WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
50% rebuild, they are conversions from shallow draft tankers.

Just to clarify the converted version is 6,533 tons with 4,200 tons misc weight. with the LST rule thats light tonnage minus misc which is 2,333 tons. 50% conversion is 1,117 tons.

To drop back to this one, I've got to wonder how practical a conversion this would be. A tanker would not have the sloping bottom the purpose-designed LSTs had, so while you could use modify the original oil tanks to be ballast tanks and you could replace the bow, landing operations might still be relatively problematic.

Of course, that might be a development arc: Atlantis tries the conversion and then develops specialist craft that aren't conversions because the conversions don't work as well as they'd like.

Well the general idea is to get a developement arc, yes, but its also based on work the British did on LST's, namely the HMS Misoa class which converted in much the same way.

I'm...of mixed feelings. We discussed a rule pertaining to new-build ships, making them affordable. You seem to have taken that rule, and applied it to a RR&R rules, and thus gained even more benefit and economic savings than the original discussion seemed to entail.

I'm not sure if I agree with that or not, but feel that particular aspect should be made clear either way.

Hold up. It said non-conversions get the bonus of these rules. Wes, the ships you want to convert are conversions. Besides, if you're testing a new ship type, it will be naturally more expensive than a mass-produced ship.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
Hold up. It said non-conversions get the bonus of these rules.

Forgive me, but I don't recall anyone stating that anywhere. Citation needed?

Quoted

although purpose-built (non-civilian conversion) oilers and resupply ships could probably also be built to that

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy

Quoted

although purpose-built (non-civilian conversion) oilers and resupply ships could probably also be built to that

If you provide and read the entire quote, you'll note that's not what I'm talking about.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by HrolfHakonson
On the first sentence, do you mean that to apply to ships like tankers, destroyer/submarine/seaplane/etc tenders, and armed merchant cruisers? Or should "Auxiliary/" be replaced by "Specialized "?

Eh, probably should make it Specialized Landing Ships only, although purpose-built (non-civilian conversion) oilers and resupply ships could probably also be built to that.

By "purpose-built (non-civilian conversion)" ships, I'm talking about ships you cannot expect to get from the civilian sector: ships like the Sacramento class AOEs.

Wes is talking about turning a civilian tanker into this sort of tank landing ship.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I'm...of mixed feelings. We discussed a rule pertaining to new-build ships, making them affordable. You seem to have taken that rule, and applied it to a RR&R rules, and thus gained even more benefit and economic savings than the original discussion seemed to entail.

I'm not sure if I agree with that or not, but feel that particular aspect should be made clear either way.

Thats precisely why I put it out there, so that we can decide if experimental conversions should fall under this rule too. I don't think its a sneaky rule, afterall we have some who take advantage of the rule that allows the use of old guns to cut the cost of new ships.

Any further comments?

So unless there are disagreements, this rule can now be applied.

Before applying any rule - would you mind give a full quote of the final rule proposal? Thanks...

I think we were using this:

Quoted

- Purpose-built landing ships of 3,001t or greater light tonnage shall be built to light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [1] [2]
- Landing ships and landing craft of 3,000t or less shall be built to 75% light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo.

[1] Including, for example, tanks, or water in flooded well decks; but not including things like radar, workshops, cranes, etc.
[2] As we've discussed here and in the Landing Ship Dock thread.
[3] In this case, Hrolf's LST would be (1,789 - 780) * .75 = 757 tons to build.

I'm not clear yet on what we decided regarding conversions. This is of interest to me, as I was planning to convert a civilian steamer to a landing ship.

As far as conversions go, I'd say cost them as if they were new construction. That way the purchaser is neither advantaged nor hurt by going down the conversion route.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
As far as conversions go, I'd say cost them as if they were new construction. That way the purchaser is neither advantaged nor hurt by going down the conversion route.

Um... huh?

Quite frankly, it seems to me that if we build new ships to a certain standard, then we should be able to refit according to the same rules. I'd prefer it for simplicity's sake, if nothing else.

My concern is that if conversions are too cheap, we'll suddenly see lots of them, and there really shouldn't be lots of appropriate hulls to convert for a landing ship (those shallow draft tankers are one of the few types that would work decently). Also, there's plenty of less-focused designs (like your proposed LSI) that are not so specialized that they need to be paid for at this rate, the old rate for auxiliaries (pay for the military equipment) would be fine.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
My concern is that if conversions are too cheap, we'll suddenly see lots of them, and there really shouldn't be lots of appropriate hulls to convert for a landing ship (those shallow draft tankers are one of the few types that would work decently).

By landing ship, you're meaning vessels intended to beach (like LSTs) and vessels with unusual hull designs (such as LSDs), not ships like the USN's attack transports, I presume.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Also, there's plenty of less-focused designs (like your proposed LSI) that are not so specialized that they need to be paid for at this rate, the old rate for auxiliaries (pay for the military equipment) would be fine.

I have two different LSI designs. The one I posted is purpose-built; the one I haven't posted is a conversion job based off the HMCS Prince David. (That's the one I'm currently budgeted for, as it's the higher amount.) Both ships oddly have fairly similar landing capabilities, but my converted ship has a higher speed.

So here's the humdinger I'm running into as part of this discussion, comparing the rules.
- My conversion LSI(M) will cost 2287 tons to refit with a 50% rebuild job.
- My conversion LSI(M) will cost 1537 tons to refit with a 50% rebuild job under proposed rules.
- My purpose-built LSI (posted in the other thread) will cost 2,650 tons under the current rules.
- My purpose-built LSI will cost me 1,250 tons under the proposed rules.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
My concern is that if conversions are too cheap, we'll suddenly see lots of them, and there really shouldn't be lots of appropriate hulls to convert for a landing ship (those shallow draft tankers are one of the few types that would work decently).

By landing ship, you're meaning vessels intended to beach (like LSTs) and vessels with unusual hull designs (such as LSDs), not ships like the USN's attack transports, I presume.

Correct.

Quoted

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Also, there's plenty of less-focused designs (like your proposed LSI) that are not so specialized that they need to be paid for at this rate, the old rate for auxiliaries (pay for the military equipment) would be fine.

I have two different LSI designs. The one I posted is purpose-built; the one I haven't posted is a conversion job based off the HMCS Prince David. (That's the one I'm currently budgeted for, as it's the higher amount.) Both ships oddly have fairly similar landing capabilities, but my converted ship has a higher speed.

So here's the humdinger I'm running into as part of this discussion, comparing the rules.
- My conversion LSI(M) will cost 2287 tons to refit with a 50% rebuild job.
- My conversion LSI(M) will cost 1537 tons to refit with a 50% rebuild job under proposed rules.
- My purpose-built LSI (posted in the other thread) will cost 2,650 tons under the current rules.
- My purpose-built LSI will cost me 1,250 tons under the proposed rules.

Why would the changes need a 50% rebuild? They're not designed to beach, so you don't need a change to the bow form, guns are smaller than 196mm, there are no barbettes, etc.... what am I missing?

It's got new engines and a complete superstructure rebuild, just like the HMCS Prince David. They basically turned the old 1929 liner into a ship with a cruiser's silhouette:

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
It's got new engines and a complete superstructure rebuild, just like the HMCS Prince David. They basically turned the old 1929 liner into a ship with a cruiser's silhouette:

Something to keep in mind is the progression of roles that the Prince David (and her sisters) underwent during their careers. Before becoming an LSI(L) the Prince David was converted as an armed merchant cruiser with four 6in (4x1) and a pair of 3in AA, which may have impacted the look of the silhouette.

That's correct, her superstructure was replaced in the 1939-1940 rebuild that turned her into an AMC.