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.
ToQuoted
Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (2x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1918 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1918 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
Quoted
Armament:
6 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1919 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
Quoted
2.2.2.4 Level 3: Major Refits (cost = 25%, except ships of 2,999 t light or less --> 15%)
-Changes to catapults and/or above-decks seaplane hangers: P
-Alterations to guns of 66mm-195mm not involving barbette alterations: P
-Changes to superstructure (i.e. lengthening or widening a deck, adding a deck house): P
The guns do NOT involve barbette alterations, and the superstructure is changed NOT replaced. Here is the Omaha and the Columbia classes. Note the differencesQuoted
2.2.2.5 Level 4: Partial Reconstruction (cost = 50%, except ships of 2,999 t light or less --> 25%)
-Replacement of superstructure: P
-Alterations to guns of 66mm-195mm involving barbette alterations: P
As a matter of proportionality, I also think that adding the hoist can't warrant a cost of 50% when the ship's armament and armor only take up ~2% of total normal weight. Is hoist installation disruptive? Sure. Does it completely bugger half the ship? No.
It sounds like from this thread that the option for Mount and Hoist was added in the move from SS1 to SS2, is that correct? If so, what version of SS were the current rules written for, 1 or 2?
If your graphic is inaccurate in a key structural detail, I would suggest you have more work to do with the graphic before presenting it to the board as a final representation.First I should mention that the drawings are not perfect, and merely where meant to show the general idea of the refit using drawings I modified, hence the freeboard is not correct. The refit would not make them flushdeck.
Also, I would argue that your proposal is even more extensive than mine. Locating the gun mounts where the casements where, would actually be simpler as you can use the same ammo storage and hoists, and the structure is already strengthen to take on the gun stresses.
Yeah the armament is rearranged, but we are talking about deck mounts on a light cruiser, and the armament actually goes down. I could have bought Columbias and not worried about it, but just wanted to do something different, my ships are actually worse so I'm not seeing what the problem is.
I'm wary of tying the refit rules too closely to what was/could be done with historical designs; This has come up before, and I found it somewhat unfair to apply a finer microscope to those of us working with historical designs, while players who have gone ahistorical have more freedom to declare what their ships can and can't handle.Quoted
I
have yet to reach an opinion on the question of a general rules change as a result of our discussions here; however, I think it may revolve around the matter of a particular vessel's original design. The Omaha class is, I think, a good case in point.
Quoted
I'm wary of tying the refit rules too closely to what was/could be done with historical designs; This has come up before, and I found it somewhat unfair to apply a finer microscope to those of us working with historical designs, while players who have gone ahistorical have more freedom to declare what their ships can and can't handle.
The discussion may be enlightening and helpful, but if a player wishes to do something the rules allow for, I do not condone a double standard merely because we have more concrete information available for historical ships than what will show up in a Springsharp.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH