Culverin speed bump?

tpope wrote:

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:In HOS the 1899 Culverin destroyer got a big acceleration jump compared to its predecessor; but the Valiant light cruiser, which dates from a couple years later, did not. Is that because the Culverin's accel is a misprint?

Yep, it's another error.

I haven't pulled the thread completely on this yet, but it looks like that spec block got caught in mid-retcon. The 1899 PD commissioning date is correct (Jaynes 1 had 1905, the source of the retson) but the acceleration shown is post-refit. Actual acceleration should be closer to 519 G.

I'll add this to the errata once I've had a chance to cross check a few things. Thanks for pointing it out.

How about all the information on Dianchet, which totally contradicts the information in the first two paragraphs of WPD ch2

MaxxQ wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:While we're at it I was wondering about another (less blatantly off) question on ship acceleration.

Do you know why House of Steel gives the 2 Mantie CLAC classes their (lower than expected) accelerations?
The Minotaur-class and Hydra-class come in at 428.2g and 428.5g respectively; which for 1912 and 1915 is surprisingly low. For example the Medusa-class SD(P) had a lead unit acceleration of 502.8g in 1914.


The CLACs seem to fall closest to the "pre-grayson" compensator curve. Not what you'd expect from a several generations improved compensator; which you'd assume new builds would be using near the end of the first war.

If it's not an error then I suspect it's because of a design feature that is not obvious in HoS. I have the same drawing as in HoS, as well as other views and once I build the CLAC (the Minotaur, at least, as that's the only one with line art in the book), you'll understand. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait a couple-three weeks or more to see it because I first have to build the LACs so that I have something to check placement and other such stuff needed to make everything fit.

Of course, as I said, that's only if it *isn't* an error. I doubt it *is* one though, as I can't see Tom making the same mistake for both ships.

We'll have to wait until Tom gets a chance to go back to his notes (and I appreciate him being willing to do so and report back)

One data point I omitted from my earlier post is that we also have the numbers for a 3rd CLAC design - the GSN Covington-class. It was introduced just a year after the Hydras, masses slightly more (about 1%) but has a significantly higher accel (476.7g; about 11% more).

Now that could be due to design or doctrinal differences between the GSN and the RMN (or it could be an error in the RMN section that wasn't repeated in the GSN section; I just don't know) But it does seem to indicate that there's nothing inherent in the design of CLACs that forces lower than normal acceleration (Which isn't to say that the RMN may not have made specific design tradeoffs that resulted in lower accel in their CLAC designs).

tpope wrote:

dreamrider wrote:Is the errata expected to be added to later printings, published/posted separately, or otherwise made available to the 1000 or so of us who really care deeply?

Errata will always be available here: http://bunine.org/

Whether it makes it into later printings is a different question, and involves a number of folks at Baen. I've been waiting to even ask that question until I had a better handle on just how many errors there were (answer: way more than I'd like)

[CLAC q. snipped by Rob--my question won't address it]

I'll have to look at that. I seem to recall there was a reason for those numbers, but that's not to say I didn't still get it wrong somehow. I know the dimensions are off on both ships (among other things they do not account for the LAC bays, which changed significantly post-resizing) but I didn't THINK the accelerations were wrong. When I have time to revisit that I'll confirm and post here one way or another.

Thanks for looking. Here is another question, which may already have been asked. Why does HoS list the Chanson as having 3 missiles in broadside, while Troubadour in HotQ clearly had four? I.e., one fourth of a 16 missile salvo. And the Star Knight is 12 missiles. A three missile broadside for Chanson would have made that a 15 missile salvo, and Troubadour's contribution one fifth, not a fourth. And all of rfc's other counts on missiles were right in that book.

Its increased tonnage over the Falcon was worthy of two additional missile tubes, but in HoS the extras went to the chase systems. Was that on purpose, or accident?

Now, Troubadour was a BuWeaps testbed ship, it could have had unconventional armament. I just have an itch to know, either way, and it seems this is a good place to ask.

If it is already addressed somewhere, ignore me, of course-- I am still looking at older posts.

Regards, Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Thanks for looking. Here is another question, which may already have been asked. Why does HoS list the Chanson as having 3 missiles in broadside, while Troubadour in HotQ clearly had four? I.e., one fourth of a 16 missile salvo. And the Star Knight is 12 missiles. A three missile broadside for Chanson would have made that a 15 missile salvo, and Troubadour's contribution one fifth, not a fourth. And all of rfc's other counts on missiles were right in that book.

Its increased tonnage over the Falcon was worthy of two additional missile tubes, but in HoS the extras went to the chase systems. Was that on purpose, or accident?

Now, Troubadour was a BuWeaps testbed ship, it could have had unconventional armament. I just have an itch to know, either way, and it seems this is a good place to ask.

If it is already addressed somewhere, ignore me, of course-- I am still looking at older posts.

Regards, Rob

At a guess, I would say that Troubadour's information in The Honor of the Queen is before the Great Resizing, while House of Steel has the corrected information.