Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on February 20, 2009, 02:55:46 PM
Another thing it the DP system skips is that battlewagons are built with heavier structural members than cruisers  or destroyers, they should physically respond to damage better in a way not quite reflected in the size-based DP system.

That is a good point...  but its a question of complexity...  How detailed would we want the combat system to be?  Also again is that something we would also want to reflect with new techs to research... something that adds a 1% or 2% or 5% DP to a ships total?

Michael 

Quote from: P3D on February 20, 2009, 02:25:05 PM
Ideally, a ship architecture techs should reflect this (but as we are already in 1915 it does not matter much). Say 1.10 minimum composite strength in 1880, and techs with 0.02 'advance' every decade.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on February 20, 2009, 02:55:46 PM
Another thing it the DP system skips is that battlewagons are built with heavier structural members than cruisers  or destroyers, they should physically respond to damage better in a way not quite reflected in the size-based DP system.

We could do away with this as well, by saying that Cruisers (and to a greater extent, Destroyers) can go below 1.00 Composite with each tech level advanced. P3D's formula is a good one, and is easily adapted to this problem.

Any cruiser built in 1880 must have a 1.00 Composite Strength; This would reflect both the lighter construction and the weaker nature of the older ship. For each tech level you gain in Cruiser tech, you could go .04 lower, down to a minimum of 0.80 Composite at the highest levels of cruiser tech. This would allow for cruisers to be fast enough to scout for the extremely fast capital ships we seem to be developing in N-verse3 (where battleships are approaching 30 knots while destroyers are just a couple of knots faster). Destroyers could start at 0.75 Composite, and work their way to 0.50 Composite by multiples of 0.05.

This plan could allow for 5 levels of Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer tech, which is about what we have now.

Anyone besides Mike interested in working on the battle gaming system? Korpen, your contribution (esp. on shell penetration and such) would be appreciated.

Quote from: Carthaginian on February 20, 2009, 03:06:50 PM

Quote from: P3D on February 20, 2009, 02:25:05 PM
Ideally, a ship architecture techs should reflect this (but as we are already in 1915 it does not matter much). Say 1.10 minimum composite strength in 1880, and techs with 0.02 'advance' every decade.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on February 20, 2009, 02:55:46 PM
Another thing it the DP system skips is that battlewagons are built with heavier structural members than cruisers  or destroyers, they should physically respond to damage better in a way not quite reflected in the size-based DP system.

We could do away with this as well, by saying that Cruisers (and to a greater extent, Destroyers) can go below 1.00 Composite with each tech level advanced. P3D's formula is a good one, and is easily adapted to this problem.

Any cruiser built in 1880 must have a 1.00 Composite Strength; This would reflect both the lighter construction and the weaker nature of the older ship. For each tech level you gain in Cruiser tech, you could go .04 lower, down to a minimum of 0.80 Composite at the highest levels of cruiser tech. This would allow for cruisers to be fast enough to scout for the extremely fast capital ships we seem to be developing in N-verse3 (where battleships are approaching 30 knots while destroyers are just a couple of knots faster). Destroyers could start at 0.75 Composite, and work their way to 0.50 Composite by multiples of 0.05.

This plan could allow for 5 levels of Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer tech, which is about what we have now.

The other stuff I can't really help with, but this idea seems quite good...

I want to help but can't. Its a pity.

May I ask the moderators to get one subforum made for battlesim discussions?

Quote from: P3D on February 20, 2009, 03:15:57 PM
Anyone besides Mike interested in working on the battle gaming system? Korpen, your contribution (esp. on shell penetration and such) would be appreciated.

Naturlich.
Will try and provide as much assistence as possible.