 |
|
Jerry Sindle
|
|
Virginia Beach
Feb 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
Pardon my choice of words. I was referring to the fact that ships could be upgraded and used the Frigate Lynch as an example. I totaly agree with all of you - a frigate is not a galleon.
Having said that, with the right technology - a galleon can be a frigate.
Very respectfully,
Jerry Sindle
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
PhoenixPhlame73
|
|
San Antonio, Texas
Apr 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
Another idea is that it could be because one ship name was being kept for several ships. In Corpus Christi there is a carrier from world war II that had been turned into a museum. I remember reading in a pamphlet that it was the fifth in a series of ships named Lexington. Though I know that names do not come into play anywhere in Civ3, the idea still holds. In addition, I do not believe that he was trying to turn a Galley into a frigate, I think that he was trying to say that if a gally had modern weapons and engines, a fight between a sub and a galley would be more even.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jerry Sindle
|
|
Virginia Beach
Feb 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
I agree. There is no way anything less than a destroyer should even touch a sub.
R:PM |
Actually, the job of modern naval frigates is Anti-submarine Warfare protection. They are generally slower and less well-armed than a destroyer, hence less-costly. They require less men than a destroyer.
In World War II, frigates were akin to the Destroyer Escort, whose primary job was protecting convoys and sinking submarines. Destroyer Escort designation in the US Navy was changed to Frigate in 1974, in deference to the fact that other navies had been calling Destroyer Escorts "Frigates" all along.
Very respectfully,
Jerry Sindle
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jerry Sindle
|
|
Virginia Beach
Feb 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dawidge
What about the Edward L. Beach classic _Run Silent, Run Deep_?
The sub hunter is a Q-ship made from a junk packed with cork to make it unsinkable. Of course it is working in conjunction with another vessel while doing its subhunting, but there's no reason you couldn't take your galleon, pack it with cork , and fit a few depth-charge launchers onto it without changing the fact that it is still a galleon. Modernizing the equipment on a vessel doesn't mean that you have to perform a complete Civ3-like upgrade on it to change it into another kind of ship.
It's the same thing with barbarians causing damage to modern-age units. It's entirely possible that they've exchanged their clubs and bearskins for trnechcoats packed with dynamite. I view the unit types as more a description of their tactics and abilities, not necessarily what equipment they're armed with. The US Army cavalry units were still armed with sabers at the onset of WW2. They had a certain preference for using their colts and springfields when it came time for combat, but they still had the saber. |
Sir,
You are living-proof that people actually do read postings. You read the postings and then formed your conclusion yea or nea. You did not read half a sentence and come to a knee-jerk, emotion-charged conclusion. Well done.
Very respectfully,
Jerry Sindle
|
|
| |
|
|
|
steelehc
|
 |
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:19
|
|
Jerry: You made a valid point, but now you are really reaching for it.
If you tried to land a helicopter on the deck of a woden sailing ship, you would run the risk of crashing through the deck to the decks below, or chopping up the sails and rigging with the blade. Neither of these would make the ship a viable ASW platform.
If you mounted cruise missiles on a wooden sailing ship, you would have problems with the missiles tearing holes in your sails, or catching things on fire.
A wooden ship does not have much of a radar signature by itself, true, but when you consider the sails on it, then it has an enourmous signature.
My point is simple. You could do a few things to a galleon to make it ASW capable, but nothing near what you are describing. It could be fitted with a sonar, and possibly a depth charge launcher, but thats it. Saying that a ship will be in commission for over 400 years (roughly the length of time from when galleons were in common use to today) only to be fitted with modern weapons stretches the limits of my imagination.
Steele
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jerry Sindle
|
|
Virginia Beach
Feb 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steelehc
Jerry: You made a valid point, but now you are really reaching for it.
If you tried to land a helicopter on the deck of a woden sailing ship, you would run the risk of crashing through the deck to the decks below, or chopping up the sails and rigging with the blade. Neither of these would make the ship a viable ASW platform.
If you mounted cruise missiles on a wooden sailing ship, you would have problems with the missiles tearing holes in your sails, or catching things on fire.
A wooden ship does not have much of a radar signature by itself, true, but when you consider the sails on it, then it has an enourmous signature.
My point is simple. You could do a few things to a galleon to make it ASW capable, but nothing near what you are describing. It could be fitted with a sonar, and possibly a depth charge launcher, but thats it. Saying that a ship will be in commission for over 400 years (roughly the length of time from when galleons were in common use to today) only to be fitted with modern weapons stretches the limits of my imagination.
Steele |
OK Mr. Steele,
I agree, you make some valid points and I'll back off a little.
But, just a little. Sitting beside me here at work is a retired U. S. Navy P-3 maritime ASW patrol plane pilot. He agrees with me. Canvas sails and wood masts and freeboard do not reflect radar very well. He hated going on searches for wooden boats. They were just too hard to see on radar.
Sitting across from me is a retired weapons officer on an amphibious vessle. The harpoon missile can be programmed to launch in one direction, clear the ship, and then turn to a totally different heading to proceed down range.
My point being - place the launchers on the stern or the bow facing in a direction , where the hot missile exhaust would not ignite anything aboard. That's some tricky engineering but it could be done. Program missile waypoints to proceed to its target after it clears the ship, and position deck hands to put out any fires that happened despite your great engineering. That is possible, not saying anybody in their right mind would ever do it, but it's possible.
Everytime we mothballed the battleships, we said, "That's it, we'll never see them again." But, we did see them again, and each time they were even more formidable than they were in their previous incarnation.
A Galleon was a big wooden ship. USS Constitution is a pipsqueak compared to a Galleon. Her rear deck could be reinforced with steel. We have aluminum frigates whose decks must be reinforced with steel to make them helicopter capable. Why not a Galleon?
The sails and the rigging would be a definate impediment to helicopter operations. But must they go from stem to stern, like on the original Galleon?
Couldn't some arrangements be made to use less sail area? She might not be as fast as an original Galleon, but does she need to be? Helicopters like to have 30 knots of relative wind 30 degrees relative off the bow of the ship to land and take off. That's a NATO standard operating procedure. But they could take off and land with less wind (and have).
The last point you made is the most difficult to refute. How does a wooden ship last 400 years? Yes, that's a tough one to answer. USS Constitution is 230 years old and taking her to see takes all sorts of other ships standing by, just in case she falls apart. I would definately surmise that the upkeep on a 400 year old ship would be tremendous. The player owning the Galleon would be replacing hard-to-fashion, expensive wooden parts on a regular basis...
The game doesn't reflect this very well. In the game, it's cheaper to keep an old galleon around than it is to upgrade it to a modern transport. Players generally upgrade Galleons because they need, or think they need, the increased capability that having a transport gives them - more speed and more carrying capacity.
I don't have a suggestion to fix this dichotomy that would not seriously affect game playability. After all Trireme type vessels last 3000 years in the game. That would produce some serious repair issues... In the early game, where each turn is 40 - 50 years, players would be faced with the prospect of building Triremes one turn, only to have them fall apart from rot the next. That's not fun, and they would not be happy.
Anyway, I appreciate the time you took to discuss my little explanation. Thought provoking discussion causes all sides of the issue to become wiser.
Very respectfully,
Jerry Sindle
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-04-2002 19:01
|