So, I have just picked up VaS this month and started lurking around here, but I have one question that can't be answered in the rulebook: is there a way- concrete or somewhat abstract- to add 'custom' designed ships, aside from requesting them from the Powers That Be?

I'm not talking about 'never-were' ships that are fairly well known, but rather ships completely out of one's imagination. If anyone here has ever heard of a program called 'Springsharp,' you will know what I'm talking about. If you haven't... search it, because this seems to be the kind of crowd that might just enjoy it (warts and all). Some friends and I, who have used the program for some time, have some fairly extensive fleet lists of totally fictitious ships that we would like to convert to use in VaS games.

If there is a 'trade secret' to the formula, that is understandable- but I was hoping that it might be something that we could at least attempt on a reliable basis. Just as an example, I'll post the general statistics of a ship I 'built' using the program:

Mvskoke class battleship (1905) 16,150 tons (standard)
Weapons:
2 Twin 12"/50 caliber guns (fore/aft)
6 Twin 7.5"/45 caliber guns (L/R beam)
12 Single 3"/50 caliber guns (4 fore/aft; 6 L/R beam)
Armor:
Main belt: 12" thick, 270' long, 16' tall
End belts: 6" thick, 180' long, 12' tall
Armor deck: 3" over engines and magazines, 1.5" elsewhere
Main battery: 14" turret face, 12" barbette
Secondaries: 6" turret face and barbette

18 knots top speed

743 (peace)/967 (war) crew

I can help you with this but I dont have my WWI formulaes with me right now.
Ray

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"

Thanks for the prompt response... I look forward to the explanation and to the announced new addition of VaS. I like these rules very much- simple, practical and quick to play. Now that I know this is based on ACTA, I might have to get ACTA: Starfleet (as I play FedCom and SFB as well)!

Just wish Mongoose still had the rights to Conan, too.

Mvskoke class battleship (1905)
Type: Battleship
Speed: 4”
Target: 4+
Armour: 4+
Damage: 33/16
Special Traits:
In Service: 1905
Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (3 x 12 in) 43” 2 2 AP
Y Turret (3 x 12 in) 43” 2 2 AP
Light Guns 14" 12 1 Weak
Light Guns 14” 3 1 Weak

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth...
She has two pair of 12" guns, not two triples. She also has six twin 7.5" in the same general layout as the Lord Nelson class's 9.2", save all turrets are twins. Her armor does roughly match up with her contemporaries, so does her speed.
She wouldn't mount any aircraft, as the 'alternate universe' to which she belongs 1.) has yet to develop effective naval aviation by her launch date (1905) and 2.) the use of aircraft in armed conflict- whether the aircraft be armed or not- is forbidden in our 'alternate universe.'

A couple of technical questions:
1.) If the guns on the Lord Nelson class battleship and the Minotaur class armored cruisers are the exact same gun in both bore and caliber, why are the ones on the Lord Nelson selected to be Weak while the guns on Minotaur are not?
2.) If 1/2 of the Canopus class battleship's Casemate guns can fire forward, why is it that none of the Lord Nelson's turreted guns do so?

Are these the kind of things that the new edition will correct?

My attempt at putting her in the game... did I get close?

Mvskoke class battleship (1905)
Type: Battleship
Speed: 4”
Target: 5+
Armour: 4+
Damage: 33/16
Special Traits: Flash (1910), Poor Subdivision
In Service: 1905
Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (2 x 12 in) 32” 2 1 AP
Y Turret (2 x 12 in) 32” 2 1 AP
P 2nd Arm (6 x 7.5 in) 24" 1 1
S 2nd Arm (6 x 7.5 in) 24" 1 1
P/S Tertiary (6 x 3 in) 14" 6 1 Very Weak
F/A Tertiary (4 x 3 in) 14" 6 1 Very Weak

I too would be fascinated to know the formulae - for either WWII or WWI....

Ok you got me thats what I get for working on WWII all night then trying to do a WWI ship very tired. looks like you have everything right. It helps if I know which countries naval guns where used when stating since several times two different countries will have the same gun but different ranges and damage potentals.
Also still dont have my WWI stuff with me so mostly guessing on traits and similar stuff.

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"

I assume yor talking about the 12pdrs?

There are corrections.

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"

Actually, I am talking about the 9.2"/50 caliber guns; these were mounted in twin turrets as the main guns on the Minotaur class armored cruisers and as secondaries (four twins and two singles) on the Lord Nelson. They would have used the same ammunition, powder charges, etc.

I think that both ships also mounted the 12-pdr 18cwt QF Mark I 3"/50 caliber gun... but that wasn't the one I was asking about.

Ill leave this for david manely he knows more about WWI than I do.

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"

OK this is all second hand on reading internet sources so trumped by anytihng David Manley comes up with but on Lord Nelson there were apparently difficulties getting the guns on target due to not distinguishing the shell splashes from 9" and 12" guns - plus the guns became inaccurate at points of wear. If during WWI the Nelson guns were at that point but the Minotaurs were not then combined with the aiming issues - plus single mounts vs twin mounts - you have issues that 'Weak' might simulate.

Essentially they werent massively successful on Lord Nelsons but well regarded on Minotaur.

Thats dragged up from some reading around - but mostly summarised on Navweaps
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-50_mk11.htm

Nelson also seems to have group all the 9.2s on one side in a firing group whereas fire control seems more advanced for primary armament turrets on Minotaur according to the dreadnought project pages....whether that makes the difference or not I don't know....

That sounds like good reasoning for the issue.

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"

To open, I forgot* that the 9.2" guns on the Edward VII weren't identical to those on the Lord Nelson... they were a shorter 47 caliber model that was designed 6 years prior to the 9.2"/L50! In that case, Myrm, shouldn't that mean that the 9.2"/L47 secondaries on the Edward VII class should also be Weak not only due to spotting interference, but this as well?

A similar inconsistency exists in the entries for the Warrior class armored cruiser, where the 7.5"/L50 secondaries are listed as Weak; the same 7.5"/L50 secondaries are mounted on the Minotaur class armored cruiser (actually the very next ship listed) are not rated as such. Arguing the case for the weapons not being Weak is the fact that the 7.5"/L45 main guns on the Devonshire class armored cruisers are not listed as Weak even though they are an earlier, inferior weapon.

*Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

on the 9.2 I think this was part of the reasoning.
However, their use on the Minotaur class was considered to be more successful. Being employed in twin turrets, this arrangement allowed these ships to fire the same broadside of four guns as did the six single 9.2"/47 guns of the previous Warrior class.
You also have to check what Mark, version it can make a big difference

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"