Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, as you are differing between landing craft and landing ships - where is the difference (I guess I know but I like to hear)?
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
And how does the whole discussion touch only one of these types while it should affect both - just in different size?
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
The SAE also has three landing ships - but I have no picture of these. So I posted what I had to show the SAE is moving...
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, as you are differing between landing craft and landing ships - where is the difference (I guess I know but I like to hear)?
And how does the whole discussion touch only one of these types while it should affect both - just in different size?
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
As I understand it, Wesworld is a naval sim, and it has specific sets of rules for a nation's infrastructure and available naval budget. Everything else is rather free-form. What the proposed rule would do is take ship tonnage 'out' of the naval budget (i.e. - you pay less for the ship) and use the 'free-form' economy to account for it. While any nation can benefit from this saving, I feel it works disproportionally to the benefit of larger nations.
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.
- Conversions of existing civilian ships to landing ships shall be priced according to pre-existing rules.
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The argument seems to be that such ships are built to be somewhat disposable, and with 'off-the-shelf' fittings and equipment (Such as engine plants already in production), and not expected to survive direct combat with other warships.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The argument seems to be that such ships are built to be somewhat disposable, and with 'off-the-shelf' fittings and equipment (Such as engine plants already in production), and not expected to survive direct combat with other warships.
I don't see why that would be the case for these ships. Lots of off the shelf stuff goes into current designs, none of which offers any cost saving under our rules.
Quoted
- LSTs are build to special rules because of them being a mix of a freighter and a warship
- The miscellaneous weight of LST is halved into deductable and non-deductable (50/50)
- The deductable weight is taken of the ships light displacement and so building time and building costs
- Otherwise all normal building rules apply
- For scrapping LST only the reduced weight is used for calculation.
- Any landing craft carried aboard the LST shall be purchased separately under light craft rules.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
After some discussion with myself and others, Hoo suggested this proposal as a compromise position.
Quoted
- LSTs are build to special rules because of them being a mix of a freighter and a warship
- The miscellaneous weight of LST is halved into deductable and non-deductable (50/50)
- The deductable weight is taken of the ships light displacement and so building time and building costs
- Otherwise all normal building rules apply
- For scrapping LST only the reduced weight is used for calculation.
- Any landing craft carried aboard the LST shall be purchased separately under light craft rules.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
I think it is too difficult to even try covering OTL US wartime production with our rules. It was not standard situation historically and thus cannot be covered by out standard rules here, IMHO.
But of course it´s just a proposal for a compromise. You can always say nay and veto it. We will then need a new proposal....
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH