|
Post by ramjb on May 30, 2019 9:49:15 GMT -6
I already showed your statement that it took 'years' to make changes to a ship completely false.
Nowhere you did that. I could go on and make a list of ships that went through refits historically to show up to which extent you're off the mark here, but you obviously don't really want to see anything that counters your position, so I'll save myself the trouble.
The rest of your post is precisely the same kind of inaccurate stuff you've been posting up to this point, no need to further go there when it's meaningless to do so: you have your own mind made up about how things were, and when told that you're listing incorrect, out of context, or downright wrong facts, your comeback is saying "I showed you wrong"...when all you did was to list incorrect, out of context, or downright wrong facts.
Yeah, no sense in keeping this "discussion" up. You just don't want to have any if that means getting your point of view changed, so have it your way. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 30, 2019 10:08:53 GMT -6
dizzy forget about this other argument, it's not related to your topic... It's just derailing your main point, which I think is a good one to discuss. Cheers!
I agree that DD refits for ammo taking 12 months are bizarre. I don't even think BB ammo refits are going to take 12 months. I don't know historical precedents, so I'll let others weight on in on that (but considering a ship can get fully repaired in four months, I doubt it takes three times that for an ammo refit).
This is mostly to stop the gamey tactic of adding ammo for extra space and removing it later. I don't think there's a strong justification for it otherwise. I think it would make sense to have this ship type-dependent (DD 6, CL 8, CA 10, BB/BC 12). However, as it is only a suggestion for improvement, it's up to Fredrik. He may like the strict interpretation.
Below is the best answer, let's read it again!
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 dizzy on May 30, 2019 10:12:34 GMT -6
ramjb, the Independence CVL-22 was converted from a CL. The Amsterdam was already being built as a CL when it was 'refitted' to a CVL. It's pointless to argue with you, ramjb if you're incorrectly going to state facts time and again.
If you want to get back to the issue, a DD is not equivalent to a BB for a 12 month refit when you want to change 20 rounds. 12 weeks maybe.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 10:21:09 GMT -6
dizzy forget about this other argument, it's not related to your topic... It's just derailing your main point, which I think is a good one to discuss. Cheers!
I agree that DD refits for ammo taking 12 months are bizarre. I don't even think BB ammo refits are going to take 12 months. I don't know historical precedents, so I'll let others weight on in on that (but considering a ship can get fully repaired in four months, I doubt it takes three times that for an ammo refit).
This is mostly to stop the gamey tactic of adding ammo for extra space and removing it later. I don't think there's a strong justification for it otherwise. I think it would make sense to have this ship type-dependent (DD 6, CL 8, CA 10, BB/BC 12). However, as it is only a suggestion for improvement, it's up to Fredrik. He may like the strict interpretation.
Below is the best answer, let's read it again!
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. Good points all. The issue I think is the 'gamey' tactic of adding a whole buncha ammo so you can refit with better stuff. I don't do that. If you can't not take advantage of stupid tricks, you're beyond help. In fact, we can edit possessions on the map and make the whole world ours. Would that be fun? Well... maybe once! From what I hear, Fredrik addressed the issue to fix an exploit. But what if he had an alternative? For any particular 'gun' and per ship class, wouldn't there be an upper limit on the most reasonable amount of ammo on board, historically speaking in number of rounds? The game lets you add 250 rounds on any gun. Maybe that needs to change? So up the average ships stored by 20% and put a cap on it instead of addressing the problem as an equivalency between BB and DD when changing 5 rounds and getting 12 months refit time.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 30, 2019 10:30:21 GMT -6
It'd be polite if you stop referring to me when I've already stated I'm leaving the discussion. It's what well manered people tend to do. Because doing it again listing even more wrong information to try to somehow discredit what I've wrote is, obviously, going to pull me back, if you go and adress me only to state invented and made up stuff as this: Begun as light cruiser Amsterdam, CL-59, she was launched as CV-22 on 22 August 1942 by New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, New Jersey, sponsored by Mrs. Dorothy Warner, wife of Rawleigh Warner, Sr, Chairman of Pure Oil Co., and commissioned 14 January 1943, Captain G. R. Fairlamb, Jr., in command.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(CVL-22)USS Amsterdam was laid down as a cruiser and, while in the early stages of her construction, it was decided to complete her to the new CVL design. The ship when launched was already a CV, with the flight deck on place. She was never converted from a light cruiser, because she never was built as one to begin with. No complete Cleveland (none, zero, nada) was ever taken into a shipyard and converted into a CVL. None. Ever. What I said about the Independence class CVLs: 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).
What YOU said about the Independence class CVLs:
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 monthsMeaning, according to you it first took 12-14 months to build a cleveland, and then a further 12 months time to turn the already completed ship into an Independence class CV. Completely wrong: there never was such a refit. Independences were either picked on the yard in the very early stages of their construction so they could be completed to the CVL design with almost no modification to the already completed work, or were laid down as such. The "12 month" timeframe that you state it took to convert a Cleveland into an Independence is something that you simply made up. It's based on absolutely no source, data, or real world event because, simply stated, it never happened. That somehow you're trying to come up as being right all along just furthens out my point about how little you want to hear anything that doesn't confirm something you're wrong about. THere's nothing bad about being wrong - we all are at some point or another. What's bad is that when someone tells you that you are wrong, you go on a loop insisting that you were right all along. And what's beyond unqualifiable is that you even go on and try to state that whoever corrected your mistake is the one making inaccurate statements. I have to give you that, you truly have some nerve to write that. But once again, whatever floats your boat, and once again ,I bid you a good day, and this time I politely ask you to leave me alone, as one should do when others state they're leaving the discussion. Specially if you're going to go and write the kind of BS you just wrote there and use it to somehow state that I "incorrectly state facts".
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 10:38:43 GMT -6
USS Amsterdam was laid down as a cruiser and, while in the early stages of her construction, it was decided to complete her to the new CVL conversion design. Thanks for proving my point. Yes it took 12 months to refit it as a CVL as I said. So if you're going to completely change a ship, and end up with a carrier when you started with a CL, it can't possibly take the SAME amount of time to change 5 rounds in a DD.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 30, 2019 10:40:01 GMT -6
...I give up.
Someone please enlighten this guy, if you're up to the useless task, because I'm completely done with him.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 30, 2019 10:42:33 GMT -6
It is certainly true that removing 5, 20, or even much more ammo from the DD will not take much more than the decision to simply not take them on board. But are you really gonna get 10-15 tons of extra displacement by taking away say, 50 50pound shells? The same applies to BBs, its probably not hard to squeeze in a ton or two by carrying less shell without any structural rework, but you wont get the weight cut you are looking for without substantial reconstruction.
That being said though, the current reconstruction time would've still be too long for a DD, but I get the feeling that to fully take advantage of a smaller magazine area, a lot of things would've to be shuffled around given the very limited space on a DD.
With all the above considered, I think its probably not a bad idea make DD's ammo refit cost less $ and time, but not necessarily insanely short either. At the same time, I believe both adding and reducing ammos on most armoured ships should take about as much time as done currently, since while it is easy to simply take less ammo on board, to get significant weight savings you pretty much had to redo the magazine area.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 11:01:53 GMT -6
Here's a good argument against it. mycophobia, the issue was refit cost and time. Dock space was probably an issue too. Who would give up valuable dock time to swap around space for a few more rounds when they could use the dock to build another ship? However, unloading 20 rounds or so could be the difference between seriously overweight and a Jenny Craig diet that let's you run an 8 minute mile.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 11:02:49 GMT -6
...I give up. Someone please enlighten this guy, if you're up to the useless task, because I'm completely done with him. I was trolling you, bro. I totally see what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 30, 2019 11:28:13 GMT -6
Here's a good argument against it. mycophobia , the issue was refit cost and time. Dock space was probably an issue too. Who would give up valuable dock time to swap around space for a few more rounds when they could use the dock to build another ship? However, unloading 20 rounds or so could be the difference between seriously overweight and a Jenny Craig diet that let's you run an 8 minute mile. What im saying is that right now the weight you gained from removing rounds tends to be disproportionate from the weight of rounds themselves + propellent box etc... Ofcourse in practice nobody would recall a DD and waste valuable space and time and money to just redo the interior of a destroyer, and I don't think there are any examples of refits for the sole purpose to add/reduce ammo capacity(Correct me if im wrong). But as it is, the game gives you too much weight to be considered a simple "Unloading of rounds". Ideally we can be given the choices of unloading rounds vs Redo magazine space for different weight/cost benefits. But I feel the current system is wholly satisfactory since the weight you gained from removing shells is seldom worthwhile relative to the size of the ship. You can always just go slightly overweight and its not a huge issue, not mention many historical destroyers end up overweight as well.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 30, 2019 11:41:26 GMT -6
dizzy - the repair of 'Yorktown' is as anomalous, in its way, as the repair pf 'Goeben'/'Yavuz' with concrete plugs. Welding sheet metal over serious combat damage can be done in three days as the ship was absolutely required for service. In peacetime, those repairs might well have required three months to put right, in wartime somewhat less but still more than three days. Making structural changes to a system (building, ship, car, whatever) can be chancy. There are always things that don't work quite right, always changes to the system after the blueprints are drawn, always updates and replacements. If you knew, absolutely and exactly, what would be required and could do it with no time lost for 'wait, what's this then?', you still run across time to draw up the new plans, run stability and displacement calculations, free up dockyard space and bring in work crews and the like. I'd agree that 12 months seems like a long time. I do agree that people used to abuse that in RtW1 and can understand that, in coding the program, it was easy to put in one rule for changing ammo storage. But a year... I could just about replace the engineering plant in a year. Mention it in the suggestions thread and let it go. You and ramjb yelling at each other isn't advancing the cause; you are generating heat, not light.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on May 30, 2019 11:49:35 GMT -6
Good discussion and good points from all sides. But please keep it respectful and civil guys!
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 30, 2019 12:00:56 GMT -6
<snip> Ofcourse in practice nobody would recall a DD and waste valuable space and time and money to just redo the interior of a destroyer, and I don't think there are any examples of refits for the sole purpose to add/reduce ammo capacity(Correct me if im wrong). Right, of course! It wouldnt be done... or would it? In RTW we have to 'refit' our ships because of the big 'O'. When they become obsolete in ten years, sometimes a refit can keep them in service far longer. I have these CL's I built in 1913 still going in 1946. So while you refit them, offload 'sum that amma'! I think the idea goes, as fire control gets better, you need fewer rounds, and that weight can better be put to use with adding AA guns. I really don't think DD's which are unarmored should get the same 12 month treatment as a BB if you want to offload 20 rounds. director , good points, but on one, let's not use the excuse of, well its coded that way because it was easier and make excuses for why we are ok with that. I think the consensus is if a DD was going under the knife, it doesn't take much more time to also do a tummy tuck when you're in there to add some breast implants, especially if you have two surgeons. I'm sure engineers and welders could talk and chew gum at the same time. Fredrik is a wiz and can probably do anything. And fixing this blasphemous equivalency is totally within his power!
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 30, 2019 12:13:31 GMT -6
<snip> Ofcourse in practice nobody would recall a DD and waste valuable space and time and money to just redo the interior of a destroyer, and I don't think there are any examples of refits for the sole purpose to add/reduce ammo capacity(Correct me if im wrong). Right, of course! It wouldnt be done... or would it? In RTW we have to 'refit' our ships because of the big 'O'. When they become obsolete in ten years, sometimes a refit can keep them in service far longer. I have these CL's I built in 1913 still going in 1946. So while you refit them, offload 'sum that amma'! I think the idea goes, as fire control gets better, you need fewer rounds, and that weight can better be put to use with adding AA guns. I really don't think DD's which are unarmored should get the same 12 month treatment as a BB if you want to offload 20 rounds. director , good points, but on one, let's not use the excuse of, well its coded that way because it was easier and make excuses for why we are ok with that. I think the consensus is if a DD was going under the knife, it doesn't take much more time to also do a tummy tuck when you're in there to add some breast implants, especially if you have two surgeons. I'm sure engineers and welders could talk and chew gum at the same time. Fredrik is a wiz and can probably do anything. And fixing this blasphemous equivalency is totally within his power! Well, if we set whether it is worth the time to code aside. The best solution that I think you'd agree with is just having a check box for "magazine rework" like engine refit now. If you don't check that off, you can still take ammo off but you only get a very small weight benefit. If you tick it off, you should expect a bit of additional time with refits, maybe not a 12 month work, but I think a +1-2month for a DD, and much longer for a BB is fair to ask. In exchange, you get to potentially free up a lot more weight like the case when designing the ship from scratch. So, if you just want to cut some rounds for AA guns, its a quick job that shouldn't take any addition work at all while you are refitting for the O. If you want to get more weight by redoing the magazine space, you should expect more work, even if 12 month is clearly too long. If you are doing a very complete overhaul, like magazine, ammo, turret, fire control, engine is all gonna be changed, then there is nothing wrong with the refit time being potentially longer than build time(and is exactly why it isn't done often at all in real life). On a related note I feel it will be a good idea to have a "express refit" option. This limits what can be changed further compared to normal refit and does not refresh the timer before the ship gets the O tag. However it is cheaper and can be done in 1-2 months. This can be used to simulate installing AA guns all over old ships without removing anything, removing easy to remove bits like above deck torpedo tube, changing fire control or adding AA directors.
|
|