StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I would tend to agree, for the following:

"... it makes a certain amount of sense, to progress upward at a reasonable rate rather than have a bunch of max BBs out there. Gives a sort of curve to it, plus people who didn't upgrade slips back in 1925 aren't at as big a disadvantage."

Erm no. The more reasonable stance is to reintroduce the maintenance costs. Caps are ridiculous.

The caps represent requiring a logical evolution in ship design instead of countries leap-frogging designs by thousands of tons. And I say that knowing I'm guilty of it too.

The Jenghizkhan baatar is actually the Tarbosaurus, for those interested. Figured if everyone else can have a fluff piece, well, damn it, so can Mongolia.

RE: Battleship development, several players in the previous game are on record as saying they were troubled by the fact that as the game entered the 2020s it became increasingly more difficult to extrapolate technological developments -- well, if you ask me the same is true here. If no caps or other hindrances are introduced, some of us will be building 80,000 ton monstrosities in the early 1930s, mounted no doubt with twelve 20" super-heavy guns or something insane like that. It's bad enough already for us who do not enjoy mucking about with SpringSharp to fine-tune the optimal munchkin battleship design, let's not get completely lost in the land of battleship wankery please.

And frankly in my opinion reintroducing maintenance costs isn't an option. I was against calculating maintenance before for the same reason I am now: I truly, honestly can't think of anything that would suck more fun out of the game than introducing more accountancy, which at the end of the day is exactly what maintenance costs are.

Siege wrote:And frankly in my opinion reintroducing maintenance costs isn't an option. I was against calculating maintenance before for the same reason I am now: I truly, honestly can't think of anything that would suck more fun out of the game than introducing more accountancy, which at the end of the day is exactly what maintenance costs are.

I'll agree fully on this. As much of an Excel whore as I am, figuring out maintenance would be a right bitch.

I fully support having a cap on how much ship sizes can increase per year. In fact, I thought there was one already...

Steve wrote:You may all commence your screaming at what I'm about to say, but keep in mind I'm only pondering it...

We have people already planning 70,000T standard monstrosities and planning on laying <65,000T standard ships in 1927 game year. I think that's going a bit fast given 55,000T was just being prepared for construction as of game start. I'm wondering if we should have a bit of a cap where it goes up by 5,000T Standard every 2 years, so in 1927 you'd have to have a ship of only up to 60,000T Standard, then in '29 you get 65,000T standard, etc.

Note we're not doing this, I'm just pondering if we should('ve) done so.

Steve maybe it might make more sense to say that for every 1,000 (rounded) kt over the previous largest ship design requires that many more months of trials. Its already 3 years to bring a monster in to this world so 4-6 more months isn't that much time (percentage wise) but it would serve as a check on reckless size growth (something I would be a bit guilty of if and when my 1928 design hits the slipway).

Steve wrote:You may all commence your screaming at what I'm about to say, but keep in mind I'm only pondering it...

We have people already planning 70,000T standard monstrosities and planning on laying <65,000T standard ships in 1927 game year. I think that's going a bit fast given 55,000T was just being prepared for construction as of game start. I'm wondering if we should have a bit of a cap where it goes up by 5,000T Standard every 2 years, so in 1927 you'd have to have a ship of only up to 60,000T Standard, then in '29 you get 65,000T standard, etc.

Note we're not doing this, I'm just pondering if we should('ve) done so.

Well. Lets have a reverse look. First HMS Dreadnought laid down in 1905 was 17,000 tons. By 1909 people were already designing battleships in excess of 30,000 tons, the original Rio de Janeiro design stood at 32,000 tons and Moreno was 28,000 tons. Which may look like a small increase in absolute terms, but actually representing nearly doubling displacement in 5 years, the equivalent would be jumping straight from 40,000 tons to 70,000.

Second there is an upper cap. Namely 70,000 tons. You can't make bigger ships so Tillman's upper limit is there. You can make 70,000 tonners in 1927 ok. In 1940 you'll still be making 70000 ton ships. And by the same token if anyone wants to make 20in guns he is welcome to them... as anything above 18in would be impractical.

Third maintainance costs. Everyone can start screaming now but at the moment there is no economic cost whatsoever to someone keeping say a 3 million man standing army or 100 battleships in service. In reality it would be taking up lots and lots of resources to do so.

Lascaris wrote:Third maintainance costs. Everyone can start screaming now but at the moment there is no economic cost whatsoever to someone keeping say a 3 million man standing army or 100 battleships in service. In reality it would be taking up lots and lots of resources to do so.

On the last two there could be costs...if your SML jumps due to the size of your standing force (that is if you suddenly have a standing army that is 50% of your AF amount then you'd be at SML 4 and subject to the 5% penalty...likewise you can't have the NF5 level (or a fleet with 1.5 MT+) unless you've got I/E of at least 9. So there are some soft caps to just unlimited building even aside from the simple fact that old ships become antiquated just to to wear and tear.

The SML thing would kick in if your standing forces equaled so much of your overall army. IIRC I set it at 40% Standing Forces (30% is SML3, 50% is SML4) before you start to take hits.

Since when did we have such a rule?

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Since when did we have such a rule?

SML has existed since the game started, if you suddenly jumped you AD army to be 60% of your available manpower (per Army Focus) then you would be an SML 4 nation, it would be pretty damn hard to do though.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Since when did we have such a rule?

SML has existed since the game started, if you suddenly jumped you AD army to be 60% of your available manpower (per Army Focus) then you would be an SML 4 nation, it would be pretty damn hard to do though.

Erm yes I know of this rule. But no where last I checked was there any prohibitions against jumping from step to step.

Not to mention, in the context of the Naval Focus, jumping from 4 to 5 can be actually bloody easy, by building just 6 50,000 tonne battleships.

With regards to BBs: What Lascaris said.

Also, if one wants to look at even larger jumps, let us take Germany as an example. Germany in 1913 laid down the Bayern class, with 320000 tons full load. In 1917, they started the early construction process for the L20alpha class, with 48000 tons full load. That is a jump of over half the displacement, with the following class having a whopping 150% of the displacement.



As for 20" designs being impractical, not really. The main drawback is a somewhat slower rate of fire, which does not really matter considering the usual rate was 1.5-2 shells per minute anyway, which a 20" design can achieve.

You are likely only going to have 9 20" guns on a single warship with tonnage of 65,000tonnes and above.

Also, in this day and age, it's going to be superlatively hard to armor the ship against its own shells!

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Also, in this day and age, it's going to be superlatively hard to armor the ship against its own shells!

That is true. As for the number of guns, we shall see. I have not really started looking into 20" designs in Springsharp.

Oh wow. It's actually possible to cramp 9 20.1"/45 onto one 70,000tonne ship! Note however, how bloody angled the main belt is, along with a super high belt to compensate. Also, hell knows whether 9" deck is sufficient against 20"/45 shells! (I can sense Steve twitching away! )

John II Komnenos, Byzantine Empire Battleship laid down 1927

Displacement:
65,900 t light; 69,795 t standard; 73,833 t normal; 77,064 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(784.55 ft / 767.72 ft) x 137.80 ft x (37.24 / 38.57 ft)
(239.13 m / 234.00 m) x 42.00 m x (11.35 / 11.76 m)

Armament:
9 - 20.10" / 511 mm 45.0 cal guns - 4,400.01lbs / 1,995.81kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1927 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 5.00" / 127 mm 38.0 cal guns - 59.33lbs / 26.91kg shells, 500 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1927 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
40 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 56.0 cal guns - 2.11lbs / 0.96kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1927 Model
10 x Quad mounts on side ends, majority aft
4 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 70.0 cal guns - 0.27lbs / 0.12kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1927 Model
10 x Quad mounts on side ends, majority aft
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 12.0 cal guns - 0.05lbs / 0.02kg shells, 4,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1927 Model
16 x 4-gun mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
Weight of broadside 40,883 lbs / 18,544 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 390.00 ft / 118.87 m 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 78 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 25.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
4.00" / 102 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 40.00 ft / 12.19 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 100.00 ft / 30.48 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 26.0" / 660 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 22.0" / 559 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
5th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 9.00" / 229 mm
Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 5.00" / 127 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 16.00" / 406 mm, Aft 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 86,395 shp / 64,451 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,269 tons

Complement:
2,239 - 2,911

Cost:
£22.638 million / $90.551 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5,671 tons, 7.7 %
- Guns: 5,671 tons, 7.7 %
Armour: 29,695 tons, 40.2 %
- Belts: 6,641 tons, 9.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,368 tons, 3.2 %
- Armament: 6,990 tons, 9.5 %
- Armour Deck: 12,786 tons, 17.3 %
- Conning Towers: 910 tons, 1.2 %
Machinery: 2,727 tons, 3.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 27,677 tons, 37.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,933 tons, 10.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 0.2 %
- Hull above water: 30 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
122,854 lbs / 55,726 Kg = 30.3 x 20.1 " / 511 mm shells or 26.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 11.3 ft / 3.4 m
Roll period: 17.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.58
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.31

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.656 / 0.661
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.66 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 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 %, 36.09 ft / 11.00 m, 21.65 ft / 6.60 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 21.65 ft / 6.60 m, 21.65 ft / 6.60 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 21.65 ft / 6.60 m, 21.65 ft / 6.60 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 21.65 ft / 6.60 m, 21.65 ft / 6.60 m
- Average freeboard: 22.81 ft / 6.95 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 155.3 %
Waterplane Area: 85,023 Square feet or 7,899 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 274 lbs/sq ft or 1,339 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.55
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Alright, the cat is out of the bag regarding the reasons for the refit. The turrets are being replaced with newer models to accommodate the SH shells. Lascaris earlier asked about the cost of refits, here is what it cost me to switch the turrets to make them capable of superheavy shell firing:

Österreich class: (10 16.5"): 32 points per ship, 6 months
L20alpha: (12 16.5"): 32 points per ship, 6 months
Einheit class (14 16.5"): 40 points per ship, 6 months
Ziethen (9 16"/50): 32 points per ship, 6 months
Note: The turrets are being replaced only. No change to machinery, armor belt, armor deck and other main systems.

The way Steve and I come up with this is that superheavy shells generally result in a weight gain of 3-4000 tons. So we took that times 8, with 32 points being the lower limit we set.

As for replacing machinery and other heavy parts (such as altering belt armor etc), I would imagine that would cost substantially more and would also take longer.

Note that the main problem with making ships SH-capable is the recoil in existing designs. You are not allowed to change ship shape, after all. Luckily, my ships were designed with a rather large beam anyway, so that is not much of a problem. However, if your ships already have close to 1.0 recoil, they would not be able to handle SH-shells.

I shall make a mega post in the ship design thread for both my new heavy cruiser that was launched as well as the ships post-refit.

Generally, a refit is not a good way to spend money IMO except if you can a) afford it and the change is relatively cheap as with the turret change. My main problem with the old turrets would be the ammo hoists, which could not handle SH shells (also, the reason for why the Colorado class did not get a SH shell in the OTL) and needed replacement. However, as the old guns will be placed into coastal forts, that is less of a problem as coastal forts a) fired a lighter shell for longer range anyway and b) get new ammo hoists anyway.

It is a real beast to even get a 18"/45 turret to go from 3300lb to 3900lb shell...

The Tigers are being rebuilt so more armor can be added and they'll be able to face down the 12-in commerce raiders Cascadia will be deploying.(I know they aren't commerce raiders, but stay with me).

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Ultimate Battlecruiser I'm looking at building.

Lonestar wrote:The Tigers are being rebuilt so more armor can be added and they'll be able to face down the 12-in commerce raiders Cascadia will be deploying.(I know they aren't commerce raiders, but stay with me).

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Ultimate Battlecruiser I'm looking at building.

Armor must be incredibly light.

You did spec to remove the torp tubes? The torpedo tubes would be a sure fire way to sink the ship if they are ever struck.

SPEED IS ARMOR.

Lonestar wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Ultimate Battlecruiser I'm looking at building.

The German Navy went "Oh Shit", then Tirpitz looked at the armor scheme. The entire RMA staff subsequently dissolved in laughter and held a special service, praying the Dominion would built those.

Lonestar wrote:SPEED IS ARMOR.

I shall make a note to have my destroyers and cruisers outfitted with 24" torps which I plan to research eventually....