|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 2, 2020 11:42:37 GMT -6
I would like too see a more limited capaicty to get bigger dock sieze, i dont like the concept of implement a tech limit for it.
Instead i would like to see at least at a workingup campoing option to get a restriction in this way:
when your docks are over the value (1885-year)*(-1250), building yards cost X3 and spend 36 months. Also over that value you dont get the event for free dock expansion. So you can but its too expensive.
The curve its:
1900- 18750
1910- 31250
1920- 43750
1930- 56250
1940- 68750
1950- 81250
1960- 93750
its not the best but at least a way to avoid 70000 tn ships in 1925 witch its very unrealistic, im not against bigger ships than historical but in a more rasonable range have a 50k ton in 1925 is quiet fine, a 70tn looks odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2020 13:14:05 GMT -6
I want to point out that, in real history, after WW1, many of the nations that had been involved in the war were in serious economic condition and frankly could not afford to build 70000 ton warships. Now, if that war had not occurred, there is no reason that they could not have accomplished it. The British G3 battlecruisers were 53,000 tons in combat weight but were never built due to the economic conditions and the Washington Naval Treaty. Please consider this, that this is a game, it does not necessarily have to follow the path of real history.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 2, 2020 14:44:47 GMT -6
I want to point out that, in real history, after WW1, many of the nations that had been involved in the war were in serious economic condition and frankly could not afford to build 70000 ton warships. Now, if that war had not occurred, there is no reason that they could not have accomplished it. The British G3 battlecruisers were 53,000 tons in combat weight but were never built due to the economic conditions and the Washington Naval Treaty. Please consider this, that this is a game, it does not necessarily have to follow the path of real history. i take it, and you could rise the roof a bit, but they werent built in that moment not only by the treaty, but also for building technologies. I doubt to see a 70.000tn ship in 1920 sounds rasonable, but a 45.000 in 1925 is far than rasonable. And this limit not prevent to reaching faster to that values, but is much money and slow curve, maths should be donde but mybe a 70ktn in 1922 is imposible but a 55ktns is easy to reach if you want to expend in it. So G3 is reacheable for players and posible ai if its tunned. Even the 55ktns should be under the limits into 1925/26. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2020 17:01:14 GMT -6
Technologically it was possible to build a 70,000 ton ship. A ship of 1020 feet in length, 120 wide, 40 draught with four blades, turbine oil fired boilers, geared with a top speed of around 23 knots would work. Freeboard of around 35 feet. Armor weighing about 5000 tons with 9 x 15 inch guns, 12 x 6 in guns would fully loaded weight about 71,000 tons. Range in the neighborhood of around 6500 miles maybe 7000 miles. All this could be accomplished if the nation had the shipyard with the 150 foot wide dock. I believe that the US, Germany, possibly France and England did have such a capability. It would be a while for the Japanese to get to that point but they eventually did. Engine power needed for 23 knots might be about 70,000 to 80,000 SHP. The G3's which had an estimated top speed of 32 knots would have needed about 150,000 SHP.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaintrek on Sept 2, 2020 22:40:56 GMT -6
The whole point of the Maximum Battleships was that they represented the largest possible battleship that was (theoretically, at least) operationally practical to build in 1916. And these were not even the largest that might've been technologically possible, since the size of the Maximum Battleships were restricted by the locks of the Panama Canal.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 3, 2020 6:57:14 GMT -6
The whole point of the Maximum Battleships was that they represented the largest possible battleship that was (theoretically, at least) operationally practical to build in 1916. And these were not even the largest that might've been technologically possible, since the size of the Maximum Battleships were restricted by the locks of the Panama Canal. It was only the US that had restrictions on the width of ships passing through the Panama Canal, the width was 110 feet and usable length is 1000 feet. The rest of the world could use the Suez Canal and pass through the Red Sea and through the Indian Ocean. |
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Sept 3, 2020 11:47:18 GMT -6
The game is less about building what was but doing what could have been, as much as I would like much more realism in many areas things like dock size need that flexibility to let players explore the 'what if?' a bit more.
Jackie Fisher convinced the Admiralty to adopt a host of new ideas, what if I could convince them to go all in on hull size? etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 3, 2020 20:32:10 GMT -6
The game is less about building what was but doing what could have been, as much as I would like much more realism in many areas things like dock size need that flexibility to let players explore the 'what if?' a bit more. Jackie Fisher convinced the Admiralty to adopt a host of new ideas, what if I could convince them to go all in on hull size? etc. im not talking about of cap the values so hard, you can easy get a 50ktn in 20s, around the seize of proyect in that time. make a comparable 70ktn would be very empensive to the player, i will calculate if you can and how much expensive tomorrow. But im not convince that a 70ktns was fisible of construction in 20s, tensions are wide compared to a 20ktns, so many develpment were dont until something enought bigger were built and said that the treaty was the only cause of the lack of so big ships dont look to me rasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 3, 2020 20:43:49 GMT -6
I will leave this discussion to all the rest of you. As an aside, a good book on shipbuilding is "The Battleship Builders: Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships. Adieu.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 4, 2020 11:43:52 GMT -6
The game is less about building what was but doing what could have been, as much as I would like much more realism in many areas things like dock size need that flexibility to let players explore the 'what if?' a bit more. Jackie Fisher convinced the Admiralty to adopt a host of new ideas, what if I could convince them to go all in on hull size? etc. im not talking about of cap the values so hard, you can easy get a 50ktn in 20s, around the seize of proyect in that time. make a comparable 70ktn would be very empensive to the player, i will calculate if you can and how much expensive tomorrow. But im not convince that a 70ktns was fisible of construction in 20s, tensions are wide compared to a 20ktns, so many develpment were dont until something enought bigger were built and said that the treaty was the only cause of the lack of so big ships dont look to me rasonable. well mybe was a bit restrictive, getting X3 times to build the +2000tns. if you get X3 (6000) cost and X1.5 time (18 months) you can reach relative right values. if you do this every time without events giving you bonus like if you be over the (1885-year)*(-1250) line you can get: 1900 - 15000 1910 - 28333 1920 - 41666 1930 - 55000 1940 - 68333 1950 - 81666 1960 - 95000 Its expensive it looks rasonable |
|
