WesWorld

..why does the treaty only allow for 15" guns and not 16"? Not complaining as it makes things easier for me, but just curious.

I think we were hypnotized by the large multi-page Treaty proposal Pengolodh made that we completely forgot about the 15 inch limit he suggested while we were hypnotized (meaning I haven't got a clue).
:-)

Might have something to do that if 16 inch guns were allowed, only Japan and the US would have them and with the building holiday, only Japan and the US would have them for the next ten years (and the UK for the last 5-6 years once the Nelsons were launched). Though I would have loved it if I would have been allowed to keep the 16 inch guns, I actually do like the triple turret Nagato better (this was HoOmAn's idea).

I could have used twin 15 inch guns, but:
"I don't like twins because they look so empty.
I don't like quads because they look so crowded.
I do like triples because they look just right."

...
...
...
... perhaps it has something to do with the Holy Hand Granade of Antioch...

Walter

Holy Hand Granade of Antioch... deadly weapon it is!
I think a few of us were keen on a 15" gun design not only to get a true limitations treaty but to also try something different. IMO you can get a really well balanced design on 40,000 tons with a max caliber of 15".

Hi...

As Wes said it offers the chance for balanced designs and of course it offered a different development then under the original WT. Our tonnage limits are less rigid for capital units and CAs but the gun size allowed for capital units counters this to some degree.

Further more a 15" shell offers enough punch to penetrate most if not all reasonable armor that will be attached to a ship within reasonable ranges (<26k yards).

Regards,

HoOmAn

I rather like the CT for the very reason that one can produce much more balanced designs than with the WT. I think this - together with SS's prejudices accounts for the rather advanced designs we have been seeing. Not to mention that we do not have economic rules that would make one want to build affordable designs. All in all I think it is a good and fun framework.

I think thats one of my only missgivings in the SIM, the fact that we don't have economic rules that limit us to an affordable amount of ships given. Without financial constraints Britain surely could have built more ships. That being said we are spared the tedious work of working out what our indevidual nations can spend on ships.

Our infrastructure rules should indirectly reflect economic realities, but they don't. In most cases, nations received a much larger allotment than they really needed - as evidenced by the fact that a lot of people aren't really building a heck of a lot right now. Most of their points are going toward expanding their infrastructure even further.

Personally, I would've preferred no ceiling on capital ship guns. Sure, 40,000 t will get you a balanced 14" or 15" ship, but wouldn't it be neat to see somebody try an 18" battlecruiser on that displacement?

"as evidenced by the fact that a lot of people aren't really building a heck of a lot right now"

Yes - and no.

Some of us just started with an unbalanced fleet for some reason. Those have to fix that error now building what they forgot earlier. Some others just don´t care if their fleets are balanced or not. Third some may building as much as possible wondering why nobody asks them for what they need all those brandnew vessels....

*shrug shoulders*

However, you´re right that we could have decided to go without limit for gun size but this have been reasonable? Isn´t a treaty like the CT meant to reduce money and effort spend to produce more and more weapons allowing some nations to wield more and more power?
Given that the majority didn´t have 16" guns back then allowing them would have meant to start developement of new guns in several countries. Such would have been quite expensive - even though our sim doesn´t have a rule to represent these costs. The CT prevented this....

Regards,

HoOmAn