Adding 'Custom' Ships

[carthaginian]

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

 

[rcbecker1]

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

 

[carthaginian]

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.

 

[rcbecker1]

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

 

[carthaginian]

Mvskoke class battleship (1905)
Type: Battleship
Speed: 4”
Target: 4+
Armour: 4+
Damage: 33/16
Special Traits: Aircraft 2
In Service: 1905
Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (3 x 12 in) 43” 3 2 AP
Y Turret (3 x 12 in) 43” 3 2 AP
Light Guns 14" 6 1 Weak
Light Guns 14” 3 1 Weak

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?

 

[carthaginian]

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

 

[Myrm]

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

 

[rcbecker1]

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

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.

 

[rcbecker1]

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?

I assume yor talking about the 12pdrs?

There are corrections.

 

[carthaginian]

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?

I assume yor talking about the 12pdrs?

There are corrections.

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.

 

[rcbecker1]

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

 

[Myrm]

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....

 

[rcbecker1]

That sounds like good reasoning for the issue.

 

[carthaginian]

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!

 

[rcbecker1]

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

 

[Myrm]

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?

Possibly - its not based on the gun as both ran at around 2800fps muzzle velocities and had similar ranges. Given that I was assuming the reputation of the guns on different ships - be it mounts, mounting style, fire control and level of wear in specific ships - that made the difference for the statting rather than something inherent in the guns then there'd have to be something similar for the L47 9.2s as their basic physics are not really much different. Wiki at least lists the shell identification issue for KEd VIIs, there's no local control and like the Lord Nelson the two 9.2 turrets on each side were under a single firing group. So it all depends on exactly what it was feature wise that made for the weakness. If it isnt the fire control set up but the amount of firing the guns had done and the propellant buildup causing problems (which it was according to Navweaps) then if the ship has fired less then there are reasons for it not having weak.

Another option is the ammunitino used - 2CRH and 4CRH I think are two of the shells available, and it made a difference what you had in the magazine - also powder level - if one class fired routinely on lower powder due to supply limits per shell then it makes sense as well

THis all might come down to sea stability of the vessels and so its position as a platform in question not the guns....for the 7.5s I simply don't know the guns seems to have the same sort of physics. Again any of the above ideas may be relevant

However I don't know enough to settle on an answer - in all of this I was merely offering possible options, not arguing a final case.

 

[rcbecker1]

I agree completely. remember its just a game. We are having similar arguments right now so it is understood from your point of view. Also with this game you should not expect the level of play to be the same as games like Seakrieg because its not that type of game.

 

[carthaginian]

rcbecker1 and Myrm,

I'm very appreciative of your comments on this.
This isn't me trying to 'expect Seekreig's level of detail' as I deliberately shunned Seekrieg as the system my friends and I would use to decide our campaign. It was too complicated for the kinds of use that I would be getting out of it, whereas Victory at Sea was fast, simple and reasonably complex. I can use it to simulate ships we build in such a way as to keep the battles fairly fast, but also to represent the ships in an 'individualized' manner.
What this is, I guess, winds up being me trying to understand the system from the "Developer's POV"- looking at why a specific trait was given to one vessel and not to another. This way, I might take these things into consideration myself when the time comes and use the special qualities appropriately with our ships. If Weak is used to represent, for instance, the awkward placement of the 9.2" guns or the problems with spotting... things like that help me find the right 'balance' when I begin converting our ships.

Thanks to both of you.

 

[rcbecker1]

I cant tell you your answer since i did not work on the first book and dont play WWI.
Mainly I help stat out ships as a basis then David Manley did the finals so I cant tell you his reasoning. I like you can guess and make my judgements which may or may not agree. Also if I think something is different like all games I change little things here and there to make me happy.
some things are obvoius if you look at the stats and the real guns you can figure out most of it but at this time I cant give out exact formulaes. In fact Im arguing some of these right now for what Im working on.

 

[rcbecker1]

Ok, not arguing but working out the reasoning.