 Thread: Ships on market |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Desertfox
There goes my plan to nationalize the Tehuantepec Canal using the theft of Mexican funds by the US as an excuse...  |
|
I'd be a bit more careful with your idle speculation these days, Foxy. Canis may not appreciate that line of thought. :B
|
|
| Thread: Ships on market |
|
|
If the current Siam player (you) is fine with that, I'd say the Mods are as well.
|
|
| Thread: Big Six Reconstruction Picture |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by CanisD
I LIKE! |
|
Neat. Have fun with it! Shouldn't be hard to graft the SoDak structure back on if you still want to do a 4/2 mix, too.
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I don't see these structures being any higher than the historical California, Tennessee and West Virginia rebuilds which IIRC didn't suffer any major issues as a result. |
|
To be fair, the WWII rebuilds weren't in service all that long, and I suspect a lot of habitability and other 'ancilliary' issues got a sharp "Suck it up, we're at war" response at the time.
Still, this also isn't a WWII rush job, so I'd think such issues would be considered, addressed. How effectively is up to Canis.
|
|
| Thread: Big Six Reconstruction Picture |
|
|
Grafted on a more NC style bowform. The quick way of doing it resulted in it being a bit longer forward, but I figured I'd take a look at the general concept at least. In fact, that may be more accurate; Hrolf's report has them with reshaped bows, with 30 ft added at the WL.
|
|
| Thread: USS Hornet CV-9 |
|
|
Hammer is the only carrier that's been sunk in combat, to my reccollection.
|
|
| Thread: USS Hornet CV-9 |
|
|
The Midway concept was designed, built, and centered around putting an Armoured Flight deck over a ship capable of operating an Essex (or better) flight group, which resulted in a noticable increase in size to support that weight.
From what I understand, Canis is looking for something smaller than the Midways, because he is not looking to put an Armoured Flight deck over it, and thus doesn't need something quite so massively built.
The Scheme 6 carrier (Which is what I believe you've posted), incorporated a lot of wartime experience and innovations which the USN (or any other navy, really) doesn't quite have yet. However, with some navies taking the ashistorically early steps toward angled flight decks in WW, that particulat approach might be worth considering for the eventual CV-10 class.
|
|
| Thread: Changes to the Montana Class BB's |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Red Admiral
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As I said, this is most curious. It definately needs to be looked into at this point. |
|
I think that some sections have just been inadvertently deleted when some of the changes were made. I don't remember anything about getting rid of sections. |
|
Indeed, if there'd been discussion/notification of these changes anywhere, it'd be a moot point. We're looking into the matter, since it's not just a single omission anymore.
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Red Admiral
| Zitat: |
| Hence my mention of North Carolina's original plans with 14", as well I imagine this was a similar situation, with a decent amount of indecisiveness within the USN General Board on which direction to go in regards to armament. A month or two into construction, a final verdict was made to (once again) revert to the 16" battery. |
|
The situation is a bit different here as we're a few years into construction. The guns and turrets would be mostly done, or at least far enough along that they are unlikely to be stopped. There's lots of good photos here at the Vicker's Photographic Archive if you've ever wondered how naval guns are made. |
|
Which is why I made the afore-mentioned proposal; Pay the costs for producing the different turrets, stacks, and guns, and the half-produced 18" twins can either be completed (and used as coastal batteries, or other pojects), sold, or scrapped.
As for the exact date this decision is being made, that's subject to debate due to how far behind the USN reports were. Also, to be honest, if Canis had wanted to say "Well, this is how they were laid down, the previous reports were in error/disinformation", I'd be fine with that. However, He's playing it straight and not going back to retcon anything (On this, as well as other matters), and he's decided to make story material out of a couple of areas he's chosing to diverge from Hrolf's appearent plans, including the mention of the Montanas main armament being revised at some point during construction.
I think everyone's best off in letting Canis have a little latitude in the gritty details of getting the US caught up (Especially if some interesting story material comes from it), as it has not been an inconsiderable task, from what we can tell.
|
|
 Thread: Board Statistics |
|
|
Odd how our top referring websites are the IRC client pages. o.O
(Also, no downtime statistics...  )
|
|
| Thread: Changes to the Montana Class BB's |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Red Admiral
| Zitat: |
| .rather curious, I cannot find that section is not in the rules. |
|
Quite a few things seem to have disappeared from the current rules without explanation? I was operating under the assumption that this rule was still in place. Last usage was in converting some armoured cruisers into carriers for Denmark a few years back. |
|
As I said, this is most curious. It definately needs to be looked into at this point.
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Red Admiral
| Zitat: |
| As a compromise, I'd suggest paying for the new turrets seperately. Springsharp yeilds 1189 per turret, so 4756 per ship, 19024 total for the class of 4. This proposal would also allow for the USN to have 16 twin 18" turrets 'spare', as they would be produced under the original cost of the ship. |
|
Seems reasonable to me but the actual turrets weighed ~1700t (probably a bit more than that for Montana with more armour) |
|
I went by the Springsharp method; plug in one turret into an otherwise empty ship with the appropriate settings (Number/size of guns, shell weight/RpG, armour) and add the Armament/Armour tonnage from the report breakdown. While it's appearently a bit 'off' from historical weights, it's the method everyone can use, regardless of having a historical turret to base off of.
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
The player has to remove barbettes that are already in the structure to complete the ships as a CV.
. . .
I'm sure there are 12x16" Montana plans that were prepared as an option. |
|
Hence my mention of North Carolina's original plans with 14", as well I imagine this was a similar situation, with a decent amount of indecisiveness within the USN General Board on which direction to go in regards to armament. A month or two into construction, a final verdict was made to (once again) revert to the 16" battery.
|
|
| Thread: Changes to the Montana Class BB's |
|
|
....rather curious, I cannot find that section is not in the rules.
As a compromise, I'd suggest paying for the new turrets seperately. Springsharp yeilds 1189 per turret, so 4756 per ship, 19024 total for the class of 4. This proposal would also allow for the USN to have 16 twin 18" turrets 'spare', as they would be produced under the original cost of the ship.
|
|
| Thread: Changes to the Montana Class BB's |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Red Admiral
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by TexanCowboy
The hull hasn't been launched yet, so IMHO, it shouldn't be too big of an issue. |
|
This is covered in the infrastructure rules. The incomplete hull would have to undergo a 50% rebuild to accommodate the 16" turrets before construction could continue. |
|
I am unable to find the relevant section in the rules. And as far as can be determined, no substantial modification is being made to the ship's structure; An option of which armament to use is being excersized, similar to the decision made by the USN to complete the North Carolinas with 16" rather than 14" turrets. (There seem to be a few minor changes, but these seem to be an artifact of Canis not using SS3, while Hrolf did)
|
|
| Thread: Big Six Reconstruction Picture |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I tend to think the picture represents the historical wartime rebuilds of the California, Tenneesee and West Virgina. |
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by klagldsf
EDIT: Nevermind, I see you do have the hull bulges. They look much more dramatic in actual photographs. |
|
It's worth noting the details; The bulging on this rebuild is much narrower than the 1942 reconstructions, which bulged the ships to the point they were unable to transit the Panama Canal. Those rebuilds also did not reshape the bow for higher speed, which this refit does.
|
|
| Thread: USS Hornet CV-9 |
|
|
Made a stab at trying to improve the Typhoon bows, kitbashing from an Oriskany graphic. Feel free to copy and fiddle with.
|
|
| Thread: Ship age |
|
|
I would propose, at the very least, the old rule be somewhat followed as a "Gentleman's Rule". If a ship hasn't been drydocked for a decent overhaul in 15 years, it's not going to perform to the best of it's ability; It won't be able to work up it's rated speed due to the engines being worn down and the hull no longer having that slick, fresh-from-the-yards finish. It may be more susceptible to damage due to untreated structual strains, crews may not perform to par due to fatigue and general discontent with using 15 year old plumbing on a daily basis, et cetera, et cetera.
Exactly how this is followed, would be (as always) up to the individual writers of any combat (or other relevant) scenarios. And the 15 year mark is meant as a guidepost, not a hard break; a 14.99 year old ship is not still factory fresh one day, and a dilapidated wreck the next.
|
|
|
