Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2286
 | | 12 Feb 2011 12:52 PM |
| Did we ever decide on how far back to go date wise? If not I propose following the same time frame as Washington Treaty Combat does, 1895-1946. On hypotheticals. Lanunched? Laid down? None at all? I vote laid down. I've an odd hankering for a Normandie or maybe a Salamis. Is that so wrong? | | | Vive la France! | |
|
Tugboat
Veteran
Admiral
Posts:4540
| | 12 Feb 2011 01:53 PM |
| I go more for Roast Beef sanwiches than Salamis, but to each their own!
I don't recall if we did, but I see no great harm in going back to 1895. For that matter, if someone showed up with a mid-70's CGN model and had cannons inside the twin missile launcher I'd probably still battle them. | | | Battling: SMS Scharnhorst, SMS Baden
Building: HMS KGV (Drives, pumps water, guns are in but not plumbed)
MN Edgar Quinet (Hull done)
Drydock/Mothballed: Rus Evstafi, DKM Lutzow, HMS Invincible
Plus 20-odd other projects, according to my Boy Scouts who thoughtfully counted them for me. | |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2286
| | 12 Feb 2011 02:07 PM |
| But what size cannons are a twin missile launcher?  | | | Vive la France! | |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 12 Feb 2011 03:47 PM |
| If I new there was a battle stations group near me I would do battle stations because it is bigger On the date how about go as early as the person wants as long as it applies to constrution rules. On hypos how about have it be if you can find the plans Because how likely are you to find a super powerful hypo that would destroy the sport that you can find plans for? | | | |
|
Tugboat
Veteran
Admiral
Posts:4540
| | 12 Feb 2011 04:02 PM |
| Hmmm... I wouldn't see why 1/4" wouldn't be acceptable... They could fire Tomahawks, that's plenty destructive... more explosives and fuel but less velocity and absolute KE (not counting the KE of the expanding gasses of the explosion). Could go down a size on the bearings, not a big thing. I think it'd be cool to have an OHP as an entry-level boat, one big gun, and arm the 76mm gun on the SS | | | Battling: SMS Scharnhorst, SMS Baden
Building: HMS KGV (Drives, pumps water, guns are in but not plumbed)
MN Edgar Quinet (Hull done)
Drydock/Mothballed: Rus Evstafi, DKM Lutzow, HMS Invincible
Plus 20-odd other projects, according to my Boy Scouts who thoughtfully counted them for me. | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 12 Feb 2011 05:08 PM |
| We use "laid down" for hypo's and "in service between 1900/1946" for all others.
A ship, in our opinion, stops being hypothetical when someone starts putting steel together.
"In service" allows ships built before 1900 but still performing their duties to be represented. Treat the launchers as torps, 1/4 inch, barrels not to protrude past the line of the hull, but remember those ships have no armour at all. Balsa thickness should reflect that. YMMV, of course. | | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|
Tugboat
Veteran
Admiral
Posts:4540
| | 12 Feb 2011 07:04 PM |
| I agree, no armor or minimal armor if we factor in electronic warfare as a defense and CWIS-type systems. But I don't expect to see a lot of modern ships, just from the lack of guns. figure actual guns working as on our current shiplist's ships, ASM launchers as torpedoes like Darren suggested,not sure what I'd do with VLS but then I'm not building a VLS-equipped ship (since I want to do USS Georgia BB-16). Anyone have any ideas? | | | Battling: SMS Scharnhorst, SMS Baden
Building: HMS KGV (Drives, pumps water, guns are in but not plumbed)
MN Edgar Quinet (Hull done)
Drydock/Mothballed: Rus Evstafi, DKM Lutzow, HMS Invincible
Plus 20-odd other projects, according to my Boy Scouts who thoughtfully counted them for me. | |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2286
| | 12 Feb 2011 07:06 PM |
| I really don't know enough about modern ships to comment. After they stopped burning coal they get too newfangled for my tastes. | | | Vive la France! | |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2286
| | 12 Feb 2011 07:11 PM |
| Oh and I also agree with in Service 1900-1946. As long as it is an active commission, not laid up in reserve or some such. Unless you really want to do a Passaic class monitor. | | | Vive la France! | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 12 Feb 2011 08:56 PM |
| @ Tuggy, I can't see what effect EWS and CIWS would have on a 16" shell......is it even possible that a CIWS could hit a shell, and what damage could it do to one if it did? | | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|
Kotori87
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2343
| | 12 Feb 2011 11:09 PM |
| Well, CIWS was designed to shoot down high-speed incoming missiles. A 16" shell, on the other hand, flies along a predictable ballistic arc. I remember hearing, a while ago, that missile-based CIWS could take down the 18.1" shells of the Yamato, but that was a science fiction story and therefore not a source I'd trust. | | | There are 101 different types of people: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who just can't count... | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 13 Feb 2011 01:03 AM |
| It would be an interesting question to find an answer to. Even if CIWS could hit one, could it hit nine? And would it stop them? Or would it set them off above the unarmoured ship? | | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|
Tugboat
Veteran
Admiral
Posts:4540
| | 13 Feb 2011 08:16 AM |
| Ah, but then you factor in the electronic warfare... could an Iowa or Yamato get a radar range against a SPY-1 radar? (Unclassified answer: Not a prayer) Could their scout plane get close enough to call corrections of shot? (Unclassified answer: You're testing me, right?)
For the record, I wouldn't want to count on CWIS to shoot down a 16" shell if it was ME on the ship. | | | Battling: SMS Scharnhorst, SMS Baden
Building: HMS KGV (Drives, pumps water, guns are in but not plumbed)
MN Edgar Quinet (Hull done)
Drydock/Mothballed: Rus Evstafi, DKM Lutzow, HMS Invincible
Plus 20-odd other projects, according to my Boy Scouts who thoughtfully counted them for me. | |
|
froggyfrenchman
Vice Admiral
Posts:3011
| | 13 Feb 2011 09:30 AM |
| I think the same dates as Treaty would work well. So I am all for that. But I would be pretty open-minded if other have other ideas.
As to the hypothetical ships.
I again like the idea of how it is set up in Treaty. As there are a few ships that I really like, and would love to build, that were authorized
for construction, but never laid down. Like the Lyon.
But to be honest. Those ships that were not laid down could make things a little more difficult, when it comes to actually figuring out
all of the details.
So I would be comfortable with laid down.
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to go with at least laid down for the time being, and see how it goes. With the option
to open it up to ships that were authorized for constuction at a later time.
Mikey | | | |
|
Kotori87
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2343
| | 13 Feb 2011 02:46 PM |
| What about conversions? for example, the battleship Gneisenau was planned to be converted to twin 15" guns instead of triple 11" guns. That might not have much of an effect in Treaty, but it is significant in Big Gun. For another example, there is a certain French cruiser that was captured by Germany and began conversion into a light carrier. Hardly any progress was made before the war ended, and it was converted back into a cruiser by the French. | | | There are 101 different types of people: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who just can't count... | |
|
El Jefe
Lieutenant
Posts:496
| | 13 Feb 2011 04:20 PM |
| Some CWIS systems claim or have demonstrated capability against shells, generally 5-inch shells. No one would have had any reason to test against 16-inch or higher.
The next level of ship defense is anti-air missiles ranging from short- to medium- to long-range. Some of these have also demonstrated the ability to bring down shells.
The latest self-defense technology is high-energy lasers (HEL). These too have demonstrated effectiveness against artillery shells, although their primary mission is against anti-ship missiles or aircraft. HEL systems may appear on naval ships supplementing or replacing traditional gun-based CWIS by end of the decade. | | | |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2286
| | 13 Feb 2011 10:23 PM |
| Fascinating but straying from the original brief I think. Kotori, I for one have no problem with the modified Gneisenau, barring my standing objections to ships of that vintage. | | | Vive la France! | |
|
Kotori87
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2343
| | 14 Feb 2011 12:22 AM |
| Perhaps I should be more clear. What is the general method for dealing with modifications? There are some that are reasonable, fair, and historically accurate. There are others that were hopeless pipe dreams of thoroughly-thumped losers. How does Battlestations determine which conversions are legal and which ones are not? | | | There are 101 different types of people: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who just can't count... | |
|
RichelieuBB
Veteran
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1418
| | 14 Feb 2011 12:42 AM |
| I'm thinking for the moment that we need more Battlestations ships on the water.  | | 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
| |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2286
| | 14 Feb 2011 10:57 AM |
| For the conversions I would say it is legal if it was finished, Ise/Hyuga or DD to APD or the like. Or underway as in the case of Gneisenau. Converting French cruisers to German carriers, not so much. Mainly because the Kreigsmarine carrier force is all so hypothetical. I can see the Graf Zeppelin, Strasser, and Seydlitz conversions as legal though as well as the Russian Hipper.
| | | Vive la France! | |
|