4" guns changed to 3" in game

Home › Forums › Historical › Cruel Seas › 4" guns changed to 3" in game

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • December 14, 2018 at 3:26 pm #151904
    elcee
    Participant

    I noticed several ships, like the german M-Class Minesweeper (4.1″), the Gabbiano-class corvette (4″) and other ships, that were historically armed with 4″ guns (or bigger guns), but the game quotes those guns as 3″.
    I cant really figure out why those ships have the guns changed to a smaller caliber, while comparable ships with are like the Japanese Escort Type Hei minesweeper (i assume this is an Type C or D class Escort) exist, even though the gun is closer to 5″ (4.7″).

    Why was the caliber for some of those ships downgraded, while others keep their “real” caliber?
    I know historical accuracy might cause balancing issues in games, but with some ships keeping the “extra” damage for the 4″ and above and others loosing the damage seems odd…

    And a side note, the M-Class Models has 2 twin 2cm and a single quad 2cm, while the Quad 2cm is an option in the rules the twin 2 cms are not, which is odd as well…

    December 18, 2018 at 6:33 am #152068
    Zloy Krolik
    Participant

    Probably a typo. The rules have proofreading problems.

    December 18, 2018 at 8:26 am #152069
    Dr Dave
    Participant

    Perhaps it’s an effects category and not a direct calibre?

    Always good to remember that it’s not just the calibre that’s important, but the velocity (hence kinetic energy) or the weight of explosive carried. A slow 4.1” round might be as effective as a faster 3” ?

    December 18, 2018 at 10:06 am #152073
    elcee
    Participant

    Maybe the grouping should have been 3″, 4″ (7D6 Damage) and 5″+ replacing the current 4″+. An alternativ might have been to group the guns 88mm/3″/4″ (6d6) and 4,5″+ or 5″+ (8d6).

    But right now its confusing, at least for me…

    I dont think a shell like the german 8,8cm gun (Flak 36) performed better (per shot) than a german 10.5 cm SK C/32 naval gun. While the muzzle velocity of the 8,8 is (slightly) faster, depending on the ammunition type by 10-100m/s (32.8 f/s – 328 f/s) with a mass of 9,4kg (21 pound), compared to the 10,5 with a muzzle velocity of 785m/s (2575 f/s) with a mass of 15,1 kg (33.3 pound). So the 10,5cm gun will be more effective with 60% more shell mass than the 8,8.

    December 18, 2018 at 10:50 am #152075
    invisible officer
    Participant

    In coastal war the soft hulls had a strange effect on shell effectiness. A high velocity shell, or one designed against armor, often just passed and exploded behind the target. Fuze reaction being too slow. (By intent to make the shell explode deep in a destroyer, not on the outside) Just making a calibre sized hole.

    Only if an engine or something similar massive was hit it worked well. But in that case there was no real difference for the target between 88 or 105. Boooooom.

    December 18, 2018 at 11:01 am #152077
    Dr Dave
    Participant

    Good point about unarmoured targets and fusing. I think when the rules were written the intention was for only a very few vessels (if any) per side to have the “big” guns. It was more about the smaller end up to 40mm Bofors types.

    I wonder what the minimum range of a 4″ on a corvette was from a relatively high platform compared to a S-boat?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.