Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Hull Form Maintenance Effect is Extreme


Recommended Posts

Just did some basic testing and it feels like the maintenance reduction of Hull Form is insane.  When keeping total tonnage the same a 40 knot fully equipped and set up 51k ton modern battle cruiser costing far less in maintenance than a Dreadnought IV at 51,000 ton at 25.5 knots and a stripped hull with identical propulsion and protection selected and everything else stock it ends up costing over twice as much as the Battle cruiser in maintenance per month.  A modern US BB at 56,000 tons at starting speed and propulsion and protection setup identically ends up costing almost exactly twice as much in maintenance compared to the BB.

This seems highly odd to me considering just how much higher performance and maintenance intensive a battle cruisers 40 knot engine cranking out about 3 times as much power.  And keep in mind this is a fully set up Battle Cruiser with all the bits and bobs vs a blank hull for the Modern US BB and Dreadnought IV

Battle Cruiser: 156  = -91% maintenance 

US Modern BB: 123.5 = -59% maintenance 

Dreadnought IV: 102.7 = -38% maintenance 

Edited by captinjoehenry
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem is it's effect on engine waste and cost.

40 knot 51,000 ton BC ( The Jap modern BC )

hMg04yW.jpg

VsHFMLY.jpg

As you can see it needs 287,000 SHP while it's engine weighs 4,700 tons and cost 25,700

For additional context this is a BC that weighs 51,000 tons, goes at 40 knots, has the same main armament as the Yamato and a comparable armor belt which seems a bit insane for 51,000 tons

Next up is the 120,000 ton BB at 30 knots ( The super Jap BB )

QyizS6B.jpg

84UkY2p.jpg

It needs 201,000 SHP which is 85,000~ less SHP than the BC.  But this BB with the same type of machinery and being a modern design like the BC has a 6,100 ton engine costing 33,5000.  Which means that the BC has an engine that produces 45%~ more power yet weighs 25%~ less and more importantly costs 25%~ less which seems to me to be massively incorrect if not impossible considering that both of them are using turbo electric geared turbines which in theory means they have the same style of machinery and yet the BC is getting far more than 50% additional power per weight while ALSO costing less.  

I can also add in examples from the US modern BB as a halfway house which while not as extreme also has a notable difference.

Personally I'd recommend if hull form is going to effect engine needs per speed, which it should, it should more effect how much HP is needed per knot instead of magically making engines perform vastly better for less weight and cheaper cost.

Edited by captinjoehenry
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I think the modern BC have a problem of being flat out impossible especially in the era we are talking about.  As the modern BCs can get up to 49 knots on a 51,000 ton warship using 540,000 SHP which is more than any ship that's ever existed.  Even the Nimitz class aircraft carrier has less than half that much power at 250,000 SHP

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Use windows key + shift + S to open the snipping tool.
This tool allows you to select a section of your screen and copy it to the clipboard. From there you can paste it (Ctrl + V) into MS Paint, or directly into the text box on these forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...