secondary gun limits, "beating the dead horse"

[wolfpack]

while i understand at certain displacement a ship physically cannot fit the guns on deck, but why not simple increase the cost and weight of the guns and turrets after 32 to simulate adding mounting points to the ship superimposing secondary guns, building mounts that hang over the side, etc.
i'm the admiral if i say a ship is to have a set number of guns a method is to be found, reasonable or non,  i'd be happy to pay say 10% more $+Tons a gun from 30-40, 20% 40-50, and say 2x as likely to get the slow down/overweight events.

i have no concept of how much practical work that would take but i have to say that it would be a more ideal final point than a simple hard limit.

[rimbecano]

Given that I tend to favor a two-turret, all-forward build strategy, I'd rather like to have a system where less crowded decks (fewer main turrets, lighter main guns, fewer aircraft catapults, all-forward armament obviating the need to have a free main gun firing arc over the stern, etc.) allows for more secondary turrets. If there's going to be a hard limit on total number of secondaries/tertiaries, I'd like to be able to saturate that limit with a single caliber, too.

[garrisonchisholm]

Feb 10, 2020 15:28:27 GMT -6 wolfpack said:

while i understand at certain displacement a ship physically cannot fit the guns on deck, but why not simple increase the cost and weight of the guns and turrets after 32 to simulate adding mounting points to the ship superimposing secondary guns, building mounts that hang over the side, etc.
i'm the admiral if i say a ship is to have a set number of guns a method is to be found, reasonable or non,  i'd be happy to pay say 10% more $+Tons a gun from 30-40, 20% 40-50, and say 2x as likely to get the slow down/overweight events.

i have no concept of how much practical work that would take but i have to say that it would be a more ideal final point than a simple hard limit.

In a lab setting I would agree with your position Wolf, and yet if it comes down to 200 minutes of programming to try to get a formula that works without impacting anything else as opposed to setting a hard limit that 1) was not exceeded (mostly) in reality and 2) only takes Fredrik 5 minutes, I would rather we take the expedient path and free up more of his brain cells for other matters.

To me expediency wins here, hands down.  A year down the road if Every other other issues lies vanquished by the roadside and we would like to ask for this formula, well that seems a good time.  I would say not until that time however.

[mycophobia]

^Agree with above, the current restriction is loose enough for me that I don't mind even if its not the absolutely most ideal. I rather take this over a potentially borked formula(I know very little about coding, but researching for a formula alone is not easy work to begin with imo) that could take plenty of time to fix/implement. At least not when there are many other changes/improvement on the table, just a matter of prioritization.

[tbr]

Feb 10, 2020 15:50:09 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

Given that I tend to favor a two-turret, all-forward build strategy, I'd rather like to have a system where less crowded decks (fewer main turrets, lighter main guns, fewer aircraft catapults, all-forward armament obviating the need to have a free main gun firing arc over the stern, etc.) allows for more secondary turrets. If there's going to be a hard limit on total number of secondaries/tertiaries, I'd like to be able to saturate that limit with a single caliber, too.

Yes, something like an easy formula like:

100ton displacement = 2 superstructure points up to 2500ton displacement, thereafter 100ton displacement = 1 superstructure point until 50kton displacement, thereafter 100 ton displacement = 0.5 deck/superstructure points

add modifiers for all forward gun armament (e.g. +25% deck/superstructure points), AMC's (-25% deck/superstructure points) and flight deck ships (-50% deck/superstructure points)

variable A = 1 light AA or 3 mines or forward ASW mortar or 1 Y/K gun = 1 deck/superstructure point (add minelaying AMC and cruiser techs to allow for below deck rail systems to deploy mines that do not consume deck/superstructure points)

variable B = 1 light pedestal/gunshield gun (5inch or less) or 1 torpedo mount (1/2 tubes) or 1 medium AA or 1 AA director = 2 deck/superstructure points

early game 500ton DD = 10 superstructure points = 2 light (2-4in) guns, 2 torpedo mounts and 6 mines

now it becomes difficult:

variable C = 1 medium pedestal/gunshield gun or 1 light gun turret or 1 torpedo mount (3+ tubes) or 1 fire control station or minesweeping gear or = 5 deck/superstructure points

variable D = 1 medium gun turret (2 barrels or less) or 1 aircraft catapult or 1 aircraft in seaplane hanger (not applicable to AV) = 8 deck/superstructure points

variable E = 1 heavy gun turret (2 barrels or less) or 1 medium gun turret (3/4 barrels) = 12 deck/superstructure points

variable F = 1 heavy triple/quadruple turret = 15 deck/superstructure points

The sum of A+B+C+D+E+F needs then to be less than the calculated deck/superstructure points for any design. In the design screen this would work as an extension and replacement of the current system for AA.

Someone with the time to spare needs to check the formula's validity for "benchmarking designs" (e.g. Bismarck, Iowa, Midway, Fletcher, Atlanta, Takao...) and adjust the variable's values in superstructure points as well as the "break points" in the superstructure points per displacement formula, but then we would arrive at a mathematically simple method of simulating deck/superstructure space availability and its consumption in designs. The gun mount upgrade paths in refits also need to be verified to match but they are already following some of the logic behind the above.

[aeson]

The 1.17 update changed the secondary/tertiary gun limitation to be displacement-dependent.

[rs2excelsior]

Of the various ships posted as counterexamples against the rule, I think only one has actually gone over the secondary limit, and that was a ship which you couldn't replicate exactly anyway (mix of single and twin turrets). And now that the limit goes up with displacement I think that one's legal by number of barrels now too. Honestly it's such a loose restriction it's barely limiting--at the higher displacements the secondary/tertiary limit went from 48 barrels to 44.

[garrisonchisholm]

Feb 10, 2020 17:30:06 GMT -6 aeson said:

The 1.17 update changed the secondary/tertiary gun limitation to be displacement-dependent.

True, though I take the OP's original point to be that there should not be a 'hard cap' on barrel numbers at all, but rather something that if you want to throw enough money/tonnage at the issue you would not be limited (however un-wise one would choose to be about it).  Our graduated scale is an improvement but still I think not what the OP desired.

[cabusha]

I don't like the change. I do agree that there would logically be deck space and limits to casemate locations, but until a more elegant solution is found, why even bother to hamper the current mechanics, and therefore player choice. Basically, don't break the "fun", especially with such an arbitrary change. There's far bigger issues in RTW2 than arbitrarily nerfing secondary designs, especially since they're largely inferior to big gun designs anyway.

And if it takes too much effort on the developer's part to implement an elegant, scaling solution right now, then don't touch it.

[cabalamat]

HMS Victory managed to mount 104 guns on a displacement of 3500 tones, so I do not believe it wasn't possible for a ship to have mounted >32 secondary armament guns in the period 1900-1955.

[wlbjork]

Whilst Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad got pushed right up to 140 guns on 5k tons.

However there's almost a century of difference between the two design periods.

The heaviest long guns on sailing ships were 36 pounders, calibre 175mm, weight 3.250kg, length just under 3m.

By way of comparison, the QF 6"/L40 from the late 19th/early 20th century is almost a full inch smaller in calibre. Despite this, the gun was more than twice as heavy (6.6 tons), with a barrel twice the length (over 6m) of the whole 36 pounder whilst firing a shell of 100lb - almost 3 times the weight of the 36 pounder. As for range improvements, the theoretical range of the 36 pounder was 3700m, whilst the 6" could achieve 13,700m at 28 degrees elevation.

The other thing to remember is that age of sail ships had their guns concentrated in gun decks, severely limiting fire arcs compared to turret ships (that is a technology limit, not a criticism). That is not an option that the game currently offers. Yes, it would be nice to be able to designate two gun decks or central battery but not exactly urgent compared to other desires.

One last thought: Casemates are bad enough in rough seas. How will a gun-port fare when it is even closer to the sea in normal conditions?