|
|
Post by seawolf on May 16, 2019 0:51:32 GMT -6
It's equal to the weight of the normal deck armor plus deck extended, but armored flight decks only cover the area over the hangars
|
|
|
|
Post by elouda on May 16, 2019 0:56:19 GMT -6
Its also much higher up, which is worse for stability, so perhaps thats part of the reason its more penalized?
|
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 16, 2019 1:18:02 GMT -6
Its also much higher up, which is worse for stability, so perhaps thats part of the reason its more penalized?
I guess that´s the reason. An armoured flightdeck means your ship becomes topheavy as hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 16, 2019 1:33:48 GMT -6
It's equal to the weight of the normal deck armor plus deck extended, but armored flight decks only cover the area over the hangars You need structure to support such heavy armour, I think this is the reason why it is so heavy.
I think that adding aircrafts with flying deck adds weight of hangar, all maintanence services, fuel etc. However when you need to add deck armour it means your flying deck weight more so you need more weight to support this.
There is no distinction between opened and closed hangar, the difference if flying deck is part of superstructure or hull as it is not as important so there some simplification and as a result there is need to think about so heavy armour on top and how i treated.
I have tried to simulate Illustrious class carrier and ti works quite well around real historical displacement. So it is perfect job.
|
|
