Author Topic: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13  (Read 5424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1855 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2011, 12:05:37 PM »
So what are the mechanics for ramming in Aurora?

The chance for a successful ram is equal to the chance of a successful missile attack by a missile with half the speed of the ramming ship. The amount of damage caused is equal to the size ship in hull spaces for military vessels and one tenth the size in hull spaces for commercial vessels.

Steve
 

Offline mikew

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2011, 06:58:35 PM »
What is considered the nominal maneuverability of the ship?

Mike
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1855 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2011, 04:20:47 PM »
What is considered the nominal maneuverability of the ship?

Mike

Maneuverability is based on speed, so faster ships are more maneuverable

Steve
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2011, 06:30:55 PM »
And here was I thinking that faster ships would be faster.... I mean, isn't that a little unfair?
Missiles need to dedicate space to maneuverability.
 

Offline ExChairman

  • Captain
  • **********
  • E
  • Posts: 417
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2011, 01:38:16 PM »
Quote
The chance for a successful ram is equal to the chance of a successful missile attack by a missile with half the speed of the ramming ship. The amount of damage caused is equal to the size ship in hull spaces for military vessels and one tenth the size in hull spaces for commercial vessels.

Steve

Hmm so a 10000 ton millitary vessel will do more damage than a 80000 ton Freighter... Thaught that mass didn´t change in space... ???
Veni, Vedi, Volvo
"Granström"

Wargame player and Roleplayer for 33 years...
 

Offline MWadwell

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 328
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2011, 02:00:39 PM »
Hmm so a 10000 ton millitary vessel will do more damage than a 80000 ton Freighter... Thaught that mass didn´t change in space... ???

I suppose the "real life" analogy would be between a wet sponge (the freighter) and a lump of wood (the warship). ;D

Later,
Matt
Later,
Matt
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2011, 04:22:13 PM »
But wouldn't it be more realistic if the ships were going to do the same damage, but the military one would take much less damage when ramming? How are damage calculated for the ramming ship?
 

Offline RoguePhoenix

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • R
  • Posts: 30
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2011, 09:12:46 AM »
But wouldn't it be more realistic if the ships were going to do the same damage, but the military one would take much less damage when ramming? How are damage calculated for the ramming ship?

Not really, Think of the freighter as a giant aluminum can. Yeah it's heavy, but it's not compact, it would be many times the size of any military craft of the same weight. It's basically just an empty husk with a thin covering. A military craft would be the equivalent of a steel reenforced brick wall. Throw a big aluminum can at it, yeah your going to make some chinks in the wall but the can will crumple like a cheap toy.

Abject Destruction: Because a bored engineer is the second most dangerous person in the world ... right behind a bored politician.

No matter which way you step in complete darkness it is always towards the light.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1855 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2011, 10:52:56 AM »
To make things easier, mass and volume are used interchangeably in Aurora. Changes in mass are not taken into account so an empty freighter has the same speed as one with cargo. While this does make life considerably easier for players, it also means there are some situations where the rules assume mass to be more important and in others volume is more important. The size of a freighter is really based on volume rather than mass which is why there is a different rule for ramming.

Even in the real world, the 'weight' of a ship is not an exact science. Here is a quote from Wiki

Gross register tonnage (GRT) represents the total internal volume of a vessel, where a register ton is equal to a volume of 100 cubic feet (2.83 m³), which volume, if filled with fresh water, would weigh around 2,800 kg or 2.8 tonnes. Calculation of GRT is complex; a ship's hold can, for instance, be assessed for bulk grain (accounting for all the air space in the hold) or for bales (omitting the spaces into which bulk, but not baled cargo would spill). Gross register tonnage was replaced by gross tonnage in 1994 under the Tonnage Measurement convention of 1969, but is still a widely used term in the industry.[1][2]

Net register tonnage (NRT) is the volume of cargo the vessel can carry; i.e., the gross register tonnage less the volume of spaces that will not hold cargo (e.g., engine compartment, helm station, crew spaces, etc., again with differences depending on which port or country is doing the calculations). It represents the volume of the ship available for transporting freight or passengers. It was replaced by net tonnage in 1994, under the Tonnage Measurement convention of 1969.

Gross tonnage (GT) is a function of the volume of all ship's enclosed spaces (from keel to funnel) measured to the outside of the hull framing. The numerical value for a ship's GT is always smaller than the numerical values for both her gross register tonnage and the GRT value expressed equivalently in cubic meters rather than cubic feet, for example: 0.5919 GT = 1 GRT = 2.8316 m³; 200 GT = 274 GRT = 775,88 m³; 500 GT = 665 GRT = 1,883.07 m³; 3,000 GT = 3,776 GRT = 10,692.44 m³), though by how much depends on the vessel design (volume). There is a sliding scale factor. So GT is a kind of capacity-derived index that is used to rank a ship for purposes of determining manning, safety and other statutory requirements and is expressed simply as GT, which is a unitless entity, even though its derivation is tied to the cubic meter unit of volumetric capacity.

Tonnage measurements are now governed by an IMO Convention (International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (London-Rules)), which applies to all ships built after July 1982. In accordance with the Convention, the correct term to use now is GT, which is a function of the moulded volume of all enclosed spaces of the ship.

It is calculated by using the formula : GT = K \cdot V, where V = total volume in m³ and K = a figure from 0.22 up to 0.32, depending on the ship’s size (calculated by : K = 0.2 + 0.02 \cdot\log_{10}V), so that, for a ship of 10,000 m³ total volume, the gross tonnage would be 0.28 x 10,000 = 2,800 GT or 3531.46 GRT. GT is consequently a measure of the overall size of the ship. For a ship of 80,000 m³ total volume the gross tonnage would be 0.2980617 x 80,000 = 23,844.94 GT.

Net tonnage (NT) is based on a calculation of the volume of all cargo spaces of the ship. It indicates a vessel’s earning space and is a function of the moulded volume of all cargo spaces of the ship.

A commonly defined measurement system is important; since a ship’s registration fee, harbour dues, safety and manning rules etc, are based on its gross tonnage, GT, or net tonnage, NT.

The Panama Canal/Universal Measurement System (PC/UMS) is based on net tonnage, modified for Panama Canal purposes. PC/UMS is based on a mathematical formula to calculate a vessel's total volume; a PC/UMS net ton is equivalent to 100 cubic feet of capacity.[3]

The Suez Canal Net Tonnage (SCNT) is derived with a number of modifications from the former net register tonnage of the Moorsom System and was established by the International Commission of Constantinople in its Protocol of 18 December 1873. It is still in use, as amended by the Rules of Navigation of the Suez Canal Authority, and is registered in the Suez Canal Tonnage Certificate.

Thames measurement tonnage is another volumetric system, generally used for small vessels such as yachts; it uses a formula based on the vessel's length and beam.
[edit] Weight measurements

While not "tonnage" in the proper sense, the following methods of ship measurement are often incorrectly referred to as such:

Displacement is the actual total weight of the vessel (mostly without pay load). It is often expressed in long tons or in metric tons, and is calculated simply by multiplying the volume of the hull below the waterline (ie. the volume of water it is displacing) by the specific gravity of the water. (Note that the specific gravity will depend on whether the vessel is in fresh or salt water, or is in the tropics, where water is warmer and hence less dense.) For example, in sea water, first determine the volume of the submerged portion of the hull as follows: Multiply its length by its breadth and the draft, all in feet. Then multiply the product thereby obtained by the block coefficient of the hull to get the hull volume in cubic feet. Then multiply this figure by 64 (the weight of one cubic foot of seawater) to get the weight of the ship in pounds; or divide by 35 to calculate the weight in long tons. Using the SI or metric system : displacement (in tonnes) is volume (in m³) multiplied by the specific gravity of sea water (1.025 nominally).

The word "displacement" arises from the basic physical law, discovered by Archimedes, that the weight of a floating object equates exactly to that of the water which would otherwise occupy the "hole in the water" displaced by the ship.

Lightship or Lightweight measures the actual weight of the ship with no fuel, passengers, cargo, water, etc. on board.

Deadweight tonnage (often abbreviated as DWT for deadweight tonnes) is the displacement at any loaded condition minus the lightship weight. It includes the crew, passengers, cargo, fuel, water, and stores. Like Displacement, it is often expressed in long tons or in metric tons.

Steve
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2011, 02:20:23 PM »
Not really, Think of the freighter as a giant aluminum can. Yeah it's heavy, but it's not compact, it would be many times the size of any military craft of the same weight. It's basically just an empty husk with a thin covering. A military craft would be the equivalent of a steel reenforced brick wall. Throw a big aluminum can at it, yeah your going to make some chinks in the wall but the can will crumple like a cheap toy.



Well, try to fill a can with sand and throw it at the wall. But my point is the same, the can will make the same kind of dent than a small steel ball of the same weight, but will crumple.
 

Offline Vanigo

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • V
  • Posts: 295
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2011, 06:05:00 PM »
Well, try to fill a can with sand and throw it at the wall. But my point is the same, the can will make the same kind of dent than a small steel ball of the same weight, but will crumple.
No it won't. When the can crumples, it absorbs a lot of energy that then isn't going into denting the wall.
 

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2011, 07:23:16 PM »
I think we need to get away from the Mass vs Weight and look at Mass/Weight vs Density.  Two objects with the same mass, i.e. weighing the same, will have different affects on other objects based on how dense they are.  Freighters are much less dense, especially empty freighters, than warships.  Therefore think of the warship as a ton of gold and the freighter as a ton of feathers.  Both weigh the same, but with differing densities will cause differing amounts of damage.  I hope this is what Steve was going for and I hope it helps explain the concept a little.

Adam.
 

Offline Narmio

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • N
  • Posts: 181
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 13
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2011, 08:12:54 PM »
We actually do already have something approximating a metric for how dense the outside of a ship is.   Armour thickness.

I'm not sure that we need to really expand the mechanics for ramming, they're a pretty situational thing, but theoretically something based on the mass and delta-v of the ramming ship should decide the "total damage", and how that damage is divvied up between the target and the rammer could be dependent on their relative armour thicknesses? If they have the same armour, damage is equal, if the rammer has twice the armour, damage is 75% applied to the target, etc.  You could make the function start at about 75/25 in the rammer's favour to represent that you're probably ramming a weak part of their ship with a strong part of yours. 

As civilian ships tend to be unarmoured this would produce pretty similar results most of the time.  A big, fast, heavily armoured ship would make the best rammer, but even then would still take some damage.   You don't want ramming to really be a viable tactic, it's kinda silly.  But if all your other weapons are offline and you just need one more strike. . .
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53