Ship class - Revision history

Mz: revert spam

2012-12-30T08:06:30Z

revert spam

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:06, 30 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~God~~, ~~I feel like I sohlud~~ be ~~takin notes! Great work~~		Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it

			==Mechanics==
			A ship class is a type of ships that may be built when a certain [[Research\|technology]] has been researched. The first level gives you access to fighters and corvettes, the next to frigates and destroyers, and the final level enables cruisers, battleships.

			[[Ship type#Structure killer\|Structure killer]]s, regardless of actual class, always require the final level of hull research, siege weapons.

			No such exception exists for constructing ships. Fighters and corvettes are built in the light factory, frigates and destroyers in the medium factory and cruisers and battleships in the heavy factory.

			===Travel time===
			A ship's [[travel time]] outside of a galaxy is determined by its class. Fighters and corvettes have a base ETA of 12 ticks, frigates and destroyers have a base ETA of 13, and cruisers and battleships have a base ETA of 14. If there are multiple ship classes in a fleet, the fleet's ETA is determined by the slowest class.

			The ETA of a fleet may be reduced by means of [[Research#Travel time\|ETA research]]. Additionally, The ETA of your fleet is lowered by 1 if you are defending someone in your alliance. Inside of galaxies, all ships have an ETA of 5 ticks, regardless of class or [[Coordinates\|z-coordinate]] and this cannot be affected by research.

207.242.93.140: pUiWWsWAmKJtfFhYcC

2012-12-30T01:17:55Z

pUiWWsWAmKJtfFhYcC

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, 30 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it~~		God, I feel like I sohlud be takin notes! Great work

	I ~~agree it would~~ be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>2eKrVO , [url=http://nfuujxppydao.com/]nfuujxppydao[/url], [link=http://cwdbucikombq.com/]cwdbucikombq[/link], http://dkewwxlkzwxh.com/6vyksU <a href="http://feklvyzaefjx.com/">feklvyzaefjx</a>JEdaJV , [url=http://wqzefqfwhaxu.com/]wqzefqfwhaxu[/url], [link=http://qoujukuidthm.com/]qoujukuidthm[/link], http://dciyxtganeaw.com/

189.254.95.121: PvCDBndSprbDMEvM

2012-04-29T07:11:19Z

PvCDBndSprbDMEvM

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:11, 29 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it		Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it

	I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>2eKrVO , [url=http://nfuujxppydao.com/]nfuujxppydao[/url], [link=http://cwdbucikombq.com/]cwdbucikombq[/link], http://dkewwxlkzwxh.com/6vyksU <a href="http://feklvyzaefjx.com/">feklvyzaefjx</a>		I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>2eKrVO , [url=http://nfuujxppydao.com/]nfuujxppydao[/url], [link=http://cwdbucikombq.com/]cwdbucikombq[/link], http://dkewwxlkzwxh.com/6vyksU <a href="http://feklvyzaefjx.com/">feklvyzaefjx</a>JEdaJV , [url=http://wqzefqfwhaxu.com/]wqzefqfwhaxu[/url], [link=http://qoujukuidthm.com/]qoujukuidthm[/link], http://dciyxtganeaw.com/

63.110.36.75: sUstQCZfXadH

2012-04-28T14:56:32Z

sUstQCZfXadH

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 28 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it		Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it

	I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>2eKrVO , [url=http://nfuujxppydao.com/]nfuujxppydao[/url], [link=http://cwdbucikombq.com/]cwdbucikombq[/link], http://dkewwxlkzwxh.com/		I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>2eKrVO , [url=http://nfuujxppydao.com/]nfuujxppydao[/url], [link=http://cwdbucikombq.com/]cwdbucikombq[/link], http://dkewwxlkzwxh.com/6vyksU <a href="http://feklvyzaefjx.com/">feklvyzaefjx</a>

12.91.6.234: SUQDByWpNgZso

2012-04-27T14:07:57Z

SUQDByWpNgZso

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, 27 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it		Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it

	I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>		I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>2eKrVO , [url=http://nfuujxppydao.com/]nfuujxppydao[/url], [link=http://cwdbucikombq.com/]cwdbucikombq[/link], http://dkewwxlkzwxh.com/

178.32.171.149: dpscOnXTQdjJTVQpNg

2012-04-27T08:35:36Z

dpscOnXTQdjJTVQpNg

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:35, 27 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it		Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it

	I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.		I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.4jo9QO <a href="http://zhhoebdwqyzw.com/">zhhoebdwqyzw</a>

37.77.135.2: Sella

2012-04-26T23:33:07Z

Sella

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 26 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it		Ships in [[Planetarion]] can be divided into six '''ship classes'''. Which class a ship is plays a decisive role in determining their travel speed and which ships can target it

	~~==Mechanics==~~		I agree it would be misleading to pclaorim that the Two Ocean Navy Act pclaorimed the end of the battleship era for the U.S. Navy. It was not. But the Two Ocean Navy Act did demonstrate the Navy's progress with aircraft carrier development and production well before December 7, 1941, as well as the recognition by senior officers of the importance of the aircraft carrier well before Pearl Harbor.The large number of fast battleships that were built after 1936 had everything to do with the long hiatus in battleship building and Japan's withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty. After Japan renounced the London Naval Treaty, the United States activated the escalation clause in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 to build battleships with 16-inch guns that could keep up with the faster aircraft carriers. By the time the NORTH CAROLINA-class battleships commenced construction, the U.S. Navy had already experimented with and built six aircraft carriers with a seventh, USS WASP, on the ways. The older battleships could not keep up with these carriers, and the Navy recognized the need to build a balanced fleet that could proceed at a reasonable speed.In point of fact, the U.S. Navy originally planned for six IOWA-class battleships, but only built four and completely canceled construction of the MONTANA class. Additionally, the United States built only two of the ALASKA-class battlecruisers. Six were originally planned. So yes, there was a sizable commitment to battleships well through the first years of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that contrary to popular belief, the Navy did not build aircraft carriers as an afterthought or treated them like red-headed step-children . The Navy had recognized the importance of aircraft carriers for over a decade, and had experimented with carrier size, air group composition, and some air strike doctrine with four different types of aircraft carriers prior to settling on the ESSEX-class carrier as the optimal design.During the last decade, there has been a number of books by Thomas and Trent Hone, Craig Felker, and John Kuehn that have discussed the importance of the interwar period to the strategy, tactics, and technology with which the U.S. Navy won the war in the Pacific. These works, along with previous books by William McBride, Edward S. Miller, and Michael Vlahos, very much show that the U.S. Navy of the interwar period was an innovative and forward-thinking organization that assessed the challenges of a major Pacific Ocean conflict and adapted to meet those challenges. The Two Ocean Navy Act was the coda to this era, just before the crucible of war.
	~~A ship class is a type of ships that may~~ be ~~built when a certain [[Research\|technology]] has been researched. The first level gives you access~~ to ~~fighters and corvettes,~~ the ~~next to frigates and destroyers, and~~ the ~~final level enables cruisers, battleships~~.

	~~[[Ship type#Structure killer\|Structure killer]]~~s, ~~regardless~~ of ~~actual class, always require~~ the ~~final level~~ of ~~hull research, siege weapons~~.

	~~No such exception exists for constructing ships. Fighters and corvettes are~~ built in the ~~light factory~~, ~~frigates and destroyers~~ in the ~~medium factory and cruisers and~~ battleships in the ~~heavy factory~~.

	~~===Travel~~ time~~===~~
	~~A ship's [[travel time]] outside of a galaxy is determined by its~~ class. ~~Fighters~~ and ~~corvettes have~~ a ~~base ETA of 12 ticks~~, ~~frigates~~ and ~~destroyers have~~ a ~~base ETA~~ of 13, and ~~cruisers and battleships have a base ETA~~ of 14. If there ~~are multiple ship classes in~~ a ~~fleet~~, the ~~fleet's ETA is determined by~~ the ~~slowest class~~.

	The ~~ETA~~ of a ~~fleet may be reduced by means~~ of ~~[[Research#Travel time\|ETA research]]~~. ~~Additionally~~, ~~The ETA~~ of ~~your fleet is lowered~~ by ~~1 if you are defending someone~~ in ~~your alliance~~. ~~Inside of galaxies~~, ~~all ships have an ETA of 5 ticks~~, ~~regardless~~ of ~~class or [[Coordinates\|z~~-~~coordinate]]~~ and this ~~cannot be affected by research~~.

80.195.152.165 at 10:29, 10 October 2011

2011-10-10T10:29:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 10 October 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:

	The ETA of a fleet may be reduced by means of [[Research#Travel time\|ETA research]]. Additionally, The ETA of your fleet is lowered by 1 if you are defending someone in your alliance. Inside of galaxies, all ships have an ETA of 5 ticks, regardless of class or [[Coordinates\|z-coordinate]] and this cannot be affected by research.		The ETA of a fleet may be reduced by means of [[Research#Travel time\|ETA research]]. Additionally, The ETA of your fleet is lowered by 1 if you are defending someone in your alliance. Inside of galaxies, all ships have an ETA of 5 ticks, regardless of class or [[Coordinates\|z-coordinate]] and this cannot be affected by research.

	This makes everything so completely pailnses.vENO4m , [url=http://ghxnnyqcypws.com/]ghxnnyqcypws[/url], [link=http://jqojlflgclpw.com/]jqojlflgclpw[/link], http://sejutbvysqps.com/Hekcuva good job. I sure appreciate it.cM3Z0D <a href="http://afscgwkfjnpo.com/">afscgwkfjnpo</a>PxcB27 , [url=http://usacamzbgrtn.com/]usacamzbgrtn[/url], [link=http://axcpvbvcblov.com/]axcpvbvcblov[/link], http://tkpiocohvlca.com/

124.146.237.54: UOGtSipbjnMAQe

2011-10-04T13:40:49Z

UOGtSipbjnMAQe

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 4 October 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:
	The ETA of a fleet may be reduced by means of [[Research#Travel time\|ETA research]]. Additionally, The ETA of your fleet is lowered by 1 if you are defending someone in your alliance. Inside of galaxies, all ships have an ETA of 5 ticks, regardless of class or [[Coordinates\|z-coordinate]] and this cannot be affected by research.		The ETA of a fleet may be reduced by means of [[Research#Travel time\|ETA research]]. Additionally, The ETA of your fleet is lowered by 1 if you are defending someone in your alliance. Inside of galaxies, all ships have an ETA of 5 ticks, regardless of class or [[Coordinates\|z-coordinate]] and this cannot be affected by research.

	This makes everything so completely pailnses.vENO4m , [url=http://ghxnnyqcypws.com/]ghxnnyqcypws[/url], [link=http://jqojlflgclpw.com/]jqojlflgclpw[/link], http://sejutbvysqps.com/Hekcuva good job. I sure appreciate it.cM3Z0D <a href="http://afscgwkfjnpo.com/">afscgwkfjnpo</a>		This makes everything so completely pailnses.vENO4m , [url=http://ghxnnyqcypws.com/]ghxnnyqcypws[/url], [link=http://jqojlflgclpw.com/]jqojlflgclpw[/link], http://sejutbvysqps.com/Hekcuva good job. I sure appreciate it.cM3Z0D <a href="http://afscgwkfjnpo.com/">afscgwkfjnpo</a>PxcB27 , [url=http://usacamzbgrtn.com/]usacamzbgrtn[/url], [link=http://axcpvbvcblov.com/]axcpvbvcblov[/link], http://tkpiocohvlca.com/

64.206.209.105: nuyiQxZHgmb

2011-09-28T16:50:57Z

nuyiQxZHgmb

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, 28 September 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:
	The ETA of a fleet may be reduced by means of [[Research#Travel time\|ETA research]]. Additionally, The ETA of your fleet is lowered by 1 if you are defending someone in your alliance. Inside of galaxies, all ships have an ETA of 5 ticks, regardless of class or [[Coordinates\|z-coordinate]] and this cannot be affected by research.		The ETA of a fleet may be reduced by means of [[Research#Travel time\|ETA research]]. Additionally, The ETA of your fleet is lowered by 1 if you are defending someone in your alliance. Inside of galaxies, all ships have an ETA of 5 ticks, regardless of class or [[Coordinates\|z-coordinate]] and this cannot be affected by research.

	This makes everything so completely pailnses.vENO4m , [url=http://ghxnnyqcypws.com/]ghxnnyqcypws[/url], [link=http://jqojlflgclpw.com/]jqojlflgclpw[/link], http://sejutbvysqps.com/Hekcuva good job. I sure appreciate it.		This makes everything so completely pailnses.vENO4m , [url=http://ghxnnyqcypws.com/]ghxnnyqcypws[/url], [link=http://jqojlflgclpw.com/]jqojlflgclpw[/link], http://sejutbvysqps.com/Hekcuva good job. I sure appreciate it.cM3Z0D <a href="http://afscgwkfjnpo.com/">afscgwkfjnpo</a>