Post by psyden on Apr 14, 2019 18:39:11 GMT -6
There are some options that I think would add interesting variance to designing a ship, though I don't know if they'd be difficult to implement.
One is the length:width ratio of a ship. It needn't even be something like defining the exact ratio, either. Something like a long/narrow, normal, and short/wide would provide an interesting dynamic, I think. The purpose would be for speed vs maneuverability. A ship that is long and narrow would be faster in a straight line, but would have a larger turning radius and lose more speed in the turn. Meanwhile, a short, wide ship would have a smaller turning radius and keep more of its speed while turning, but be slower overall, for a given power output.
Bow shapes also would contribute to different performance, like the Atlantic Bow allowing for more speed in rough weather, but not allowing forward guns to fire at closer targets that were dead ahead unless they were in the super-firing position. Inverted Bows allowed for higher calm water speeds, but were wetter in rough weather and lacked reserve buoyancy, meaning bow leaks were more dangerous.
Cruiser vs Transom Sterns would also provide some visual distinctions, though I am less clear on the advantages and disadvantages of each. I know the Transom offered weight savings, and I believe it had similar performance as the Cruiser at certain speeds, though the Cruiser had better all speed performance (though I could be wrong on this last part).
Double stacked boilers and wide belts. Taken from one of the more serious design proposals of the Lexington class Battle Cruiser before its final design (specifically, the 7 funnel design), double stacked boilers would allow for more speed at the expense of midships turrets and more vulnerable engines. Wide belts would help mitigate this vulnerability, but would come at the cost of weight.
Centerline secondary turrets. I've had issues with secondary turrets, specifically when I have enough spare weight for 12 guns in quadruple mounts, or 10 in twin, ect. Ideally, I'd like to have the same control over secondaries as primaries, and I know better placement of secondaries is listed, but I haven't seen to what extent. In RTW, I usually limit my torpedo tube refits to the first 2 broadside mounts because if I do any of the others, the launchers can wind up under my secondaries (this is mostly a problem with older ships, as I'd have more turrets due to less available barrels per turret).
Having internal bulkheads as seen on French battleships of the Dunkique and later classes would be a plus, but I understand that that is niche. Same with the Ferrati quintuple turret. That, I think would be lower on the list than 20-inch guns, like those planned for the Super Yamatos.
Quintuple torpedo tubes, however, were actually built and I wouldn't be opposed to setting them.
Whether one, some, none, or all of these are put into the game, however, I'm sure I'm going to enjoy it immensely.
One is the length:width ratio of a ship. It needn't even be something like defining the exact ratio, either. Something like a long/narrow, normal, and short/wide would provide an interesting dynamic, I think. The purpose would be for speed vs maneuverability. A ship that is long and narrow would be faster in a straight line, but would have a larger turning radius and lose more speed in the turn. Meanwhile, a short, wide ship would have a smaller turning radius and keep more of its speed while turning, but be slower overall, for a given power output.
Bow shapes also would contribute to different performance, like the Atlantic Bow allowing for more speed in rough weather, but not allowing forward guns to fire at closer targets that were dead ahead unless they were in the super-firing position. Inverted Bows allowed for higher calm water speeds, but were wetter in rough weather and lacked reserve buoyancy, meaning bow leaks were more dangerous.
Cruiser vs Transom Sterns would also provide some visual distinctions, though I am less clear on the advantages and disadvantages of each. I know the Transom offered weight savings, and I believe it had similar performance as the Cruiser at certain speeds, though the Cruiser had better all speed performance (though I could be wrong on this last part).
Double stacked boilers and wide belts. Taken from one of the more serious design proposals of the Lexington class Battle Cruiser before its final design (specifically, the 7 funnel design), double stacked boilers would allow for more speed at the expense of midships turrets and more vulnerable engines. Wide belts would help mitigate this vulnerability, but would come at the cost of weight.
Centerline secondary turrets. I've had issues with secondary turrets, specifically when I have enough spare weight for 12 guns in quadruple mounts, or 10 in twin, ect. Ideally, I'd like to have the same control over secondaries as primaries, and I know better placement of secondaries is listed, but I haven't seen to what extent. In RTW, I usually limit my torpedo tube refits to the first 2 broadside mounts because if I do any of the others, the launchers can wind up under my secondaries (this is mostly a problem with older ships, as I'd have more turrets due to less available barrels per turret).
Having internal bulkheads as seen on French battleships of the Dunkique and later classes would be a plus, but I understand that that is niche. Same with the Ferrati quintuple turret. That, I think would be lower on the list than 20-inch guns, like those planned for the Super Yamatos.
Quintuple torpedo tubes, however, were actually built and I wouldn't be opposed to setting them.
Whether one, some, none, or all of these are put into the game, however, I'm sure I'm going to enjoy it immensely.
