The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.

MAD-4A wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:...your fleet is engaging an enemy fleet in a running battle...

"RUNNING ENGAGMENT" did I realy have to say "AT SHORT RANGE" not sniping from across the system. As battles, progress fleets tend to close range (unless someone decides they don't want to play anymore). also I forgot to mention my SD redirect there fire (just before detatching) at your screen (anyway thats what I would've targeted to begin with - target the closet ship that can return fire) of-course in the opening salvos where I'm still out of your DD missile range I would ignore them, but as soon as you're screan ships begin firing back I would blow them to scrap (easyer targets, remove their threat quick & you have both less throw weight back at me & less PD to cover ships further in - the exception would be in situation where I'm sure my shots are going to hurt your big boys - like 2nd New Tuscany & Spindle! )

Grashtel wrote:The ship's hull form is determined by the physics of the impeller drive, Warsahwski sails, and compensator. There is some flexibility but current warships are pretty much at the optimum configuration with any departure from that resulting in a loss of performance.

Rakhmamort wrote:

Grashtel wrote:The ship's hull form is determined by the physics of the impeller drive, Warsahwski sails, and compensator. There is some flexibility but current warships are pretty much at the optimum configuration with any departure from that resulting in a loss of performance.

lol. isn't that such a sweeping generalization? merchant and warship shapes are different because of their function but they both use the same propulsion technology. the larger volume of ship for merchies inside less powerful wedges (compared to warships).

Rakhmamort wrote:fleet supply colliers are shaped much like merchies but they can keep up with warships.

Rakhmamort wrote:LACs also use the same propulsion technology and the new generation LACs don't have the hammerhead design of vintage LACs.

none of the 3 mentioned ship types are restricted in their shapes because of their propulsion systems.

Rakhmamort wrote:the only thing I can think of why the hammerheads are there is to put heavily armored areas in the most vulnerable aspects of the wedge where sidewalls can't be installed (though they are installing sidewalls for them now).{/quote]

Correct for everything except the sidewalls. They are "bucklers", that only have the same dimensions as the ship itself when seen from one end or the other. I don't recall if they've made full-size fore and aft sidewalls for larger ships, because then the ship cannot accelerate when either end of the wedge is closed off.

Rakhmamort wrote:since you can put any shape in between the ship's wedge, then there is no reason why warships cannot be thinner and wider.

MaxxQ wrote:
Merchant ships are no larger than the largest warship in physical dimensions. Warships have much more powerful impeller nodes*, which is why they have a higher acceleration rate. Tonnage when referring to Honorverse ships is based on displacement tonnage, and not weight.

Because they have the same military-grade impellers* as regular warships.



Yes, they are restricted. You're just not seeing it - all three are cylindrical in shape. Merchies are even closer to a true cylinder than warships because they don't have broadside armor. The reason warships are wider than they are tall is because of the several meters (occasionally into double-digit thickness) of armor added to the base cylindrical shape, with very little to *no* armor on the dorsal and ventral surfaces.

I think my Fearless mesh has the top and bottom "armor" at around 10-20cm, whereas the broadside is something like four meters thick.


Correct for everything except the sidewalls. They are "bucklers", that only have the same dimensions as the ship itself when seen from one end or the other. I don't recall if they've made full-size fore and aft sidewalls for larger ships, because then the ship cannot accelerate when either end of the wedge is closed off.



As I said before, the ships are not all that different in that they are all cylindrical in shape. What you are forgetting is something that Grashtel mentioned that you didn't touch on at all, and that is *the compensator. A ship's inertial compensator encloses the ship in a cylindrical field not much bigger than the widest part of the ship itself. Note that no warship hammerhead is either wider or taller than the dimensions of the main hull.

That said, my guess would be that the compensator field extends a few meters above and below the ship, but again, no more than the ships largest non-length dimension, which is why you can have something like the "conning tower" on the top of the ship (or the boat bay observation/backup control room on the bottom) still enclosed within the field.

Compensators are also another reason why military ships have better accel than merchies - milspec compensators are more powerful (which = much more expensive) than civilian-grade compensators. Same for fleet colliers. They also have milspec compensators.

Rakhmamort wrote:Re: compensator field, do note that the suggestion to change the shape of the hull to have more area on the top/bottom sides are for smaller vessels. Since they can build compensator fields that can cover super dreadnought sized hulls, then it's a trivial exercise to put one around cruiser sized hulls.

I'm just pointing out here that there is no reason why making the hull form wider and less tall is a design impossibility.

Rakhmamort wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:
Merchant ships are no larger than the largest warship in physical dimensions. Warships have much more powerful impeller nodes*, which is why they have a higher acceleration rate. Tonnage when referring to Honorverse ships is based on displacement tonnage, and not weight.

Because they have the same military-grade impellers* as regular warships.



Yes, they are restricted. You're just not seeing it - all three are cylindrical in shape. Merchies are even closer to a true cylinder than warships because they don't have broadside armor. The reason warships are wider than they are tall is because of the several meters (occasionally into double-digit thickness) of armor added to the base cylindrical shape, with very little to *no* armor on the dorsal and ventral surfaces.

I think my Fearless mesh has the top and bottom "armor" at around 10-20cm, whereas the broadside is something like four meters thick.


Correct for everything except the sidewalls. They are "bucklers", that only have the same dimensions as the ship itself when seen from one end or the other. I don't recall if they've made full-size fore and aft sidewalls for larger ships, because then the ship cannot accelerate when either end of the wedge is closed off.



As I said before, the ships are not all that different in that they are all cylindrical in shape. What you are forgetting is something that Grashtel mentioned that you didn't touch on at all, and that is *the compensator. A ship's inertial compensator encloses the ship in a cylindrical field not much bigger than the widest part of the ship itself. Note that no warship hammerhead is either wider or taller than the dimensions of the main hull.

That said, my guess would be that the compensator field extends a few meters above and below the ship, but again, no more than the ships largest non-length dimension, which is why you can have something like the "conning tower" on the top of the ship (or the boat bay observation/backup control room on the bottom) still enclosed within the field.

Compensators are also another reason why military ships have better accel than merchies - milspec compensators are more powerful (which = much more expensive) than civilian-grade compensators. Same for fleet colliers. They also have milspec compensators.

Impeller drive vessels are flattened double ended spindle shaped, not necessarily cylinders. The only restrictions are fitting the hull between the two wedges, and if your hypothesis is true, fitting it inside the compensator field.

Re: inside the wedge, making the ship thinner is a plus in fitting it between the wedges. not an issue.

Re: compensator field, do note that the suggestion to change the shape of the hull to have more area on the top/bottom sides are for smaller vessels. Since they can build compensator fields that can cover super dreadnought sized hulls, then it's a trivial exercise to put one around cruiser sized hulls.

I'm just pointing out here that there is no reason why making the hull form wider and less tall is a design impossibility.

kzt wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:Re: compensator field, do note that the suggestion to change the shape of the hull to have more area on the top/bottom sides are for smaller vessels. Since they can build compensator fields that can cover super dreadnought sized hulls, then it's a trivial exercise to put one around cruiser sized hulls.

I'm just pointing out here that there is no reason why making the hull form wider and less tall is a design impossibility.

Yes you can. One of the old Peep BCs had a deliberately oversize compensator. (I think it was the Mars-B) However it costs more, takes up more space, requires more maintenance, more power, etc and (again IIRC) was provided to allow towing massive (for the time) pod loads.

However David has been pretty coy with the actual design constraints on ships, so don't assume that just because it "makes sense" to you that it really would work in the Honorverse.

Browne wrote:I don't think you can't install a SD compensator on a CA and change the shape of the CA. I have always understood it as the compensator field is a factor of the Impeller rings size and placement. A CA sized rings form a CA sized compensator field. I am not saying that the Impeller rings makes the compensator field just that the relationship of the Impeller rings help form the geometry of the field.

Browne wrote:I think it was a over powered impeller and they were hoping to get a more efficient compensator from capture equipment.

MAD-4A wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:...your fleet is engaging an enemy fleet in a running battle...

"RUNNING ENGAGMENT" did I realy have to say "AT SHORT RANGE" not sniping from across the system. As battles, progress fleets tend to close range (unless someone decides they don't want to play anymore). also I forgot to mention my SD redirect there fire (just before detatching) at your screen (anyway thats what I would've targeted to begin with - target the closet ship that can return fire) of-course in the opening salvos where I'm still out of your DD missile range I would ignore them, but as soon as you're screan ships begin firing back I would blow them to scrap (easyer targets, remove their threat quick & you have both less throw weight back at me & less PD to cover ships further in - the exception would be in situation where I'm sure my shots are going to hurt your big boys - like 2nd New Tuscany & Spindle! )