|
Post by seawolf on Aug 21, 2021 13:48:55 GMT -6
Wait, you can build cruisers with more than 4 seaplanes? How? Everytime I try to do that the game demands I classify it as an AV. Now one of the new construction rules has to do with TPS, where-in you are initially limited from Triple or Quad turrets in the A and Y positions because the extra space required for those larger batteries inhibits the available space needed for early torpedo protection. I also wanted to avoid the extra mass of the super-firing positions, so I wondered what a C/L/W would look like. I then thought I'd draw a visible base for the W (despite not wanting barbette weight) and after doing so I thought 'huh, I wonder how many floatplanes I could fit on this...'. Discovering the answer was 18 I decided here was my experimental ship, attempts to be a carrier and be armored enough to be close to the fighting and carry guns to attempt to participate. Delightfully mediocre on all counts. This seems quite questionable historically, given that the first and second classes of ships with triple 12" turrets had them in both A and Y positions. I can see the argument for quad turrets given that the Normandie class basically had the leading quad 13.4" turret in a B position, but she also had one in Y position. I certainly hope this new construction rule is optional
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Aug 21, 2021 14:39:44 GMT -6
Now one of the new construction rules has to do with TPS, where-in you are initially limited from Triple or Quad turrets in the A and Y positions because the extra space required for those larger batteries inhibits the available space needed for early torpedo protection. I also wanted to avoid the extra mass of the super-firing positions, so I wondered what a C/L/W would look like. I then thought I'd draw a visible base for the W (despite not wanting barbette weight) and after doing so I thought 'huh, I wonder how many floatplanes I could fit on this...'. So I know I'm not on the forum much these days (have mostly migrated to the discord), but some people on the disc are seriously questioning the historicity of this, esp for the triples. Additionally looks like a lot of triple turrets had the same barbette diameter as same caliber twin mounts per a post by user Jabajabajebejebe. Obviously to a degree it is too early to say cause the full mechanics haven't been revealed, but the historicity of this rule looks to be iffy. If the intent is to force a Teggethof level of bad TPS onto ships with a 3-2-2-3 layout, the poor TPS on the Teggethof had nothing to do with the turret layout. Edit: I just realized another disc user had already made a post...sigh. Oh well not gonna delete my post
|
|
|
Post by kriegsmeister on Aug 21, 2021 15:59:52 GMT -6
I want quintuple turrets!!
Seriously: I am wondering if technological development would have lead to this point, if the age of BB had lasted longer. With torpedo tubes it was very similar and lead to this point (or where there more than five tubes per mount?)
maybe oldpop: are you aware of some research or development about quintuples?
Not aware of any quintouple, but a few of the Tillman designs had hextouple 16in guns in 4 turrets for 24 guns As for the trip/quad TPS conundrum, I agree that it seems quite off, the Italian, austro-hungarian, and Russian early dreadnought with triple turrets did have pretty terrible tps, but every ship at their time had crappy tps in the late 1900s. The only other ships I'm aware of that opted for triple turrets in non AY positions are the Pensacolas and some of the Lexington BC designs. The main design consideration there wasn't TPS depth but having a narrower hull form fore and aft for a more hydrodynamic shape for better speeda.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Aug 21, 2021 21:03:08 GMT -6
Now one of the new construction rules has to do with TPS, where-in you are initially limited from Triple or Quad turrets in the A and Y positions because the extra space required for those larger batteries inhibits the available space needed for early torpedo protection. I also wanted to avoid the extra mass of the super-firing positions, so I wondered what a C/L/W would look like. I then thought I'd draw a visible base for the W (despite not wanting barbette weight) and after doing so I thought 'huh, I wonder how many floatplanes I could fit on this...'. So I know I'm not on the forum much these days (have mostly migrated to the discord), but some people on the disc are seriously questioning the historicity of this, esp for the triples. Additionally looks like a lot of triple turrets had the same barbette diameter as same caliber twin mounts per a post by user Jabajabajebejebe. Obviously to a degree it is too early to say cause the full mechanics haven't been revealed, but the historicity of this rule looks to be iffy. If the intent is to force a Teggethof level of bad TPS onto ships with a 3-2-2-3 layout, the poor TPS on the Teggethof had nothing to do with the turret layout. Edit: I just realized another disc user had already made a post...sigh. Oh well not gonna delete my post Not to worry. :] I'll ask around the shop and find the best answer for you.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Aug 22, 2021 0:54:49 GMT -6
If the intent is to force a Teggethof level of bad TPS onto ships with a 3-2-2-3 layout, the poor TPS on the Teggethof had nothing to do with the turret layout. Indeed. Popper knew about it,the k.u.k. did an underwater explosion test (although on mobile I cant check when exactly did this happen without my sources), the germans pointed this out and even showed their plans iirc to Koudelka. It is true that originally the Tegetthoffs were planned with a 3-2-2-3 layout and Montecuccoli pressed the 12 gun arrangement, but the main reason was that due to the ~20k floating dock, they HAD to sacrifice something, and it appears that Popper risked TDS depth. All in all, strictly speaking the reason was the crippling tonnage limitation, which is already in the game in a way. Now, if that feature could use sone detailing up, that is another matter. I feel like "bad TDS" is gated well enough with the Technology side of things currently. Apologies for the typos (train+mobile).
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 22, 2021 6:30:51 GMT -6
I want quintuple turrets!!
Seriously: I am wondering if technological development would have lead to this point, if the age of BB had lasted longer. With torpedo tubes it was very similar and lead to this point (or where there more than five tubes per mount?)
maybe oldpop: are you aware of some research or development about quintuples?
i think i heard Drach mention in one of his specials that gun barrels had to be separated by a certain amount so they can fire simultaneously without the gun blast interfering with shell trajectories
i would assume with barrel size increasing over time that separation would likely only increase, possibly leading to less barrels per turret to keep the hull width reasonable since minimum required max speed was also increasing over time
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 22, 2021 6:56:49 GMT -6
I want quintuple turrets!!
Seriously: I am wondering if technological development would have lead to this point, if the age of BB had lasted longer. With torpedo tubes it was very similar and lead to this point (or where there more than five tubes per mount?)
maybe oldpop: are you aware of some research or development about quintuples?
i think i heard Drach mention in one of his specials that gun barrels had to be separated by a certain amount so they can fire simultaneously without the gun blast interfering with shell trajectories
i would assume with barrel size increasing over time that separation would likely only increase, possibly leading to less barrels per turret to keep the hull width reasonable since minimum required max speed was also increasing over time
Yes, but I do not see a difference to quadruples here. Just adding one more compartement to a King George V turret should´nt change the blast system. But maybe the savings in weight would be countered by more complex shell transport systems etc.
Yamato-successor, 4 x 5 x 18"... lol!
The hull form / speed argument is valid, I think.
|
|
|
Post by silamon on Aug 22, 2021 19:10:31 GMT -6
I like the 4x2 layout. I just always thought it looked really classy. I do 3x3 sometimes or 2x2 and 2x3 layouts as well sometimes though.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 22, 2021 23:51:56 GMT -6
I like the 4x2 layout. I just always thought it looked really classy. I do 3x3 sometimes or 2x2 and 2x3 layouts as well sometimes though. For a BB/BC, assuming you have triple turret tech, I find 8 guns to be barely sufficient and 9 guns to be marginally OK. 6 is right out, not to mention 4. With 2x3 it's a) a semi-dreadnought (far from ideal), b) an undergunned all-forward BC (is it worth it?), or c) cannon fodder. It's difficult to justify a design that has limited offensive capability.
|
|
|
Post by silamon on Aug 22, 2021 23:55:43 GMT -6
I like the 4x2 layout. I just always thought it looked really classy. I do 3x3 sometimes or 2x2 and 2x3 layouts as well sometimes though. For a BB/BC, assuming you have triple turret tech, I find 8 guns to be barely sufficient and 9 guns to be marginally OK. 6 is right out, not to mention 4. With 2x3 it's a) a semi-dreadnought (far from ideal), b) an undergunned all-forward BC (is it worth it?), or c) cannon fodder. It's difficult to justify a design that has limited offensive capability. I meant a ship with 2x2 AND 2x3. As in, 10 guns total. Sorry if that was unclear.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Aug 23, 2021 10:43:42 GMT -6
Now one of the new construction rules has to do with TPS, where-in you are initially limited from Triple or Quad turrets in the A and Y positions because the extra space required for those larger batteries inhibits the available space needed for early torpedo protection. I also wanted to avoid the extra mass of the super-firing positions, so I wondered what a C/L/W would look like. I then thought I'd draw a visible base for the W (despite not wanting barbette weight) and after doing so I thought 'huh, I wonder how many floatplanes I could fit on this...'. So I know I'm not on the forum much these days (have mostly migrated to the discord), but some people on the disc are seriously questioning the historicity of this, esp for the triples. Additionally looks like a lot of triple turrets had the same barbette diameter as same caliber twin mounts per a post by user Jabajabajebejebe. Obviously to a degree it is too early to say cause the full mechanics haven't been revealed, but the historicity of this rule looks to be iffy. If the intent is to force a Teggethof level of bad TPS onto ships with a 3-2-2-3 layout, the poor TPS on the Teggethof had nothing to do with the turret layout. Edit: I just realized another disc user had already made a post...sigh. Oh well not gonna delete my post Okiiedoke, here is the sum of our discussion on the A/Y TPS rule. The rule is intended to inhibit the deployment of 3-gun-turret exclusive designs until their more historically accurate time of deployment. Team opinion is not unanimous on it however so other mechanisms to encourage historical designs and postpone the most advanced designs until their correct proximate epoch may be considered.
If Forum discussion on this is desired it would probably be most appropriate to start a new thread, given the OP.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 23, 2021 22:00:06 GMT -6
What prevented 3-gun turrets from being used more ubiquitously around WWI timeframe? The way I see it, there are several reasons:
1) Space and weight. I list both under one category because in many ways these notions are connected. D.K. Brown goes so far as to reason that space (topside and interior) was in fact the greater of the two limitations in capital ship design in the dreadnought era (can't find the exact quote on cue).
2) Justifiable lack of faith in the mechanical reliability of triple turrets.
3) "More eggs in one basket" argument against fewer triple turrets and in favor of non-superimposed or oddly superimposed (e.g. USS Wyoming) and/or midships turrets (e.g. USS New York or the original WWI-era HMS King George V).
This I feel can be translated into game mechanics fairly directly:
1) Make early triple turrets heavier, to the point where it's comparable to (or even worse than) the cost-effectiveness of fitting double turrets to achieve the same number of guns.
2) Make early triple turrets fail often, and make it explicit as a warning in the ship designer similarly to how we get warnings about rate-of-fire penalties in some situations.
3) Make mission kills on all turrets slightly more common, and make all turret jams take longer to clear.
|
|