|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 22, 2021 4:22:47 GMT -6
In the lates "leaked" content discussion on the DLC the restriction of triple/quad turrets in A and Y when combined with early TPS was introduced. However, historically speaking, TPS was usually not the determinant for design decisions such as the 2-3-3-2 layout of the Pensacola class CL/CA or the 1-2-2-1 of some DD classes. It was the desire for a "fine" hull form to support high speeds.
How about instead of the TPS linked restriction introduce a "hull form" modifier where, dependant on technologies such as "Advanced Hull Forms" etc., there is a choice option in the designer (akin to "narrow belt")? These options would add technical diversity to hull design without going to the intricatcies of gradual L/B relations.
Choices could be (modifiers relative to standard hull, hull options unavailable for AMC):
"Fine Hull Form": +2 knots, CL and above restricted to max twins in A and Y (DD/KE to singles), max TPS2, -10 modifier for gun accuracy (less stable gun platform), -10% deck space, long and extreme range options locked out
"Broad Beam": -1 knots, allows triple main guns in wing turrets and for center guns in DD (when triples for CL tech is researched), -50% probability for magazine hits by torpedoes, +10% deck space, +10 modifier for gun accuracy (more stable gun platform) "Deep&Broad Hull": -2 knots, +10% deck space, extreme range included, +100% maximum mines, +20% float points, +10 modifier for gun accuracy, extended DC load available at all hull sizes for KE/DD
|
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 22, 2021 5:04:04 GMT -6
Seconded.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 22, 2021 12:00:46 GMT -6
In the lates "leaked" content discussion on the DLC the restriction of triple/quad turrets in A and Y when combined with early TPS was introduced. However, historically speaking, TPS was usually not the determinant for design decisions such as the 2-3-3-2 layout of the Pensacola class CL/CA or the 1-2-2-1 of some DD classes. It was the desire for a "fine" hull form to support high speeds.
How about instead of the TPS linked restriction introduce a "hull form" modifier where, dependant on technologies such as "Advanced Hull Forms" etc., there is a choice option in the designer (akin to "narrow belt")? These options would add technical diversity to hull design without going to the intricatcies of gradual L/B relations.
Choices could be (modifiers relative to standard hull, hull options unavailable for AMC):
"Fine Hull Form": +2 knots, CL and above restricted to max twins in A and Y (DD/KE to singles), max TPS2, -10 modifier for gun accuracy (less stable gun platform), -10% deck space, long and extreme range options locked out
"Broad Beam": -1 knots, allows triple main guns in wing turrets and for center guns in DD (when triples for CL tech is researched), -50% probability for magazine hits by torpedoes, +10% deck space, +10 modifier for gun accuracy (more stable gun platform) "Deep&Broad Hull": -2 knots, +10% deck space, extreme range included, +100% maximum mines, +20% float points, +10 modifier for gun accuracy, extended DC load available at all hull sizes for KE/DD
Agreed on these, but there should be a fourth option, maybe "Narrow bow"?, that represents ships like Iowa, where you get +1 or 2 knots in exchange for -5% floatpoints and penalties in bad weather |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 23, 2021 19:35:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 23, 2021 22:29:46 GMT -6
Great idea. I think more forms would be needed to make it more interesting.
|
|
