the frog
Ensign
Posts:228
 | | 23 Nov 2008 05:22 PM |
| I would like to suggest a carrier proposal and see how everyone feels about it.I would like to the front and rear quadrants on some carriers go from 30 degrees to 90 degrees.In other words 45 degrees from center line instead of 15. This would apply to all class 5 and above,and class 4 with at least a 70 foot beam.This hopefully will get more carriers on the water and maintain saftey | | | |
|
BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
| | 23 Nov 2008 05:36 PM |
| i would like to see more carriers too. i think this idea is good, but alot of people(at least in fast gun, which although i know isnt the topic, might work towards treaty too) are afraid of all the holes they take as they have billboards for sides. maybe limiting the vertical penetrable area might make it a bit more palatable too. | | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
the frog
Ensign
Posts:228
| | 23 Nov 2008 06:28 PM |
| Holes above the waterline are of no consiquence in treaty since we dont counts hits, just sinks quote:
Originally posted by BoomerBoy17
i would like to see more carriers too. i think this idea is good, but alot of people(at least in fast gun, which although i know isnt the topic, might work towards treaty too) are afraid of all the holes they take as they have billboards for sides. maybe limiting the vertical penetrable area might make it a bit more palatable too.
| | | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2249
| | 23 Nov 2008 07:29 PM |
| My position is, and will continue to be...I will consider supporting a rules change only when someone builds a ship and proves it to be bad. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
the frog
Ensign
Posts:228
| | 23 Nov 2008 07:58 PM |
| And my position is,and will continue to be that no one will build a bad ship in the hopes it will be given the help it needs to make it good.Proving a negative has always been a fools erand quote:
Originally posted by crzyhawk
My position is, and will continue to be...I will consider supporting a rules change only when someone builds a ship and proves it to be bad.
| | | |
|
RichelieuBB
Veteran
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1418
| | 23 Nov 2008 09:10 PM |
| If I was only in the States right now, there would be a Bearn on the water to test the theory. | | Mike Mangus
Beware the French Revolution!
Operational:
HMS Erin DN
FN Richelieu BB
FN Verite PDN
Launched
Le Requin Xebec (AoS)
Under Construction:
FN Mogador DE
FN Gascogne BB (Treaty)
FN Bretagne (1/96) (delayed)
Mothballed:
FN Bearn CV
| |
|
froggyfrenchman
Vice Admiral
Posts:3011
| | 23 Nov 2008 10:16 PM |
| I regret that I did not find the time to get my Bearn on the water and battle her this year. I know it would have been a blast.
I can't imagine how much fun it would be to run a pair of carriers out there using some sort of glorified cruiser tactics.
Can anybody give me a "been there, done that"??
Mikey | | | |
|
froggyfrenchman
Vice Admiral
Posts:3011
| | 23 Nov 2008 10:42 PM |
| I haven't been posting anything on the rule proposal stuff so far, mainly because we haven't actually started the process yet. That will happen in the next week or so.
But that doesn't mean that I don't have an oppinion on the stuff, one way or the other.
I personally think that by giving the carriers more units when the club was formed, that the carriers were already a viable build.
In the beginning, we also looked into giving the carriers limited side-mount capabilities, and there was simply not enough support.
I think it would be fair to say that there is still not enough support to pass any proposal that would give the carriers sidemounted cannons.
That being the case. The theory was to come up with a reasonable counter-proposal, that would allow the carriers more flexability in how they situate their offensive units.
But not to make them more buildable, or viable. But to make the game we are playing more fun.
Mikey | | | |
|
froggyfrenchman
Vice Admiral
Posts:3011
| | 23 Nov 2008 11:54 PM |
| Eric came up with the idea originally, but not for the carriers. We were discussing allowing wider bow/stern quadrant arcs for the armored cruisers with wide beams, like the Blucher, and such.
The theory was to give them what he called a "poor man's side-mount". In other words a bow/stern cannon, but with perhaps 30 degrees off to the sides.
To give them the ability to obtain the occasional below-the-waterline hits on an opponant.
The sticking point was that this was a proposal to give something to a certain type of ships, where there was no apparent gain for every other ship class.
After much discussion, and thought, it occured to me that what all of the other ship classes would gain from this proposal would be a better chance of obtaining hits on a cruiser with these wide-angle stern cannons, when they try to use them on you.
I simply applied the same idea to the carrier discussions.
If a captain wanted to go out there with a 5 unit carrier and give more damage than they took, then the way to go would be to mount a single bow cannon within the current 30 degree bow quadrant, and triple stern cannon also within the current quadrant rules, and pound the crap out of anyone foolish enough to give chase, and then just run away.
But if that same captain had the option of mounting a single cannon in the bow, but in the stern could mount (1) 50 round cannon directly off the stern, and (1) 50 round cannon aimed 45 degrees off the port, and starboard stern quarter, in order to obtain below-the-waterline hits, then not only will any ship that tries to run them down not be getting hit by triples each time the toggle is activated, but will also stand a better chance of bringing their own (true) sidemounts into play.
So to make a long story even longer. I think that giving the carriers more flexability in how they can allocate their offensive units might make them more viable, but it will also make them more vulnerable, and sinkable. And that sounds like it might be more fun for all.
Mikey | | | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2249
| | 24 Nov 2008 04:38 AM |
| Phil-
I don't believe for a second that carriers are going to be bad under our existing rules...which is why I want to be proven wrong before I support a rules change. I really think that carriers in general are going to be just fine. There might be a few bad apples out there (Junyo and Eagle come to mind) but otherwise, I think they'll do nicely.
So in short, just because you say they need help doesn't make it so. Just because *I* say they're OK doesn't make it so. They need to get on the water for proof before any hasty decision is made. I'm working on getting my carrier out there, so I can make my case. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
the frog
Ensign
Posts:228
| | 24 Nov 2008 05:21 AM |
| I think a 30 or 32 knot carrier would be just fine as is but a 22 knot carrier would be in trouble without some additional defence abilitys quote:
Originally posted by crzyhawk
Phil-
I don't believe for a second that carriers are going to be bad under our existing rules...which is why I want to be proven wrong before I support a rules change. I really think that carriers in general are going to be just fine. There might be a few bad apples out there (Junyo and Eagle come to mind) but otherwise, I think they'll do nicely.
So in short, just because you say they need help doesn't make it so. Just because *I* say they're OK doesn't make it so. They need to get on the water for proof before any hasty decision is made. I'm working on getting my carrier out there, so I can make my case.
| | | |
|
Bob Pottle
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1219
| | 24 Nov 2008 06:24 AM |
| Regarding hull penetrability for carriers the practice locally (and I believe in the IRCWCC) for ships converted to carriers has been to use the orignal deck stringer location and make everything above that impenetrable. That's how Eric Broderick built his IRCWCC USS Sangamon, which recently joined the NATCF fleet.
Bob | | | |
|
the frog
Ensign
Posts:228
| | 24 Nov 2008 06:33 AM |
| Yes we have everything above the 01 or hanger deck solid quote:
Originally posted by Bob Pottle
Regarding hull penetrability for carriers the practice locally (and I believe in the IRCWCC) for ships converted to carriers has been to use the orignal deck stringer location and make everything above that impenetrable. That's how Eric Broderick built his IRCWCC USS Sangamon, which recently joined the NATCF fleet.
Bob
| | | |
|
Gettysburg114th
[ROLES:Veteran]
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1639
| | 24 Nov 2008 02:25 PM |
| I was able to find a picture of a carrier with side protection.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_u4gsawNGpfo/R8GvBe4477I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/5q47kX6mZew/420418-F-0000D-001.jpg | | | Uberpooperscooper Bobo
DKM Bismarck (battle ready)
IJN Yamato (Dockyards IJN Kirishima (Dockyards) IJN Mogami (Dockyards)
IJN Agano (Dockyards) SMS Lutzow (Dockyards) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TreatyCombat/
| |
|
Gettysburg114th
[ROLES:Veteran]
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1639
| | 24 Nov 2008 02:30 PM |
| I would rather see how carriers do in our rules as we have them laid out. I think the guys from the great white north are building some carriers.
I think what we were trying to avoid were battleships and carriers running side by side slugging it out.
Good thread. | | | Uberpooperscooper Bobo
DKM Bismarck (battle ready)
IJN Yamato (Dockyards IJN Kirishima (Dockyards) IJN Mogami (Dockyards)
IJN Agano (Dockyards) SMS Lutzow (Dockyards) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TreatyCombat/
| |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2249
| | 24 Nov 2008 03:47 PM |
| "I think a 30 or 32 knot carrier would be just fine as is but a 22 knot carrier would be in trouble without some additional defence abilitys"
I think this is a misleading statement, as MOST carriers are 30+ knots. This is exactly why I oppose changes without testing first. Most of the slow carriers are also short, which means they should turn well. Your rule wouldn't help just slow carriers, you'd be helping the fast ones as well.
Some like your own Bearn, have two rudders meaning they should have EXCELLENT turning potential. The fact that you can place the guns very far aft, and use a de-elevate system, to choose long range or close range gives the ships a lot of potential. I personally think that the Bearn is one of the best combat carriers you can build under the present rules.
The Bearn should be able to set up for close range stern guns, and when someone gets close, use it's tight turning (thanks to the lovely twin rudders) to get up to TRIPLES on target where you have a high potential for on or even BELOW the waterline hits, then light up the battleship. You can lay out some serious pain to anything that chooses to attack you. That's far from getting being gimpy.
That's how I'd set up a 5 unit Bearn...triple sterns, bow chaser and a 1 unit pump, and I'd rip a sidemount Bearn to shreds with it...because when you try to sidemount me, I'll turn away and you'll eat my sterns in close, and at the waterline. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
Gettysburg114th
[ROLES:Veteran]
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1639
| | 24 Nov 2008 03:55 PM |
| I don't think that we should be helping a ship because "it's slow", "It does not turn as well as XXXX"
We set the rules up because we felt that ship should get what they deserve and not get something because "the Allies have more 6 unit ships" or "the Axis have ships that turn better."
That is why there are 6 unit Nagato's and such.
I guess the question is, what is the best way to equate (is that a word) aircraft strength vs gun strenght? That is the hard part.
Thanks, good thread,
Thanks, | | | Uberpooperscooper Bobo
DKM Bismarck (battle ready)
IJN Yamato (Dockyards IJN Kirishima (Dockyards) IJN Mogami (Dockyards)
IJN Agano (Dockyards) SMS Lutzow (Dockyards) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TreatyCombat/
| |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2249
| | 25 Nov 2008 05:18 AM |
| I think our current system provides a fair balance between the guys who WANT carriers and the guys who think that a battleship slugging it out with a carrier would look stupid on the water. Some carriers get more then they deserve, but I think that the way we have things set up right now is a REASONABLE compromise between the various camps. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
Bob Pottle
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1219
| | 06 Feb 2009 07:06 AM |
| After reviewing the plans for IJN Amagi (1944), photos and models of other Japanese carriers I have a question about penetrability. Nearly all Japanese carriers have several large sponsons that support their heaviest guns. The supports for those start much further down the hull than the angled beams supporting lighter guns and directors and sit on substantial protrusions from the hull that are below the hangar deck in almost all cases (i.e., in the penetrable area). In Amagi's case there are 6 of them with max. dimensions of over 1" tall by 1 1/2" long and they protrude over 1/2" from the side of the hull. Although flat on top they have complex curves and are faired into the hull, looking like triangles with a rounded apex from the side and from forward or aft. There is no way I can think of to sheet them unless they are solid. What should we do with them? Omitting them will remove a major characteristic of Japanese carrier hulls. should we just leave them solid like casemates or take off the equivalent extra solid area somewhere else (i.e., deeper windows or smaller solid bow area)? These aren't a problem on Ibuki because they're above the original deck level but will be on Amagi. I'd like a concensus on this before I start the Amagi hull plug. Thanks, Bob | | | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2249
| | 06 Feb 2009 09:01 AM |
| This is just my opinion, but I feel they should be treated as casements/casemates under the present rules.
I'd like to see a rule change to make that area come out from other legal impenetrable area so that 85% = 85%, but I doubt it will ever happen.
| | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|