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.
That could probably work.
Is 1% displacement difference going to be sufficient? Just thinking out loud, here: if you're blistering a 10,000 ton cruiser, then you can have no more than a 100 ton increase in displacement (and a 2,500 ton rebuild cost). Seems... low, but perhaps that's best in order to prevent it from getting out of hand? Thoughts?
That could probably work.
Is 1% displacement difference going to be sufficient? Just thinking out loud, here: if you're blistering a 10,000 ton cruiser, then you can have no more than a 100 ton increase in displacement (and a 2,500 ton rebuild cost). Seems... low, but perhaps that's best in order to prevent it from getting out of hand? Thoughts?
I noted some of my ships had torpedo-bulkheads totaling less than 2% of normal displacement, hence the 1% suggestion. 2% may be fine if the non-TBH provision is retained...
That could probably work.
Is 1% displacement difference going to be sufficient? Just thinking out loud, here: if you're blistering a 10,000 ton cruiser, then you can have no more than a 100 ton increase in displacement (and a 2,500 ton rebuild cost). Seems... low, but perhaps that's best in order to prevent it from getting out of hand? Thoughts?
Would 3% be enough for smaller ships? Though I suspect a vessel under 7,000 tons isn't going to be a candidate for blistering given its size.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH