Jump to content

The GM's Hall


Rudolph

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

CNRP2 is not dieing unless you're only paying attention to this thread. This thread is where behind the scenes issues are taken up and resolved if they're not resolved between players so it doesn't kill the game elsewhere. If you don't like an argument you're not involved in, best not look here until you are involved? Just.. you know.. saying. Chill. Go rp.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is where behind the scenes issues are taken up and resolved if they're not resolved between players so it doesn't kill the game elsewhere.

More a place for Triyun to dump his bullshit wall of text about space planes that shoots lasers nobody cares about and was one of the factors for the CNRP split. Great to see the bullshit is allowed to continue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DF-21-D ASBM is a complicated weapon system, and has the potential by no means has done so already, to make the carrier and entire class of vessel obsolete.  Understanding how damn hard it is to actually aim the thing is important if people want to use such a disruptive weapon instead of, 'lulz ur carriers are dead brah'

 

There are plenty of alternatives that could be fielded instead that could protect the Italian coast if you do not want to deal with the complexities us such a system.  The most obvious being anti-ship missiles on the Eurofighter.  Of course these could be contested by so could the DF-21D.  The difference is the in non-tech terms, the DF-21D is Smaug, a beast but one thing and you shoot in the right spot the entire system is dead.  The Eurofighter is swarms of goblins.   

 

Modern weapons are really complicated and have a lot of dependence on sensor systems, which introduces all of it.  If people really want to move away from it I'd suggest in 100% seriousness putting 1991 as the top year, that was the year shit really changed.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/122938-greater-romanian-actions-and-news/#entry3291245

 

I hereby kindly ask for the GMs to review my efforts to plausibly upgrade a WWII fast battleship. The points I would like to make is:

  • The ship actually floated, was in service, took a few barrages before sinking, due to scuttling by the crew. I would say, the basic ship is fine and has no major flaws in its design that prevent it from being seaworthy.
  • While the ship in question was never modernised, I bet they would have modernised the ships of the class, had they kept them till today. Other battleships were modernised, so I doubt you can't modernise these ones. The sole things preventing modernisation were that the first ship sunk 1941, the second one was bombed and capsized in Norway and the country that owned them lost a world war. Nothing that can be blamed on naval construction failures.
  • I replaced parts of the secondary battery with armoured box launchers. Same was done with the Iowa and it seemed to work. It actually has less Tomahawks than the Iowa (Yes, I changed the name in the RP), mostly because it is a smaller ship with less space, and so I could not find more space to reasonably install Tomohawks on.
  • I replaced the entire AA with 4 Goalkeepers and SeaRAMs. Both are in service and work. I would say, it is reasonable to assume that I can replace these Flak emplacements with modern CIWS.
  • Radar and electronics are on modern standards. This means not an AEGIS combat system (because we already saw such works not on the Iowa and it also would be dumb, considering the ship in question), but a decent long range radar and short range radar, as well as computerised fire controls. Datalink too.
  • I upgraded also the crew facilities for comfort. There now is a TV and an electronic cooking plate. I don't think they originally had those, but I say it is pretty feasable.
  • I removed the seaplane catapult, because I don't use seaplanes. The space thus could be used for whatever.

Thus, overall, I would think that the modernisation plan should be workable and I should get these battleships as canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting this for GM consideration for my battleship program.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/123314-norse-news/?p=3291854

 

The second battleship is a completely custom design that I would like to be considered for usage within my navy.

The link to the thread I found it in is contained with the post, aswell as images and a summary of the ships specifications which ill post here for ease of access.

 

Specifications

Displacement: 40,000 tons standard / 52,000 tons maximum load

Length: 880'

Beam: 108'

Draft: 35'

Propulsion: 2x B2B Nuclear Reactors / 4 Electric Motors / 4 Screws

Speed: 33 Knots

Range: Unlimited

Compliment War: 1,000 / Peace: 750

Armament:

    6x 12"/55 cannons
    8x 76mm OTO Melara RF guns
    6x 20mm Phalanx CIWs
    192x Mark 57 missile cells
    4x RIM-116 Launchers (84 Missiles)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I would like to say, I'm against complete custom designs.

 

Second, if Zoot gets approved, can I assume that custom aircraft can be made too? I mean, a weapon system is a weapon system. It should be allowed or we actually stay with the premise of using only what was or is used IRL and has reached a production variant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I would like to say, I'm against complete custom designs.

 

Second, if Zoot gets approved, can I assume that custom aircraft can be made too? I mean, a weapon system is a weapon system. It should be allowed or we actually stay with the premise of using only what was or is used IRL and has reached a production variant.

 

I am awaiting to see what the decision is on your design before presenting my own full argument for design number two. The difference between warships and aircraft is great. The main point driving my request, is that my 'custom' design, is built on the hull of an Iowa Class battleship, the main differences are its armour belt, superstructure and weaponry, all of which I will happily explain when the time comes to present it to the GM's when they are done with yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After talking with my fellow GMs, we have come to the following conclusion:

Upgrades as Eva is doing them are permissible. They're within the realm of reason and adhere to the rule of keeping designs to RL stuff.
 
Zoot's second BShip design does not adhere to the latter rule. It is thus struck down. Please direct complaints to the complaint box.
htU9t16.jpg

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an alternative as my custom design has been declined, is it permissable for me to apply the same upgrades I described, onto an actual Iowa Class battleships, with the exception of the superstructure changes and it being nuclear powered?

 

I specifically mention the superstructure and the power plant as those are the two main issues I believe exist with my design and the current rule set.

 

My counter proposal is that I keep the standard boiler based, non nuclear power source of the battleship, as well as the traditional super structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an alternative as my custom design has been declined, is it permissable for me to apply the same upgrades I described, onto an actual Iowa Class battleships, with the exception of the superstructure changes and it being nuclear powered?
 
I specifically mention the superstructure and the power plant as those are the two main issues I believe exist with my design and the current rule set.
 
My counter proposal is that I keep the standard boiler based, non nuclear power source of the battleship, as well as the traditional super structure.

Upgrades similar to what Eva is doing are fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll ask again, and ill be even more specific, because general answers like that always get brought up at the worst times. I really would like a yes/no answer for simple clarity so there are zero misunderstandings, and so I am not going to write a load of RP it then mean nothing.

 

Original Iowa post 1980
Displacement:  45,000 tons (Standard), 58,000 tons (post 1980s full load)
Length: 887 ft (270 m)
Beam:  108 ft (33 m)
Draft:  36 ft (11 m) maximum
Installed power:  212,000 shp (158,000 kW), 8 water-tube boilers
Propulsion:  4 screws;
General Electric geared steam turbines
Speed:  32.5 knots
Range:  14,890 miles
Complement: 1,800 officers and men (1980s)
Electronic warfare
& decoys:
  1980s:
AN/SLQ-32(V)
AN/SLQ-25 Nixie
Mark 36 SRBOC

Cold War, Gulf War armament:
9 × 16-inch / 50 cal. Mark 7 guns
12 × 5-inch/38 cal. Mark 12 guns
32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk
16 × RGM-84 Harpoon
4 × 20 mm (.78 inch).Phalanx CIWS

 

My proposed changes:

[spoiler]

'Its sensor suite and electronics would be based on an Ticonderoga Class Cruiser, minus the AEGIS system due to the disruption caused by firing the 14" turrets at the fore and aft of the vessel. The requirement for such a powerful electronics suite is due to the multitude of weapons on board the ship from the big guns, to the Goalkeeper CIWS systems. The suite would keep track of all engaged and targetted hostiles that the vessel is interacting with, as well as providing and recieving data via data linking with other ships in the battlegroup. The downside of a totally digital weapons system is that the big guns cannot be used if the electronics on the BB-X is disrupted/destroyed due to a lack of a backup analogue firing system due to below deck space restrictions.

 

The positioning of the eight 76mm OTO Melara RF guns offer good coverage of the vessel in all directions for surface to surface supression and/or combat, as well as surface to air for hostiles. These guns can fire at a rate of 120 rounds per minute per gun, engaging both air and surface targets. The larger round allows for an increased engagement range over the CIWs weaponry. The CIWS systems, of which there are six, are positioned to offer 360' coverage of the vessel to shoot down any threats. The autonomous nature of the Goalkeeper CIWS means that is operates largely independently of the central electronics suite. Additional close range missile protection is provided by four RIM-116 launchers. These launchers are positioned at all sides of the ship, providing excellent all around firepower. The launcher can engage a variety of incoming anti-ship missiles out to 5.6 mi using its rolling airframe missiles.The system has thus far proven to be extremely effective in its intended role.'

[/spoiler]

 

Summary of my proposed changes to an Iowa class battleship:

Displacement: 45,000 tons standard / 58,000 tons maximum load

Length: 880'

Beam: 108'

Draft: 35'

Propulsion: 4 screws; General Electric geared steam turbines

Speed: 33 Knots

Range:

Compliment War: 1,500 sailors

Armament:

    6x 14"/55 cannons
    8x 76mm OTO Melara RF guns
    6x 20mm Phalanx CIWs
    192x Mark 57 missile cells
    4x RIM-116 Launchers (84 Missiles)

Edited by Zoot Zoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[spoiler]

<Biohazard> Hey, so
<Biohazard> Let me make sure I understand what you're trying to do 
<Biohazard> You want to take the hull of an Iowa Class BB
<Biohazard> and simply throw some modern equipment on it?
<Zoot> thats about it yeah, im taking off the old shit, replacing it with new shit, to make space for some ofthe new shit, i got rid of an entire turret, and made the remaining two turrents smaller in caliber to allow for more VLS cells
<Zoot> i described in detail and in extreme summary what my plans are
<Biohazard> So long as all the equipment that you're throwing onto is in use by 2014, this should be feasible
<Zoot> ok, can you post an official green light for my design in the GM’s court for the record?
[/spoiler]
 
Given this conversation, consider this a greenlight from me. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have kept the 16" guns

The range they offer and damage is great yes, but not as great nearly 100 more cruise missiles. Not only that, the 14' guns fire faster, cost less, weigh less, take up less space for more weapons/ammunition.

Its a case of weighing up rounds fired per minute and two 14' turrets firing more rounds a minute are going to deal more damage than two 16' turrets as they fire slower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but in a conflict situation you cannot discount the psychological impact of 16" guns versus smaller guns... sure, technically it is only two inches, but those 16 inch guns are proven to incite surrender with just an initial shelling.

 

Also, just going to note that I did it first with my Dreadnought class battleships (before I was wiped by the GMs)

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, just going to note that I did it first with my Dreadnought class battleships (before I was wiped by the GMs)


I do remember this. Everyone said how stupid you are. And now, everybody is arguing because they want to have the best battleship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that they want to have the best. They just want a current battleship instead of a ww2 fossil and they want to do it in a way that doesn't screw things up. I applaud Zoots getting his designs pre-approved to prevent future headache. I'm doing basically the same thing he's doing, putting current raytheon hardware and systems on all of my ships. I don't think I'm going to get rid of all of the 16 inch guns though.

No one can have "the best" we're all bound by modern tech.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to disagree with Zoot getting it preapproved.  That makes the most sense and hating him on that is short sighted.  But you guys are really stretching it in how you put labels.  Modern aegis destroyers are battleships.  They can command sea and direct fire ashore.  They can operate independently to project power and influence.  They make up battle fleets.  By any requirements but those anachronistic, they are a battleship.  However, I'll grant you that a battleship also has the gun issue.  That role in large part is though met by the Zumwalt, which is what I use, and call a battleship and should be classified as such, as well as used as a guide.  Destroyer is a generic term that's largely meaningless.  Lets look at some of the 'destroyers' of the world:

 

7500 ton soveremmy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovremenny-class_destroyer

9800 ton arleigh burke:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer

14500 ton zumwalt:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

27000 ton izumo:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_helicopter_destroyer

 

If we go by the first line of wiki:  In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable warship of long-endurance intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.

 

Yes all these can escort, but none of hem are limited by this function.  An arleigh burke can fire missiles at target 1000 kilometers away, 'defense against small powerful short range attackers' I don't thinks so.  Of all those ships I'd classify the Sovremenny maybe as a destroyer the Burke as a Cruiser (note its built on the same frame as the Ticonderoga cruiser and has largely similar capabilities, the Zumwalt a battleship (or battlecruiser), and the Izumo as a helicopter carrier.

 

In the 1920s when a battleship fired shells it wasn't very likely to hit stuff so it had to fire a lot of shells to put steel on the target.  The Zumwalt's precision fire controls made it require fewer guns.  Why do I need to fire 3 16 inch shells on something, if 1 155 mm will hit exactly where I want it from further away.  The same target is destroyed with lower collateral damage, and less risk to my vessel and crew?  On armor it has substituted much of this mass vs. armor game, for the sensor-shooter vs. stealth game.  I don't care what anyone says a big honking ship close in to shore is a missile sponge, and yes some warheads aren't geared for that sort of armor penetrating right now, but its not that hard to do.  And its certainly cheaper and faster than enabling a battleship to defend against them.

 

Beyond that a large Iowa size ship does not take advantage of a lot of the efficiencies that have come with modern technologies.  A much smaller crew can do the job on an freshly built hull.  So why build a bigger ship that takes more fuel, costs more to build and maintain, and is a bigger target.  Again doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

My point here is instead of trying to build an updated version of an Iowa, go back and think what a battleship's mission is, and just look for some of the ships that can accomplish this recognizing calling something a class of ship is largely meaningless as we throw around the term destroyer so loosely.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...