|
Post by Airy W on Oct 21, 2018 19:49:12 GMT -6
I like the narrow focus because it makes the game very good at what it does.
|
|
|
Post by scarletstorm on Nov 8, 2018 22:21:09 GMT -6
I'd say 1960 is a good stopping point if the devs ever extend the game beyond 1950 as the extra 10 years adds abit more time to really get those large experimental designs out and test them. As I have been stopped in the middle of a war several times by the time limit and have never gotten to use said ships.
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Nov 14, 2018 20:16:01 GMT -6
I'd say 1960 is a good stopping point if the devs ever extend the game beyond 1950 as the extra 10 years adds abit more time to really get those large experimental designs out and test them. As I have been stopped in the middle of a war several times by the time limit and have never gotten to use said ships. I'd agree, as it wasn't until nearly 1960 that the nature of the naval game really changed with the arrival of long-ranged AA missiles(1958, Galveston class) and AsHM's(1958, Kildin class).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 15, 2018 3:28:19 GMT -6
In regards to technological progress you might well be right. The point of my posts however is my desire for the option to "stretch out" the technological development of 1900-1950 (and gameplay) over more than 50*12=600 one month turns. I want to be able to choose to play 6000 one month turns, or 1200 or...
I'd say 1960 is a good stopping point if the devs ever extend the game beyond 1950 as the extra 10 years adds abit more time to really get those large experimental designs out and test them. As I have been stopped in the middle of a war several times by the time limit and have never gotten to use said ships.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Nov 21, 2018 14:35:55 GMT -6
I feel like 1900-1950 really cuts across the eras that should divide games. 1890-1925: artillery era 1925-1965: detection and remote strikes era 1965-present: electronic warfare era
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Nov 23, 2018 13:25:03 GMT -6
I feel like 1900-1950 really cuts across the eras that should divide games. 1890-1925: artillery era 1925-1965: detection and remote strikes era 1965-present: electronic warfare era I think what makes the game potentially very interesting is covering different eras where you have to take hard decisions right in the middle without knowing if the Carrier or the Battleship is the best investment.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Nov 30, 2018 16:27:56 GMT -6
How far will new technologies go, anyway? Just to jets and missiles or up to nuclear propulsion?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 30, 2018 16:47:17 GMT -6
Having not seen or heard any conversation which brought up nuclear propulsion, I would offer the informed speculation that the delicately crafted formula that Fredrik has come up with to model ship construction would be too far constrained by having to offer cover nuclear.
Besides, do we want to take the time to model the proper side-effects of a 16-inch shell detonating in a plutonium pile? I'd lean towards avoiding that.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Nov 30, 2018 18:46:58 GMT -6
I think the 16" shell + reactor core would be a great kamikaze mission!
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 30, 2018 19:17:36 GMT -6
Besides, do we want to take the time to model the proper side-effects of a 16-inch shell detonating in a plutonium pile? I'd lean towards avoiding that. RtW3 - Nuclear BBs! Not actually as implausible as it sounds, wasn't the first nuclear sub launched in 1954? (Going from memory, could be off by a decade.....) and had the world been a different place where the only two remaining powers with a decent navy weren't close allies, BBs could well have been around for a bit longer - although whether new-build BBs had a place in a world where the main strike weapon was radar-enabled jets with air-to-surface missiles is another question entirely.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2018 21:43:37 GMT -6
Having not seen or heard any conversation which brought up nuclear propulsion, I would offer the informed speculation that the delicately crafted formula that Fredrik has come up with to model ship construction would be too far constrained by having to offer cover nuclear. Besides, do we want to take the time to model the proper side-effects of a 16-inch shell detonating in a plutonium pile? I'd lean towards avoiding that. Actually, nothing would happen if a 16-inch shell hit a pile of plutonium. The plutonium would just be scattered like any particle of matter. Now, if you hit the cooling plant for the nuclear power system of a ship and the nuclear reactor doesn't scram, ich! The meltdown would be something to see.... but not experience.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 1, 2018 12:13:58 GMT -6
Having not seen or heard any conversation which brought up nuclear propulsion, I would offer the informed speculation that the delicately crafted formula that Fredrik has come up with to model ship construction would be too far constrained by having to offer cover nuclear. Besides, do we want to take the time to model the proper side-effects of a 16-inch shell detonating in a plutonium pile? I'd lean towards avoiding that. Actually, nothing would happen if a 16-inch shell hit a pile of plutonium. The plutonium would just be scattered like any particle of matter. Now, if you hit the cooling plant for the nuclear power system of a ship and the nuclear reactor doesn't scram, ich! The meltdown would be something to see.... but not experience. Designers might have gone so far as to allow for emergency seawater flooding and "China Syndrome" like ejection (or self-drop by melt-through) of the reactors fuel rods...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 1, 2018 12:29:20 GMT -6
Actually, nothing would happen if a 16-inch shell hit a pile of plutonium. The plutonium would just be scattered like any particle of matter. Now, if you hit the cooling plant for the nuclear power system of a ship and the nuclear reactor doesn't scram, ich! The meltdown would be something to see.... but not experience. Designers might have gone so far as to allow for emergency seawater flooding and "China Syndrome" like ejection (or self-drop by melt-through) of the reactors fuel rods... Those emergency procedures had better be quick if I remember my nuclear science. I would have to research but you could be correct because I can't believe anyone is that stupid.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 1, 2018 14:47:00 GMT -6
I suppose a reactor assembly would have to be deep below the waterline and surrounded by enough armour to sink a ship (rather defeats the point, doesn't it?). Probably these measures wouldn't be worth it.
Also, all ejecting a critical mass of burning plutonium into the sea would do is create a thermonuclear explosion, even worse than a normal explosion. Think Chernobyl x10.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 1, 2018 18:56:07 GMT -6
Also, all ejecting a critical mass of burning plutonium into the sea would do is create a thermonuclear explosion, even worse than a normal explosion. Think Chernobyl x10. It is extremely unlikely for any form of reactor failure to produce a nuclear explosion of any description, unless by "nuclear explosion" you mean a hydrogen or steam explosion which scatters fission byproducts and potentially nuclear fuel from the reactor. No remotely-normal reactor plant has a sufficient density of fissile material in the fuel to develop a supercritical mass of the kind necessary to produce the runaway cascades of fission and fusion events which generate nuclear and thermonuclear explosions - even nuclear weaponry can only produce that kind of mass with the aid of specially-shaped charges of high explosives exerting extreme pressures on masses of fissile and fusile material (thermonuclear devices, also called fusion or hydrogen bombs, typically use a fission bomb to initiate fusion) - and if you're at the point where burning or molten reactor fuel is melting through the bottom of the ship then you're well past the point of worrying about an explosion of steam or hydrogen damaging or destroying whatever's left of the ship and the long-term effect of radioative material contaminating the hull or being released into the atmosphere. Flooding the reactor is very unlikely to be worse than not doing so, and if it's enough to keep the material mostly contained within the hull then it's probably a win overall. Moreover, so far as I am aware, all nuclear plants used on warships of the United States Navy are water-cooled and partially water-moderated anyways, and as such adding more water to the reactor in an attempt to prevent the fuel from melting or forming a mass in which runaway fission reactions can occur will never be particularly wrong.
Also, "thermonuclear explosion" implies nuclear fusion is occurring, but it is extremely difficult to induce fusion outside of special circumstances; merely dumping a runaway fission pile into the sea probably won't do it, especially since seawater is mostly 1H (protium, by far the most common isotope of hydrogen in nature) and heavier elements, rather than the almost-vanishingly-rare-in-nature 2H (deuterium) and 3H (tritium) isotopes in which fusion is more easily induced. Unless your reactor has a very unusual design, the pile probably wouldn't be capable of causing any significant nuclear fusion event even if you dumped it in heavy water, which has been specifically processed to contain abnormally-high concentrations of deuterium and tritium, is a common moderator for fission reactions, and likely lacks most of the heavier-element impurities commonly found in less heavily processed water. No nuclear power plant to date has experienced a fission or fusion explosion; the worst nuclear power plant accidents on record - those at Chernobyl and Fukushima - were explosions of steam or hydrogen caused, in essence, by cooling system failures and uncontrolled more or less self-sustaining fission reactions in the nuclear fuel which nevertheless occurred at far too low a rate for the release of energy by nuclear decay to produce a nuclear explosion.
A final comment - any operational nuclear reactor contains a critical mass of fissile material, which becomes temporarily supercritical or subcritical as the positions of control and fuel rods are adjusted (whatever fluid you use as a coolant for the reactor can also have a moderating effect on the mass, so I suppose in theory you could also control reaction rate by varying the composition of the coolant). "Critical mass" is merely the equilibrium point of the reaction - the density of fissile material at which the rate of induced fission reactions will neither increase nor decrease if the system is left alone.
|
|