Well Why Have you never seen a yamato beat a north Carolina? Does that ship have a bigger advantage over a yamato?
Why? Can't say for sure. Probably a combination of several factors: 1) NC turns better 2) The only NC captains who challenge Yammers to 1 on 1 battles are experienced, have very good ships, and know it. 3) A lot of Yamatos have not been battled for sufficient length of time for the captain to get good with them. I still don't recommend a NC for a beginner because it takes a lot of work to get it ready, and to maintain it.
BTW these rating system is for bb shooting ships, not your ball bearing types. Manuver factor = (length^3 * rudder factor)/(rudder area * beam * 144) rudder factor is: Prop # ruddertype 2 1 1 1 .8 2i .6667 .6667 2t .5333 .43 Fire Power factor rated by cannon mount locations Bow sidemount 825 stern sidemount 990 twin sidemount 990 stern gun 400 Bow gun 200 Stern guns have an additional multipler due to knocking chuncks out # of guns Multilpler 1 1 2 1.1 3 1.2 4 1.4 So add all your cannons up and get the fire factor. Speed number: 21 1.6 22 1.5 23 1.4 24 1.3 26 1.1 28 1 30 0.9 So for the final Combat Effectiveness Factor (CEF) CEF= (Fire Power* Speed number* 100)/ manuver factor. The extra 100 is to make the number some nice whole number, rather than some decimel. For fun and games put the thing into a spread sheet, and play around with stuff. Somebody could even turn the thing into a cute little web ap with little issue.
Seams I was less than clear.... How about an example: Iron Duke Length = 623 Beam = 90 Has sidemount in "A" turret, sidemount in "X" turret, two stern guns in "Y" turret. Has twin rudders. Has nominal rudder area of 3 inches (for class 5, factor has extra area for twins built in.) So Manuver Factor = (623^3 * .5333) / (3 * 90 * 144) = 3317 Fire factor= 825+ 990 + 400 * 1.1 * 2 = 2695 Speed Factor is 1.1 (for 26 seconds) So CEF = (2695 * 1.1* 100) / 3317 = 89 Granted some of these adjustments are based on experence- but you could change them if you like, to generate your own rating system. Is it "correct"? Not really, but it is consistant. However, it does not take someother things into account, such as hull shape. A hull shape index was too hard to define. As a result your see Nagato and NC at different numbers, when many feal they should be about the same. So treat it as a guide line- it could be off by 15% or so. (and probibly is) But one thing you can see, is that a long skinny ship like Alaska, fighting say a Nagato, will be at a signifigant disadvantage. This is not to say that the captain of the Alaska could not win such a battle, but they would need to be very good when compared to the Nagato captain.
I have some math instinks... But You'll need some knowledge of math in this hobby one way or another... Like counting holes on your ship after battles seeing how many points yer team scored, or figuring out rudder area
When it comes to mathematical errors, I see people making mistakes on counting holes and adding up score all the time. So far I haven't found a mistake that changes the outcome of a battle, but it's been close a few times. Some of these guys are veteran engineers making mistakes! I'm still kinda curious how the Invincible (71) is supposedly only half as effective as the Westfalen (150), even though Westfalen is 2 seconds slower and otherwise nearly identical. I'm not doubting your math (the fact that you showed your work puts you in the top 10 percent already) but the results of your calculations sometimes seem a bit odd.
Westfallen is highly manuverable. So they can get their cannons aimed where they need/want too. Also they are just about impossible to hit. Turning circle on an Westfallen is about 0. While turning circle on I-boat is larger. In a battle the Westfallen should be able to dodge the sidemounts of I-boat and fire at will. In practice- a smart I-boat captain would/should just run away. About the only way to actuly get a Westfallen is to sandwich it between larger boats, and pound it down. Often times you wind up ram sinking the Westfallen trying it.
Yeah, I generally try to keep my Invincible away from Nassaus. It's just a bad idea trying to engage them. I turn pretty darned good, but not THAT good. I'd rather go find a nice tasty Moltke to snack on. Mike D
Sorry for dredging up an old topic, but I, too, and interested in the Alaska Class Battlecruiser. I've notd that recently, the hull has been "Promoted" from a 4.5 unit to a 5 unit. Additionally, being that her actual length was 809', under fast gun (IRCWCC) rules, she qualifies for a rudder "Bonus" of +50%, making her rudder area 4.5" square. Having said that, are the above points still valid (slow-turning), considering that her rudder area is increased from 3" to 4.5", or are those comments including that 4.5" rudder area? Thanks!
She will still turn slower than most other 5 unit ships. That said, the secret to battling is to find where your ships strengths are and play to those. I imagine Alaska will function nicely as a very big cruiser (i.e. don't get in close to battleships & dreadnoughts)
she looks like a totally beefed up des moines and looks pretty sweet if she had dual rudders shed be great
Interesting thought you have there Tuggy, I'd honestly expect the opposite from Alaska. Having run a Courageous, I can attest to the fact that stern gun/cruiser tactics won't work. With Alaska I'd think you might as well go dual sides on each side and the most wicked pump you can come up with and just side mount the inevitable zerg of Yamatos, Scharnhorsts, Bismarcks and Derfflingers that want to play with something that turns worse then they do. Mike D
