|
If we're not voting for our own designs, I'm going with the other boat named after Russia's greatest leader- Catherine the Great. It's definitely the closest to my Ekaterina in ethos.
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Bacarruda posted:But...designs bases on pre-existing designs have shorter and cheaper design study cycles. If we go with the Proyect 41501 classb we'll save money we can use later ... when we have actually useful tech. I had thought that we were to provide a novel design, per the new law?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
Proyect 41501
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
I am away from home and unable to upload Blyat until Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:I had thought that we were to provide a novel design, per the new law? It's novel in that it's a new design. The law doesn't define what it considers 'novel', and it's not like the rest of the designs are setting out to reinvent the boat or anything.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Dont have RTW2 so I win't be able to contribute ships to the glorious dumpster fire. If you guys are interested in ships and naval histories from this period thia guys YouTube channel is full of all that good stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Dont have RTW2 so I win't be able to contribute ships to the glorious dumpster fire. I'd be proud to have you join my design bureau as a concept-and-idiot-proofer, your outside of the main bureau designs from the RTW1 LP are a big part of why I wanted to get my hand into designing ships. Heck, Русские созданы для борьбы и победы is a continuation of your ethos from that one.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I propose the 'antidreadnought'. No primary battery, just a /huge/ pile of mixed-caliber secondary and tertiary batteries. It drives straight for the enemy, closing to short range and chewing away the superstructure with rapid-fire guns, leaving them afloat but drifting hulks. So, basically Badnoughts then. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:I'd be proud to have you join my design bureau as a concept-and-idiot-proofer, your outside of the main bureau designs from the RTW1 LP are a big part of why I wanted to get my hand into designing ships. Heck, Русские созданы для борьбы и победы is a continuation of your ethos from that one. Oh snap, haha I remember that, with Kaptain Gruun and his bigun attack boats. Well I'd be happy to help contribute my First idea: how can we take the concept of the coastal battleship to the EXTREME!!! Jimmy4400nav fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
That's exactly the type of moxie I'm looking for! I wonder how many 12 inch guns we can fit on 7000 tons?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
 quote:Current states  Of course the design that wins  We pay someone to turn this monster into a real design.  BYURO BOYEPRIPPASOV's new research priorities come into effect.  The FIRE for effect act is put in place.  Finally, as to the Far east Readiness act, I send a force to the Pacific to safeguard our holding there. February 1901  She looks fairly formidable.  More battleships come off the production line. March 1901  So have the US increased spending secretly or not? April 1901  We commission another battleship.  She gets around this lass, doesn't she! I also assume its called a coincidence rangefinder because its a coincidence if we hit anything. Any new tech is good though!  It seems 600 ton destroyers are possible.  The Blyat enters construction. May1901  Japan gets uppity, and I smack them down.  Reports of our fleet arriving cause them to back down like the cowards they are.  Submarines? What are they?  More battleships take to the waves. June 1901  The Varyag enters the navy.  Britain starts building a ship for Germany. The French have another battleship and the ability to build 600 ton destroyers. July 1901  Who am I to disagree with such titans of industry?  We to can now build 600 ton destroyers. I simply told our people it must be possible.  Ireland sounds dangerous place to visit.  Curses! They must not be able to see Russian technology! The world must never know how backwards we are!  Germany takes offence to this.  1% may not sound like much, but over a 10,000 vessel, its another 100 tons to play with.  We may now call any guns we want “secondaries”  Japan is laying down another armoured cruiser. September 1901  We gain another battleship.  Japan joins the 600 ton club. October 1901  A lot of good information there! November 1901  This woman is earning her keep!  Our home grown spies are nowhere near as efficient. December 1901  A recession hits, I fight for our budget, but it is cut anyway.  Austria-Hungary gets a note after we learn who has been stealing from us.  I'm going to halt there to get the years into synch a bit more.  World tensions are rising.  With only the Blyat being built, we are running healthy surplus, and have 20 million in the bank. Please submit the laws for this year.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
I would like to push for consideration of expansion of bases. In the Indian Ocean and the MEditerranean we have more ships than we can effectively support. Ergo we should expand facilities there - in case of conflict we will have the capability of increasing our forces that can effectively fight and support themselves. With us likely not pushing for another round of construction until our latest run of ships are finished and we have new technology to make updated designs improved, this seems a good time where we are not heavily investing the budget into construction. I would throw up the consideration (while not making this a full proposal) of increasing the capacity of our bases that are likely to be in combat zones of first priority for long term expansion. Further our bases in the Pacific should have their defenses increased as well in the likelihood of conflict with Japan.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 05:42
|
|
|
I think the "more ships than they can support" message happens when you are sailing ships through that area, we're not actually trying to support ships there if they're just passing through iirc Increasing bases around conflict hotspots woupd be sensible though
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 05:48
|
|
|
Proposal Base the Sun Given the likelihood of Japanese aggression (or our aggression against the Japanese) and our presumption of Japan as a long term rival in the region, our base facilities and defenses in the Pacific should be increased as expediently as possible to ensure effective logistics in the sea and to defend our territory. Secondarily, bases in other zones that are considered to be likely to face conflict should be upgraded, of third priority defenses for them. Primary budget and expansion is to be given to Pacific based locales, secondary to areas in potential conflict zones, third priority of expansion of defenses in possible conflict zones for budget allocation. Expansion of bases in other presumed conflict areas is only authorized in case that there is leftover budget from expanding of assets in Pacific region, and is delegated to the General Staff what areas are considiered likely sites of future conflict.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
Meta: From experience as Japan large numbers of 4 and 6 inch gun emplacements are actually super annoying and can severely impact the effectiveness of sneak attacks; as destroyers will engage them instead of streaming into port to torpedo the helpless ships at anchor. I'd like to see an act that sets a desired line speed for new construction to meet for capitals, cruisers and DDs, as well as calls for design and construction of a new class of destroyers since ours are kinda old and mediocre. But I'm not sure if I can write laws now that I designed a ship, so somebody please do that Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 06:03 on May 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Why the hell do you always get the first +5% submarine tech before the tech that actually lets you build them?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Why the hell do you always get the first +5% submarine tech before the tech that actually lets you build them? Vodka.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
I propose the Bring Your Own Battleship Act. This act proposes that we immediately spend money to expand the size of our docks and shipyards, to allow for the future construction of larger vessels. And that once these new docks are completed, we continue expanding our docks and shipyards until told otherwise. These new 600-ton destroyers have made it clear that the future of naval warfare is larger vessels, and we must be prepared for that future. We cannot afford a shipyard gap!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I propose the Bring Your Own Battleship Act. If we want bigger destroyers, can't we just use a cruiser slipway?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
 You may now begin mocking me. ITALY!!!!!!!! *I'm pretty sure those ships would be illegal in 1916
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:If we want bigger destroyers, can't we just use a cruiser slipway? Today's 600-ton destroyer could be tomorrow's 52,000-ton destroyer. Who knows what our shipwrights will think up next?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
No Ship Left Behind Act: In order to ensure coherancy and efficacy in future fleet operations consistent line speed must be a priority All new construction must meet or exceed the speeds listed unless otherwise overridden in individual construction mandate legislation where line speed is considered secondary priority EX: design specifically calling for a say a minesweeper or coastal defense battleship is exempted from this bill. B/BB/CA/CL 23 knots BC 25 knots DD 27 knots once sufficient tonnage meets these speeds all efforts will be made to place older ships incapable of meeting these requirements either in reserve status or in the zone less likely to see combat, at Greys discretion. I am willing to have the specifics of these numbers debated and voted on prior to implementation. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 07:08 on May 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
A note about bases: you only have bases in places where you own possessions, so we can’t just build bases in the Indian Ocean right from the start. We’d have to get some territory down there to put naval bases in, which mostly means beating somebody up and taking what they have.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
I hereby propose the Revenge Against Austria-Hungary act. Their unconscionable theft of our intellectual properties, the work of our patriotic engineers and scientists, means we can no longer treat them as they have been. To this end the following changes in foreign policy are proposed: 1: Intelligence levels against them should be set to High. 2: Move to rally the international community against them at every turn. 3: A force be readied to initiate interdiction or blockade duties if possible of their ports in event of further provocation.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 07:18
|
|
|
I propose the Give War A Chance Act. "The Commander of the navy shall in all ways comport themselves so as to maximise the Prestige of Russia."
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:No Ship Left Behind Act: vyelkin posted:I propose the Bring Your Own Battleship Act. Seconding both of these if that's a thing I can do?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
I propose the Commerce Protection and Anti-Protection Measures Act. This act authorizes the construction of light cruisers and/or corvettes whose primary objectives are, in case of war, to protect our shipping and anti-protect the shipping of our enemies. Their exact numbers shall be left up to the commander of the navy, but the designs shall be sourced from a local competition, with two designs being chosen as the winners. Any given shipwright is only permitted to enter one design. This is to maximize chances of something getting hosed up.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:No Ship Left Behind Act: I'll back this. Speed is life.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 08:49
|
|
|
Boksi posted:I propose the Commerce Protection and Anti-Protection Measures Act. Seconded
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 09:29
|
|
|
Legislation should never sit idle. For that reason, I am proud to present the new Torpedo Act of 1901 (amended) 1- Design a new torpedo boat destroyer to bulk out our fleets light forces. It should be a 600 ton design, with an emphasis on torpedoes for engaging larger ships while supporting the fleet. 2- Design a corvette minesweeper to counter attempts to mine our naval passages. With a war looming near, we will require these boats to act as a cheap and expendable asset, to ensure our more able destroyers and cruisers are free to act against the enemies interests. Affordability should be the priority in designing these ships- after all, any ship can be a minesweeper. Once. 3- Commit to constructing a submarine fleet when a reliable design is presented. Rumour has it America has seen success with submersible craft. We should make sure we are not left behind in this new form of warfare. And while we're discussing the Americans, I have a new bill to present- the Trans-Alaskan Act of 1901 With war almost upon us, we must take stock of our fellow nations. Japan and Germany are just waiting for a casus belli. The rest of Europe is also making antagonistic acts against us. There is only one nation that we may potentially call upon, who not only is currently indifferent to our situation, but may be interested in taking action against the Japanese Empire to secure their Pacific holdings. This Act has two main actions to be taken- the first is to appease and tempt the Americans, and if possible, enter into an alliance. The potential for trade, military or even scientific exchange and support could be worth all our far east holdings. A proviso is included, however, in that we will not beg and make ourselves appear desperate to win over the United States. Generous negotiation and the occasional 'looking the other way' is fine, but we should not simply hand over our empire (as we did Alaska) The Tzar shall not be their pet, as I'm sure the Romanovs have their legacy to consider. The second action, with a proviso that ByBoy and the First Lord have veto over when, how and if this may be enacted, would be to request a ship design from the American shipbuilders, to be built in American slips. While our own fleet shows the superiority of Russian steel, it is always good to keep tabs on what others may be developing. By having America design and build a warship, we will not only gain exposure to new technologies, but a first hand look at design philosophy. Truly a worthy prize, as even if we do not make use of these ourselves, it may glean weaknesses that can be exploited... of other nations ships. Not of the great United States, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 11:33
|
|
|
 (Prince Valeryan Igorovich Urodlivyy, at a historical ball in St. Petersburg, circa 1899) My dearest and most beloved sovereign and cousin, First, let me thank you for having Mashunechka to November's masque at the Winter Palace. It was a delight, and you know that Mashenka has been dying to get out of Arkhangelsk as often as possible late in the season. Not that I mind, my leige, as you are quite right in determining that expansion of the port there is important to ensure open lanes of commerce. While I don't quite understand your Grace's desire to have me stationed there during the icebound winter, I recognize my own mind is not nearly as brilliant and farseeing as my Tsar. However, these long, dark nights have given me much time to correspond with my fellow members of the Русские созданы для борьбы и победы salon regarding potential edicts and acts of your royal government. We have decided to Second the Base the Sun, Bring Your Own Battleship, Commerce Protection and Anti-Protection Measures, and No Ship Left Behind proposals, for further discussion amongst your wise and well chosen advisors. Lastly, we members of the Русские созданы для борьбы и победы salon most strongly endorse and Second the Give War A Chance policy, as we are certain that all perfidious French and Japanese "competitors" would drown in short order against our perfectly manicured and maintained vessels of war. Russia deserves the waves as much as she deserves you, cherished coz. 'Ере ве го, 'ере ве го! Your leal cousin, always, Valeroshka
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I propose the Bring Your Own Battleship Act. Seconded, and i offer my full support. Any student of naval history can plainly see that If two ships engage one another and one significantly out tons it's opponent it is likely to sink or severely damage its opponent while remaining relatively intact and may even be capable of tackling multiple opponents in series or simultaneously depending on this gap, and it's overall design. I have also seen spurious ideas about 'cost effectiveness' thrown around, this is dangerous talk, tantamount to sedition or defeatism. Our Navy is our national pride, a measure of ourselves against other great powers! I weep for the future when elements within this advisory board have suggested we build toy ships more fit for a bathtub or the navy of Austria Hungary than the the stewards of the naval legacy of Peter the Great. Larger Dock Facilities are of paramount importance to the maintenance of our national security, and indeed our national pride. To anyone on the fence about this bill: Just imagine some ship named after a decrepit, inbred hapsburg that is larger than anything we can build, floating around the glorified lake that is the Mediterranean, leading everyone in the world to laugh at us.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Just imagine some ship named after a decrepit, inbred hapsburg that is larger than anything we can build, floating around the glorified lake that is the Mediterranean, leading everyone in the world to laugh at Fixed to be more in line with what I expect to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
The MORE DAKKA Act With the ability to deploy larger secondary batteries, we recommend the immediate design and construction of no less than four (4) Armoured cruisers to Protect russian assets. New designs maximising the number and calibur of guns while sticking to the CA designation to be submitted upon passage of this bill.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I propose the Bring Your Own Battleship Act. Infidelicious posted:No Ship Left Behind Act: Boksi posted:I propose the Commerce Protection and Anti-Protection Measures Act. The Lone Badger posted:I propose the Give War A Chance Act. Here are the seconded votes. please give an Aye/Nay/Abstain
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
yea yea yea nay - as amusing as that was when Grey couldn't reduce unrest in the France LP.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Aye, Aye, Aye, Nay
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Aye, Nay, Aye, Nay e: I would like to point out that the No Ship Left Behind Act would make the construction of non-BC capital ships basically impossible for several years sum fucked around with this message at 05:26 on May 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
Aye Aye Aye Nay
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
 ***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1902 ST PETERSBURG*** YEGO IMPYERATORSKOGO VYELICHYESTVA (NIKOLAYA II [VTOROGO]) pre:Research Area Last research Priority Levels Machinery development Basic Medium 0 Armour development Krupp armour Low 1 Fire control Basic Low 0 Subdivision and damage control Basic Low 0 Turrets and gun mountings Hydraulic recoil Medium 1 Ship design Basic Medium 0 AP Projectiles Basic Low 0 Light forces and torpedo warfare Basic High 0 Torpedo technology Imp. hydrostatic valve High 1 Submarines Basic High 0 Explosive shells Basic Low 0 Naval guns 12 inch guns Medium WAS RECENTLY SPOTTED PERUSING FANCIFUL FRENCH NOVEL ABOUT UNDERSEA ADVENTURE STOP SUGGEST INVENT MILITARY SUBMERSIBILE SOON OR CONSEQUENCES UNPREDICTABLE STOP NOTE FOR THE RECORD MILITARY SUBMARINE FIRST USED IN BATTLE 1864 STOP SO REALLY THERE'S NO EXCUSE STOP CONSEQUENT TO 30TH JUNE 1901 INCORPORATION OF FINLAND ARMY BYURO BOYEPRIPASOV OVERSTOCKED WITH LUTFISK STOP LUTFISK TO BE SERVED TWICE WEEKLY ON ALL NAVY VESSELS TO ENSURE STOCKS USED BEFORE SPOILAGE STOP YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT SPOILED LUTFISK SMELLS LIKE END Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:31 on May 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:31
|
|
