemates, is; as Borys mentioned, as they can be placed in the hull, less interference with the rest of the armament, and significantly less weight for a given amount of protection.
Should be noted that some countries never really adopted casemates at all (Sweden), as in the context of their ship building programs there was no advantage in it.

I should mention that when I designed the BB techs, the old BB techs were lumped together as I felt that the design for a quad or triple turrets does not worth a separate tech. Now the 'unified' tech was separated into two tech, one of them clearly superior to the other. You can live without quad turrets, but inclined belts and AoN is clearly much better bang for the buck.

I'd suggest to reunite the Quad turret and BB protection scheme techs together. Korpen could still have the advantage to build his ships without the tech. As I did not want to build quad BBs until a few years elapsed, I am willing to switch my (apparently succesfully researched) BB tech to something else instead to keep Korpen's monopoly on the tech.
I want to build quad-turret BBs, but if I have to research them twice (once as tech once as turret) I'd rather go without them.

Unless I'm mis-understanding something, we have always had to research a tech for turrets (triples, later quads in the BB/AC architecture) and then design the specific turrets.  Reverting to the initial wording of things doesn't change that.

...okay, so, building on that line of thought:  is there any practical value in requiring everybody to design specific mountings/turrets for each gun after they've already established that they can, in general, build twins/triples/quads?  Unless somebody goes for sextuple or double-storey turrets, are there going to be any significant evolutions in mount/turret design before the dual-purpose gun?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 28, 2008, 11:06:05 AM
...okay, so, building on that line of thought:  is there any practical value in requiring everybody to design specific mountings/turrets for each gun after they've already established that they can, in general, build twins/triples/quads?  Unless somebody goes for sextuple or double-storey turrets, are there going to be any significant evolutions in mount/turret design before the dual-purpose gun?

It seems realistic to research mounts/turrets.
Slows down the breakneck pace of technological progress in N-verse.

Borys

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 28, 2008, 07:33:35 AM
Unless I'm mis-understanding something, we have always had to research a tech for turrets (triples, later quads in the BB/AC architecture) and then design the specific turrets.  Reverting to the initial wording of things doesn't change that.

In Nverse 2, you only had to research the mount once.
In Nverse 3, the techs allow you to research the mounts (but not only that). Looking at the several example of probleme-ridden turrets, IMO the separate research is needed.


About malfunctioning turrets.
What about the moderators assigning a random chance that a mount would have problems that becomes apparent only during trials?
Players would have to spend research later (say for another 6-18 months) to debug it at $0.25/6months? Chances, say, 10% for twin, 20% for triple and 30% for quad mounts.
Or other problems, like engines, vibrations, etc that delay commissioning by 12-24 months - higher chance when the engine is new tech.

It would be more realistic, but I'm not especially interested in the additional complexity.  As you'll recall, Mods only have so much time on their hands...

Ahoj!
Rock - are you replying to me, or to Pee-three-Dee?
(it rhymes!)
Or both?
Borys

I'm replying to P3D there.

So Rocky&Co,

will you keep the quad turret tech as is or not?

We'll keep it as a separate BB/AC tech, as is currently written.  We'll leave turreted secondaries out of the picture for the moment - once they appear on BBs, there's no real reason to keep them off cruisers.  We'll have to determine when that date comes round.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 30, 2008, 12:24:49 PM
We'll keep it as a separate BB/AC tech, as is currently written.  We'll leave turreted secondaries out of the picture for the moment - once they appear on BBs, there's no real reason to keep them off cruisers.  We'll have to determine when that date comes round.

The Swiss should already have cruisers with twin mounts, and Holland is also building such ships. How to keep it off cruisers?
If you take ships with centreline but not superfiring turrets, putting casemated guns above freeboard is problematic, and turreted secondaries would make sense even now.

About inflicting damage/problems:
Players submitting research request should also tell mods if they have a ship that started trials that has new guns/mounts/new year engines/whatever. It would be one or two additional dice roll.

The Auroras have been around for sometime now. They mount 8x6" in Omaha style gunhouses.

About probablity of failure, I did that with a number of my ship. Constellation for instance had a good chance her turbines could fail.

Quote from: P3D on May 30, 2008, 02:45:44 PM

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 30, 2008, 12:24:49 PM
We'll keep it as a separate BB/AC tech, as is currently written.  We'll leave turreted secondaries out of the picture for the moment - once they appear on BBs, there's no real reason to keep them off cruisers.  We'll have to determine when that date comes round.

The Swiss should already have cruisers with twin mounts, and Holland is also building such ships.

A bit off topic:
Well, strictly speaking I am not building any such ships ATM, the designs i posted was mainly due to me wanting to draw some cruisers. :)
I think the baltics are building some however. Not that this in any way affect your point.

I'm not talking about twin deck mounts - I'm talking about turret/barbette set-ups for CL-type guns.