|
Grey Hunter posted:
Thanks! You missed last turn's BuOrd updates to priorities again. I think my format of using bold to highlight the changes isn't working (it's not as starkly bold inside PRE tags), so I'll go for a clearer format: changed priorities will be in block caps as well as bold.  ***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1908 ST PETERSBURG*** YEGO IMPYERATORSKOGO VYELICHYESTVA (NIKOLAYA II [VTOROGO]) pre:Research Area Last research Priority Levels Machinery development Steam Turbines High 5 Armour development Quality control Low 3 Hull construction Basic weight control Low 3 Fire control 9 ft rangefinder Low 5 Subdivision and damage control Improved subdivision High 2 Turrets and gun mountings Mech. shell handling Low 5 Ship design Cross deck fire Low 5 AP Projectiles Capped AP projectiles Medium 3 Light forces and torpedo warfare DD of up to 600 tons High 1 Torpedo technology Larger torp warheads LOW<----- 5 Submarines Torpedo aiming system Low 6 ASW technology Explosive sweeps LOW<----- 1 Explosive shells Improved filler packing Low 3 Fleet tactics Destroyer screen High 3 Naval guns 14 inch guns Medium BUORD CANNOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CREWS TO MAN ALL THE SUBMARINES STOP EXPERIENCING SEVERE SHORTAGES OF SNORKELS, BAILING BUCKETS, PERISCOPES, AND HATCH SEALENT STOP WE ARE ALSO 2 YEARS BACKORDERED ON THOSE SIRENS THAT GO 'AWOOGA AWOOGA' WHEN THE SUB DIVES STOP TSAR STILL WANTS AEROPLANES STOP CAN WE GET A BETTER DESTROYER OR IS THAT NEVER GOING TO BE A THING END Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jun 19, 2019 |
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Thanks! You missed last turn's BuOrd updates to priorities again. I think my format of using bold to highlight the changes isn't working (it's not as starkly bold inside PRE tags), so I'll go for a clearer format: changed priorities will be in block caps as well as bold. Shamelessly Lobbying BuOrd to keep ship design on High until we have Superimposed X/B in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget Act - AGREE Build a battleship act - NAY Submarine Stockpiling Act v1.1 - NAY Shore Infrastructure Act - NAY Guerre de Course Act - NAY I like the idea but not right now "Stop the Undersea Fetishists Act" - AGREE Pirate Party Motions: 1. Submarines are novelties - AGREE 2. Commerce raiding wins wars: NAY I like the idea but not right now 3. Cost-effective capital ships: NAY 4. Support the Mosquito Flotilla: AGREE 5. Budgetary sanity: Grey is already doing this he says, but AGREE all the same 6. Wartime readiness: AGREE
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: NAY Build a Battleship: AYE Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: AYE Shore Infrastructure: AYE Guerre de Course: AYE Stop the Undersea Fetishists: NAY
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget Act YEA Build a battleship act NAY Submarine Stockpiling Act v1.1 NAY Shore Infrastructure Act YEA Guerre de Course Act YEA Stop the Undersea Fetishists Act NAY (for the Love of the Budget supercedes this) simplefish posted:That's basically the what I feel with the exception of the Guerre de Course Act (and don't repeal the No Ship Left Behind because I loves me some fast botes) For the cruisers, we have the tech to make some decent cruisers already. These were some compromised "yacht" designs that could easily be re-drawn into something more useful.   Fully agree that we'll need a small number of high-quality good ships. In general, I tend to lean more towards armored battleships than fast ones. Speed is very expensive weight-wise (at least at this point). And speed is easier to add in refits than more armor. Full agree on the need for a building holiday. Infidelicious posted:If you drop 3 you have my full support. 23 knots is asking for awful lot out of a pre-dreadnaught battleship. While I'm quite a big fan of fast battleships, building a 23-knot 20,000 ton battleship just forces so many design compromises I'm not sure if it's worth it. I'm fine with 23-knot battleships in the 30,000 ton range, provided they don't have to give up too much armor. So if we can declare a building holiday and ramp up our shipyards as fast as we can, I reckon we can leave the requirement. However, I tend to align with the German school of battleship design: protection comes first. Speed can very quickly degrade due to damage, bad weather, mechanical failures, stoker fatigue, etc. Armor stays armor. Ships can also be refit to be faster, whereas adding more armor to certain areas can be impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: AYE Build a Battleship: AYE Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: NAY Shore Infrastructure: NAY Guerre de Course: AYE Stop the Undersea Fetishists: AYE
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 08:27
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:For the Love of the Budget: AYE Persuasive arguments I agree. I can't wait to go on break to be able to download this game so I understand what I am voting or 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: AYE Build a Battleship: NAY Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: NAY Shore Infrastructure: AYE Guerre de Course: AYE Stop the Undersea Fetishists: AYE
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 10:59
|
|
|
Just double checking, do we have the technology to make minelayers (ships not subs) or at least stick mines on ships? If so it might be worth it since the Baltic tends to be confined thus making mines more useful and in the east they can help isolate our harbors from Japan. Stick some mines on destroyers or cruisers and you can also plant them near enemy shores* *Does this actually work, unfamiliar with RTW2's mine mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Just double checking, do we have the technology to make minelayers (ships not subs) or at least stick mines on ships? If so it might be worth it since the Baltic tends to be confined thus making mines more useful and in the east they can help isolate our harbors from Japan. Stick some mines on destroyers or cruisers and you can also plant them near enemy shores* We can’t do this yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: NAY - The Sub Stockpiling Act revision will solve this problem on its own. Build a Battleship: NAY - We should wait for slightly better tech and for the Nicolai Veliki and second Grom to be completed, both should be done either this year or the start of next year. Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: AYE - 50 submarines is exactly what we need to smash up serious shipping in the North Atlantic and get us plenty of victory points. Shore Infrastructure: NAY - We're already expanding our docks at every chance. Guerre de Course: AYE - Cruisers are cool and good. Stop the Undersea Fetishists: NAY - Underwater botes are cool and good, too.  I'll be forming my own party later today, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
I asked my horse for advice and she has said Nay to all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:08
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: AYE Build a Battleship: AYE Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: NAY Shore Infrastructure: NAY Guerre de Course: NAY Stop the Undersea Fetishists: NAY
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: AYE Build a Battleship: NAY Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: NAY Shore Infrastructure: NAY Guerre de Course: AYE Stop the Undersea Fetishists: AYE
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Grey you missed my more money for new botes act.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
I still believe in submarines! But maybe this was a bit much... Nay, Nay, Yay, Nay, Yay, Nay Also an officially stated position of "Neutral" towards the Pirate Party. I like the way you think, but hesitant to support the means just yet. Jossar fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: NAY Build a Battleship: YAY Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: YAY Shore Infrastructure: YAY Guerre de Course: NAY Stop the Undersea Fetishists: YAY I also support the Pirate Party. They were my first choice in the Australian 2019 election, and I have faith in the Goonian Empire 2019 election. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: AYE Build a Battleship: NAY Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: NAY Shore Infrastructure: NAY Guerre de Course: AYE Stop the Undersea Fetishists: AYE
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
 (Prince Valeryan Igorovich Urodlivyy, founding member of the Русские созданы для борьбы и победы Salon, at a historical costume ball in St. Petersburg, circa 1899)  The Ensign of the Русские созданы для борьбы и победы Salon, Circa October 1906 The Русские созданы для борьбы и победы Salon is a motley collection of distant royal relatives, radical shipwrights, secret police informants, court hangers on, and extremist engineers. Members come in all shapes and sizes, the Prince Urodlivvy was never one to not invite some ranting madman in for a vodka and debate over the theoretical upper limit of speed a battlecruiser could one day reach, but they more or less agree on the following notions: 1) Fealty to the Tsar - As you'd expect of lickspittles and nobility, they're very attentive to the desires of the Tsar as expressed by BuOrd. And if there wasn't a Tsar, they'd start toadying to whoever the new boss was. 2) The Cult of Speed - You can't kill what you can't hit. The Salon strongly supports No Ship Left Behind, and will generally aim to have faster and more maneuverable ships. Many believe a folktale about "the red ones going faster." 3) The Cult of More Дакка - You can't kill what you can't shoot. The Salon tends to favor big guns, and lots of them. Note, torpedoes count as guns. 4) Standardization is Overrated - Befitting mad machinists, there's plenty of support for multiple ship designs, and one of the most common causes of ruckus at the Arkhangelsk meetings is fights between a crazy cannoneer and a drunk dilettante over whether a ship should boast a model replica of the Gates of Kyiv on the quarterdeck or another pair of seven inch secondaries. 5) Prestige Equals Power - How could Glorious Mother Russia lose against any foe? Plus, how else could one assign credit for the effectiveness of a brilliant design? The Ensign of the Русские созданы для борьбы и победы Salon, Circa October 1906 Hail, members of our righteous Salon, I have taken notes from all of you, and have assembled a list of our greatest desires for the year of our lord 1908. As we are a forward thinking Salon, anyone whose proposal was not listed may add it for consideration. 1) Colonial Expansion - Russia needs more land. One of the greatest mistakes of the 1860s was the sale of Alaska to the United States, and we must take all opportunities that come our way to expand our Empire. 2) Don't Back Down - We are Russia! We are largest and strongest of all nations! We should not brook insults or back down to challenges from nations that we have no formal relations with (e.g. technological pacts, alliances). 3) Seaplanebotes - A design contest should be held for a cruiser (light or armored) that can berth seaplanes, and that two should be built so that our sailors may build expertise for the future. 4) Open Eyes, Open Minds - We should increase intelligence on the two most technologically advanced nations to High, so that Russia may enjoy the fruits of their labors. Please, as I said, consider whether we should place these ideas on our platform for 1908. I personally, am voting AYE, AYE, AYE, AYE on the four above platform proposals. Also submit your proposals if they were overlooked as the counting of the initial ballots was somewhat hampered by an inability to count after a score of toasts to my dear cousin, the Emperor. Your friend, Prince Valery habeasdorkus fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jun 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Now there's a platform I can get behind, though I don't think we have access to seaplane tenders yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Guerre de Course Act i assume we aren't doing the 2100 ton raider exploit with these, or shall we? does that work in RTW2?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
dublish posted:Now there's a platform I can get behind, though I don't think we have access to seaplane tenders yet. I saw that some of the "yacht" designs had seaplane berths, I'll reword the proposal to make it more accurate as you're right that we don't have full on tenders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:i assume we aren't doing the 2100 ton raider exploit with these, or shall we? does that work in RTW2? It's more of a tradeoff now, you are forced to take 1" deck on a CL so you can't get long/reliable on a 2100 design anymore and the engine HP curve is less generous at the low end than in RTW. Bacarruda posted:23 knots is asking for awful lot out of a pre-dreadnaught battleship. While I'm quite a big fan of fast battleships, building a 23-knot 20,000 ton battleship just forces so many design compromises I'm not sure if it's worth it. It's 1907, the window for laying down a pre-dreadnaught and having it be anything but a VP piñata for our opponents has closed, forever. Any Dreadnaught we lay down will not be operational until 1910 at the earliest and will remain in service well into the 20's, and it's armor protection will be insufficient to protect it from ever more capable guns and shells anyways... having it also be slowing down our fleet an is unacceptable compromise, in my opinion. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jun 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: AYE Build a Battleship: NAY Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: NAY Shore Infrastructure: AYE Guerre de Course: NAY Stop the Undersea Fetishists: AYE
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
For the Love of the Budget: Passes! Build a Battleship: Fails! Submarine Stockpiling 1.1: Fails! Shore Infrastructure: Tied! Guerre de Course: Passes! Stop the Undersea Fetishists: Passes! Shipwrights, we need a design for a light cruiser! https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kmi0pa65zkcvgha/AAADcAoppsNhSI-9n4IUId6Ya?dl=0 Here is the save, I'll allow continued voting to break the deadlock on Short infrastructure. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
I'd strongly recommend voting for the shore infrastructure act, investing in the national economy is the best way to grow our budget in the long-term
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Voting for Shore Infrastructure to break the tie! .. Did I already vote on this? Eh, I'll blame the vodka! VOTING AGAIN FOR THIS
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
I'll vote against Shore Infrastructure - shore forts don't impact most combat and we probably have better ways to spend money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
Shore Infrastructure: Nay
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
quote:Guerre de Course Act Unfortunately our current levels of technology and a hard limit of 8000T make designing a CL that meets all of the requirements of this act is physically impossible, especially the combination of Long Range and speed to outrun that Super CA. A CA would be capable of meeting these requirements, but Chief of the Navy specified a CL design.  https://www.dropbox.com/s/5rsqy5gm2brv44d/Falconet.30d?dl=0 The Falconet is a 5500 ton Protected Cruiser with an extremely heavy armament consisting of 2x2x8" and 10x1x4" guns, full belt protection from splinter damage and small caliber shells, which gives it an edge against most CL's and many smaller CA's; it makes 23 knots and comes in at just over 20 million per unit. Internal reverse engineering based on previous intelligence have come to the conclusion that the Fredrich Karl is likely equipped with a Speed Engine and has a cost upwards of 62M LOLZ shipwrights feels in light of this, that 23 Knots and Reliable is sufficient to keep out of effective gun range for long enough to dissuade pursuit, and that the FK will not serve as an effective counter considering it's price point. The design could be retrofitted to have long range and 24 knots if Requirements are inflexible; we have decided to propose the above design because in order to meet that requirement the size and cost ballooned from 5500T / 20.2M to 7500T / 28M with no commensurate gain in capability. Falconyet:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/b19vi91uqw8enxk/Falconyet.30d?dl=0 Same effective overall package as the Base design, but much more expensive due to the Long / 24 Knot Requirement. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
Shore Infrastructure: Yay
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:I'll vote against Shore Infrastructure - shore forts don't impact most combat and we probably have better ways to spend money. It doesn't mention forts though? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
 With their cruiser-corvette concept failing miserably, Helmund & Son decide their next ship concept will be merely lavishly rather than laughably over-engineered Helmund & Son is pleased to present the Vit Elefant   As other ship design bureaus noted, the criteria that the ship must outrun the Friedrich Carl, and be long-ranged, and be reliable, and be well-armed, and be a light cruiser, and be low-cost was a little, er, ambitious. However, we believe the Vit Elefant follows the spirit of the competition with her blazing top speed of 24 knots, innovative cross-deck firing scheme (leading to her distinctive asymmetrical superstructure), and battery of guns suitable for both raiding and fleet service, all for only slight concessions in her overall cost. When she leaves her slipway, she'll be the most modern light cruiser in the world. file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qvyiv6f3047f71k/Vit%20Elefant.30d?dl=0
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 07:46
|
|
|
What are the secondary guns on a light cruiser for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
guys for a long range raiding cruiser you want it to be as fast as possible with like two guns it's not there to fight stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:I'll vote against Shore Infrastructure - shore forts don't impact most combat and we probably have better ways to spend money. It's got nothing to do with forts and I assure you that we kinda don't have anywhere better to spend it, railroads really are one of the best investments in the game. Especially early on, every boost to your economy is critical to pick up because it compounds over time. An economy boost now will still be paying off in 1950, an extra 1908 cruiser or whatever we'd otherwise spend the money on is worthless in comparison. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
Comstar posted:What are the secondary guns on a light cruiser for? In case you're surrounded by enemy ground troops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:guys for a long range raiding cruiser you want it to be as fast as possible with like two guns this is true the act itself only calls for an armament sufficient to fight off light escorts, not win cruiser duels
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:this is true Plus they chew through ammo reserves for a fat convoy And you run the engines really, really hard chasing down cargo ships so maybe think about engine reliability here too simplefish fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
Basically it needs to be faster than cruisers and stronger than destroyers and corvettes. You guys are really overgunning these ships. And you don't need a caliber greater than, like, 5
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:51
|
|