SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Steve

Quote:

Modern Vessels: 1013.6kt
-4 Mitológico-class Battleships (PSS Gigante [Laid in 1920 in service for 1925], PSS Adamastor [Laid in 1921 in service for 1924, PSS Moura Encantada [Laid in 1918 in service for 1921, PSS Mitológico [Laid in 1916 in service for 1919])
--50kt Dreadnoughts
---200kt total

As I told you in the ship design thread, these ships may not be laid until 1923. Period.

Also, nobody has yet stepped forward to be my co-mods. It's really not that hard... really!

RogueIce

Steve wrote:

Also, nobody has yet stepped forward to be my co-mods. It's really not that hard... really!

I'll volunteer. AFAIK nobody wants my head over in SDN Wars, so I must be doing something right. :wink:

I figure I can be a sort of backup if nothing else. Hopefully we'll continue to use the SDN World Wiki and I'm a default sysop there anyway.

Steve

If we're laying claim to historic generals and officers, I lay claim to a young George S. Patton Jr, as it's more logical that American settlers concentrated in the north and away from those crazy von Reagans.

Karmic Knight

RogueIce wrote:

I'll volunteer. AFAIK nobody wants my head over in SDN Wars, so I must be doing something right. :wink:

RogueIce For Mod, if he renames the Presidency, the Shroomsidency.
Seriously though, I have no complaints to level against RogueIce, aside, possibly, from his location.

RogueIce wrote:

I figure I can be a sort of backup if nothing else. Hopefully we'll continue to use the SDN World Wiki and I'm a default sysop there anyway.

I was planning on preparing a page for the Union after I had an OOB, which shall be a fight to the death.

edit: Also, if Steve is fine with it, I'd like Lance Sharkey as a member of the Special Commission of North Australia.

Norade

You've yet to explain why I can't have them. I'll not remove them until you can explain that to me and show me where in the rules that it says anything about them. They're under the tonnage cap, built in spring sharp, and violate no rules of this game besides making you butt hurt. So when you can explain why I can't have them and skimmer can't simply walk in and correct you, then I'll consider removing them; Not before.

Lonestar

Norade wrote:

You've yet to explain why I can't have them. I'll not remove them until you can explain that to me and show me where in the rules that it says anything about them. They're under the tonnage cap, built in spring sharp, and violate no rules of this game besides making you butt hurt. So when you can explain why I can't have them and skimmer can't simply walk in and correct you, then I'll consider removing them; Not before.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of "GM"

ROCKS FALL, NORADE DIES.

Norade · Last edited by Norade on 2009-11-07 08:44pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lonestar wrote:

Norade wrote:

You've yet to explain why I can't have them. I'll not remove them until you can explain that to me and show me where in the rules that it says anything about them. They're under the tonnage cap, built in spring sharp, and violate no rules of this game besides making you butt hurt. So when you can explain why I can't have them and skimmer can't simply walk in and correct you, then I'll consider removing them; Not before.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of "GM"

ROCKS FALL, NORADE DIES.

No I understand, but most GM's have an answer besides I don't like it. I have several designs mounting 50 caliber barrels so I can make the jump to 52's, most of my ships use 3x3 turrets, except for the single run of the first type of Cidade-class Heavy Cruisers which used 2x4 turrets and was changed for the newer class of ship to a more traditional armament, if one that is a bit light.

EDIT: Also, not sure what caused the weight jump, my version saved to my PC shows different so I updated, it now weigh in at 49,551 t standard for the 1920 version which would be used for the Gigante and Adamastor. I have another version saved, but not posted for the earlier 1916 version which honestly changes nothing according to Spirng Sharp so I saw no point in posting it.

Steve · Last edited by Steve on 2009-11-07 09:40pm, edited 1 time in total.

Norade wrote:

You've yet to explain why I can't have them. I'll not remove them until you can explain that to me and show me where in the rules that it says anything about them. They're under the tonnage cap, built in spring sharp, and violate no rules of this game besides making you butt hurt. So when you can explain why I can't have them and skimmer can't simply walk in and correct you, then I'll consider removing them; Not before.

You will not consider removing anything. You will simply do so or I will do it for you, if I don't simply remove you.

Now, to explain... you created a tweaked ship that just slipped under the tonnage limit... and are laying the first unit in 1916. That was an even worse offense than the 1920 laying. Your ship is 10,000 tons heavier in displacement than the historical ships of that period. Even the British G3/N3s and American South Dakota-class, intended for laying in the early 20s (South Dakota was laid in 1920) were only 48,000 and 43,000 Normal Displacement as it is!

While a number of other players have painstakingly designed ships reaching back to the dawn of the dreadnought to show a design evolution, or have used historic ships and then continued onto a design evolution (Thanas for instance), you just tossed together the biggest, most powerful ship you could under the limit and laid it more than early enough so you could have all the units of it in service at game start.

Do I object to you making the design? No. I'm laying a ship of 49,000T Standard myself... in 1923. As I told you to do for your Mitológico-class. Make a more reasonable 1916-1920 design or designs to go with it and then lay your massive Mitológico-class ships - with Standard tonnage under 49,000 - starting in 1923 as the pinnacle and pride of Portuguese naval engineering.

Steve

To further extrapolate, my 1923 design even has the same guns as your's... the third set of /52s used in my nation's history and after two prior classes used normal 16"/45 guns (I'd considered the second using 16"/50s, but decided against it because it'd be silly to increase by just two caliber length).

It's the year I object to, and to a lesser extent the feeling that you're just rushing to the biggest guns you could possibly use without regard for a logical progression of gun design.

RogueIce

So for SDN World Reux vets, if for some strange reason you want to reuse an article name for SDN World 3 (another XX-class warship? Just an example) send me a PM first. I have a system I'm using to make those changes (as I've done for Steve) and I want to keep it like that.

I'll also be making other changes to prep the Wiki for SDNW3, but those will be done as time permits.

Norade

Steve wrote:

Norade wrote:

You've yet to explain why I can't have them. I'll not remove them until you can explain that to me and show me where in the rules that it says anything about them. They're under the tonnage cap, built in spring sharp, and violate no rules of this game besides making you butt hurt. So when you can explain why I can't have them and skimmer can't simply walk in and correct you, then I'll consider removing them; Not before.

You will not consider removing anything. You will simply do so or I will do it for you, if I don't simply remove you.

Now, to explain... you created a tweaked ship that just slipped under the tonnage limit... and are laying the first unit in 1916. That was an even worse offense than the 1920 laying. Your ship 10,000 tons heavier in displacement than the historical ships of that period. Even the British G3/N3s and American South Dakota-class, intended for laying in the early 20s (South Dakota was laid in 1920) were only 48,000 and 43,000 Normal Displacement as it is!

While a number of other players have painstakingly designed ships reaching back to the dawn of the dreadnought to show a design evolution, or have used historic ships and then continued onto a design evolution (Thanas for instance), you just tossed together the biggest, most powerful ship you could under the limit and laid it more than early enough so you could have all the units of it in service at game start.

Do I object to you making the design? No. I'm laying a ship of 49,000T Standard myself... in 1923. As I told you to do for your Mitológico-class. Make a more reasonable 1916-1920 design or designs to go with it and then lay your massive Mitológico-class ships - with Standard tonnage under 49,000 - starting in 1923 as the pinnacle and pride of Portuguese naval engineering.

I'm sorry that I'm not a naval historian, but if you're going to make a limit and then not have it be the real limit why not say so from the start? As for evolotion of design, I'm going back and showing progression now, because honestly, I didn't put much thought into it before. The Cidade-class is going to be laid in 1910 now, with 16"/52 guns as a test bed. After it passes sea trials they are going to use it as a design basis for the far larger Dreadnoughts to come.

I could have done far worse, 18"/45's come to mind and if I had a mind to I could arm my 1916 ships with 2x4 turrets of them and it would easily work. However I know you would have shit a brick at me using such large guns even though you can't show why the couldn't be made outside of the fact that monster designs weren't being built due to WWI and the treaties afterward.

As for using 52's, my 1910 dreadnought was my first class to have them as 12"/52's and later that year the larger Cidade's were laid down as test platforms with 16"/52's. So please don't say I didn't use 52's before that design.

Steve

You don't simply jump to /52s in each new caliber. As your gun size increases it changes the rules of the design. If you did attempt such jumps then I fully damned well expect you to have problems. I know I will - I'm having early problems with the adoption of 3-gun turrets in 1909 and 1910, I actually made my third dreadnought coal and oil-burning to reflect a shortage of oil-burning boilers at the time due to other construction and I actually had slow, paced dreadnought construction in the 1910s to reflect other needs (like finishing the purchase of Alaska from Russia, or alternatively finishing paying off the loans from the British that financed that purchase and other things like the Australian War against Manchuria).

Beowulf

1910 is still pretty damn early for 16" guns. I'd suggest 1915 or so for 16". 1910 would more likely be 14" guns.

Lonestar

Beowulf wrote:

1910 is still pretty damn early for 16" guns. I'd suggest 1915 or so for 16". 1910 would more likely be 14" guns.

No one had 16in guns in 1910. We're talking 12 or 13.5in guns.

Steve

Fuck, I didn't notice that.

I put in 14" guns on a 1909 dreadnought (mostly because it was initially for 1910 before I moved it back for the explicit purpose of making it capable of participating in my opening story post's 1914 scenes) but intend for it to be a problem class with kinks that delayed completion until 1913 and which required refits afterward. As I have them, I'd permit 14" guns at the very most for 1910 (and 1909, so long as the player follows my path of problems with the design requiring later refitting), but 16"ers would not likely go into development until 1914 or so. Maybe 1913, as the US didn't start development on a 16" gun until 1913 - the Mark 1 was later used on the Colorado-class - the Japanese started their 40cm (16.1") gun, their first completely-native-designed heavy gun, in 1914 in time for mounting on Nagato-class ships, which were laid in 1917. The Brits didn't start 16" guns until 1922, though to be fair they went for 15" guns in the mid-10s instead.

Mr Bean · **Joined:** 2002-07-04 08:36am **Posts:** 16879

Britian in our timeline will be dedicated to 15" guns for the most part however my prestige project will likely be 16". Because of Britian's commitment issues more is better with them.

Steve

It's pretty much a stable of Cascadian naval design that we'd go for bigger guns as quickly as possible, starting from giving our first armored cruisers 10" guns in the 1880s (turning them, arguably, into thinly-armored second class battleships or overly-expensive, overly-armed cruisers, but hey, can't be perfect, and to top it off they end up going up against an opponent who was almost custom-designed for them to stomp - Manchuria's lighter, raid-orientated protected cruiser fleet of the 1880s). That is, until the 1910s, when the success of the Obukhov-based 12"/52s used on our 1910-1911 battlecruisers prompting our designers to desire longer calibers before making the leap to the next big gun.

Stas Bush

To be fair, the 1920 battleship designs would so most likely end getting ridiculously overweight.

Norade wrote:

The Cidade-class is going to be laid in 1910 now, with 16"/52 guns as a test bed.

Do you seriously think that sounds even remotely realistic? Think about it. 16"/52 in 1910? I mean, "I'm not a naval historian" is not a reason for having ridiculously ahead-of-time projects.

Fingolfin_Noldor

Ah wow... Now, how far was that little stand off from the Straits of Hormuz?

Norade

Steve wrote:

You don't simply jump to /52s in each new caliber. As your gun size increases it changes the rules of the design. If you did attempt such jumps then I fully damned well expect you to have problems. I know I will - I'm having early problems with the adoption of 3-gun turrets in 1909 and 1910, I actually made my third dreadnought coal and oil-burning to reflect a shortage of oil-burning boilers at the time due to other construction and I actually had slow, paced dreadnought construction in the 1910s to reflect other needs (like finishing the purchase of Alaska from Russia, or alternatively finishing paying off the loans from the British that financed that purchase and other things like the Australian War against Manchuria).

In light of other information, it seems as if I have much work to do on my navy.

Stas Bush wrote:

To be fair, the 1920 battleship designs would so most likely end getting ridiculously overweight.

Norade wrote:

The Cidade-class is going to be laid in 1910 now, with 16"/52 guns as a test bed.

Do you seriously think that sounds even remotely realistic? Think about it. 16"/52 in 1910? I mean, "I'm not a naval historian" is not a reason for having ridiculously ahead-of-time projects.

I am guilty of a lack of research in the area of gun time lines and will admit as much, but, however it may have seemed I was still simply asking for a reason why I might be forced to change my design. Now that I have been shown plenty of reasons my entire navy is going to need to be rebuilt.

Though I can't say I won't enjoy designing my fleet in spring sharp.

Stas Bush

I'm not a big fan of inventing imaginary ships because then I can't use all the very beautiful pictures of ships I have.

Steve

Been up waay too fucking long, must get sleep, sleep....

Norade

Here is my new naval OOB, though you'll need to wait for me to post the full designs.

So key points are the weight cut and the cut from 16"/52's to 14"/52's on my Dreadnoughts; 2 carriers being converted from unfinished hulls of the older Portugal-class Dreadnoughts; 2 new classes the Dash-class Cruiser, and the Flee-class Destroyer. Note that there was limited construction from 1900 to 1908, and construction ramped up from 1908 onward leaving me with a modern if unbalanced fleet.

Quote:

Sea Command:

Modern Vessels: 1066.8
-4 Mitológico-class Battleships (PSS Gigante [Laid in 1922 in service for 1925], PSS Adamastor [Laid in 1920 in service for 1923], PSS Moura Encantada [Laid in 1918 in service for 1921, PSS Mitológico [Laid in 1916 in service for 1919])
--43kt Dreadnoughts
---172kt total

-2 Aerie-class Carriers (Converted from laid, but incomplete Portugal-class hulls in 1923, expected in service by late 1925)
--35kt each
---70kt total

-8 Cidade class Battleships (Laid in two groups of four 1910, and again in 1912, all in service since 1914)
--22kt per ship
---176kt total

-8 Cidade class Battleships (Laid in two groups of four 1916, and again in 1918, all in service since 1920)
--22kt per ship, faster version of the models made in 1910
---176kt total

-12 Rapid class Cruisers (Laid in two groups of six in 1916, and again in 1918, all in service since 1920)
--15.1kt per ship
---181.2kts

-24 Dash class Light Cruisers (Laid in groups of six, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1922, all in service by 1923)
--8.4kt per ship
---201.6kt total

-50 Class-3 Destroyers (1919 – 1924, last commissioned for late 1924)
--2.1kt each
---105kt total

-15 Flee-class Destroyers (1922-1923, last in service by 1924)
--1kt each
--15kt total

-20 Cruiser class Submarines [Project 47a as Basis] (1916 – Present all but four already in service)
--2.5kt each, 21kts surface, 12 kts submerged, Surface Range 7,000nm at 12kts, submerged 100nm at 8kts
---50kt total

-50 Layer class Submarine minelayers [UC II as basis] (1914 – 1918)
--0.5kt each, 11kts surfaced, 7kts submerged, 5,000nm at 5kts
---25kt total

Obsolete Vessels: 432.6
-3 Portugal-class Dreadnoughts (First in 1904, and the next in 1906, 3 more hulls laid in 1908, only one of the three was completed, the rest were towed out partly completed and left when they couldn't be finished and scrapping seemed a waste)
--30kt per ship
---90kt total

-6 Watchkeeper-class Battleships (1904 – 1910, one laid each year, all in commission since 1912)
--15.1kt each
---90.6kt total

-30 Colony-class Cruisers (Laid rapidly from 1908 to 1914, last entering service in 1916)
--7kt per ship
---216kt total

-20 Class-2 Destroyers (1904 – 1910, last entering service in 1912)
--1.8kt each
---36kt total

Stas Bush

I have departed from the previous game in that I'm no longer the RULER of the nation.

Fingolfin_Noldor

Stas Bush wrote:

I have departed from the previous game in that I'm no longer the RULER of the nation.

So who's the ruler of the Soviet Union? I'm tad confused.

SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Who is online