|
The thing about heavy cruisers is after this war every power is going to pile on BCs like a madman and the heavy cruiser as a class goes completely obsolete for a while. Your new CAs will have to tangle with pseudo-BB BCs all the time. A light BC design might be just as costly and have a better chance. e: Light BCs would be something like 6x 12inch guns in forward facing triple turrets, 28+ knots, light armor, basically designed to clown CAs and skirmish at the edge of heavy BC range then run the gently caress away. To turn that into a descriptive requirement: A battlecruiser design aimed at winning cruiser battles, with moderate armament to engage peer cruisers, enough speed to disengage from peer battlecruiser and battleship lines, torpedo protection, the best gun direction systems available, and armor as a low priority. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Aug 16, 2019 |
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Fleet Cruiser and Commerce Raiding Omnibus Seconded
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Gay Hitler posted:Does anyone have a good handle on when and why you'd want to use coal vs oil vs diesel engines in the context of this game? Coal = Don't have oil available Oil= used for most ships Diesel= Long or Extreme range Coal is so bad you get a warning prompt if you have oil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Gay Hitler posted:Does anyone have a good handle on when and why you'd want to use coal vs oil vs diesel engines in the context of this game? Oil is if you A. Have access to it, and B. can afford to spend ~10-15% more on a ship to free up ~20% engine tonnage to use on something like Torpedo Protection with the and additional bonus that it doesn't lose speed from needing to clean grates like coal does. It's good for Battlecruisers and Battleships, it's harder to justify on things that are supposed to be cost effective like raiders or destroyers until the 20's when you get techs that bring down the cost and up the weight savings. Diesel is nominally less weight for range, but really doesn't work out that way and has better acceleration... which is really only useful for Q-Ship AMC's because you start battles at long enough range that getting to top speed isn't really a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Have Russia's oil deposits been discovered by this point in history?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
terrenblade posted:I hate to say it but at this point we need to cut back on research and get some boats, we need heavy and light cruisers that can fight, light cruisers that can raid, destroyers that can fight and have one or two torpedoes, and additional submarines. Seconded
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
I propose the Naval Wartime Modernization Act A number of our destroyers and cruisers are outdated and in need of upgrades and maintenance. All of our outdated CL's and DD's will undergo refits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Someone’s got to do it I propose the Peace Negotiations Act The Czar is allowed to initiate peace talks with Imperial Germany aiming for a white peace at the high end and moderate concessions at the low end of our negotiating strategy. The Czar, given his infinite divine wisdom, is give the latitude to determine the limits of moderate concessions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Someone’s got to do it Hell, seconded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Servetus posted:Have Russia's oil deposits been discovered by this point in history? Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Just FYI Grey, increases in submarine reliability effect submarines laid down after you discover the technology. Techs don't increase the reliability of submarines you have already built.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
That's ok, we only have like 3 subs left
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Incredible how they have a longer lifespan than our battleships. They probably sunk more stuff too. Should we keep out subs on prize rules or have them shift to fleet support or unrestricted?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
 ***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1916 ST PETERSBURG*** YEGO IMPYERATORSKOGO VYELICHYESTVA (NIKOLAYA II [VTOROGO]) pre:Research Area Last research Priority Levels Machinery development Small tube boilers II Low 9 Armour development Improved armour bracing High 7 Hull construction Hydraulic riveting High 8 Fire control Director firing Low 11 Subdivision and damage control Diesel generators High 5 Turrets and gun mountings Reliable pwr train/elv Low 8 Ship design Secondary turrets on BB Low 11 AP Projectiles Capped AP projectiles Low 3 Light forces and torpedo warfare Above water tubes on CL Low 7 Torpedo technology Horizontal turbines Low 8 Submarines Medium range submarine Low 10 ASW technology Hydrostatic pistols Low 5 Explosive shells Enh high explosive fill Low 8 Fleet tactics Battle turn away Low 6 Naval aviation, lighter than air Improved airship engine High 2 Naval Aviation, heavier than air Seaplane scouts High 1 Shipboard aircraft operation Seaplane carrier High 1 Amphibious operations X-Lighters Low 1 Naval guns 16 inch guns Low ARMY ENGAGEMENTS INDECISIVE BUT NAVY ENGAGEMENTS OFTEN DISASTROUS STOP IT SEEMS THE ANSWER IS IN THE AIR STOP FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT COULD PROTECT OUR ZEPPELINS SO THEY CAN WIN US THE WAR STOP BY INTERCEPTING ANTI-ZEPPELIN GERMAN AICRAFT WE SHALL PREVAIL STOP BY ORDER OF THE EMPEROR KINDLY BUILD US AN INTERCEPTOR END The Fleet Air Arm Act In order to expedite the process of equipping our fledgling air wings with the best and most modern technology, BuOrd shall have the authority to unilaterally request proposals for new aircraft models from domestic aircraft production firms, no more than once per year per aircraft role. BuOrd shall have the authority to prioritize which qualities shall be preferred when selecting from available prototypes, out of the following: Speed, Maneuverability, Range, Bomb Load, Firepower, Toughness, Reliability. They shall also be permitted to establish a naming scheme for aircraft models and name them as they see fit.  ATTN: BY ORDER YEGO IMPYERATORSKOGO VYELICHYESTVA (NIKOLAYA II [VTOROGO]), IMPERIAL RUSSIA REQUESTS PROPOSALS FROM ALL DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS OF QUALITY AND PATRIOTIC LOYALTY TO THE CROWN AND COUNTRY! In order to protect our naval lighter-than-air fleets from the perfidious Hun as they go about their critical business of destroying german ships and winning us the war, Russia requires the design and manufacture of a new fixed-wing aeroplane model. Just as a destroyer protects the valuable capital ship, these planes will serve as screens to protect our powerful war-winning dirigibles. Present your design proposals to the Chief of the Navy for consideration immediately! Prioritization of qualities: 1. Maneuverability 2. Speed 3. Firepower 4. Toughness 5. Reliability 6. Range 7. Bomb Load The winning design will be named the razrushitel' neba (разрушитель неба) or "Sky Destroyer."
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:The thing about heavy cruisers is after this war every power is going to pile on BCs like a madman and the heavy cruiser as a class goes completely obsolete for a while. Your new CAs will have to tangle with pseudo-BB BCs all the time. A light BC design might be just as costly and have a better chance. The only BC we have, or could need to field, is the Tsar's perfectly designed yacht. There is simply no reason to believe that its design, approved by the Tsar himself, could be improved upon. Heavy cruisers are the better solution. Heavy cruisers and dreadnoughts shall rule the Baltic!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
It is kind of gamey, but a heavy BCs at this point in the game are very valuable just because of how the game works. They can participate in both "cruiser battles" wherein they wreck everything in their path, and also in fleet actions, where they survive just as well if not better than BBs. Do with this information what you will. Note: all you need to do to qualify something as a BC is make it fast enough, I forget what the speed is. You can put a ton of armor on them though. bewbies fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Aug 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
we’re gonna try to make pocket battleships 20 years too early lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Someone’s got to do it Thirded but even if this fails I think Grey is essentially obliged to do this under existing legislation. He is just forbidden from accepting harsh terms. King Hong Kong fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Aug 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:stuff Fixed wing heavier than air aircraft are, without a doubt, an impressive development, but they simply lack the ability to perform the tasks needed now and in the future of our great military. A plane can zoom overhead, and maybe hit a soldier with a brick or a random shot from a pistol. They can scout in a limited way. The Zepplin, however, can become the mobile air fortress of tomorrow, raining death upon our foes and providing constant observation for days or even weeks at a time while providing a perfect relay for our signalling in an engagement, giving our brave soldiers on land and in the sea a decisive advantage over the perfidious Germans. As such I urge all of us to shift our priorities towards Zepplin capable platforms and construct the necessary infrastructure to support it. To that end, this act urges the Admiral to support, by any means necessary, the acquisition of Zepplin technology from our allies and our enemies. This act doesn't mandate the specific construction of bases or Zepplins, but it does request that Zepplin capabilities be considered in future aircraft carrier proposals. Pickled Tink fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
Sadly airships cannot be based on aircraft carriers. Airships can carry aircraft themselves once the technology has been discovered to allow them to do so, although not enough of them to use them offensively, it just helps them defend against enemy fighters. They can also carry bombs once we've discovered that technology. They will be obsoleted by land-based medium bombers pretty much the instant we invent those, except in the Baltic, which is such a small area to cover that having a bunch of cheap expendable bomb-carrying platforms roving around the sky can be useful even into the late game. It's always nice to end a close battle and see that it ended up counting as a victory because your zeppelins sank an enemy freighter or two fifty miles away that you didn't even see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
Does someone want to compile a list of currently active laws?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
Honestly I think we need to do a ground-up rebuild of the fleet because we need everything from subs and modernized destroyers to battleships that can take a torpedo or two and survive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
After this war is over we should probably do a pretty heavy restructuring of the navy - ifgure out what we have, hwat has gotten sunk in ridiculous fashion, and what we can do to get more things to be sunk. But, inventory, analysis, look at active laws, and get the tsar more vodka. Also, how long would just taking something offline for a base refit and add the new fire control take? And is it cost effective/quick or not to do so?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:I propose the Heavy Cruisers Oh God Where Are the Heavy Cruisers? Act. Infidelicious posted:Fleet Cruiser and Commerce Raiding Omnibus terrenblade posted:I hate to say it but at this point we need to cut back on research and get some boats, we need heavy and light cruisers that can fight, light cruisers that can raid, destroyers that can fight and have one or two torpedoes, and additional submarines. Zikan posted:Someone’s got to do it Here are the seconded acts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 11:10
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:After this war is over we should probably do a pretty heavy restructuring of the navy - ifgure out what we have, hwat has gotten sunk in ridiculous fashion, and what we can do to get more things to be sunk. Depends on what you're doing. Adding a new fire control is something like four months, changing guns takes eight and rebuilding the engines is almost as time-consuming as building a new ship, if I remember things correctly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 11:15
|
|
|
Nay Nay Aye Aye
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
Nay Aye Aye I'm not sure how this is different from current legislation. Abstain. Servetus fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Aug 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 11:22
|
|
|
heavy cruisers nay fleet cruisers nay temporary rearmament yay peace super nay
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 11:23
|
|
|
6 cruisers - NAY cruiser suite with cost planning - AYE Reduce research - NAY yellowbelly chickenshit - NAY
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 11:43
|
|
|
Nay Aye Aye Aye
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
Nay Nay Nay Aye
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
Nay Aye Aye Aye
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Nay Aye Aye Aye, although we’d have two laws directing the same thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Nay Aye Nay Nay
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
HCOGWATHC Act - NAY Fleet Cruiser & Commerce Raiding Omnibus- AYE Temporary Re-Armament Focus Act- AYE Peace Negotiations Act- NAY
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Related question: When the game makes "cruiser action" battles, are BCs included or only CAs and CLs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Related question: When the game makes "cruiser action" battles, are BCs included or only CAs and CLs? BCs and fast BBs (once invented) can show up in cruiser actions, which makes CAs much less viable as the game goes on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Aye Aye Nay Nay
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
nvm, wrong post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Also if you don't have any BCs then your Bs can show up in cruiser actions and they're actually quite good at it. The Tsar's yacht is screwing us over here. e: AVs and light carriers too which sucks Nay Nay Aye Aye
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 20:55
|
|