SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is there any way to force a ship to have 3-4 types of guns only?

[Norade]

Is there any way to force a ship to have 3-4 types of guns only?

Why would we want such a system? A ship can easily have a main battery, secondary battery, dual purpose guns, AA guns, and some lighter machine guns and spring sharp already limits what can go where so we have no issue.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is there any way to force a ship to have 3-4 types of guns only?

Why would we want such a system? A ship can easily have a main battery, secondary battery, dual purpose guns, AA guns, and some lighter machine guns and spring sharp already limits what can go where so we have no issue.

Well, yes but I want to save weight and as it is, technically 3-4 gun types on a battleship is sufficient especially when the premier gun for AA happened to be the 3"/70 and 5"/37. And 5"/37s are dual purpose guns.

[Norade]

Is there any way to force a ship to have 3-4 types of guns only?

Why would we want such a system? A ship can easily have a main battery, secondary battery, dual purpose guns, AA guns, and some lighter machine guns and spring sharp already limits what can go where so we have no issue.

Well, yes but I want to save weight and as it is, technically 3-4 gun types on a battleship is sufficient especially when the premier gun for AA happened to be the 3"/70 and 5"/37. And 5"/37s are dual purpose guns.

I must have mis-understood the issue then, if you want less types of guns on a ship, simply don't add others. Other than that, there isn't a reason to impose any limits.

[Ma Deuce]

Well, yes but I want to save weight and as it is, technically 3-4 gun types on a battleship is sufficient especially when the premier gun for AA happened to be the 3"/70 and 5"/37. And 5"/37s are dual purpose guns.

Except dual purpose guns were practically nonexistent on capital ships in the '20s; even new designs used split secondaries, and there was a reason: at the time it was very difficult to fit a gun heavy enough to overpower destroyers into a mount fast enough to engage aircraft, not to mention RoF was an issue with larger guns. The US 5"/38 didn't exist until the '30s anyway. At this point, USN capital ships used 5"/51s for anti-surface work, and 4"/50s or 5"/25s for anti-air work.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, yes but I want to save weight and as it is, technically 3-4 gun types on a battleship is sufficient especially when the premier gun for AA happened to be the 3"/70 and 5"/37. And 5"/37s are dual purpose guns.

Except dual purpose guns were rare to nonexistent on capital ships in the '20s; even new designs used split secondaries, and there was a reason: at the time it was very difficult to fit a gun heavy enough to overpower destroyers into a mount fast enough to engage aircraft, not to mention RoF was an issue with larger guns. The US 5"/38 didn't exist until the '30s anyway. At this point, USN capital ships used 5"/51s for anti-surface work, and 4"/50s or 5"/25s for anti-air work.

I'm drafting a 30s ship.

[Ma Deuce]

I'm drafting a 30s ship.

Okay, but I'm still not seeing why there is any need at all to limit the number of gun types by mod fiat. The 3,000lb limit on 18" shells was bad enough.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm drafting a 30s ship.

Okay, but I'm still not seeing why there is any need at all to limit the number of gun types by mod fiat. The 3,000lb limit on 18" shells was bad enough.

Erm. My question was whether there's a way to force a ship on Spring Sharp to have 4 gun types. And not because of a mod fiat.

Just in case I am being vague.

[Norade]

Springsharp 3.0beta gives the option for five types of guns.

[Ma Deuce]

Erm. My question was whether there's a way to force a ship on Spring Sharp to have 4 gun types. And not because of a mod fiat.

Er, sorry about that. In that case, you simply leave the diameter/bore of the gun slots you don't want at zero and Springsharp will count them as nonexistant: You'll note they don't appear in the report either.

Just in case I am being vague.

Given that two people misunderstood you, I would say that's quite possible.

[Norseman]

Question should something like this, a fairly old Dreadnaught design from 1909, still count as a capital ship? Or as a battleship? Or could it be moved into the cathegory of non Dreadnaught capital ship?

EDIT: Fixed minor error, point remains though.

Code: Select all

Rio de Janeiro, FSR of Brazil Battleship laid down 1909

Displacement:
	19,150 t light; 20,111 t standard; 21,151 t normal; 21,982 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
	565.21 ft / 550.00 ft x 82.00 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
	172.27 m / 167.64 m x 24.99 m  x 8.84 m

Armament:
      10 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (5x2 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1904 Model
	  Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
	  on centreline ends, majority forward
      8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1906 Model
	  Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
	  on side, all amidships
      12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1905 Model
	  Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
	  on side, evenly spread
      12 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1919 Model
	  Machine guns in deck mounts 
	  on side, evenly spread
	Weight of broadside 9,528 lbs / 4,322 kg
	Shells per gun, main battery: 100
	2 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:		Width (max)	Length (avg)		Height (avg)
	Main:	11.0" / 279 mm	315.00 ft / 96.01 m	12.00 ft / 3.66 m
	Ends:	5.00" / 127 mm	235.00 ft / 71.63 m	22.00 ft / 6.71 m
	Upper:	8.00" / 203 mm	315.00 ft / 96.01 m	11.00 ft / 3.35 m
	  Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
		2.00" / 51 mm	550.00 ft / 167.64 m	25.00 ft / 7.62 m

   - Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
	Main:	11.0" / 279 mm	10.0" / 254 mm		11.0" / 279 mm
	2nd:	5.00" / 127 mm	4.00" / 102 mm		4.00" / 102 mm
	3rd:	      -		      -			1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:
	Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, 
	Direct drive, 2 shafts, 30,005 shp / 22,384 Kw = 21.35 kts
	Range 7,000nm at 10.00 kts
	Bunker at max displacement = 1,872 tons

Complement:
	876 - 1,140

Cost:
	£1.862 million / $7.447 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
	Armament: 1,191 tons, 5.6 %
	Armour: 8,885 tons, 42.0 %
	   - Belts: 4,054 tons, 19.2 %
	   - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,018 tons, 4.8 %
	   - Armament: 2,450 tons, 11.6 %
	   - Armour Deck: 1,182 tons, 5.6 %
	   - Conning Tower: 181 tons, 0.9 %
	Machinery: 1,364 tons, 6.4 %
	Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,510 tons, 35.5 %
	Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,001 tons, 9.5 %
	Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
	Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
	  28,802 lbs / 13,064 Kg = 33.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 5.4 torpedoes
	Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
	Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
	Roll period: 17.8 seconds
	Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
			- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.83
	Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.43

Hull form characteristics:
	Hull has raised forecastle
	Block coefficient: 0.566
	Length to Beam Ratio: 6.71 : 1
	'Natural speed' for length: 23.45 kts
	Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
	Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
	Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
	Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
	Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
	   - Stem:		28.04 ft / 8.55 m
	   - Forecastle (18 %):	22.00 ft / 6.71 m (20.00 ft / 6.10 m aft of break)
	   - Mid (50 %):		17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Quarterdeck (18 %):	17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Stern:		17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Average freeboard:	19.35 ft / 5.90 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
	Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.3 %
		- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 127.7 %
	Waterplane Area: 31,951 Square feet or 2,968 Square metres
	Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
	Structure weight / hull surface area: 159 lbs/sq ft or 776 Kg/sq metre
	Hull strength (Relative):
		- Cross-sectional: 0.95
		- Longitudinal: 1.62
		- Overall: 1.00
	Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
	Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
	Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
	Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Sea Skimmer]

Just for note: the 35,000 ton "South Dakota" is only similar to the "Sovietsky Soyuz" in it's Pr.23 variant, but that variant was in a state of rejection by 1939 already and the order for completing the hulls by an improved project 23-bis (12x406mm) has already been issued and preliminary design done, aiming for roughly the same displacement. This is more firepower than South Dakota and Iowa. By your logic, building Iowas is also stupid because they are 1,5 times more displacing for the same armament as the SoDak.

Nope the 12 gun variant of Project 23 Bis was explicitly rejected as too large. The ship would have had nine 16in guns. See page 396 of Russian and Soviet Battleships. Project 24 had the same arrangement as well, though once more twelve gun versions were studied and rejected. Soviet designers simply demanded way too much incremental armor to be able to produce twelve gun designs of acceptable displacement.

You have got to be fucking kidding me if you think you can change a battleship hull in an advanced stage of construction to have a whole extra main battery turret. That is not physically possible. At best you could break up the hull on the building way which would take months on its own, and reuse some material in a entirely new vessel.

Skimmer, I also banned guns above 18".

I was not aware of an 18in limit, and what the hell difference would it make when the US already proved you can fire almost the exact the same weight of shell as I intended to use our of an 18in gun? Would you rather I have a ship with more guns firing the same shell since reducing caliber saves so much weight? The gun I am using is fucking REAL too and designed well before the game start date. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_189-45_t5.htm. Or did you think I just invented such an odd caliber as 18.9in like so many other people are 100% inventing guns and ship designs for nations which could not build a 5 ton tank in real life? What about that 21in gunned ship Thanas fucking posted? No one said a fucking word about that one either and I sure didn't complain even though it outgunned me in turn by about 6,000lb of broadside.

People are completely fucking missing the point of why I advocated a 1920s setting again and again and again. Its fucking simple and exact details don’t matter because no matter what you do in an era defined by tons of armor and inches of guns ships are in large part equal if they are a similar size. Since the only superweapons are battleships, and you can't hide battleship construction nothing can be pulled out of ass at the last minute with no prior warning like 10,000 SCUD missiles or hoards of bioweapons which just happen to be ready for deployment at a seconds notice.

So what if I have a bigger gun, it also means I have fewer guns. Indeed the broadside of my ship is only 23,400lb, which is LESS then that of a ship with 12 x 16in guns even with a relatively lightweight 2,200lb 16in shell. You have no damn conception of balance at all. Did you even think about figures like that? 9 x 18in guns should shoot an even heavier weight of metal in turn and so far NO ONE has said a word against ships with that armament.

I’m sure come tomorrow you’ll all be bitching and moaning if someone dares to have a torpedo with a warhead larger then 500lb because you didn’t think of it first.

But I get the feeling you'll just lower the ship to 18" guns and add another or something and still have that ship come around, so how about we just cut the song and dance and stuff and I ban the ship from use?

Wow so your just being a fucking jackass now. Ban the fucking ship even if it’s reduced in caliber? Even though its broadside is less then ships people could design on 45,000 tons? What the hell fucking sense does that make. Why the fuck is my ship banned when other peoples fucking Yamato clones in nations go unquestioned? Do you have any fucking idea what you are doing? Hell you fucking asked me to take Siam, when originally I didn’t even want a nation with any seacoast at fucking all and this is why. So when I come up with a different ships that's similar, does that get banned too? Limits for Sea Skimmer and then limits for everyone else?

God all this fucking crap, and after I design a ship which is as explicitly defensive as a fucking dreadnought possibly could be. If I wanted to be an asshole then I'd just have a god emperor worship nation, build a fleet of carriers and field kamikazes in 1926 which no one would have a chance in hell of stopping with no radar and no VT fuses.

[Raesene]

Leone, Tuscan Kingdom destroyer laid down 1921

Displacement:
2.143 t light; 2.227 t standard; 2.337 t normal; 2.424 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(374,02 ft / 374,02 ft) x 36,09 ft x (11,81 / 12,15 ft)
(114,00 m / 114,00 m) x 11,00 m x (3,60 / 3,70 m)

Armament:
8 - 4,72" / 120 mm 45,0 cal guns - 55,12lbs / 25,00kg shells, 100 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1921 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
2 - 2,99" / 76,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 13,51lbs / 6,13kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1921 Model
2 x Single mounts on sides amidships
2 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,25lbs / 0,11kg shells, 2.000 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1921 Model
2 x Single mounts on sides amidships
2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 468 lbs / 212 kg
6 - 21,7" / 550 mm, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m torpedoes - 1,774 t each, 10,647 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
2nd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 42.652 shp / 31.819 Kw = 32,00 kts
Range 2.000nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 197 tons

Complement:
167 - 218

Cost:
£0,692 million / $2,769 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 78 tons, 3,3%
- Guns: 67 tons, 2,9%
- Torpedoes: 11 tons, 0,5%
Armour: 10 tons, 0,4%
- Armament: 10 tons, 0,4%
Machinery: 1.252 tons, 53,6%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 803 tons, 34,4%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 194 tons, 8,3%
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
957 lbs / 434 Kg = 18,2 x 4,7 " / 120 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,49
Metacentric height 2,1 ft / 0,7 m
Roll period: 10,3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 36 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,19
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0,53

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,513 / 0,517
Length to Beam Ratio: 10,36 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19,34 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00%, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Forward deck: 30,00%, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Aft deck: 35,00%, 9,84 ft / 3,00 m, 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00%, 9,84 ft / 3,00 m, 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
- Average freeboard: 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 181,9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 129,4%
Waterplane Area: 9.101 Square feet or 846 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 74%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 55 lbs/sq ft or 270 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,87
- Longitudinal: 1,46
- Overall: 0,91
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

******
Five vessels finished (Leone, Tigre, Pantera, Leopardo, Lince; Lion, Tiger, Panther, Leopard, Lynx), and the Navy is not happy with them. Suboptimal design of a relatively large destroyer. Follow-up designs were revised after Leone ran trials.

Dimensions are very close to the historical vessel (of which only the first three were build). Nevertheless, the real trio served until 1941 and were destroyed during the British conquest of Erithrea.

[Norade]

I second Sea Skimmer, fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you're going to limit people further than what we already had to start. There is no reason to punish people for using Spring Sharp and designing ships just so others who are too lazy can play too. Besides it isn't as if you don't make trade-offs every time you add a bigger gun or more armor. I mean we already have a 50kt starting tonnage per ship limit, a 60kt hard cap, a rule that isn't even in the rules page that half of your fleet needs to be built before a certain time, our nations industrial capacity, now you want to limit our guns and ship designs further because you don't like them. No, that isn't cool.

[Raj Ahten]

I second Sea Skimmer, fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you're going to limit people further than what we already had to start. There is no reason to punish people for using Spring Sharp and designing ships just so others who are too lazy can play too. Besides it isn't as if you don't make trade-offs every time you add a bigger gun or more armor. I mean we already have a 50kt starting tonnage per ship limit, a 60kt hard cap, a rule that isn't even in the rules page that half of your fleet needs to be built before a certain time, our nations industrial capacity, now you want to limit our guns and ship designs further because you don't like them. No, that isn't cool.

Its not that some people are lazy and refuse to use Springsharp. I simply do not have the time to master an obscure computer program on top of everything else going on in my life such as a six day workweek. So fuck you on that count.

That said I have always stood by allowing any design that is practicable. Each design has ts own set of upsides and flaws and there is no such thing as a 100% perfect ship and frankly the exact details of individual ship's designs have little to do with who wins wars when compared to larger factors such as supplies, strategy, alliances and so forth. For example American cruisers were shit compared to Japanese ones early in WWII but that was hardly a decisive factor in that conflict.

[Norade]

I second Sea Skimmer, fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you're going to limit people further than what we already had to start. There is no reason to punish people for using Spring Sharp and designing ships just so others who are too lazy can play too. Besides it isn't as if you don't make trade-offs every time you add a bigger gun or more armor. I mean we already have a 50kt starting tonnage per ship limit, a 60kt hard cap, a rule that isn't even in the rules page that half of your fleet needs to be built before a certain time, our nations industrial capacity, now you want to limit our guns and ship designs further because you don't like them. No, that isn't cool.

Its not that some people are lazy and refuse to use Springsharp. I simply do not have the time to master an obscure computer program on top of everything else going on in my life such as a six day workweek. So fuck you on that count.

That said I have always stood by allowing any design that is practicable. Each design has ts own set of upsides and flaws and there is no such thing as a 100% perfect ship and frankly the exact details of individual ship's designs have little to do with who wins wars when compared to larger factors such as supplies, strategy, alliances and so forth. For example American cruisers were shit compared to Japanese ones early in WWII but that was hardly a decisive factor in that conflict.

While I admit that due to recent unemployment I'm enjoying more free time than I like I hardly see why I should care if others playing don't have the same amount of time to devote the this as I do. As you have said there are other factors and I agree, I have even acknowledged them with regards to my rapid fleet build-up that I had planned. However it seems we largely agree on this so I see no reason to carry on.

[Siege]

I find myself agreeing with Skimmer et al; there've been a few vessels that skirt the limits of what is allowed under the tonnage limit we drew up, I don't understand why we're singling Skimmer out at this time. Moreover the peculiarly blunt way mod power is being harnessed here does not strike me as being in the interest of achieving an amicable consensus at all.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

In any case, I'm just plain sick and tired of trying to create satisfactory capital ship designs in SpringSharp. It doesn't matter whether it's a completely original design or a 1:1 clone of a historical ship; no matter what I do (reducing armor, range, and speed, adjusting the block coefficient, freeboard, and trim, et cetera), I keep getting composite strength ratings below 1.00 and that annoying "Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in bad weather" note in the reports. I'd rather just steal the historical designs outright and be done with the entire thing.

[Bluewolf]

I am not sure banning certain weapons will be of any use anyway. We will only find other ways to totally fuck someone over using some powerful weapon be it a very big gun or something that can fit in the size of a briefcase. Besides obvious problems like nukes, it is a bit of a uncertain postion to ban other things. Moreover this also isnt a strict game. I don't want to be limited in attacking in certain ways or being using only certain types of planes, ships or tanks. Strictly speaking there is a point of absurdity but that point has not been reached in any ship design yet. Concequently if really big battleships or new ideas are formed for them then those ideas will take time and money. A big set of guns is useless in the field if your opponant shells the dock its being built at.

Just my two pence.

[Steve]

I will go over the recommendations in this thread and reconsider. I especially like the idea of raising the tonnage limit for new ships by 1,000 or so per year.

[Bluewolf]

Well thank you for at least considering. I do want to say though as I have said many times that given the various interests in this Roleplay, you havent don't badly so far. Just be careful.

[Dark Hellion]

Am I the only one who thinks its a bit petty to argue over whether or not the generated ships are wholly realistic given that his is just a bunch of us gerrymandering the world and playing out goofy countries for fun? Am I mistaken and is this game supposed to be some kind of rigorous Alt-history exercise or is this just the bunch of bullshit penis sizing "I can build a better battleship than you can!" that it seems?

Seriously folks, how many people here actually give a shit about whether or not your ship as the exact right block coefficient or what its total tonnage in monkey wrenches is? Isn't this just masturbation over some program when we could just have "heavy Battleship", "fast Battleship" and "heavy Cruiser" etc. (not saying we should wholly abstract it, but that it is unnecessary to know every damn facet of the ships).

I mean, its cool that the ships being designed in this thread could actually exist, and would work IRL, but frankly it seems ludicrously unnecessary and seems like it is only going to lead to ridiculous arguments during the game, just as it is leading to ridiculous arguments during this thread. It also seems like it will unfairly advantage those who are actively interested in the subject of naval history and naval technology and punish those of us who aren't.

Not all of us have the time to dig through the compendiums that are necessary to get a good understanding of this, I am working on a Master in Physics, others a full time employees and if this is to be a fair game then we should not be punished because we can't spend 6 hours looking at Jane's whatever book.

[Norade]

I see fairness as a good set of rules, I don't like being limited in what I can do just because others have less to put into the game. While I can understand the issue, why not simply fire a PM to another player and ask him to point you at a good ship or buy an export design?

[Dark Hellion]

But you are not being limited, those of us with time constraints are. If the player who knows the most about naval technology will natural dominate naval battles and by extension because of the games time frame international conflict then why are most of us even playing? I don't know jack about 1920's naval combat. Should I be naturally disadvantaged against Stas because of this. I am assuming my country will be able to hire naval advisers, have commanders who have some naval experience and generally be able to run itself in a competent manner. We already have the generic STGOD problem that there is no psychology to the military forces we employ, so short of mod-hammer there is no penalty for someone assuming their forces will grind through anything or fight to the last man. Commanders will never make major mistakes, airplanes will never hit the wrong target, etc. etc. So, why do I have to rely on my knowledge of Naval tactics on the fly (or send a PM every fucking time) instead of being able to simply assume if I have overwhelming superiority in a battle I should win.

[Ryan Thunder]

I roll probabilities for most things that aren't brain-dead simple.

This is why a few of my missile tests actually failed spectacularly in the last game.