[Post Reply] [*]  Page 10 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page « 18 9 10 11 12 »
Author Message
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 11th, 2018, 5:24 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9080
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
@Colosseum
Strictly speaking I wasn't advocating "removing the (...) carrier type and replacing them with 'capital ship'" - only combining into such TYPE the battleships, battlecruisers and coastal defence ships. ;)

Anyway, I'd rather get more opinions before doing anything, with exception of one thing I already made two days ago, namely moving the Italian helicopter cruisers and Swedish inter-war aviation cruisers (Gotland and one never-were) from Aviation Ships to Cruisers.

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 11th, 2018, 6:46 pm
Offline
Posts: 5040
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
I trust your judgment on the aviation ships -- like I said earlier I have no issues with that. I only start to worry when it comes to combining a lot of different types into one larger type. ;)

Also, since it seems subtype is not searchable (I've only recently realized this), I think we need to discuss with watchwood on adding this as a searchable feature since a lot of thought went into adding it!

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 12th, 2018, 2:23 pm
Offline
Posts: 6273
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
I would be happy with keeping battleship and battlecruisers.

Older ironclads should probably remain with battleships for ease of reference. Breastwork turret ships, ironclad rams etc., should all be here by virtue of 12in+ gun calibre.

I agree coastal defence ships are hard to classify, but perhaps those with guns over 8in should be in battleships and those below (like Niels Jeul etc.) and smaller gunboats and monitors could stay in coastal warfare.

I'm still in favour of a generic Fast Boats TYPE for all light fast attack craft.

As Ian says, we need to remember what is searchable to the layman rather than being too specific. That the sub-type is currently unsearchable indicates we should be focusing on getting the TYPEs right rather than worrying too much about specific details.

PS, congrats Ian!

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MihoshiK
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 13th, 2018, 2:01 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1004
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact: Website
Colosseum wrote: *
Sorry have not responded - was away for 10 days for my honeymoon ;)
Never apologise for RL shenenigans, especially ones that are of such importance.

CONGRATULATIONS!

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 14th, 2018, 10:39 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9080
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
@Hood
Keeping BB's and BC's separate somewhat weakens argument for merging DD's and TB's. ;)
What if the TYPE was named "Battleships and Battlecruisers"?
The "larger" ironclads are already with BB's, as for me I'm ok with moving the 12-in+ coastal defence ships to BB's and keeping rest with Coastal Warfare, though I'd rather move the "border" down to some 10-inches (so to include ships like Huascar with BB's - on the other hand the USS Monitor would end up there too :/ ).
Re: FAC's - actually the Coastal Warfare includes also Submarine Chasers.

@Colosseum
Congratulations! :)

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 15th, 2018, 10:19 am
Offline
Posts: 6273
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
TYPE "Battleships and Battlecruisers" sounds ok, I'd be happy with that.

The border at 10" sounds fine to me.

Submarine Chasers could go into my proposed 'Escorts' type?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 15th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Offline
Posts: 5040
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
No, please keep the simple types where possible. "Battleships and Battlecruisers" will overflow in the type bubble and look strange. Why combine them? "Battlecruisers" is an obvious type that should be easy to fill.

Like I said earlier, lean towards keeping more types rather than fewer. If this means TB and DD should be split that's fine with me. We specifically created TB category to handle the early torpedo boats. Can you clarify why you think these need to be combined?

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 15th, 2018, 8:56 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9080
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
@Colosseum
Roma locuta, causa finita. That said, Battlecruisers aren't particularly large group.

@Hood
I'm not sure if Colosseum's remarks wouldn't apply to proposed 'Escorts', but in any case, I'd be concerned with lumping Submarine Chasers there, because I could imagine (depending on what exactly were to be included in that TYPE) that it would produce a grouping with excessive diversity size-wise.
My idea of Coastal Warfare was to have (broadly speaking) there primarily the smaller vessels, generally not intended for operations too far into the open sea, that would have some 'extra' equipment that would differentiate them from ordinary 'Patrol Vessels' (so, ASuW or ASW etc.)

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 16th, 2018, 1:30 pm
Offline
Posts: 6273
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Ok, let's park battleships and battlecruisers to one side, they pose not problems as separate types.

I'm even happy to keep torpedo boats and destroyers seperate if it makes things easier.

So let's see where these fit in:
Coastal Defence Ships: everything from 12in to 6in guns, mainly Scandaweigan in origins but other navies (notably Thailand) had ships in this category.
Early Turreted Ironclads: those built purely for coastal defence.
Monitors: big-gun ones 10" and more (up to 18" for HMS General Wolfe).
Monitors: 9.2" to 6"in, the lower end being effectively big shallow draught gunboats.
Gunboats: 6" downwards, some of these would be more properly sloops and patrol vessels, but the smaller shallow-draught vessels fit into the riverine type.
Submarine Chasers
Motor Torpedo Boats
Motor Gun Boats
Fast Attack Craft (Gun & Missile)

So currently there is a big difference in terms of size and role across the time periods and types of ships, everything from ironclad rams like Affondatore to La Combatte class FACs.

Even a split between big and small craft might make sense to narrow the scope a bit.

One idea might be a seperate 'Ironclad' type for all 19th century ironclads?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 16th, 2018, 3:41 pm
Offline
Posts: 5040
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
"Ironclad" type makes sense to me ;) We already have "sailing vessel" when those ships would have been considered "frigates" or "battleships" of their time. ;)

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 10 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page « 18 9 10 11 12 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]