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
2.2.2.5 Level 4: Partial Reconstruction (cost = 50%, except ships of 2,999 t light or less --> 25%)
-Changes to bunkerage (type or quantity): P
-Replacement of superstructure: P
-Changes to internal belt armor: P (upper), D (ends, main)
-Changes to deck armor: P
-Alterations to guns of 66mm-195mm involving barbette alterations: P
-Replacement of secondary barbettes with powerplant machinery: D
-Alterations to guns 196mm and larger not involving barbette alterations: P
-Change to powerplant (type and output): D
-Change to bow form: D
-Change to trim of ship: D
-Change to torpedo bulkheads: D
Quoted
If you're decreasing bunkerage, you're removing fuel tanks and adding normal compartments in its place.
Quoted
Changing the mass of the bunkers and the weight of the magazine will have knock-on effects - potentially to trim, to metacentric height, to stability, and/or to seaworthiness. I believe that the level of effort to re-balance those parameters are what drives the "partial reconstruction".
Quoted
If you're decreasing bunkerage, you're removing fuel tanks and adding normal compartments in its place.
Is that what they really do? I would think that they would just seal it off and turn it into a water tight compartment or so rather than going through all the hassle of removing it, unless that space the fuel tank takes up is actually needed for something (which seems unlikely if you were, for example, adding lots of radars or a plane and a catapult and a crane or a helicopter with landing pad).
...so if I were to increase the number of main gun shells, but I keep the actual number of shells for the main gun the same (in order to sim the increased number of shells for the smaller caliber guns which you know I apply to my most recent vessels), the major refit for guns 66mm-195mm or minor refit for guns 65mm and smaller would apply instead.
Quoted
since you'd need to rebuild the bunker wall and any heating, cooling, or ventilation components around it
Quoted
and then build a watertight compartment where the larger tank used to be
Quoted
Since none of us are shipyard foremen or estimators, I'd strongly prefer simplicity principle in this case.
Quoted
That sounds like a situation that would be solved better by allocating a bit of miscellaneous weight.
Quoted
I don't like the idea of trying to sim changes to a piece of armament by changing some other piece of armament, and I'd advise against it, since it could affect the ability of other players to re-sim a given design. If that's what you're doing with ship rebuilds, then it needs to be clearly marked in the notes so that the other players understand what happened and why.
Quoted
But yes, you apply the correct level of refit for the armament that you're actually changing.
Quoted
since you'd need to rebuild the bunker wall and any heating, cooling, or ventilation components around it
This to me reads that you consider the bunker to be one huge tank holding all the fuel for the ship. I'm pretty sure that a ship has numerous smaller tanks of which you can easily seal off one without touching any bunker walls, heating, cooling, or ventilation components.
Quoted
After all, additional space is obtained, which can be used elsewhere for modernization.
Quoted
That sounds like a situation that would be solved better by allocating a bit of miscellaneous weight.
That depends on how you want to apply that. In my opinion if you want to use miscellaneous weights, you should add it when you add the additional rounds. If you are going to allocate existing miscellaneous weights, one could then use the argument that it was there for future increase of the magazines and then use a simple refit for adding main gun shells for guns >196mm. Also most likely in the real world you would be adding stuff on a ship with something like that rather than replacing something with additional ammunition. I am pretty sure that stuff was added to ships and the ships end up lying slightly deeper in the water.
Quoted
I don't like the idea of trying to sim changes to a piece of armament by changing some other piece of armament, and I'd advise against it, since it could affect the ability of other players to re-sim a given design. If that's what you're doing with ship rebuilds, then it needs to be clearly marked in the notes so that the other players understand what happened and why.
We are working with SS2 and not SS3. With SS3 we can set the rounds per gun individually for each weapon we sim. With SS2 you can only set the rounds per gun for the main gun and SS2 automatically adds about 17% additional rounds to the other weapons (so with 150 rounds for the main gun, you have 175 rounds for all the other weapons which is an amount you will have spent it all in a very short amount of time with automatic guns and especially with machine guns and AA guns). You either solve that by adding miscellaneous weights or increase the total magazine weight. Now I don't like SS2's miscellaneous weights as SS2 assumes it to be "floating" a dozen feet or so above deck and potentially cause stability issues instead of somewhere deep inside the ship where it should be (SS2's miscellaneous weights is also what has pushed me to start using subsim instead for my submarines and I am pretty sure it is what caused others to start using bunker to sim cargo on merchant ships). Because of that I start using the increased magazine weight to sim additional rounds for the smaller caliber weapons.
Quoted
That implies to me that some manner of reconstruction is being undertaken, both to remove components deemed unnecessary and install new ones to take advantage of space gained.
Quoted
As I said, so long as you make sufficiently adequate notes that would allow another player to re-create the sim, that's fine.
My directive comes because, at numerous times in the past, we've had players depart, leaving un-simmable (or very awkward) ship designs to the players who follow them.
Ergo, if you want to do things that way, I'm not going to stop you, so long as there's always enough information to replicate the sim.
Quoted
There would be a lot of work to do in any case with removing plumbing etc.
Quoted
SS I assume calculates hull strength on the basis of a full bunker but in reality most of the time the bunkers are not full.
Quoted
By reducing the fuel load I think you're simply substituting oil/coal for air but the structure weight would remain the same and the former bunker is just another watertight void or small storage space.
Quoted
(assuming SS has a constant weight/space ratio calculation).
Quoted
Perhaps all we need to do is create a few more levels of refit in between the ones we already have such as 35% and 60% refits.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH