House of Lies/Honorverse Companion 2

Lyon, shouldn't be annoyed that the SVW appendix error listing the Ad-Astra BB class as DN's, was promulgated into HoS?

Hi WastedFly,

Obviously we've all changed over the past 20 years, and RFC's vision of the honorverse has changed as the pearls etc attest, but to me the original is so darn good it stands the test of time in effect in my opinion.

So I'm just very curious what had to be changed and why.

I thought it was obvious from my FIE reference that I knew the reference regarding the continued production of the Bellerophon class in HoS, though in the appendix its tonnage is 6,750,495 tons, or all but 5 tons of what the Majestic's is in HoS.

If you're curious, the total RMN tonnage for the 121 DN's was 694.3 M tons or an average of 5,738,165 tons; or ~1.337% less than the Royal Winton class.

In FIE we learned the RMN had only 18 of the wall under construction when the war began, and discussion and previous posts by RFC at the bar indicated most were SD's, and those were the last of the DN's because the reasons the RMN had to scrimp no longer applied, NTM the slight building time advantage wasn't worth all the class limitations.

So building 23 more over the next 5 war years seems more than a few for a slow rate to me.

Although that brings up the question of where the Gladiator class DN's came from before HoS.

Now I think I recall a reference in HAE that SD's and DN's were being built in every slip possible; but that brings up the odds that the older building slips were too small for such huge ships, so they should have been available at least for CA, CL and DD construction.

I got into trouble at the bar almost 8 years ago for suggesting the likely numbers of such slips available on Vulcan, Hephaestus, and Weyand, as well as extrapolating build times for CL's, CA's and BC's, given what RFC had related in his shipbuilding pearls, partly because I didn't believe the shipyards were in line with the space station's axis but perpendicular nor just one, but at least a pair above and below the long axis.

Having to dig up all the textev conflicts was a major reason for not bringing this up, but they are still there [remember Galileo] so newbies will ask about the anomalies; though encouraging people to reread the early textev [however enjoyable] to find them all I believe, would not be conducive to making RFC or Bu9 happy.

Probably bordering on TWTSNBN territory.

I'll see you all on Monday and have a good night and tomorrow.

L

wastedfly wrote:

lyonheart wrote:Hi WastedFly,

I wish it were that simple.

But the textev from HoS states the first DN class wasn't retired until 1908, the last in 1913.

Not that your statement has any validity to the build numbers, but Hos doesn't. How about you read it? Only one class of DN were retired during the year(s) of 1908-1913. NO class of DN were retired wholesale before 1913. What the BEEP are you Reading?

Ad-Astra 11 built, retired 1913
Royal Winton 21 built, retired 1916
Gladiator 34 built, retired 1920
Majestic 40 built, retired 1918
Bellerophon 38 built, 1921 is its retirement date.

Total Built: 144

The only time 1908 is used is for the FIRST Ad-Astra old as dirt "DN" being retired. Of which there were only 11 to begin with. How the Hell does this have ANY bearing on the "discrepancy" between the 1905 fleet strength chart of 121 DN and total of DN's built per HoS? So, they built another 23 DN's during the first few years of the war. HoS even says they did.

Please find your FIE quote. Anyways, HoS is the new canon.

lyonheart wrote:Hi WastedFly,

Obviously we've all changed over the past 20 years, and RFC's vision of the honorverse has changed as the pearls etc attest, but to me the original is so darn good it stands the test of time in effect in my opinion.

So I'm just very curious what had to be changed and why.

I thought it was obvious from my FIE reference

So, I shouldn't have skipped SVW, FiD, and FIE last time I reread eh?

runsforcelery wrote:When you are prepared to go through and spend as much time and effort as the Bu9 guys did on creating/recreating the "historical" navy by wading through 20 years worth of books and attempting to reconcile all the minor continuity errors which have crept in over the last 20 decades you may be in a position to cast aspersions on their efforts. At the moment, you are not.

Bolding mine.

Wow, I knew you spent ages on it, but 200 years?


As a (very) amateur writer, I know just how easy it is to let things slip through without noticing them, only for them to rise up and bite you in the @$$ later, totally derailing your plans. As a full time writer working on multiple universes, the issues facing you must be several orders of magnitude higher, leaving me quite amazed that there are so few such continuity errors.

IMHO, what matters the most is that it's a darn good read.
Most errors can be overlooked given that (not that there are that many...)

Looking forwards to your next book!

Michael Everett wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:When you are prepared to go through and spend as much time and effort as the Bu9 guys did on creating/recreating the "historical" navy by wading through 20 years worth of books and attempting to reconcile all the minor continuity errors which have crept in over the last 20 decades you may be in a position to cast aspersions on their efforts. At the moment, you are not.

Bolding mine.
...

IMHO, what matters the most is that it's a darn good read.
Most errors can be overlooked given that (not that there are that many...)

Looking forwards to your next book!

In the wise words of Ray Bradbury...

A few years back, one dreadful boy ran up to me and said, “Mr. Bradbury?”

“Yes?” I said.

“That book of yours, The Martian Chronicles?” he said.

“Yes,” I said.

“On page 92 where you have the moons of Mars rising in the east?”

“Yeah,” I said.

“Nah,” he said.

So I hit him. I’ll be damned if I’ll be bullied by bright children.

wastedfly wrote:

lyonheart wrote:Hi WastedFly,

I wish it were that simple.

Sigh

It is that simple.

1) Retirement, blah blah blah means absolutely NOTHING for this discussion as HoS only depicts the number built. Not the number in service.
2) HoS disagrees with your unquoted assertion. Since you did not take my VERY pointed clue to read a very specific passage:

Under DN, Bellerophon class:

"The class continued in construction at a slow rate for the first five years of the war, until the Navy's funding and infrastructure allowed it to begin building exclusively SD's..."

Next time someone tells you to read a specific passage as their basis of an argument, how about ya do so?

IIRC, Honor had DNs under her command at Marsh. Janecek gave her every single DN the RMN still had in service! I think it was eleven of them. So they were in service beyond 1913.

Don

HoS identifies the Majestics in service to 1918 (class of 40 ships total), the Gladiators until 1920 (class of 34 ships), and the Bellerophons until 1921 (class of 38).

Nobody said that the remaining 11 DNs at Sidemore were Ad Astras or Royal Wintons.

dreamrider

lyonheart wrote:Hi WastedFly,.
I thought it was obvious from my FIE reference that I knew the reference regarding the continued production of the Bellerophon class in HoS, though in the appendix its tonnage is 6,750,495 tons, or all but 5 tons of what the Majestic's is in HoS.

There is no FiE reference. I just got done reading it.

Your memory is skewed I believe.

Hi WastedFly,

I'm surprised and sorry my first attempt to respond Saturday night apparently failed but I think this was the gist.

I'm not sure if you mean I shouldn't be annoyed or we shouldn't, but regardless you've made an interesting and diplomatic proposition to attempt to bridge the gap, for which I thank you very much.

However it violates all the textev including King Roger III in HoS that the RMN didn't have BB's, at least by the time of the impending Havenite wars.

One of the great qualities and attractions of the honorverse is how well it holds together, and so far there's been no rational explanation I can see of why the early textev including the SVW appendix has to be changed.

After all the reason we all got hooked was how well it all hangs together, right?

I suspect David had considerable notes on the early honorverse, and whether the likely diskettes etc are still readable may be part of the problem, I don't know, but my initial impression of the tech bible to be published was it just going to be the early stuff.

Now since the Bellerophon class from the appendix was over a million tons more than the DN average, the bottom DN class of a similar number might mass around 4,725,538 tons; though both numbers and tonnage can be varied of course, and I hoped for further clarity in HoS.

For example the classes imply there might have been 9 DN classes roughly set at 250,000 ton intervals between 4,750,000 and 6,750,000 tons.

Granted that 4.725 MT class was rather too close to the peep 4.5 MT BB's, which being missile heavy might have been too much for such ancient DN's.

OTOH, the figures of 18 such DN's could be swapped out for 17 5 MT DN's, although to fit the 694.3 MT for RMN DN's, the number of 5 MT DN's is probably more than that[I've done it a couple of different ways], though the number of classes might be as few as 5 at half million ton intervals save the Bellerophon's, which was possibly set between the 7 MT [7.013297.8 MT] RMN SD average and the previous 6.5 MT DN, as a compromise between what the RMN needed and what would pass Parliament.

All speculation on my part of course, but it attempted to explain all the textev data points I knew of.

I've checked HAE again and can't find the early reference to the RMN building all the SD's and DN's it can.

Maybe it's a pearl or RFC post I'm thinking of that compared the relative merits of DN's versus SD's and why the RMN stopped building them because they were too vulnerable and literally too expensive in terms or crew casualties when the RMN was no limited by pre-war budgets.

All the best,

L


[quote="wastedfly"]Lyon, shouldn't be annoyed that the SVW appendix error listing the Ad-Astra BB class as DN's, was promulgated into HoS?[/quote]

wastedfly wrote:Lyon, shouldn't be annoyed that the SVW appendix error listing the Ad-Astra BB class as DN's, was promulgated into HoS?

Ah, Lyon, it seems my grammar took a major strike.

It should have said: Lyon, shouldn't *you* be annoyed that the SVW error listing the Ad-Astra BB class as DN's...

Sorry.

Clearly the Ad Astra's are not DN's. At least I do not think so. Seems we agree on that point.

Will try and run the numbers from HoS into Excel, subtract the extra Bellerphon's built after the 1905 chart and see if the numbers come out. I would be rather surprised if they do not actually.