thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

[PvK]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
In terms of “Realety”, Hm, Yes, large guns on small ships would be a problem on Earth today. Those are weapons with a Recoil.
My itterpretation of the wepaons in SEIV do not use Recoil based weapons. The point about Spinal Tap weapons beling less accurate is certaily valid. I wonder what a 15” gun in a Destroyer hull would have done with WWII technology. Anybody here know the math?
I would think if you could close to within Direct Fire Range that accuracy would be fairly high when aiming at a Cruiser size hull. Imagine 3 direct hits from 15” guns at fairly close range. Too bad we will never know.
I can see a Mod for a “Spinal Tap” weapon
Low to hit
High Damage bonus
1 Per ship
At least a 3 reload time.
At least 50kt.

A DUC would have recoil. Many Star Wars weapons seem to have recoil, but that's Lucas physics. However, as I said, the problems would be different, but probably there will still be engineering issues and tradeoffs due to size and mass, power requirements, spacial issues (massive turret blocking other surface facilties), etc.

In WW2, a destroyer with a 15" gun would I think be technically problematic or even impossible due to mass. A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing), the gun would be very inaccurate at long range, and one of the main points of having a 15" gun is to be able to out-range your opponents. The reason a WW2 battleship is superior to a WW2 cruiser is that it can nail the cruiser before the cruiser can even get in range. The 15"-armed destroyer probably wouldn't be able to hit anything at the gun's longer ranges. Much more practical was the heavy weapon which was given to destroyers - the torpedo, which would do as much or more damage than a 15" gun, and may have had similar accuracy when mounted on a destroyer, to what a 15"-armed destroyer would have had. I suppose with enough engineering, maybe a spinal-mount heavy cannon of some sort on a destroyer might have had intermediate range and been an interesting and perhaps feasible alternative weapon. I tend to think they'd still be held at bay by the more accurate long-range guns of larger ships.

In any case, though, WW2 destroyers were rarely able to close the range with capital ships, because they would get nailed by direct-fire before they got within torpedo range, more often than not. But sometimes they did, and the threat of them doing so was tactically important, and of course destroyers were extremely useful in all sorts of other roles.

Of course another major factor would be expense. A 15" gun was expensive to produce, much more so than a torpedo tube.

PvK

[Wardad]

In empty space, with no friction, a flash light is an engine!!! Still Going!!!

So firing Ionic Dispersers, Meson guns and whatever is gonna rock the boat for sure.

[jimbob]

A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing)

But can one actually capsize in space?

[sachmo]

Originally posted by PvK:
In any case, though, WW2 destroyers were rarely able to close the range with capital ships, because they would get nailed by direct-fire before they got within torpedo range, more often than not. But sometimes they did, and the threat of them doing so was tactically important, and of course destroyers were extremely useful in all sorts of other roles.

PvK[/QB]

Which is why the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked at night, where they could get in close and not worry about those big, bad cannon!

[Wanderer]

1) If you're firing at something 1000s of km away, a small recoil & a little bit of torque and you'll miss by some way if you don't correct your aim.

2) 15" shells weighed a ton (literally) - you wouldn't be able to put many in a destroyer without slowing her to a crawl, and if you tried it you'd make a very pretty firework display if the enemy hit your unarmoured magazines...

IMO the mount system is good. If you want to have starships built like Napoleonic ships of the line with numerous rows of small guns, go ahead, but I think I'll be 'borrowing' the idea of giving large mounts a to-hit penalty.

*re-engaging lurking device*

[Fyron]

Originally posted by jimbob:

quote:

---

A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing)

But can one actually capsize in space?

---

He was talking about WWII ships, not space ships.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimbob:

quote:

---

A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing)

But can one actually capsize in space?

---

He was talking about WWII ships, not space ships.

---

Ya, I was, but while you couldn't capsize per se, you could have other problems if you apply a large force off-center - the ship could spin and tumble, which could be quite a problem for the people and equipment inside. Your stabilizer system would also be more challenged to deal with such. But, as I said a couple of times, the engineering problems and trade-offs might be somewhat different in space from those faced by sea vessels, but there would undoubtedly still be major effects of deploying massive weapons on small ships. It would be more interesting to model the effects rather than just disallow them, at least as far as they are still practical and not just a model of a bad idea.

It would be nice though to be able to mark unit sizes and mounts as obsolete, and filter the view. Otherwise, if you mod many interesting new types in, it can start to clutter the interface.

PvK