Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Pseudo-Pre Dreadnought [Discussion[

#11
(2018-12-23, 11:56 PM)NutterChap Wrote: Armenor has some really good points. Rules like Harnas had worked very well in getting ships tgat followed the same idea,  but still allow variety in creativity.

Primary guns max nr of components -60 maybe?-
Secondary guns max nr of components -200?-
Torps allowed -medium only, max 7 meters per torp. Max 20 gantries-
No alloy.
Ammo must be within 5m of each prim. and sec. turret.
No ammo fabricators or repair bots
0.7 autodetect
Max 120k mats
May only use steam engines.
May only use large boilers for steam generation
Localized resources, no centraluzed: have enough storage to battle for 15 minutes.
Armor on the ship must be present on both port and starboard side.
May only use steam propellers
HEAT, HESH, EMP, Grav ram, supercav, sabot and rail gun drives are banned.
Guns may only be APS.

Perhaps a beauty vote part as well?

Perhaps. Although it would need to allow for a good ROF on the smaller Big Guns in order to make up for the lack of alpha damage.

Don't reaaaally like the ammo needing to be within 5m of the turrets.

Possibly detection systems too...

Maaaaybe on the large boilers. Maybe. The current Example Ship uses the prefab steam engines I've posted in this thread which use small boilers.

Definitely gonna have a beauty vote. XD

------

Some testing with the rockets says that 350 m/s is too fast. So does 'must be over 300m/s' sound good?
Reply

#12
So! Here's the example ship. (Although I probably should have picked a more 'standard' design than the en-echelon turrets... Oh well.)

[Image: CPZ2dx9.png]

The yellow marks the waterline and the red is how far up the belt armor (3 layers of metal) goes. The belt armor is allowed to go up just past the Big Gun turrets with enough room for them to still turn as far as they need to turn. However belt armor only applies to the sides. The very edge of the highest red parts is a one layer thick metal bulkhead. If the ship was designed differently (aka: standard later pre-dreadnought) with the guns on either side of the superstructure toward the bow and stern, all the single thick metal up to the top deck (where that 'corner' of red is located) between the outer edges of the upper-red can be backed by wood.

Here's the blueprint to play around with it! And I suppose to test your ships against it. (Shouldn't be too hard to beat though. Sorta. Maybe. The rockets are surprisingly effective).

She showcases medium and small rockets, medium torpedoes, 305mm cannons, 255mm cannons, 179mm cannons, and a 5-barrel 42mm cannon with a ROF of 179.5

So yeah. Crappy benchmark ship. As is typical of me! Yay! Oh! She's 80.1k resources because I didn't bother putting in any beam-wide bulkheads. Even then she probably would have barely come out over 90k if I used them liberally... Probably could turn the top deck and the deck right below it (main deck?) into solid metal without much trouble.

quick edit: I'll need to make a cut-away example thingy for the belt-armor rules proper when I edit the main post...


Attached Files
.blueprint   Pseudo-Pre-Dreadnought Example Mk2.blueprint (Size: 253.24 KB / Downloads: 11)
Reply

#13
(2018-12-22, 06:19 PM)Captain_Fox Wrote:
(2018-12-21, 02:17 PM)William White Wrote: Hi

Pre-dreadnoughts are my thing, and you are generally correct apart from ship ranges and I would like to add something about gunnery. Battleships had fairly limited endurance. One of the issues the Russians had at Tsushima was the ships were having to carry coal in virtually every available space - and it burned so well...The long-range and overseas deployed platforms were usually some breed of cruiser. In British terms that would be, at best, a 1st Class Protected Cruiser or, later, and Armoured Cruiser. The French built ships in the 1880s called Cuirassier Stationnaire, in effect an armoured mini-battleship and they lingered overseas until into the 20th century, but 1st class battleships were rare (ecept the Russian Pacific Squadron at Port Arthur). The second class battleship was found overseas as well (HMS Centurion and HMS Barfleur on China Station, HMS Renown on North America and West Indies) But, generally, the need was to retain battleships closer to home. One factor was cleaning the hull. If a ship's hull was not coppered and sheathed in teak it would attract what was euphemistically called marine life, which would foul the hull and cause drag. Cleaning meant dry docking and facilities were generally confined to home waters. Coppering and sheathing was expensive and cost about a knot in speed.

In regard to guns, the Quick Fire revolution was in train by 1890, which meant that guns of 6" and under could spew forth shellfire. Two factors in play here were that the breech of a gun this size could be operated by manpower alone, plus a 6" shell was considered the heaviest shell that could be carried by a single man. In addition, Percy Scott's introduction of continuous aim meant that guns this size were kept on target during the motion of the ship rather than simply firing on the roll. So, QF guns of this calibre and under were both more accurate and had a far higher rate of fire than their larger bretheren. So Fisher could say that although the 12" guns were the main armament of a battleship, the 6" pieces were the main guns. See the Yalu or Tsushima for details. With engagement ranges of 3000 yards or so, the smaller guns were very effective at 'tearing up the sides' of a ship.

Eventually, larger guns also fired progressively faster, the pace of improvement being very fast. So that y 1906 the 12" was fast enough to be used as the all-big-gun battery in Dreadnoughts.

In terms of tactics, nobody was aiming for a Lissa-style brawl. But there was a debate betweem whether to favour broadside fire or end-on fire. This had an effect on ship architecture. the most extreme is seen in French designs with the pronounced tumblehomes and lozenge armament in order to emphasise end-on fire. The British, in contrast, felt that broadside engagements were more important.

In terms of size, well, a Canopus class battleship was 431 feet long and 74 feet at maximum beam. But, a contemporary Protected Cruiser was not much smaller. HMS Diadem  was 435 feet long and 69 feet at the beam. If you want something enormous, try the 1st Class cruiser HMS Terrible that came in at 538 feet long and 71 feet at the beam (to get high speed and endurance).

WW

Well, I completely missed this. ^^;

Very good points. I was gonna put the starting engagement range at 1.5km and the DQ range at 2km, that way ships can start broadsiding in whatever manner they want ASAP if they so desire. Definitely going to be pointing them at each other. Although I'm not really certain as to how endurance would play a role in here beyond the resource storage for steam engines. 

And when it comes to the guns, are you suggesting a limit on how many secondaries are to be allowed or what? I'm having a little bit of trouble figuring out how what you've said comes into play toward balancing the tournament beyond "here's some stuff about predreadnought battleships!"


I would suggest, in terms of armament, a marked difference in ROF between 6" guns and smaller and larger guns. What I have tried to do in my designs is to throw tech at 6" guns or less to allow for rapid fire, but place nothing on heavier guns to slow them down. If you are aiming at a brawl, that's even more important as if you get up close and personal with a lot of 6" fire you should be able to play havoc with your opponent. In terms of speed and power, there would probably be very little difference between opponents, around 15-18 knots (say 8-9 m/s). If you are not going to bother with tactics then having a speed advantage is not particularly useful. If you are, then being able to cross an opposing T is useful. 

The main issue is that you can over-gun ships in this game without suffering the downsides of that policy. 

WW
Reply

#14
Ugh. I hate it when the site breaks. >>

@William White: I coouuuuld, but they bump up in size toward the end of the Pre-Dreadnought era. And as for tactics, the AI is more akin to a drunk helmsman than any competent tactician.


@Everyone else: I've had a think about the steam engines and does 'All boilers must be within 5m horizontal of any funnels' sound like a good rule?
Reply

#15
Let's see if this post fixes it for me here...
Reply

#16
What? Again your post bugs out? I feel conspiracy behind that. But this time, we will nit let it die!
ahem.

Back on topic.

- Steam engines & boilers.
I don't think using large boilers is good idea, in terms of function. They will spool up for half of the battle. Huge will spool up forever. On other side, small ones are small...
Also they definitely need some tight restrictions on power. Maybe, huge engines and single gear only, at least?
Maybe, you'll accept deco prefabs? I can try and make some.

- Ruders. Large rudders only!

- Guns. Good old component limit... It will work, but it may bring here yet again same proved configurations from Sea Encounters. You can expect dominance of max caliber guns. Also, spam and noodles!
I'm with NutterChap about ammo being close to guns.
Also, i'd like some way to reflect low firerates of heavy guns and dakka of these 6" William White saying about, but keep "heavy" guns much more powerful than smaller. Maybe in some way limit shell sizes for secondaries, so single hit from big gun will worth half minute of spam from smaller?

and, why rockets? Was there rocket spam in predread era?
Makes things.
The fastest thing in the universe is sluggish... Years, decades, centuries from star to star.
Reply

#17
(2018-12-27, 06:58 AM)DraWay Wrote: What? Again your post bugs out? I feel conspiracy behind that. But this time, we will nit let it die!
ahem.
This is a generic issue for every post reaching next page.

(2018-12-27, 06:58 AM)DraWay Wrote: Back on topic.

- Steam engines & boilers.
I don't think using large boilers is good idea, in terms of function. They will spool up for half of the battle. Huge will spool up forever. On other side, small ones are small...
Also they definitely need some tight restrictions on power. Maybe, huge engines and single gear only, at least?
Maybe, you'll accept deco prefabs? I can try and make some.

- Ruders. Large rudders only!
I am no steam expert, but I don't think that internals matter too much from looks point of view, unless we are planning boiler room inspections.
I've got no issue with letting ships build up speed. If I understand the mechanics correctly, the one who invests in boilers more will get more power sooner, which sounds like a nice choice (power/speed vs armour) which fuel engine driven SE didn't have.
Large rudder component limit maybe to limit turning circle?

(2018-12-27, 06:58 AM)DraWay Wrote: - Guns. Good old component limit... It will work, but it may bring here yet again same proved configurations from Sea Encounters. You can expect dominance of max caliber guns. Also, spam and noodles!
I'm with NutterChap about ammo being close to guns.
Also, i'd like  some way to reflect low firerates of heavy guns and dakka of these 6" William White saying about, but keep "heavy" guns much more powerful than smaller. Maybe in some way limit shell sizes for secondaries, so single hit from big gun will worth half minute of spam from smaller?

and, why rockets? Was there rocket spam in predread era?
Component limit works well in general. Per-gun, per-class (primary, secondary etc) along with the per-class caliber limits ensures that individual guns of the higher class is more powerful. The total component counts (for primaries at least) limits the possibility to build a total glass cannons.
I've never observed spam being a problem in SE ensured by component limits. Low caliber rapid fire is very ineffective.

As for long barrel problem might be fixed by fin stabiliser buff - I believe this is no longer slowing down the shell. We could also mandate heavy barrel for main guns to punish by cost and impact turret traverse speed and ship stability.

In terms of shell length limits, I think caliber limit for secondary armament makes a better job to ensure these have limited power. In SE secondaries were somewhat relevant because HESH and HEAT were allowed to give them anti ship buff.

As for the ammo/AI storage is concerned, this is an important consideration combined with what appoint selection is going to be allowed. With random block only low fire rates are going to be punished a lot by poor randomisation. If you allow targeting ammo/AI then spoofing will be a thing, so consider citadel(s) or/and on main gun ammo storages.
primum non nocere
___________________________________
my tournaments:
★★★ Sea Encounters - Battleships! ★★★
★★★ Sea Encounters - Light Cruisers ★★★
Reply

#18
well, seems everything i say is total crap, i'll better shut up.

issue with steam is it's possible to reach ridiculous speeds for not so high cost and size. I've got my BBrawl4 thing running around as speedboat with only 2 propellers and like 7x7x3 engine+boiler assembly. It somewhat devours materials though, but material boxes aren't expensive and hold universe worth of materials, so no issue here.

upd. i've got Captain's example boat run at 21 m/s instead of 8 while being cheaper, simply by spamming reductors in his original drive.. Reduction gear costs less than single shaft,of which it replaces 3! I propose limit on these to one per shaft.

large rudder limits? Is that "feature" with force applied at CoM still a thing? It tends to flip boats if turning too hard, may work as "natural" limit..
Makes things.
The fastest thing in the universe is sluggish... Years, decades, centuries from star to star.
Reply

#19
(2018-12-27, 10:07 AM)DraWay Wrote: well, seems everything i say is total crap, i'll better shut up.

I definitely don't think so. I am just presenting my point of view based on my limited knowledge and experience. I hope that any feedback is welcome and can influence best possible ruleset.
primum non nocere
___________________________________
my tournaments:
★★★ Sea Encounters - Battleships! ★★★
★★★ Sea Encounters - Light Cruisers ★★★
Reply

#20
(2018-12-27, 11:11 AM)harnas1977 Wrote:
(2018-12-27, 10:07 AM)DraWay Wrote: well, seems everything i say is total crap, i'll better shut up.

I definitely don't think so. I am just presenting my point of view based on my limited knowledge and experience. I hope that any feedback is welcome and can influence best possible ruleset.

I agree, sorry, no offence. Waiting for some rules to be estabilished, have hollow hull ready.
Made it run at 20 m/s loaded to waterline with only 7x10x2 engine (and this includes material boxes), using 3 small boilers and one controller per piston, like in example, and 7-reductor chain.
Makes things.
The fastest thing in the universe is sluggish... Years, decades, centuries from star to star.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)