When/How to get rid of 'ship form too narrow'.

[stevethecat]

In game year was ~1912, and trying to build a CA with triple guns in the AXY position, game refused to allow it with a 'ship form too narrow' warning. OK, we scale the guns down to 7" and up the hull size, same again. Make the hull bigger, same again.

In the end we had a 29,000t CA, with 7" guns, which would be laughably small for a hull that size, and again it was an illegal design as the ship form was too narrow.

OK, something is unhappy, let's try a Battlecruiser with triple 12" guns. Same again, a few dock upgrades later and a 33,000t BC with triple guns in the AXY position was also deemed illegal as 'hull form too narrow'.

What are we missing here? These hulls would be big enough for 15-16"guns with ease. Why bother with triple gun turrets as a technology if they can't be used on anything?

[maxnacemit]

Reduce TPS or research "Improved hull design", it's a 1930s tech. Before that, you can use triple turrets in A and Y positions with reduced TPS.

[durhamdave]

The issue is the triple turrets in the A and Y positions with either a certain speed or some TPS, representing the issues found with the original Lexington-class battlecruiser designs. You either drop below the speed indicated in the check, don't have triples in A and Y, or don't have TPS. The limits change as tech increases until they no longer apply.

[polygon]

Since the other two comments explained how to fix it and why it's happening, I'm gonna post the cheeky workaround. Let's say you want an ABY cruiser with 9 or 10 guns, and you'd usually go 3/3/3. I got around this as France by leveraging the quad turret tech to build tremendously ugly but perfectly valid 2/4/4 ABX battlecruisers. You don't actually need a rear gun to use a rear superfiring turret, which isn't restricted by hull width.

The downside is it looks silly. But hey, the Pepsi-Colas were 2/3/3/2 ships, it's not that far fetched. Rear superfiring also weighs more, which makes sense, we're building the rear turret further forwards and higher up in the ship to avoid the hull constraints.

Behold, a ship so ugly it can only be described as accurately role-playing the French. 

[jeb94]

May 28, 2023 20:51:43 GMT -6 polygon said:

Since the other two comments explained how to fix it and why it's happening, I'm gonna post the cheeky workaround. Let's say you want an ABY cruiser with 9 or 10 guns, and you'd usually go 3/3/3. I got around this as France by leveraging the quad turret tech to build tremendously ugly but perfectly valid 2/4/4 ABX battlecruisers. You don't actually need a rear gun to use a rear superfiring turret, which isn't restricted by hull width.

The downside is it looks silly. But hey, the Pepsi-Colas were 2/3/3/2 ships, it's not that far fetched. Rear superfiring also weighs more, which makes sense, we're building the rear turret further forwards and higher up in the ship to avoid the hull constraints.

Behold, a ship so ugly it can only be described as accurately role-playing the French. 
View Attachment

To me it actually looks more like what the Italians did with the Littorios. I know they had three triples but that aft turret…

[cormallen]

I wonder if this will be much of a problem to those playing on low research? I suspect the game tends to "be ahead of the curve" in many areas, especially on super fleet size (More Money!), and when players pushing for "extra' designs meet the game's Battlecruiser fixation?

[bobert]

Instead of AY turrets i built BX/TPS2. It worked, though i guess there might be a weight penalty.