You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.


Tuesday, November 15th 2005, 11:10am

I seem to have missed this one...

1 question, how does this fit with the real world? The USN, IJN and RN refitted old DD to escorts (both long and short range) by pulling a boiler and adding bunkerage. Is this a 50% cost or would 25% be more like it? The USN also went for conversions to seplane tenders etc.

Only asking cause it seems likely that people would want to do this. Even more likely as it did happen to a great number of ships.



Tuesday, November 15th 2005, 3:00pm

Better late than never!

I had written this to be consistent with the existing rules, which suggested that such an escort would require a 50% job.

How this compares with real-life is a good question; all input on costs is still appreciated...


Wednesday, November 16th 2005, 2:53am

Not wanting to complicate things but what about for ships under 3000tons, we combine Level 1 and 2 (5%), Level 3 is 15%, Level 4 is 25% and Level 5 is 50%. We could add 'joining two ships together' to level 5 to reflect what happened to the WW1 Tribal DD's Nubian and Zulu to form HMS Zubian. Obviously you need a drydock for this one. ; )




Wednesday, November 16th 2005, 3:00am

Sounds good, I do think it would be too expensive at 75% to join two halfs of separate DD's so this makes it more plausable.


Friday, December 2nd 2005, 5:02am

I assume we are still using the original rules for now until we decide on these once and for all. I generally like them with the lower percentages Alt_Naval proposed.


Friday, December 2nd 2005, 5:09am

I can deal with Roger's suggestions. Let's see if the other players give a consensus, and we can consider implementing this for Q1/1930.



Friday, December 2nd 2005, 6:16am

Sounds good to me.


Friday, December 2nd 2005, 11:41am

OK by me.


Friday, December 2nd 2005, 1:19pm

I'm fine with it apart from;


-Reshaping of stern: D

It is basically impossible to graft a transom stern onto a ship that previously had a cruiser stern. Purely cosmetic changes are easy enough, but actually changing the hull form is something else entirely.


Friday, December 2nd 2005, 3:41pm

Changing to a transom would be too much, but lengthening the stern to improve hydrodynamics was quite common, especially with the Japanese and Italian BB refits.


Friday, December 2nd 2005, 4:16pm

Good enough.


Friday, December 2nd 2005, 6:08pm

no problems here


Saturday, December 3rd 2005, 2:58am



Sunday, December 4th 2005, 8:22pm


Indifferent at this time.


Wednesday, February 1st 2006, 11:16am

Anyone want to incorporate this into the infrastructure rules?


Wednesday, February 1st 2006, 12:44pm

Im Ok with the proposal.
But transom is bit to much


Sunday, February 26th 2006, 10:28am

We need to sticky this or add it to the infrastructure rules since its getting near the end of the first page here.


Sunday, February 26th 2006, 10:38am

So it shall be done!


Thursday, March 2nd 2006, 9:12pm

I'm assuming that adding mine rails to a ship that was not built with them installed would be equivalent to changes to a ship's depth charge racks and throwers (ie, a minor refit (15%)). Does that seem right to everyone?


Friday, March 3rd 2006, 3:17am

OK with me...