StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Steve wrote:If your navy is to defend coastal waters you don't need Navy Focus of 4 or 5. Hell, with your coastline a 2 might be enough, since a realistic navy for your Gran Colombia would be based on protecting coastal waters and the Panama Canal.

Frankly at this point I'm ready to tie Navy Focus into Colonial Territory to A) encourage people to stop using it as a sink score and B) reflect that if you don't have overseas colonies, you don't need a long-ranging Navy as much.

Thanas wrote:Germany would actually not be that much against a Naval Treaty, whatever its terms.

However, if two nations already said they will not sign it, I am hard-pressed to think whether this would not be pointless.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Steve wrote:If your navy is to defend coastal waters you don't need Navy Focus of 4 or 5. Hell, with your coastline a 2 might be enough, since a realistic navy for your Gran Colombia would be based on protecting coastal waters and the Panama Canal.

Frankly at this point I'm ready to tie Navy Focus into Colonial Territory to A) encourage people to stop using it as a sink score and B) reflect that if you don't have overseas colonies, you don't need a long-ranging Navy as much.

Obviously I've misunderstood the meaning of it, then.

I was under the impression that the Naval rating was to do with the quality of the vessels in service, or how powerful it was in general...

What did you intend?

Beowulf wrote:

Thanas wrote:Germany would actually not be that much against a Naval Treaty, whatever its terms.

However, if two nations already said they will not sign it, I am hard-pressed to think whether this would not be pointless.

I propose one of the least useful treaties ever: a limitation of gun size to 16". C'est fini.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, 18" guns pose significant challeneges on their own without saying...

Thanas wrote:It means your design would not be seaworthy, really. It is overweight and the hull would crack and you would get far less life out of your ship than intended.

Also, your ships would probably also not be strong enough to withstand enemy weapons.

In short - it is not advised for anything larger than a destroyer.

That is, unless you like having your battleships suddenly break apart.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, 18" guns pose significant challeneges on their own without saying...

Uh... what about my boat?

Thanas wrote:Reduce armor, engines, weaponry.

Basically, the hull is strained if it has too carry too much.

Aside from the Furious, the only warship which has mounted guns of 18" caliber was the Yamato class.

Ma Deuce wrote:I would also like the add that even without the stress issues, the entire design concept is questionable, if Ryan intends the role for this vessel that I think he does (he called it a "coastal defense monitor", implying use against attacking ships).

The design seems to be loosely based on the modified Lord Clive class monitors the British used toward the end of WWI, which were about the same size of his design and also mounted a single 18" gun.

However, these ships were intended for offensive shore bombardment rather than defense, so in that role a single gun was acceptable. But against ships, a single big gun is near worthless. You'll have a very difficult time finding the right range with only one gun and will score very few hits even when you do (protip: 5% accuracy against moving ships at range was considered very good for big naval guns of the era). For a coast defense ship, you'll want no fewer than four large guns.

For a good design template of this kind of ship, take a look at the Finnish Ilmarinen-class, which mounted four 10-inch guns on 4,000 tons. You can scale it up or down to suit your needs, but the basic design concept is well suited to this role. Sure, it was built about 7 years years after the start of our game, but I don't see that making a huge difference.

Thanas wrote:Well, I am not sure if 10-inch batteries are enough against super-dreadnoughts.

And I would suggest that you spend some points rather on fortresses instead of monitors. After all, a fortress is generally more tougher than an attacking ship. The Duchess has a picture thread of old forts in AMP.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Thanas wrote:Well, I am not sure if 10-inch batteries are enough against super-dreadnoughts.

I was thinking of using 350-450 mm guns. I figure a 1-tonne shell should be effective against nearly anything that floats.

And I would suggest that you spend some points rather on fortresses instead of monitors. After all, a fortress is generally more tougher than an attacking ship. The Duchess has a picture thread of old forts in AMP.

Ah, fortifications. I love fortifications...

Although, I was under the impression that fortifications were largely ineffective during the first and second world wars. Didn't they just bombard them into rubble or overrun them with more mobile elements?

I'll happily build gratuitous numbers of polygonal and star forts if I can expect that they're going to be effective, but if not...