You are not logged in.

Margin of error?

CanisD

Professional

Posts: 1,464

  • Send private message

1

Friday, January 7th 2005, 8:07pm

Margin of error?

What's the margin of error for the individual warship tonnge limits?

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

2

Friday, January 7th 2005, 8:39pm

You mean the "allowable cheat factor"?

It's 5%

CanisD

Professional

Posts: 1,464

  • Send private message

3

Friday, January 7th 2005, 8:46pm

"Margin of Error" seems so much more polite than "Cheat Factor". :)

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

4

Friday, January 7th 2005, 10:08pm

Its 5%, but just try not to use it all the time.

CanisD

Professional

Posts: 1,464

  • Send private message

5

Friday, January 7th 2005, 10:42pm

I don't plan too, it just might be necessary for one design. I'm thinking about modifying the Lexington Class Battlecruisers into fast battleships, dropping their speed to 31 knots and giving them armor comperable to the Hood. the resulting design come in at just under 42,000 tons.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

6

Saturday, January 8th 2005, 1:58am

Canis, you have read this ?

CanisD

Professional

Posts: 1,464

  • Send private message

7

Saturday, January 8th 2005, 2:34am

Doh! Missed that.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

8

Saturday, January 8th 2005, 3:03am

Sometimes its fun to not be bound by treaty to do anything. Of course I have very little I can do just yet, and I have size limits based on slip spaces, and some construction rules, but I can do what I want with my ships.

I suggest working on the carriers more then the battlecruisers at this time, as the carriers will likley be more important in the long run. (use your design with a single giant funnel for the battlecruisers, the same one that was on the carriers...it would look so good I think)

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

9

Saturday, January 8th 2005, 12:16pm

"I suggest working on the carriers more then the battlecruisers at this time, as the carriers will likley be more important in the long run."

The question is: Would that be logical from the 1925er perspective? Everything else is just using hindsight...

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

10

Saturday, January 8th 2005, 7:09pm

From a design aspect, the battlecruiser are pretty much done already, the carrier need to be done more as they have the more radical changes then the battlecruisers would have.

I'm speaking in terms of the needs of the player to have a carrier that is already under construction to have a form, as oppose to a nation predicting the future.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

11

Sunday, January 9th 2005, 12:50am

Confused

I don´t think I got your point....?

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

12

Sunday, January 9th 2005, 2:26am

I think what he means is that due to the treaty no new BB's/BC's are being built (at least not imediatly) so the U.S. would likely consintrate on its carriers which at this stage are a luxury to the fleet but one with any number of potential uses in the future.

Any new projects involving BB's and BC's would be in the rebuild or refit area and not in the emidiate future.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

13

Sunday, January 9th 2005, 7:45am

More or less yes that is my point. The Battlecruisers have been simmed already and may or may not need to be tweeked with, but the carriers have not been done at all. So those would need to be the priority of things to do I would think.

CanisD

Professional

Posts: 1,464

  • Send private message

14

Monday, January 31st 2005, 9:59pm

Do the total type tonnages have a "margin of error" as well? What if I was 1.75% over my 500,000 ton limit on capital ships? (8,726 tons)

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

15

Monday, January 31st 2005, 10:20pm

I don't think so.

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

16

Tuesday, February 1st 2005, 1:11am

Depends on how you look at it...

If your actual aggreate standard tonnage is over the limit, but your claimed (up to 5% lower per ship) aggreate is at/below the limit, then you're legal, at least historically. ;) And you've also been brib...er, making use of the Japanese inspectors. ^_^


If the aggreate of the claimed tonnages is over the limit, however, the Treaty Police will get you.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

17

Tuesday, February 1st 2005, 1:32am

You could always reclassify a battleship as a automobile by mistake. (land cruiser)

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

18

Tuesday, February 1st 2005, 1:36am

Quoted

You could always reclassify a battleship as a automobile by mistake. (land cruiser)


HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

19

Tuesday, February 1st 2005, 9:22am

LOL

Very nice, indeed. :o)

Seriously: If you can go over the limit by 5% for every single ship this sums up to 5% over the general limit. Easy math. At least in character...