Time Period for SDN World 3

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2009-10-19 05:05pm

Steve wrote:If your navy is to defend coastal waters you don't need Navy Focus of 4 or 5. Hell, with your coastline a 2 might be enough, since a realistic navy for your Gran Colombia would be based on protecting coastal waters and the Panama Canal.

Frankly at this point I'm ready to tie Navy Focus into Colonial Territory to A) encourage people to stop using it as a sink score and B) reflect that if you don't have overseas colonies, you don't need a long-ranging Navy as much.

Obviously I've misunderstood the meaning of it, then.

I was under the impression that the Naval rating was to do with the quality of the vessels in service, or how powerful it was in general...

What did you intend?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2009-10-19 05:49pm

Thanas wrote:Germany would actually not be that much against a Naval Treaty, whatever its terms.

However, if two nations already said they will not sign it, I am hard-pressed to think whether this would not be pointless.

I propose one of the least useful treaties ever: a limitation of gun size to 16". C'est fini.

DarthShady · Post by **DarthShady** » 2009-10-19 06:04pm

I've been having Internet access problems, hopefully I can catch up fully tomorrow and finish up my version of history and other stuff. If I end up MIA, the Balkans are still mine, so don't get any funny ideas.

Post by **Steve** » 2009-10-19 06:20pm

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Steve wrote:If your navy is to defend coastal waters you don't need Navy Focus of 4 or 5. Hell, with your coastline a 2 might be enough, since a realistic navy for your Gran Colombia would be based on protecting coastal waters and the Panama Canal.

Frankly at this point I'm ready to tie Navy Focus into Colonial Territory to A) encourage people to stop using it as a sink score and B) reflect that if you don't have overseas colonies, you don't need a long-ranging Navy as much.
Obviously I've misunderstood the meaning of it, then.

I was under the impression that the Naval rating was to do with the quality of the vessels in service, or how powerful it was in general...

What did you intend?

I meant it to reflect everything - sophistication, support system, size - but Thanas' proposed refinements and other things may help me permit players to diversify how their Focus acts. To a degree. If your Navy is highly local you won't need the same amount of sophistication as a world-spanning fleet would, and you can easily purchase a license for advanced naval guns from the naval powers of the world.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2009-10-20 06:25am

Beowulf wrote:
Thanas wrote:Germany would actually not be that much against a Naval Treaty, whatever its terms.

However, if two nations already said they will not sign it, I am hard-pressed to think whether this would not be pointless.
I propose one of the least useful treaties ever: a limitation of gun size to 16". C'est fini.

Well, 18" guns pose significant challeneges on their own without saying...

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2009-10-20 08:34am

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, 18" guns pose significant challeneges on their own without saying...

Uh... what about my boat?

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2009-10-20 12:43pm

Question: How does one deal with "Hull strain in open seas" in Spring Sharp?

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-10-20 12:53pm

It means your design would not be seaworthy, really. It is overweight and the hull would crack and you would get far less life out of your ship than intended.

Also, your ships would probably also not be strong enough to withstand enemy weapons.

In short - it is not advised for anything larger than a destroyer.

That is, unless you like having your battleships suddenly break apart.

Post by **Steve** » 2009-10-20 01:05pm

Thanas wrote:It means your design would not be seaworthy, really. It is overweight and the hull would crack and you would get far less life out of your ship than intended.

Also, your ships would probably also not be strong enough to withstand enemy weapons.

In short - it is not advised for anything larger than a destroyer.

That is, unless you like having your battleships suddenly break apart.

I think he's asking how one fixes that.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-10-20 01:12pm

Reduce armor, engines, weaponry.

Basically, the hull is strained if it has too carry too much.

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2009-10-20 01:16pm

Ah. I figured something like that would qualify as a design failure.

Valiant will be going back to the drawing board, then...

Post by **Beowulf** » 2009-10-20 01:24pm

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, 18" guns pose significant challeneges on their own without saying...
Uh... what about my boat?

Aside from the Furious, the only warship which has mounted guns of 18" caliber was the Yamato class. The Furious only mounted one, for a fairly short period of time, before getting converted to an aircraft carrier.

Thanas wrote:Reduce armor, engines, weaponry.

Basically, the hull is strained if it has too carry too much.

. Alternatively, increace displacement. For fast ships, increasing length while maintaining block coefficient is the easiest way to proceed, due to synergistic effects. It should be noted that ships which don't have to see the open sea can be built lighter, like the Baltic battleships.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2009-10-20 01:46pm

Aside from the Furious, the only warship which has mounted guns of 18" caliber was the Yamato class.

Nope. The same 18" guns that armed Furious were also used on at least two 6,500 ton shore bombardment monitors in single mounts.

I would also like the add that even without the stress issues, the entire design concept is questionable, if Ryan intends the role for this vessel that I think he does (he called it a "coastal defense monitor", implying use against attacking ships). The design seems to be loosely based on the modified Lord Clive class monitors the British used toward the end of WWI, which were about the same size of his design and also mounted a single 18" gun. However, these ships were intended for offensive shore bombardment rather than defense, so in that role a single gun was acceptable. But against ships, a single big gun is near worthless. You'll have a very difficult time finding the right range with only one gun and will score very few hits even when you do (protip: 5% accuracy against moving ships at range was considered very good for big naval guns of the era). For a coast defense ship, you'll want no fewer than four large guns. For a good design template of this kind of ship, take a look at the Finnish Ilmarinen-class, which mounted four 10-inch guns on 4,000 tons. You can scale it up or down to suit your needs, but the basic design concept is well suited to this role. Sure, it was built about 7 years years after the start of our game, but I don't see that making a huge difference.

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2009-10-20 02:09pm

Ma Deuce wrote:I would also like the add that even without the stress issues, the entire design concept is questionable, if Ryan intends the role for this vessel that I think he does (he called it a "coastal defense monitor", implying use against attacking ships).

Yeah, its a coastal defense monitor.

The design seems to be loosely based on the modified Lord Clive class monitors the British used toward the end of WWI, which were about the same size of his design and also mounted a single 18" gun.

Interesting. However, I actually based it off of the Erebus-class, and then replaced the twin 15" guns with a single 450 mm gun.

However, these ships were intended for offensive shore bombardment rather than defense, so in that role a single gun was acceptable. But against ships, a single big gun is near worthless. You'll have a very difficult time finding the right range with only one gun and will score very few hits even when you do (protip: 5% accuracy against moving ships at range was considered very good for big naval guns of the era). For a coast defense ship, you'll want no fewer than four large guns.

Ah. Thanks for the tip. I will endeavour to keep it in mind for future designs.

For a good design template of this kind of ship, take a look at the Finnish Ilmarinen-class, which mounted four 10-inch guns on 4,000 tons. You can scale it up or down to suit your needs, but the basic design concept is well suited to this role. Sure, it was built about 7 years years after the start of our game, but I don't see that making a huge difference.

I'll certainly have a look at it. It sounds quite a bit more efficient than what I have here...

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2009-10-20 04:13pm

Spoiler

How about that instead?

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-10-20 04:25pm

That is actually a good design for a ship that size.

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2009-10-20 05:22pm

Thanks. Would there be any benefit to having some barges with a few heavy guns on them for defending my ports, or should these monitors suffice?

Bluewolf · Post by **Bluewolf** » 2009-10-20 05:25pm

Is it OK if I get to steal/modify that design if I need to?

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-10-20 05:25pm

Well, I am not sure if 10-inch batteries are enough against super-dreadnoughts. And I would suggest that you spend some points rather on fortresses instead of monitors. After all, a fortress is generally more tougher than an attacking ship. The Duchess has a picture thread of old forts in AMP.

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2009-10-20 06:03pm

Thanas wrote:Well, I am not sure if 10-inch batteries are enough against super-dreadnoughts.

I was thinking of using 350-450 mm guns. I figure a 1-tonne shell should be effective against nearly anything that floats.

And I would suggest that you spend some points rather on fortresses instead of monitors. After all, a fortress is generally more tougher than an attacking ship. The Duchess has a picture thread of old forts in AMP.

Ah, fortifications. I love fortifications...

Although, I was under the impression that fortifications were largely ineffective during the first and second world wars. Didn't they just bombard them into rubble or overrun them with more mobile elements?

I'll happily build gratuitous numbers of polygonal and star forts if I can expect that they're going to be effective, but if not...

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-10-20 06:14pm

Well, the Dardanelles forts did hold out quite well against an anglo-french fleet.

Post by **Steve** » 2009-10-20 07:54pm

Forts are very potent, Ryan. And not as prone to destruction by bombardment as you think. There's a reason the Allies bypassed Truk and Rabaul. Singapore fell primarily because A) its commander was an idiot and coward and B) because the guns were pointing seaward, not toward the peninsula. And it wasn't even that fortified compared to what it could have been, as the US and UK had agreed not to fortify their Pacific islands to get Japan into the WNT.

Historically sea ships don't do so well against land forts. Finding the range for accurate fire is harder due to causing dust billows from shell impacts (the dust and soil thrown into the air cover the target and make range-finding hard or impossible), and shells on naval ships aren't as optimal against ground targets. You can pummel them down eventually, sure, but it's not like you'll win handily without enough force or a land ally to hit the forts too.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2009-10-20 08:05pm

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Thanas wrote:Well, I am not sure if 10-inch batteries are enough against super-dreadnoughts.
I was thinking of using 350-450 mm guns. I figure a 1-tonne shell should be effective against nearly anything that floats.
And I would suggest that you spend some points rather on fortresses instead of monitors. After all, a fortress is generally more tougher than an attacking ship. The Duchess has a picture thread of old forts in AMP.
Ah, fortifications. I love fortifications...

Although, I was under the impression that fortifications were largely ineffective during the first and second world wars. Didn't they just bombard them into rubble or overrun them with more mobile elements?

I'll happily build gratuitous numbers of polygonal and star forts if I can expect that they're going to be effective, but if not...

Fortresses are only as effective as the defending garrison. Look at the battles around Verdun and the defense of Antwerp, hell even the Leige and Namur battles were as much a matter of initiative at the middle grades of command rather than the ineffectiveness of fortification. Likewise several of the eastern front battles, on the Carpathian front in particular, turned on the major fortresses in the region.

Fortification in and of itself is a poor man's substitute for real military planning but well thought out fortification provides a base from which to either channel defensive effort by acting as breakwaters or to launch in to offensive operations with a secure logistics base. Fortifications which command natural avenues of advance are magnets for offensive and defensive operations where the well prepared defender will hold the advantage of the terrain knowledge and established lines of communication and supply.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Time Period for SDN World 3

Which time period do you prefer?

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3

Re: Time Period for SDN World 3