C.O.R.E. HOI - Naval Mod

[MateDow]

Re: Cruisers

Originally posted by Engineer
* These classes would only be availble to a power that selected the gunnery doctrine since the 12" and rapid fire 8" main batteries would not be researched by a power without a gunnery emphasis.
** Unavailable to a power that selected Guided Missile Doctrine
*** Available to a power that selected Guided Missile Doctrine

If the player wants to devote the resources to developing gun nuclear cruisers after the development of the guided missile, I am not sure that it shouldn't be allowed. I would tend to lean towards keeping those options available where they aren't mutually exclusive.

Model 8: Better air attack and defense compared to a model 5 but the same sea attack. The main batteries for the Cleveland's were 12x6" vs. 15x6" on the older Brooklyn's, and had the same model of gun. Slightly thicker armor and a extra 1000 tons of displacement.

Makes sense. The extra 1000 tons of displacement were due to the ommision of the aluminum superstructure that was planned for the Cleveland. That caused stability problems for the class throughout their lives, and was the reason for their disposal before older heavy cruiser after the war.

Model 9: Better air attack and much better defense compared to the model six but the same sea attack. (I'd consider the super heavy shell that Baltimores & Oregon City's could fire as tangible consequence of the gunnery doctrine and the so the reason for a +2 sea attack versus vanilla Model 9 cruisers). The standard for war time heavy cruiser construction was 8 to 9 eight inch guns.

That makes sense. I think that there has to be a cost increase to account for the added displacement and complexity of those designs.

Model 10: Much better sea attack and somewhat better defense compared to the model 9. These ships were about 4000 tons bigger than the Baltimores. Part of that was the new Mark 16 was a much heavier weapon, but it was also better protection.

maybe a +2 attack over a standard heavy cruiser? That would bring them up to 10 (12 with gunnery bonus). That would make them almost competitive for ships with 12" guns. The pre-dreadnaught battleship has a rating of 12 without any bonuses.

There might also be a guided missile doctrine at the end of the Late War Doctrines that disables future pure gunship development (Type 12, 13, 14 cruisers and the appropriate battleships) and is a pre-requisite for getting the Type 11 and Type 15 cruisers and appropriate battleships.

See my above for my thoughts about disabling gun cruisers. Early guided missiles weren't all that great. Remember that 5" DP guns were added to the Long Beach for AA protection. This was on a cruiser built in the 1960s. I think that there would be some hesitance to completely end the construction and design of new gun cruisers in war inflated naval budgets in reality.

Should we increase the total range of the attack and defense rating for all of the ships? Right now the range goes from 1 to around 22. If we increase the total range of the values, that would allow for some finer differences between classes. What do people think of that idea? What would be a good range of values that would fit in to the other tech trees? MDow

 

[unmerged(15066)]

Cruisers

Guided Missile vs. Gun Doctrine: My meaning here isn't that guns would be banned from the guided missile enabled ships, but a mixed battery of guns and missiles would form the armament and then the doctine would look at the tactical questions on how to employ missiles. Maybe a better way to put it is that you shouldn't get a guided missile ship without the guided missile doctrine along with the necessary tech pre-requisites.
If you make it an either/or choice then this becomes as big a decision as the initial protection/speed/gunnery but since the tech may come up during the game then the player has the choice. It's really a design decision if you want to make things as stark as that. But it certainly doesn't have to be so cut and dried.

Type 10 Cruiser equals 1st generation Dreadnought: Yes, it works out that way. Consider:

9 /broadside x 10 rounds/minute x 330 lbs/round = 29,700 lbs/minute for Des Moines

12 /broadside x 2 rounds/minute x 870 lbs/round = 20,880 lbs/minute for Arkansas.

In shells on target, the Des Moines with its ROF could practically "walk" it's fire onto a target compared to the slow motion gunnery of the older dreadnoughts. Of course, the big gun would do more damage if it hit. I don't have a problem with about the same sea attack here.
On displacement, the Des Moines was 21,000 tons full load which matches up with the British Colossus class, their last 12" armed dreadnought at 23,000 tons.
Overall, a DesMoines would probably rate within a point on sea attack no more than a couple of points below on defense and a point better on anti-air.

Expanded sea attack range: With the greater variety of models this would let things shade better. I'd support that idea.

For the rest, silence implies consent.

 

[Possum]

Hello Matedow.
I'd like to point out that the Brooklyn class had 15 x 6" guns, massed a nominal 10,000t, and had amour equivelent to a Northampton Class Treaty cruiser.
They are clearly vasly superior to the standard Trealy light cruiser with 6 to 8 x 6" guns, 5000-7000 t displacement and lighter armour.
The CW Town class also came in at 10,000 tones, had Armour superior to a Treaty heavy cruiser, and had 12 x 6" guns.
(The British Admiralty considered the Towns to be Heavy Cruisers, not Light Cruisers. Towns were designed to fight 8" Treaty Cruisers!)
The Australian light cruisers are Apollo class, not Towns.
(Actually HMAS Adelaide is an old WW1 Town class, the last surviving member of that class of light cruiser in 1936.)
The Mogami class were originally classed as light cruisers, but they too came with 15 x 6.1" guns, 10,000 t official displacement (actuall a lot more), and had Heavy cruiser armour.
At 5,000 t nominal, I'd think Shimakazi is more a Light cruiser than a Destroyer, but your right, it's not an AA cruiser.
Which leads me to.....
Regarding the Worchesters, They were never classed as AA cruisers, nor used as such, so they shouldn't be called such.
That is not to say they should have a poor AA, exactly the opposite, they should be one of the better AA platforms, but that's because of the advanced fire control, radar, and a multitude of 3" and 40mm Flak guns.
But their designed role was Surface Combat, not AA warfare.
Also, remember this is supposed to be a general ship class, applicable to all nations, not unique to the US; Consider the Soviet Servelov Class CL's and the British Tiger Class CA's, both comparable to the Worchesters in design, size and arnament.

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Possum
Hello Matedow.
I'd like to point out that the Brooklyn class had 15 x 6" guns, massed a nominal 10,000t, and had amour equivelent to a Northampton Class Treaty cruiser.
They are clearly vasly superior to the standard Trealy light cruiser with 6 to 8 x 6" guns, 5000-7000 t displacement and lighter armour.

That is because the US had different philosophies for how to use their treaty tonnage. The British needed to have more hulls for colony duty. When the London Treaty of 1936 was signed, the British finally got their limit of 7000 tons. When that happened the US dropped the 6" light cruiser becuase of the inabilitity to provide armor. This became the Atlanta-class light cruisers which were also designed to lead the US destroyer flotillas. When the US had the tonnage available for replacement vessels under the terms of the treaty they laid down the Honolulu and Helena which were repeat Brooklyns but with modified secondary batteries.

The CW Town class also came in at 10,000 tones, had Armour superior to a Treaty heavy cruiser, and had 12 x 6" guns.
(The British Admiralty considered the Towns to be Heavy Cruisers, not Light Cruisers. Towns were designed to fight 8" Treaty Cruisers!)

The Town-class crusiers were also treaty designs which were designed to take advantage of the 6" gun which was the standard of the time. They were never considered heavy cruisers due to their 6" (152mm) main batteries. The diffinition of heavy vs light cruisers was made based on the gun size, not the potential opponent. Exeter is an example of the British heavy cruiser design immediately preceeding the war.

The Australian light cruisers are Apollo class, not Towns.
(Actually HMAS Adelaide is an old WW1 Town class, the last surviving member of that class of light cruiser in 1936.)

Adelaide was an old WWI Birmingham-class light cruiser. The Perth and Sydney being constructed in 1936 were virtually repeat Achillies-class light cruisers. They have the 8 6"(152mm) guns, the lighter armor, and virtually the same armor and machinery arrangement.

The Mogami class were originally classed as light cruisers, but they too came with 15 x 6.1" guns, 10,000 t official displacement (actuall a lot more), and had Heavy cruiser armour.
At 5,000 t nominal, I'd think Shimakazi is more a Light cruiser than a Destroyer, but your right, it's not an AA cruiser.

See above about the definition of heavy cruisers. The Shimakazi had a standard displacement very close to 2500 tons. That would put it in the same class as the Allen M Sumner-class destroyers being built in the US at the time. She carried 6 5"(127mm) guns in three twin mounts and 15 torpedoes. She had a high pressure steam plant that allowed her to reach 40 knots on trials. She is definately a destroyer.

Which leads me to.....
Regarding the Worchesters, They were never classed as AA cruisers, nor used as such, so they shouldn't be called such.
That is not to say they should have a poor AA, exactly the opposite, they should be one of the better AA platforms, but that's because of the advanced fire control, radar, and a multitude of 3" and 40mm Flak guns.
But their designed role was Surface Combat, not AA warfare.
Also, remember this is supposed to be a general ship class, applicable to all nations, not unique to the US; Consider the Soviet Servelov Class CL's and the British Tiger Class CA's, both comparable to the Worchesters in design, size and arnament.

The Worcester-class was designed as successors to the Atlanta-class AA cruisers. The main complaint about the Atlanta was her lack of hitting power for the size of her hull. The Worcester was meant to get the DP 6"(152mm) gun out where it could be tested and evaluated. The design that was meant for anti-surface was the Oregon City with the semi-automatic 8" (203mm) guns. The Sverdlov was the logical successor to the Chapeyev-class light cruiser, complete with her single purpose 6" (152mm) guns. She had the standard 12 guns mounted in triple turrets. MDow

 

[Szun]

Questions:
1) why isnt there a 'Nuclear Super Battleship' in the techtree?
2) Was the guided missle/ BB/CA/DD really the same hittingpower then thier normal versions?
3) Why do Surfaceships (beside CVs) get 'Seedetect' 8 (some CAs and BBs only 6) as max and i can get subs with 11? Shouldnt that be more balanced, the scoutplanes didnt only work for subs...

thx in advance

P.S. Q.'s are related to 0.61

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Szun
Questions:
1) why isnt there a 'Nuclear Super Battleship' in the techtree?

There is, it just isn't named that way. There should be a tech for 'nuclear battleship' that activates a model called 'nuclear battleship.' This battleship has the same stats as the super battleship, it is just misnamed.

2) Was the guided missle/ BB/CA/DD really the same hittingpower then thier normal versions?

That is a good question. The warhead on a guided missile is larger than the warhead on shells fired from the same sized ship, but the rate of fire is lower. I had to make the assumption that a battleship would carry a lot more missiles that a cruiser and so on. If the accuracy of the guns is good enough, then that should ballance out the rate of fire and warhead size advantage of guided missiles. True over the horizon guided missiles weren't developed until the late sixties, so I didn't take into account an advantage of range. That is how I justified to myself that the hitting power would remain the same for surface attack. With air attack, the guided missile gives a distinct advantage, so there is a gain in that category.

3) Why do Surfaceships (beside CVs) get 'Seedetect' 8 (some CAs and BBs only 6) as max and i can get subs with 11? Shouldnt that be more balanced, the scoutplanes didnt only work for subs...

thx in advance

P.S. Q.'s are related to 0.61

Originally the submarines had equal or lower surface detection stats than surface ships. People had observed that the subs were having trouble finding targets (convoys or task forces). The detection rating for submarines was raised to compensate for that difficulty. The spotting aircraft tech only gives a bonus for cruisers and battleships. In version 0.7 there will be the option of researching a submarine launched floatplane to simulate the Japanese aircraft carrying subs. That will give a surface detection bonus to the submarines as well. MDow

 

[Szun]

thx for the answer(sp?) MDow!

btw there are 4 planes in subtech tree, I wasnt refering to the spotting plane in naval tech.
1. prereq is imp escort
2. prereq is basic nav
3. prereq imp med bomber prototype
4. prereq imp nav

out of memory...

But if they had trouble detecting stuff, that works for me. I was just wondering.
And to top it off the Nuclear guided missle BB as nerly the same stats (AA is 1 better or so) why would somebody care to reserach something like GM BB if its worthless, as in not a improvement?

I know u work on some changes here atm, to give ships a wider range of stats etc, keep in mind that a longer techpath should end up with a better ship, not the same or weaker one. Even if it was that way in RL, it doesnt make sense in a game.

 

[Szun]

is this forum bugged? my last post lost 4 lines when i edited?

 

[Szun]

Originally posted by Szun
thx for the answer(sp?) MDow!

btw there are 4 planes in subtech tree, I wasnt refering to the spotting plane in naval tech.
1. prereq is imp escort
2. prereq is basic nav
3. prereq imp med bomber prototype
4. prereq imp nav

out of memory...

But if they had trouble detecting stuff, that works for me. I was just wondering.
(adding lost lines)

there is a 'Nuclear BB; but it has the stats of a posttreaty BB .

(thats about what I said in short)
And to top it off the Nuclear guided missle BB as nerly the same stats (AA is 1 better or so) why would somebody care to reserach something like GM BB if its worthless, as in not a improvement?

I know u work on some changes here atm, to give ships a wider range of stats etc, keep in mind that a longer techpath should end up with a better ship, not the same or weaker one. Even if it was that way in RL, it doesnt make sense in a game.

 

[lordvagrant]

I have been finding Subs to be very powerful, even without tech advances. Basically, they don't seem to get hit, and lone flotillas can fight for days against fleets.
Part of the problem can be contributed to the AI using a Vice Admiral to lead a fleet of 9-12, but the effective ships should be able to drive off the sub.
The problem seems worse in Core than Vanilla HoI.

I'm going to make a suggestion (in the appropriate thread) about having subs lose 1 org per hour of battle to reflect their very limited ordinance.

 

[MateDow]

Methodical Tester Needed

I am looking for someone to do some testing for me. I am looking for some data on what effects visibility has on ASW operations. There is a note in the submarine model tree that visibility effects damage done to submarines in combat. If this is so, then higher numbers should mean that the submarine will be more vulnerable to countermeasures. What I would like to know is, does a really high number (90+) result in unsurvivable subs, or does it give them a half a chance? Submarines don't last long in sustained combat. WW2 proved this. Once the U-Boats lost their stealth, they were dead. I am looking at this as a counter for super subs. If they subs are taking damage more quickly, then they will be forced to disengage more quickly, so we can raise their attack ratings so they are quick and deadly. That is the plan anyway. Thank you for the assistance. MDow

 

[unmerged(18537)]

Submarine Category

I have a question. How do you rate various submarine models into coastal/medium/long? I got impression Japanese submarine OOB is a bit wrong.
e.g. How will you rate these subs operated in 1936?

Type L4: cruising range 5500 sea miles (Japan had 18+ subs whose range was 5500-6000)
Type Kaioh2: cruising range 10000 sea miles (Japan had 21 subs whose range was 9000-10800)
Type Kaioh6a: cruising range 14000 sea miles (Japan had 6 subs of this class)
Type Junsen1: cruising range 24000 sea miles (Japan had 5 subs of this class, and 1 Type Junsen2 whose rage was 20000)

Thanks in advance.

Edit: the range above was surface range, not underwater range

 

[MateDow]

Re: Submarine Category

Originally posted by unknown
I have a question. How do you rate various submarine models into coastal/medium/long? I got impression Japanese submarine OOB is a bit wrong.
e.g. How will you rate these subs operated in 1936?

Note: This information is valid for 0.6, not 0.7

In vanilla HoI, which basically what we are using for submarines, the submarines are misnamed. They should be called basic, improved and advanced. The differences in those submarines is more a question of technology rather than range. While looking at the subs for 0.6 I tried to look at technological advancement rather than the true range of the submarine. This means that there are some inconsistancies in the model numbers associated with nations that operated submarines in the Pacific compared to nations that operated primarily in the Atlantic, Baltic, and Med. So, yes the Japanese submarines were long range, but they weren't advanced (or long range) as the tech tree hints they should be. I hope that this makes sense. This will all be changing for 0.7 with a five fold increase in the number of models that will be available for classifying submarines. MDow

 

[Reichsmarshall]

Love all the work that's been done on the naval aspect in CORE... I had one question though that someone involved might be able to shed some light on:

Should coastal defence vessels be classified as battleships? I'm mostly thinking of the coast defence ships used by the scandinavian countries that have similar characteristics to a 'monitor'. Just seemed to me that since they're inferior in fighting value even to a pre-dreadnought battleship (of which there were very few left in 1936), they might be better represented by a type of very short-ranged cruiser or something.

Just a thought.

 

[unmerged(18738)]

Transport issue

I haven't written much in the Naval mod, but thought I'd share my thoughts on the super-abundant production on transports.

I have AI files in place that have like a max of 5% for transport production for the UK. However, it's late '43 and there is no more UK navy. Not one ship except transports and two subs.

Anyhow, what I think is happening for the transports is that as the Brits lose convoy transports - not just the game transports that ferry troops around - then the Brits will attempt to replace ALL of those via regular game transports. There is just no way a 5% build factor would create 220+ transports by late '43. This is the only thing I can think of as to why UK, USA, and Japan (heaviest convoy nations) get such an incredible tranport total. I would bet if you dropped that build percentage down to ZERO you'd still get an unreal number of transports built to replace the merchant transports that are sunk in convoys.

And I have NO clue how to fix something like that.

-PK

 

[unmerged(18537)]

Thank you for the detailed reply, MateDow. I rated Japanese subs by their role on Pacific War.

1.Coastal Submarine(model 0)
RO-51 Class(Type L1) *2
RO-53 Class(Type L2) *4
RO-26 Class(Type Kaichu4) *3
RO-29 Class (Type Tokuchu) *3
RO-60 Class (Type L4) *9
Total 21subs -> 5units

2.Medium-Range Submarine(model 1)
I-52(1) (Type Kaioh2)
I-1 Class(Type Junsen1) *5
I-53(1) Class (Type Kaioh3a) *4
I-21 Class (Type Kiraisen) *3
I-56(1) Class (Type Kaioh3b) *5
I-61 Class (Type Kaioh4) *3
I-65 Class (Type Kaioh5) *3
I-68 Class (Type Kaioh6a) *6
RO-33 Class (Type Kaichu5) *2 (1 comleted on 37/5/31)
I-6 (Type Junsen2)
I-7 (Type Junsen3) *2(1 on 37/3/31, 1 on 37/12/15)
(I-74 (Type Kaioh6b) *2(1 on 38/8/15, 1 on 38/12/18))

Total 32 + 3subs -> 6units + 1 underconstruction(37/5/31)
(I removed I-74 on purpose. It took too much time and cost more than building new one)


I have 1 suggestion and 1 question this time.

(1)Suggestion
You rated Mogami class(Mogami Mikuma Suzuya Kumano) as Treaty Light Cruiser(model 4). I'm sure you know that Japan intended to refit their turret later to make them CA. Isn't it better you rate them model 5 and give Mogami and Mikuma reduced seaattack value equal to model 4?

BTW, if you specifically write some value, that unit can't benefit from tech bonus at the beginning of the game. So I recommend Hurutaka, Kako, Aoba, Kinugasa and Mogami class ships should have seaattack = 7, not 6. Currently, the former 4 ships' firepower is less than model4.

(2)Question(Suggestion?)
I got impression you rated destroyers with tonnage. As ASW bonuses are mostly granted by ASW branch of research tree.
I think Japanese destroyers are underrated. In naval tech, Hubuki class is described as sample of 1500ton destroyer, but its tonnage was 1980t. Its armament wasn't much different from Kagero Class(2500t destroyer) and faster. Again, how do you rated various destroyers?

Reference(My rating)
-----------------------------
1.1000 Ton Destroyer(model 1)
Wakatake * 8 (900t)
Total 8ships -> 2units

2.1500 Ton Destroyer(model 4)
Minekaze * 12 (1345t)
Nokaze *3 (1345t)
Kamikaze(2) *9 (1400t)
Muzuki *12 (1445t)

Total 36ships -> 7units

3.2000 Ton Destroyer(model 5)
Fubuki *24 (1980t)
Hatsuharu *6 (2061t)
Shiratsuyu *10 (1980t)(competed between 36/8/20-37/8/31)

Total 30 + 10ships -> 6units + 2underconstruction(37/1/7, 37/6/30)

4. Coastal Gunboat
I transferred other old but operating destroyers(model 0) to escorts.

Please consider. Thanks in advance.

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshall
Should coastal defence vessels be classified as battleships? I'm mostly thinking of the coast defence ships used by the scandinavian countries that have similar characteristics to a 'monitor'. Just seemed to me that since they're inferior in fighting value even to a pre-dreadnought battleship (of which there were very few left in 1936), they might be better represented by a type of very short-ranged cruiser or something.

Just a thought.

Well, funny that you should mention that. I do think that the Coastal Defence Battleships are still battleships. In the next version of CORE there will be seperate coast defence battleships and pre-dreadnaught battleships. The coast defence battleship basically is going to become a more heavily armored armored cruiser. They will be slower and less heavily armed than a pre-dreadnaught with similar scale of armor protection.

I think that they should continue to be represented by a battleship because of the difference in mission between them and a cruiser. MDow

 

[Reichsmarshall]

Originally posted by MateDow
In the next version of CORE there will be seperate coast defence battleships and pre-dreadnaught battleships.

Cool.. you guys are on the ball.

Noticed something else last night that should be changed in the next version... the US carrier "Ranger" is classed as a Yorktown-class carrier, when in reality it was much smaller and less capable (which is why the Navy kept it in the Atlantic for the duration of the war). It was a little closer to the Wasp in size, but was poorly designed. Could almost be classed as a Langley class, but it was still a bit better than the old "Covered Wagon"

I also noticed that the New York and Texas are classed as Colorado-class BB's... I would have figured them to be closer to Arkansas-class, even though they have 14" guns instead of 12".. the Colorados had 16" guns and were larger, newer, faster, etc.. The Oklahoma & Nevada were a significant upgrade on the Texas and New York, so I could see putting them and the Pennsylvania & Arizona in with the Colorados, since I realize it's not possible to accomodate every single class of ship that was built.

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshall
Cool.. you guys are on the ball.

Noticed something else last night that should be changed in the next version... the US carrier "Ranger" is classed as a Yorktown-class carrier, when in reality it was much smaller and less capable (which is why the Navy kept it in the Atlantic for the duration of the war). It was a little closer to the Wasp in size, but was poorly designed. Could almost be classed as a Langley class, but it was still a bit better than the old "Covered Wagon"

You have to look at the classing of vessels in a more general view. Ranger is classed as a fleet carrier. The class name for the US fleet carriers happens to be Yorktown. Granted Ranger wasn't as capable as the later Yorktowns, but she mainly suffered from slowness rather than general inability to operate aircraft. The air group that she was able to carry was comperable to the Yorktown rather than the Wasp. I wouldn't go as far as rating her the same as the Langley. The Ranger was far more capable than Langley in terms of speed, air group size, and survivability.

I also noticed that the New York and Texas are classed as Colorado-class BB's... I would have figured them to be closer to Arkansas-class, even though they have 14" guns instead of 12".. the Colorados had 16" guns and were larger, newer, faster, etc.. The Oklahoma & Nevada were a significant upgrade on the Texas and New York, so I could see putting them and the Pennsylvania & Arizona in with the Colorados, since I realize it's not possible to accomodate every single class of ship that was built.

Texas and New York were both super-dreadnaughts. The main difference between them and Nevada was the arrangement of their armor. They still followed the protect everything philosophy that the British continued to follow through the end of the first world war. If you compare the Texas with the British Royal Soverign-class battleships which are also rated as super-dreadnaughts, they don't look as bad. They are a couple of knots slower, but they had a fairly equal main battery, and comperable protection. They look even better if you compare them to their French and Italian contemperaries. The only dreadnaughts (as opposed to super-dreadnaughts) that the US had retained by 1936 was the Arkansas. The traditional definition of a super-dreadnaught was based on the caliber of the main battery. Everything with main battery guns larger than 13.5" was rated as a super-dreadnaught. That was the point that I used as well when classifying the battleships for CORE. MDow

 

[Reichsmarshall]

Ok, I see your point on the battleships.. I was thinking that Nevada & Oklahoma were significantly larger and better protected. Looking now at info from Jane's, I see that there was only a 2000 ton difference between the 2 classes, and the belt wasn't too much thicker. The biggest differences were the change to triple turrets, change to oil-firing over coal, and 'all-or-nothing' armor protection...
I was also thinking in terms of classes rather than types.

I see your reasoning on the Ranger, but still disagree... Yorktowns were about 5 knots faster, 5000 tons heavier, carried 10-15 more planes, and had better protection.
Comparing Ranger with Wasp: Wasp is only 200 tons heavier, has same rated speed (29.5 kts), and closer to the same air group size (76 for Wasp, 72 for Ranger). They could both be considered 'small fleet carriers' as opposed to 'fleet carriers' like the Yorktown & Essex classes. However, as I've been rambling here, I realized that there isn't a separate classification for different sizes of fleet carriers, so I guess in comparison to the Independence class CVL's or the CVE's... Ranger does more fit with the Yorktowns.

"Nevermind". :wacko: