StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CmdrWilkens wrote:So basically if you jump from 50kt to 60kt then it would be 10 extra months of trials...but you would only be paying the 1/20th IBP load for those extra 10 months during the fitting out stages. This means that the cost of building these large ships is not drastically higher (at least for the initial builds) but does come with penalties designed to make more evolutionary leaps (or 2 or 3kt at a time). Moreover once you've built one monster of a given size then other ships in the same weight class would revert back to the standard time-frames.

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

Incomparable, United Kingdom Battleship laid down 1916

Displacement:
41,669 t light; 43,394 t standard; 46,000 t normal; 48,085 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(1,006.17 ft / 1,000.00 ft) x 104.00 ft x (34.00 / 35.05 ft)
(306.68 m / 304.80 m) x 31.70 m x (10.36 / 10.68 m)

Armament:
6 - 20.00" / 508 mm 42.0 cal guns - 3,306.93lbs / 1,500.00kg shells, 70 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1916 Model
3 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
<snip>

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 540.00 ft / 164.59 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 83 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
4.00" / 102 mm 650.00 ft / 198.12 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 104.00 ft / 31.70 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 4.00" / 102 mm
Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 160,254 shp / 119,550 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 13,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,690 tons

<snip>
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.09
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Thanas wrote:
So I suspect this is a cover project for something else. Maybe an Iowa class analogue, considering how close the displacements are?

Steve wrote:Heh.

Honestly at this point I'm of two minds about the design issue.

A part of me considers this far too much trouble over one issue and wants to let it go. It's clear the system for naval development in this game is terribly flawed and needs overhauling, or more accurately, abstraction, but that would be far too difficult to effectively and fairly implement IMHO, so we'll stick with what we've got.

The other part of me is in favor of Wilkens' scheme to some extent (every three thousand tons over 60,000T standard and you add a quarter to trials time for the first units, in the fashion of 1-3,000T over is 1 quarter, 4-6 is 2 quarters, etc.) and to make it final.

CmdrWilkens wrote:Really? I got it to mostly match the given description (and used 1916 as the date) by shorting some of the turret armor, going with strengthened rather than additional bulkheads, and cutting the range about in half (I stuck with the given SHP rather than speed).

CmdrWilkens wrote:In other words it may be worth looking in to some edits to the Naval build rule but since nobody has yet laid iron for a ship exceeding 55kt (to date I'm pretty sure the Majestuoso's are the largest afloat) it may also be preemptive over-reaction.

Lonestar wrote:Sir, I am shocked, yes, shocked at the accusation. Besides, the Centurions under construction are South Dakota(BB-49) analogues, with maybe a knot or two more speed.

Thanas wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:Really? I got it to mostly match the given description (and used 1916 as the date) by shorting some of the turret armor, going with strengthened rather than additional bulkheads, and cutting the range about in half (I stuck with the given SHP rather than speed).

Yeah, if you cut down the speed to 33 knots, it works. Less so if you try to get 35 knots.

Steve wrote:Sure, Thanas.

As it is Q2's start next Saturday is my deadline for this, since in Q2 I intend to order the laying of two of four 1927-design ships, and if we have a cap or not will determine if I go for a 60,000T ship or a 64,500T one.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Steve wrote:Sure, Thanas.

As it is Q2's start next Saturday is my deadline for this, since in Q2 I intend to order the laying of two of four 1927-design ships, and if we have a cap or not will determine if I go for a 60,000T ship or a 64,500T one.

Would you mind making up your mind? I listed 2 60,000T ship on my queue, but if you allow for 65000T, I'm going to lay another design instead!

Steve wrote:Sure, Thanas.

As it is Q2's start next Saturday is my deadline for this, since in Q2 I intend to order the laying of two of four 1927-design ships, and if we have a cap or not will determine if I go for a 60,000T ship or a 64,500T one.

Ma Deuce wrote:Damn, I've been away for too long, but I've had a lot on my plate lately. I've got a four day weekend though, so I'll take the chance to update my queue and orbat, weigh in on the latest happenings, and get my new capital ships laid down. At least the good thing about my stats limiting me to 50kt is I don't have to worry about the wranglings concerning the max tonnage cap .

Thanas wrote:
How many ships are you building, btw? 4 of those? I forgot about that.

Steve wrote:Well, you could always expand your IBP base. It'd take four years though to add 100 IBPs and get to 4 and a 50+ size limit.....