|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 0:45:31 GMT -6
I can understand the refit time for warships that have armor need time to cut and weld entire armored areas to change out magazine capacity, but to make a case for Destroyers that are unarmored, is it still necessary having a 12 month refit time? Let's consider, as Destroyers compared to other warships including armored KE's, the space for their magazines are small combined with the fact they use no armor. Shouldnt take 12 months. You can almost build an entire DD in that time. And don't argue they couldn't just stow extra ammo anywhere or add ballast to those that were removed because they weighed only 55lbs per shell for a 5" gun. a couple guys can carry an extra 20 rounds in a few minutes and replace the ammo that's been expended in the magazine area from extra stowage somewhere else.
I'd like to see the next update for altering main ammo on Destroyers changed to no additional refit time. What do you guys think? Am I off base here?
|
|
|
Post by namuras on May 30, 2019 1:01:49 GMT -6
I can understand the refit time for warships that have armor need time to cut and weld entire armored areas to change out magazine capacity, but to make a case for Destroyers that are unarmored, is it still necessary having a 12 month refit time? Let's consider, as Destroyers compared to other warships including armored KE's, the space for their magazines are small combined with the fact they use no armor. Shouldnt take 12 months. You can almost build an entire DD in that time. And don't argue they couldn't just stow extra ammo anywhere or add ballast to those that were removed because they weighed only 55lbs per shell for a 5" gun. a couple guys can carry an extra 20 rounds in a few minutes and replace the ammo that's been expended in the magazine area from extra stowage somewhere else. I'd like to see the next update for altering main ammo on Destroyers changed to no additional refit time. What do you guys think? Am I off base here? While i'd agree that reducing ammo should not require extensive rebuilding (and not free / free less tonnage for other systems) i'd say that adding ammo should. Even if a DD isn't armored, space is a premium especially on small boats like DDs. So increasing ammo stowage so that i can be handled by hoists etc is a bit more than dropping some boxes of shells in the messroom for later use.
From a gameplay / balance side it makes sense tho... you can't "store" tonnage in ammo anymore.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 30, 2019 1:56:53 GMT -6
I can understand the refit time for warships that have armor need time to cut and weld entire armored areas to change out magazine capacity, but to make a case for Destroyers that are unarmored, is it still necessary having a 12 month refit time? Let's consider, as Destroyers compared to other warships including armored KE's, the space for their magazines are small combined with the fact they use no armor. Shouldnt take 12 months. You can almost build an entire DD in that time. And don't argue they couldn't just stow extra ammo anywhere or add ballast to those that were removed because they weighed only 55lbs per shell for a 5" gun. a couple guys can carry an extra 20 rounds in a few minutes and replace the ammo that's been expended in the magazine area from extra stowage somewhere else. I'd like to see the next update for altering main ammo on Destroyers changed to no additional refit time. What do you guys think? Am I off base here? To prevent exploit where you would "store" weight in ammo and later reuse it in refit to add other components, which was very common in RTW1.
Also, as ammo weight is not only ammo but also structures for holding them, freeing that tonnage require extensive refit.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 2:26:38 GMT -6
So the refit time to change 20 rounds of 16" caliber ammo weighing 2,700 lbs each inside a tightly engineered and armored turret weighing thousands of tons nestled into a heavily armored Deck and Belt takes 12 months, but changing 20 rounds of 5" shells weighing 55 lbs each inside an unarmored destroyer takes the same amount of time? lol
History laughs at you!
"Dated May 25 and delivered by plane while the Yorktown was about a hundred miles from Oahu, the report that Nimitz read was sobering. A 551-pound armor-piercing bomb had plunged through the flight deck 15 feet inboard of her island and penetrated fifty feet into the ship before exploding above the forward engine room. Six compartments were destroyed, as were the lighting systems on three decks and across 24 frames. The gears controlling the No. 2 elevator were damaged. She had lost her radar and refrigeration system. Near misses by eight bombs had opened seams in her hull from frames 100 to 130 and ruptured the fuel-oil compartments. Rear Adm. Aubrey Fitch, aboard the damaged carrier, estimated that repairing the Yorktown would take ninety days in drydock." Done in 3 days and kicked Japanese ass in the Battle of Midway days later.
|
|
|
Post by primeflux on May 30, 2019 4:11:02 GMT -6
Well, it is not a matter of the actually welding and other construction changes. It is about the Bureaucracy, you know the right forms must be submitted to the right department of the bureau od ship-design in atleast 3 signed exemplar. Then the change need to be evaluated, approved and an technical specification can be produced. First then can the process of procurement the actually work begin. As you can see we are lucky it gets done in 12 month...
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 30, 2019 4:28:57 GMT -6
So the refit time to change 20 rounds of 16" caliber ammo weighing 2,700 lbs each inside a tightly engineered and armored turret weighing thousands of tons nestled into a heavily armored Deck and Belt takes 12 months, but changing 20 rounds of 5" shells weighing 55 lbs each inside an unarmored destroyer takes the same amount of time? lol History laughs at you! "Dated May 25 and delivered by plane while the Yorktown was about a hundred miles from Oahu, the report that Nimitz read was sobering. A 551-pound armor-piercing bomb had plunged through the flight deck 15 feet inboard of her island and penetrated fifty feet into the ship before exploding above the forward engine room. Six compartments were destroyed, as were the lighting systems on three decks and across 24 frames. The gears controlling the No. 2 elevator were damaged. She had lost her radar and refrigeration system. Near misses by eight bombs had opened seams in her hull from frames 100 to 130 and ruptured the fuel-oil compartments. Rear Adm. Aubrey Fitch, aboard the damaged carrier, estimated that repairing the Yorktown would take ninety days in drydock." Done in 3 days and kicked Japanese ass in the Battle of Midway days later. How often you reduce amount of shells in DD? I mentioned it is mechanic to prevent exploit on all ships, used as one size fit all to cut the amount of coding work.
And Yorktown was not repaired in 3 days. It was patched up. Even if she was not damaged at Midway, I would expect those "repairs" would have put her in drydock for a much longer than 90 days originally expected. As she was sunk, we will never know.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 5:14:32 GMT -6
Yorktown is an anecdotal case of apples and oranges. Your argument on 'coding work' and 'exploits' are not. But they are, like Yorktown, pretty leaky. 1st of all, if I want to repurpose an ammo area into additional bunk storage, I can do that. That won't take 12 months on a DD. I can see it taking longer on a ship like a BB that's armored and all. 2nd, there is no equivalence in logic that can back your argument that it takes an equal amount of time on a DD as a BB as in my OP to move around 20 rounds. Go ahead and argue that. I'd love to be wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 30, 2019 6:21:13 GMT -6
Not sure why you brought up Yorktown in the first place but you are right on your main point, it probably doesn't make sense that it would take the same amount of time to restructure unarmored compartments on a destroyer that it would to do on the armored magazine of a battleship. I only say probably because I don't know of any historical examples for reference.
It's most likely the case that the developer had a limited amount of time to work on this feature so he made a one size fits all solution and moved on to more important things. Add the idea to the suggestion sub-folder. Not saying it would be a priority but over the lifetime of RTW1 several changes were made specifically because they were requested by the players. This one will hopefully be doable as well.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 30, 2019 6:49:42 GMT -6
I'm going to go in a slight tangent here and throw a question to the air:
Why is that so many people put up an argument with some points, then ask for feedback, and when feedback disagrees with their initial point of view proceed to ignore and discard it as unworthy or directly stupid?.
As for the topic itself, cutting up a ship to reach the most vital parts of the ship's most sacrosanctum guts (those parts that go BOOM with caps if anything wrong happens to them) so you can work on them to either enlarge the space or shrink it usually isn't the fastest thing you can do. Generally speaking, changing those spaces isn't the fastest thing to do either as there are many things like ammo handling mechanisms, safety mechanisms, etc, that will need to be changed. And then you have to patch the ship up and close the hole you made to reach them to then make sure everything works properly...which (there seems to be a trend here) isn't what one would consider a "speedy" process either.
I'll further comment that if the starting idea is And don't argue they couldn't just stow extra ammo anywhere we already began with a very awkward point; because not only it couldn't be done (not at least in a ship that wasn't excited by the possible prospect of getting improperly stored ammo going off), is that it seems that pointing that out is like some kind of crime because it doesn't match the OP's view of reality.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 6:58:36 GMT -6
<snip> As for the topic itself, cutting up a ship to reach the most vital parts of the ship's most sacrosanctum guts (those parts that go BOOM with caps if anything wrong happens to them) so you can work on them to either enlarge the space or shrink it usually isn't the fastest thing you can do. Generally speaking, changing those spaces isn't the fastest thing to do either as there are many things like ammo handling mechanisms, safety mechanisms, etc, that will need to be changed. And then you have to patch the ship up and close the hole you made to reach them to then make sure everything works properly...which (there seems to be a trend here) isn't what one would consider a "speedy" process either. I'll further comment that if the starting idea is And don't argue they couldn't just stow extra ammo anywhere we already began with a very awkward point; because not only it couldn't be done (not at least in a ship that wasn't excited by the possible prospect of getting improperly stored ammo going off), is that it seems that pointing that out is like some kind of crime because it doesn't match the OP's view of reality. So you're arguing that there's an equivalency in the amount of time between a DD and a BB when reworking 20 rounds? I just want to get this straight, ramjb. One has a shell that weighs 55lbs and the other 2700lbs. One has an ammo bin that can be converted into bunk areas and the other is buried under Deck and Belt armor engineered into the Turret that weighs as much as some CL's. Let's not discount the time to build a DD is about the same time it takes to weld together a new magazine box in RTW2. They both shouldnt take 12 months. I'm going to further agree with archelaos and say the coders did it to be quick and easy, not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 30, 2019 8:07:23 GMT -6
No, I'm arguing that if you make a point in a forum where you're looking for feedback you're not expected to, already pre-emptively, discard that feedback outright and judge it as invalid from the get go.
As for the rest... I'll just make one brief comment because at this point it's clear you're not in the mood or disposition to read anything that doesn't fully agree with your ideas and accept it as valid:
A lot of warship rebuilds, historical ones, took similar time (if not longer in some cases) to complete than what it took to originally build the ship. Any change on a design that went beyond superficial changes literally took years. Just barebone refits consisting on general mainteinance work to overhaul a ship without further drastic changes to the design could take half a year with ease, if not more.
What you are pointing as a flaw or proof of how "wrong" the system is, actually points at it being pretty close to reality.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 8:50:29 GMT -6
No, I'm arguing that if you make a point in a forum where you're looking for feedback you're not expected to, already pre-emptively, discard that feedback outright and judge it as invalid from the get go. As for the rest... I'll just make one brief comment because at this point it's clear you're not in the mood or disposition to read anything that doesn't fully agree with your ideas and accept it as valid: A lot of warship rebuilds, historical ones, took similar time (if not longer in some cases) to complete than what it took to originally build the ship. Any change on a design that went beyond superficial changes literally took years. Just barebone refits consisting on general mainteinance work to overhaul a ship without further drastic changes to the design could take half a year with ease, if not more. What you are pointing as a flaw or proof of how "wrong" the system is, actually points at it being pretty close to reality. You saying I pre-emptively discard feedback is a non sequitur because I'm not prescient and have read and responded to others comments, and my OP was a request for debate. In the course of the normal back and forth, yes, I discount dumb ideas without calling the posters dumb. We are allowed to say dumb things, yes? I do all the time. I probably just did. Onward now, as an apples and oranges thing, the carriers Hancock and Ticonderoga, Essex class carriers, were built (laid down to launched) in 12 months. So you're going to argue that changing a magazine capacity of a DD to the tune of 12 months is equivalent to doing the same in a BB? I just want to understand that that is what you're saying, yes?
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 8:58:20 GMT -6
A lot of warship rebuilds, historical ones, took similar time (if not longer in some cases) to complete than what it took to originally build the ship. Any change on a design that went beyond superficial changes literally took years. Just barebone refits consisting on general mainteinance work to overhaul a ship without further drastic changes to the design could take half a year with ease, if not more. More to the point, some Cleveland Class CL's were built in 12-14 months and the refit time to turn them into CVL's of the Independence class took 12 months, not years as you claim for historical ones. So let me ask you again, you're going to say altering the magazine on a DD takes as long as refitting a CL to a CVL? oooooookay!
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 30, 2019 9:14:51 GMT -6
More to the point, you're listing incorrect facts, which only shows up to which point you're talking and making statements about a topic you don't really understand,
Naming the full build time of warships for the nation in the world with the fastest warship building output in the history of mankind at the height of a world war is a bad point to begin making more down-to-earth comparisons of what was normal for fleets of the time, specially on peacetime refits.
By that standard I could go on and name how Japan got half-built Ibuki under reconstruction to convert her into a carrier, yet never finished the work, or how the germans did the same with Seydlitz, and use those as "proof" of how long rebuilds took - completely foregoing the circunstancial (yet vital) fact that Ibuki's and Seydlitz's conversions were attempted at a moment in time when Japanese and German resources were strained to the extreme so they could hardly get anything so complex completed in anything resembling reasonable time. That'd be as much "proof" as your instances of Hancok or Ticonderoga...meaning, no proof at all.
But on top of that you're making some exceedingly wild statements that have absolutely no fundament. You're even stating "completion times" counting from date of laid down to launch, when anyone with a slight idea about naval construction knows that a ship is far from completed at launch, as the whole process of fitting out the ship, building the superstructures, etc, is not done yet by that stage.
Beyond that, you go and even make even more wild statements that hold no water. For instance, no Cleveland class was "refitted" into a CVL of the independence class. They were either picked while under construction in the yards at an early enough stage and finished to the Independence CVL design (the first ships of the class), or were laid down already as CVLs from the get go (the later ships in the class).
Every one of those ships was comissioned into the navy already as a carrier and several of them were already laid down as such. None of them was "refitted to turn them into CVLs".
As such, the time you mention was needed to "turn them into CVLs of the independence class" I don't know wether you got from. I don't know if you just made it up on the fly, you're incorrectly remembering something you read somewhere, or what, but it's hard to understand what kind of source is telling you that it only took 12 months to turn a completed Cleveland class cruiser into an Independence CVL, when no ship went through that conversion, ever, so there hardly can be any data detailing the time it took for that conversion to happen.
I highly question which is the point of keeping this up when you simply don't want to hear that what you think is right is not, and when you don't fully understand the topic you're making an argument about, so I'm wondering what sense this topic has, as it is plain to see that there's no point in furthering a debate that is not such.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 9:44:54 GMT -6
More to the point, you're listing incorrect facts, which only shows up to which point you're talking and making statements about a topic you don't really understand, Naming the full build time of warships for the nation in the world with the fastest warship building output in the history of mankind at the height of a world war is a bad point to begin making more down-to-earth comparisons of what was normal for the rest of nations, specially on peacetime refits. Look, ramjb, I already showed your statement that it took 'years' to make changes to a ship completely false. Then you say I dont understand. And then you go on to say I'm using a bad example as the U.S. to prove my point. Well, how about Italy? They didn't have the uber warship building prowess of the U.S. lol. Hell, it takes 4 hours just to eat dinner over there! The Artigliere was a Soldati-class destroyer that was built in 10 months. So I think I 'understand' that what I'm laying out debunks your claims. I'm gonna have to apologize for not reading the rest of your post because you lost credibility having told me I dont get it, and frankly that just made me not want to read it. If you want to address this point, then I'll agree to continue to pick it up, but no personal attacks against either of us, okay? Here's the point. If you want to change out 20 rounds in a DD, it shouldnt take 12 months when I've cited as many examples as above. Argue those points, of which I'm waiting for you to do conclusively with facts, as I've provided multiple times, and not just using blanket, obtuse generalities. Facts, bro.
|
|