SDN World 3 Country Claiming

[Norseman]

Gran-Columbia is definitely socialist.

When was the Revolution? I kind of hope to make Brazil the Father of Socialist Revolution in South America.

[Ryan Thunder]

Gran-Columbia is definitely socialist.

When was the Revolution? I kind of hope to make Brazil the Father of Socialist Revolution in South America.

It's a representative democracy that simply ended up implementing socialist policies. There was no "revolution" per se.

EDIT: Well, sort of. There are some elements of authoritarianism in place so that I don't have to get voted in a dozen times over the course of the game...

[Norseman]

Gran-Columbia is definitely socialist.

When was the Revolution? I kind of hope to make Brazil the Father of Socialist Revolution in South America.

It's a representative democracy that simply ended up implementing socialist policies. There was no "revolution" per se.

In that case I think you may be more social-democrat than anything else, even authoritarian Social-Democrat, like certain Scandinavian states in the 1950s. As a European I tend to draw strict boundaries between Social-Democrats, Socialists, and Communists.

EDIT: Well, sort of. There are some elements of authoritarianism in place so that I don't have to get voted in a dozen times over the course of the game...

Are we playing characters or countries? I know Steve said we would probably not do it again, but I personally like the weirdness of being zapped into the body of a Great Leader, possibly without the personal memories of SDNworld 2 to avoid any trouble there. That said I'm good either way.

EDIT: Also it will give us a reasonable excuse for some of the metagame that will probably pop up anyway.

[Thanas]

Oh, Thanas, would it be at all unreasonable for Gran Columbia to have an unusually large population of native Americans?

I just want them to be a significant functional demographic as opposed to a dysfunctional footnote...

Such questions should be directed to Steve as he is the mod of this game and not me.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh, Thanas, would it be at all unreasonable for Gran Columbia to have an unusually large population of native Americans?

I just want them to be a significant functional demographic as opposed to a dysfunctional footnote...

Such questions should be directed to Steve as he is the mod of this game and not me.

I was just wondering if it would make historical sense, provided that the natives were more resistant to disease than in the OT.

[Ma Deuce]

Brazil is only too eager to aid and advice fledling Socialist Republics wherever they might appear, in order to spread the Revolution and thus promote international fraternity. Maybe somethign like an early Comecon might be in order?

BTW how many people are running states that are outright socialist (not necessarily Communist mind) or sufficiently left-wing Social-Democratic ones (I think I will have to talk to Stas about how left wing you need to be though).

Mine is a moderate social democratic government that came to power a few years ago in the country's first general elections, thanks to democratic reforms that followed a failed Communist revolution (it still has a figurehead monarchy). Due to the brief civil war, the government is highly distrustful of nations run by revolutionary communist/authoritarian socialist governments, and communist parties are outright banned from being registered in the country's elections.

[Thanas]

Oh, Thanas, would it be at all unreasonable for Gran Columbia to have an unusually large population of native Americans?

I just want them to be a significant functional demographic as opposed to a dysfunctional footnote...

Such questions should be directed to Steve as he is the mod of this game and not me.

I was just wondering if it would make historical sense, provided that the natives were more resistant to disease than in the OT.

I am not sure, for without a mass extinction there would be very little impetus for the slave trade, ergo very little reason for the colonies of many natons...Still, I think it can be done. Suppose you booted out all Spanish citizens after declaring independence of 1815? That would pretty much make sure they are much more important than IRL, simply by being more of the remaining population.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Could someone help me with this? I'm at wit's end at trying to drive my armor down so that the weight of the ship is under 40,000tonnes and I'm busy wondering why my armament is so light. I'm using the latest Spring Sharp 2 version. Thanks.

HMS Justinian, Byzantine Navy Battleship laid down 1935

Displacement:
42,669 t light; 46,267 t standard; 48,310 t normal; 49,945 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
665.21 ft / 623.36 ft x 131.23 ft x 32.81 ft (normal load)
202.75 m / 190.00 m x 40.00 m x 10.00 m

Armament:
8 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (4x2 guns), 2,645.55lbs / 1,200.00kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
Main guns limited to end-on fire
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all forward
8 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (4x3 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft
Weight of broadside 23,324 lbs / 10,580 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.0" / 381 mm 295.28 ft / 90.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 3.94" / 100 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Main Belt covers 73 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
6.00" / 152 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.7" / 450 mm 9.84" / 250 mm 16.1" / 410 mm
2nd: 5.51" / 140 mm 1.38" / 35 mm 9.84" / 250 mm
3rd: 1.57" / 40 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 4 shafts, 81,529 shp / 60,821 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,679 tons

Complement:
1,629 - 2,118

Cost:
£19.166 million / $76.665 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,318 tons, 4.8 %
Armour: 17,369 tons, 36.0 %
- Belts: 3,398 tons, 7.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,194 tons, 2.5 %
- Armament: 6,771 tons, 14.0 %
- Armour Deck: 5,691 tons, 11.8 %
- Conning Tower: 314 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 2,316 tons, 4.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 20,666 tons, 42.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,642 tons, 11.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
102,982 lbs / 46,712 Kg = 50.3 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 19.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.04
Metacentric height 8.1 ft / 2.5 m
Roll period: 19.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 89 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.08
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.85

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, rise aft of midbreak, raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.630
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 26.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 65.62 ft / 20.00 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 28.00 ft / 8.53 m (65.62 ft / 20.00 m aft of break)
- Mid (67 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m (52.49 ft / 16.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (16 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m (16.00 ft / 4.88 m before break)
- Stern: 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Average freeboard: 38.31 ft / 11.68 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 67.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 301.5 %
Waterplane Area: 61,524 Square feet or 5,716 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 237 lbs/sq ft or 1,156 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.81
- Longitudinal: 3.62
- Overall: 0.94
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[Thanas]

Yeah, I know what the problem is. You are using Springsharp 2. Use the latest Springsharp Beta.

Furthermore, the ship is far too beamy for its length. Not good for the hull either.

[Ryan Thunder]

I am not sure, for without a mass extinction there would be very little impetus for the slave trade, ergo very little reason for the colonies of many natons...

I guess not.

Still, I think it can be done. Suppose you booted out all Spanish citizens after declaring independence of 1815? That would pretty much make sure they are much more important than IRL, simply by being more of the remaining population.

Yeah, that sounds good. It'll let me mix in some native cultural stuff.

Names for things, mostly.

---

Also; bare-bones drawing of my Valiant.

[Ma Deuce]

This is my idea for naval fleets.

I think your idea for yardspace building rates based on tonnage is quite workable (though I should add that the tonnage metric we should use the calculate construction capacity should be light displacement), but I still prefer limiting ship designs by the size of building slips rather than straight tonnage.

For instance, take my 30,000 ton BB design, which is 580(oa) x 100 feet. Now, let's say I built a 30,000 battlecruiser that was 750 feet long by 90 feet wide. Since I could legally build both ships under an individual ship tonnage limit, would that not imply that my dockyards can build significantly larger ships (750 x 100) as well?
I propose therefore to instead use the square of a ship's overall length and beam as the limit. For instance, we could set the game start limit for the most powerful navies to between say, 90,000-95,000 square feet: this covers the G3 battlecruiser, considered to be the largest design that could be built on existing British slips, thus can be seen a realistic upper limit at game start. Players with a lower navy focus would naturally have less space. Additionally, each player could decide at game start what kind of length x width ratio their allocated square footage will have, though it will be set in stone for the duration of the game (or a mod decides to allow construction of larger ships down the road). Additionally, players with a higher navy focus may select multiple slip size ratios for better design flexibility.

[Thanas]

Using the square is a good idea, I agree. However, I would not like to limit individual yards, but rather a giant composite score.

There is of course the problem that one can cheat by using a smaller or larger draft. Ergo, same square size, but much larger tonnage that way.

[Ryan Thunder]

Is there anywhere that I can find out what all the different terms used in SpringSharp mean? I'm not familiar with the differences between some of the different weapon mounts, for example...

[Ma Deuce]

Using the square is a good idea, I agree. However, I would not like to limit individual yards, but rather a giant composite score.

There is of course the problem that one can cheat by using a smaller or larger draft. Ergo, same square size, but much larger tonnage that way.

I'd hesitate to call it cheating, as there are drawbacks to having too deep a draft on too small a footprint. Though you'll note earlier I proposed a universal maximum draft limit of 36 feet (G3 is about 34), and going from my earlier design, increasing the draft to the max would bring my standard displacement to about 35,000 tons, though admittedly that allows me make the the design considerably more capable. Additionally we'd still be using tonnage to calculate build times & capacity, and would maintain an overall tonnage limit for each navy, so for six 30,000 ton ships, one could only have five 35,000 tonners. On the other hand if you're really still worried about "draft cheating", we could also impose a length-to-draft ratio limit (no lower than say, 18:1 which should cover all real life designs I can think of).

Is there anywhere that I can find out what all the different terms used in SpringSharp mean? I'm not familiar with the differences between some of the different weapon mounts, for example...

Go to Navweaps.com: they have several useful glossaries on guns and mounts there, in addition to technical data on naval guns and other weapons. If you've still got questions on terminology, I'd almost certainly be able to answer it.

[Bluewolf]

In extention of Ryan's question, is there any good sites that also give good infomation on different types of ships of the periods and how they were used?

[Ryan Thunder]

Go to Navweaps.com: they have several useful glossaries on guns and mounts there, in addition to technical data on naval guns and other weapons. If you've still got questions on terminology, I'd almost certainly be able to answer it.

Thanks very much, but I was more wondering about things like the difference between say, a twin mount, a 2-gun mount, a 2-row twin mount, a 2-row quad mount, etc, and can't seem to find them there.

Also, what precisely constitutes a "quick-firing gun" as opposed to a machine gun or "auto-rapid fire gun".

[Steve]

Given the new thread on ships I think it best to take that discussion there.

Ryan, you could, yeah. Maybe eject the peninsulars upon independence. And possibly reduce the natives' susceptibility to the European diseases first, but not enough so that no slave trade started up.

[Norseman]

Let me point you to the SS Imperator and her sister ships, notice the length and tonnage. Now obviously these were not warships, but it shows that the sheer size of the drydock is not the only point at stake here.

[Ma Deuce]

Thanks very much, but I was more wondering about things like the difference between say, a twin mount, a 2-gun mount, a 2-row twin mount, a 2-row quad mount, etc, and can't seem to find them there.

I can answer that: Quite simply the difference between "twin, triple" etc. and "2-gun, 3-gun" is that in the former, all the the guns in a mount are attached to a common cradle and must elevate together, and the latter type of definition means each gun can elevate independently. Two Row is just what it sounds like (two rows of guns, one above the other), and is is almost exclusively used in smaller automatic AA guns: Below is an example of a 2-row octuple mount for the British 2-pounder (40mm) "pom-pom"

[Ma Deuce]

Let me point you to the SS Imperator and her sister ships, notice the length and tonnage. Now obviously these were not warships, but it shows that the sheer size of the drydock is not the only point at stake here.

Ah, but notice the relatively narrow beam. Even the mighty Vaterland could fit within my proposed 95,000 square foot limit.

[Steve]

Some things can be abstracted and left to mod authority. If someone seems to be abusing logic with their yards I mean.

[Norseman]

Some things can be abstracted and left to mod authority. If someone seems to be abusing logic with their yards I mean.

I would agree with this actually.

[Steve]

Some things can be abstracted and left to mod authority. If someone seems to be abusing logic with their yards I mean.

I would agree with this actually.

I'm saying this mostly to prevent us from turning this into a heavy number-crunching simulator.

[Ma Deuce]

I'm saying this mostly to prevent us from turning this into a heavy number-crunching simulator.

I can understand that, I'm not keen on making the rules too complicated or number-heavy either: My only real concern with the current proposals was that limiting ship designs by tonnage rather than length x beam does not make logical sense.

[Norseman]

I'm saying this mostly to prevent us from turning this into a heavy number-crunching simulator.

I can understand that, I'm not keen on making the rules too complicated or number-heavy either: My only real concern with the current proposals was that limiting ship designs by tonnage rather than length x beam does not make logical sense.

It's simply a gaming convenience, don't think too much about it!