Rule The Waves 2: Rule Harder.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Let's Play! > Rule The Waves 2: Rule Harder.

habeasdorkus: Nov 3, 2013; Royalty is a continuous shitposting motion.

terrenblade posted:

Seconded:
A Wolfpack in Being Act
The Keep Your Friends Closer Act

Note, these are all part of rear end in a top hat package, not individual acts.

e: but now it's officially been seconded, so no worries!

habeasdorkus fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 22, 2019

# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 20:36

Servetus: Apr 1, 2010

Proposing the 1917 Cruiser Cull

The Vorobey class light cruiser has only three 5-inch guns, and no torpedoes. The Pamyat Azova class armored cruiser has 9-inch guns as it's largest weapon and only 5 inches of belt armor. Both these classes should be scrapped, they are thoroughly outdated and serve only to risk the lives of our sailors. Funds freed up from maintenance will be made available to continue the production of modern ships, and to refit the Grom and Grigori. The Grom-class is substantially more formidable than the Pamyat Azova and should be refitted to continue service in due course.

Edit: Due course being based on the Admiralty's priorities on which ships get refitted first of course.

# ? Aug 22, 2019 20:26

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

gentle reminder that these fancy new airplanes I ordered don't exist until we get airgroups and assign them to airbases

# ? Aug 22, 2019 20:50

Servetus: Apr 1, 2010

Leperflesh posted:

gentle reminder that these fancy new airplanes I ordered don't exist until we get airgroups and assign them to airbases

Do we only have the one airbase in the Baltic?

# ? Aug 22, 2019 20:55

Infidelicious: Apr 9, 2013

Fleet Realignment Act

This act aims to consolidate our Cruiser and Destroyer forces by class, to ease logistical burdens; with the added benefit that it will move still useful, but somewhat out of date vessels to the Far East and away from well funded and advanced Rival Powers.

It also calls for refits to our CA's to keep them in service for another decade. These will be accomplished In series, over the course of the next 3 years.

Finally, it calls for the Chief of the Navy to use the sort by Displacement tab when screenshotting the current fleet, instead of type.

EXAMPLE:

Baltic Fleet: Our most capable and modern vessels, the Pride of the Navy.

Grom Class (2 Vessels) is still a capable vessel, but it's primary armament is insufficient to engage dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, and too unwieldly to fight other cruisers.

- Refit with Director, Refit Turrets to Triple 8" / 140 rounds, reducing secondary armament as required to maintain weight.

Falconyet Class is not in need of a refit at this time, and remains a capable commerce raider.

All Destroyers Displacing 900T or more (14 Vessels)

Far East Fleet: Older but still capable vessels, to keep Japan in check and conduct commerce raiding in Asia.

Pamat Azova class (3 Vessels) still makes 23 knots, and can still serve as a Reserve / Colonial vessel, was recently refitted with Directors.

Vorobey class (3 Vessels) is inexpensive to maintain, and still capable of filling it's role as a commerce raider in a less active area.

All Destroyers under 700T (17 Vessels)

DD's Displacing 500T or less will be placed into Mothballs during peacetime, and Reactivated during wartime as Trade Protection.

Grey has the authority to move ships in the event of increased tensions or war at his discretion.

Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 22, 2019

# ? Aug 22, 2019 21:17

Servetus: Apr 1, 2010

Infidelicious posted:

Fleet Realignment Act

I will second this

I would also like to call on Admiral Grey Hunter to give us a review of the situation of our current airbases before we proceed any further in the legislative process. If we are supposed to organize air wings we need to know what we have to work with.

# ? Aug 22, 2019 21:33

habeasdorkus: Nov 3, 2013; Royalty is a continuous shitposting motion.

Servetus posted:

I would also like to call on Admiral Grey Hunter to give us a review of the situation of our current airbases before we proceed any further in the legislative process. If we are supposed to organize air wings we need to know what we have to work with.

Seconding this request.

# ? Aug 22, 2019 21:35

Gay Hitler: Dec 11, 2006; I'm gay as heil!

Gay Hitler posted:

I'd like to propose the Update ship operating manuals act

All ships less than 30 years old that have not been rebuilt in the last 10 years and are marked as outdated must be rebuilt without any changes except latest fire control if a better version is available and possibly maxing out AA positions if free tonnage is available. This generally does not take more than 4 months and the cost is usually very low.

This will prevent increased maintenance fees associated with keeping outdated ships in service.

This act does NOT involve any changes to turrets, machinery, ammo storage, speed, or armor.

Tertiary turrets are to be removed if new fire control puts the ship over its tonnage limits.

I like to propose an Amendment to Update Ship Operating Manuals Act such that NO NEW SHIPS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED while there are outdated ships in our fleet not scheduled to be scrapped TV

# ? Aug 22, 2019 21:50

sloshmonger: Mar 21, 2013

Gay Hitler posted:

I like to propose an Amendment to Update Ship Operating Manuals Act such that NO NEW SHIPS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED while there are outdated ships in our fleet not scheduled to be scrapped TV

I'd like to propose an amendment to this amendment that this only applies on a class level.

So no new DDs while we have ones that are outdated, but we can build new CAs or BBs.

# ? Aug 22, 2019 22:49

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

habeasdorkus posted:

Seconded - this would override some of the Research & Rearm Act as pertains to spying on higher tech nations:

Do you mean this part?

quote:

Therefore, if possible more money should be put into spying and counries (1)ahead of us in tech (2)should be prioritized (3)for stealing.

(Numbers mine)

How can we tell who is ahead of us and how far?

If France is ahead of us(1), then we are prioritising(2) to steal their poo poo (3) so we are better prepared to fight them if it comes to that. Which seems compliant to me

Of course if they're behind us technologically then yeah, my bad

# ? Aug 22, 2019 23:07

Gay Hitler: Dec 11, 2006; I'm gay as heil!

sloshmonger posted:

I'd like to propose an amendment to this amendment that this only applies on a class level.

So no new DDs while we have ones that are outdated, but we can build new CAs or BBs.

You can't have new toys if you dont take care of the ones you have.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 00:13

habeasdorkus: Nov 3, 2013; Royalty is a continuous shitposting motion.

simplefish posted:

Do you mean this part?

(Numbers mine)

How can we tell who is ahead of us and how far?

If France is ahead of us(1), then we are prioritising(2) to steal their poo poo (3) so we are better prepared to fight them if it comes to that. Which seems compliant to me

Of course if they're behind us technologically then yeah, my bad

The other part of the act reduces intel gathering on other nations, so we'd drop intelligence gathering on other nations.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 01:34

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

habeasdorkus posted:

The other part of the act reduces intel gathering on other nations, so we'd drop intelligence gathering on other nations.

I'd argue that's already covered in the scope of "prioritising", especially given that with the R&R in effect, we're already currently running intel on only one nation (unless I'm remembering incorrectly and ther's a level below "low"?), which means intel gathering is already dropped on all other nations except the UK.

It is also the nation which is our ally and which we have research agreements with, which seems coubterproductive should they find out we're spying on them at the same time.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 01:47

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

I'd like to express my concern about this "aircraft" scheme. I think there are serious flaws in it that need to be taken into account.

First, most importantly, are we sure this is even real and not some sort of con game? I understand the idea of lighter than air craft. We've all seen hot air balloons, that air lifts as it heats and so on, and I can accept the idea of rigid balloons filled with gasses lighter than air, although I understand that the two main gasses used have disadvantages...hydrogen is flammable, and helium expensive. But how can a craft heavier than air move on its own power through the air? I know about birds, but the concept isn't the same.

Even assuming it's real, we're faced with several problems.

These "air crafts" are of shoddy material, primarily canvas and wood, and do not seem particularly safe. A sane man would not fly them, only a lunatic. Are these really the people we want in our navy? How can we trust someone who holds their life and safety so loosely? How do we know they won't engage in some sort of other unstable behavior?

Additionally, they seem of limited military use. They are not sturdy, cannot hold weapons. It is possible someone could bring a pistol with them on the craft, but can we expect them to reliably fire from so high up? Likewise the idea of throwing a bomb or grenade over. How could someone expect to hit? As for scouting, the plane is constantly in motion, making it almost impossible to determine locations and coordinates, and the plane lacks equipment necessary to determine them.

Finally we are the navy. Our remit is the sea, not the air. Why waste money on something like aircraft when that money can go towards technology for better rangefinding, or stronger battleship armor, or improved torpedoes, or something the navy actually needs? Our destroyers are old and obsolete, and torpedoes and submarines are proving effective weapons of war. Why not spend money on better destroyers to protect our shipping from the submarine threat instead of wasting it on a boondoggle that we won't get use of.

Therefore, i propose the Budget Efficiency Act, which prohibits further research on heavier than air vehicles or any expenditures on air planes or air bases for at least 5 years.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 05:22

Zikan: Feb 29, 2004

Epicurius posted:

I'd like to express my concern about this "aircraft" scheme. I think there are serious flaws in it that need to be taken into account.

First, most importantly, are we sure this is even real and not some sort of con game? I understand the idea of lighter than air craft. We've all seen hot air balloons, that air lifts as it heats and so on, and I can accept the idea of rigid balloons filled with gasses lighter than air, although I understand that the two main gasses used have disadvantages...hydrogen is flammable, and helium expensive. But how can a craft heavier than air move on its own power through the air? I know about birds, but the concept isn't the same.

Even assuming it's real, we're faced with several problems.

These "air crafts" are of shoddy material, primarily canvas and wood, and do not seem particularly safe. A sane man would not fly them, only a lunatic. Are these really the people we want in our navy? How can we trust someone who holds their life and safety so loosely? How do we know they won't engage in some sort of other unstable behavior?

Additionally, they seem of limited military use. They are not sturdy, cannot hold weapons. It is possible someone could bring a pistol with them on the craft, but can we expect them to reliably fire from so high up? Likewise the idea of throwing a bomb or grenade over. How could someone expect to hit? As for scouting, the plane is constantly in motion, making it almost impossible to determine locations and coordinates, and the plane lacks equipment necessary to determine them.

Finally we are the navy. Our remit is the sea, not the air. Why waste money on something like aircraft when that money can go towards technology for better rangefinding, or stronger battleship armor, or improved torpedoes, or something the navy actually needs? Our destroyers are old and obsolete, and torpedoes and submarines are proving effective weapons of war. Why not spend money on better destroyers to protect our shipping from the submarine threat instead of wasting it on a boondoggle that we won't get use of.

Therefore, i propose the Budget Efficiency Act, which prohibits further research on heavier than air vehicles or any expenditures on air planes or air bases for at least 5 years.

makes some extremely good points imo

Seconded

# ? Aug 23, 2019 06:13

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

BuOrd's prerogative regarding research priorities cannot be usurped by legislative fiat. You can tell Grey not to build planes, but you can't stop me from researching them. :colbert:

# ? Aug 23, 2019 06:27

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

Epicurius posted:

I'd like to express my concern about this "aircraft" scheme. I think there are serious flaws in it that need to be taken into account.

First, most importantly, are we sure this is even real and not some sort of con game? I understand the idea of lighter than air craft. We've all seen hot air balloons, that air lifts as it heats and so on, and I can accept the idea of rigid balloons filled with gasses lighter than air, although I understand that the two main gasses used have disadvantages...hydrogen is flammable, and helium expensive. But how can a craft heavier than air move on its own power through the air? I know about birds, but the concept isn't the same.

Even assuming it's real, we're faced with several problems.

These "air crafts" are of shoddy material, primarily canvas and wood, and do not seem particularly safe. A sane man would not fly them, only a lunatic. Are these really the people we want in our navy? How can we trust someone who holds their life and safety so loosely? How do we know they won't engage in some sort of other unstable behavior?

Additionally, they seem of limited military use. They are not sturdy, cannot hold weapons. It is possible someone could bring a pistol with them on the craft, but can we expect them to reliably fire from so high up? Likewise the idea of throwing a bomb or grenade over. How could someone expect to hit? As for scouting, the plane is constantly in motion, making it almost impossible to determine locations and coordinates, and the plane lacks equipment necessary to determine them.

Finally we are the navy. Our remit is the sea, not the air. Why waste money on something like aircraft when that money can go towards technology for better rangefinding, or stronger battleship armor, or improved torpedoes, or something the navy actually needs? Our destroyers are old and obsolete, and torpedoes and submarines are proving effective weapons of war. Why not spend money on better destroyers to protect our shipping from the submarine threat instead of wasting it on a boondoggle that we won't get use of.

Therefore, i propose the Budget Efficiency Act, which prohibits further research on heavier than air vehicles or any expenditures on air planes or air bases for at least 5 years.

This short-sighted view is the type that thinks ships must be made of wood because metal doesn't float

I shall look down on you, sir, as I soar around the skies.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 06:42

Servetus: Apr 1, 2010

So apparently we have no airbases, only an airship base.

The Horse Before the Cart Act
Will call for an airbase to be constructed, positioned to protect our operations in the Baltic as much as current capabilities allow. this base will be staffed by air wings of composition decided by the Admiralty under The Fleet Air Arms Act.

I would also like to call on BuORD to detail the specifications for the bomb-carrying planes; unless Speed and Maneuverability are also the focus for these "bombers"

# ? Aug 23, 2019 12:42

habeasdorkus: Nov 3, 2013; Royalty is a continuous shitposting motion.

Servetus posted:

So apparently we have no airbases, only an airship base.

The Horse Before the Cart Act
Will call for an airbase to be constructed, positioned to protect our operations in the Baltic as much as current capabilities allow. this base will be staffed by air wings of composition decided by the Admiralty under The Fleet Air Arms Act.

I would also like to call on BuORD to detail the specifications for the bomb-carrying planes; unless Speed and Maneuverability are also the focus for these "bombers"

Seconded, with the caveat that we're merely inquiring to BuORD about this, not directing them.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 12:59

habeasdorkus: Nov 3, 2013; Royalty is a continuous shitposting motion.

Currently Seconded Legislation- I, uh, think we have enough to vote on?

The Horse Before the Cart Act

Servetus posted:

The Horse Before the Cart Act
Will call for an airbase to be constructed, positioned to protect our operations in the Baltic as much as current capabilities allow. this base will be staffed by air wings of composition decided by the Admiralty under The Fleet Air Arms Act.

I would also like to call on BuORD to detail the specifications for the bomb-carrying planes; unless Speed and Maneuverability are also the focus for these "bombers"

Budget Efficiency Act

Epicurius posted:

I'd like to express my concern about this "aircraft" scheme. I think there are serious flaws in it that need to be taken into account.

First, most importantly, are we sure this is even real and not some sort of con game? I understand the idea of lighter than air craft. We've all seen hot air balloons, that air lifts as it heats and so on, and I can accept the idea of rigid balloons filled with gasses lighter than air, although I understand that the two main gasses used have disadvantages...hydrogen is flammable, and helium expensive. But how can a craft heavier than air move on its own power through the air? I know about birds, but the concept isn't the same.

Even assuming it's real, we're faced with several problems.

These "air crafts" are of shoddy material, primarily canvas and wood, and do not seem particularly safe. A sane man would not fly them, only a lunatic. Are these really the people we want in our navy? How can we trust someone who holds their life and safety so loosely? How do we know they won't engage in some sort of other unstable behavior?

Additionally, they seem of limited military use. They are not sturdy, cannot hold weapons. It is possible someone could bring a pistol with them on the craft, but can we expect them to reliably fire from so high up? Likewise the idea of throwing a bomb or grenade over. How could someone expect to hit? As for scouting, the plane is constantly in motion, making it almost impossible to determine locations and coordinates, and the plane lacks equipment necessary to determine them.

Finally we are the navy. Our remit is the sea, not the air. Why waste money on something like aircraft when that money can go towards technology for better rangefinding, or stronger battleship armor, or improved torpedoes, or something the navy actually needs? Our destroyers are old and obsolete, and torpedoes and submarines are proving effective weapons of war. Why not spend money on better destroyers to protect our shipping from the submarine threat instead of wasting it on a boondoggle that we won't get use of.

Therefore, i propose the Budget Efficiency Act, which prohibits further research on heavier than air vehicles or any expenditures on air planes or air bases for at least 5 years.

Fleet Realignment Act

Infidelicious posted:

Fleet Realignment Act

This act aims to consolidate our Cruiser and Destroyer forces by class, to ease logistical burdens; with the added benefit that it will move still useful, but somewhat out of date vessels to the Far East and away from well funded and advanced Rival Powers.

It also calls for refits to our CA's to keep them in service for another decade. These will be accomplished In series, over the course of the next 3 years.

Finally, it calls for the Chief of the Navy to use the sort by Displacement tab when screenshotting the current fleet, instead of type.

EXAMPLE:

Baltic Fleet: Our most capable and modern vessels, the Pride of the Navy.

Grom Class (2 Vessels) is still a capable vessel, but it's primary armament is insufficient to engage dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, and too unwieldly to fight other cruisers.

- Refit with Director, Refit Turrets to Triple 8" / 140 rounds, reducing secondary armament as required to maintain weight.

Falconyet Class is not in need of a refit at this time, and remains a capable commerce raider.

All Destroyers Displacing 900T or more (14 Vessels)

Far East Fleet: Older but still capable vessels, to keep Japan in check and conduct commerce raiding in Asia.

Pamat Azova class (3 Vessels) still makes 23 knots, and can still serve as a Reserve / Colonial vessel, was recently refitted with Directors.

Vorobey class (3 Vessels) is inexpensive to maintain, and still capable of filling it's role as a commerce raider in a less active area.

All Destroyers under 700T (17 Vessels)

DD's Displacing 500T or less will be placed into Mothballs during peacetime, and Reactivated during wartime as Trade Protection.

Grey has the authority to move ships in the event of increased tensions or war at his discretion.

Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts

habeasdorkus posted:

The Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts

Reorganization of Priorities Act

Whereas: We do not have the fleet capacity to fight any peer competitor at this time and we have an outdated battle fleet.

Therefore:

1) The priorities of the admiralty should be changed to:

A) Increasing the Naval Budget

B) Reducing tension

2) This act is not to override any statutes to the contrary, which are to remain in full force and effect.

Ex: A law that says cause tension with France will remain in effect despite Article 1, Section B. Same for the legislation mandating that we try to take over colonies when offered the chance.

A Wolfpack in Being Act

Whereas: We will have only 10 active submarines upon completion of our current flight of ships, and are woefully short on undersea raiders.

Therefore:

1) The "Stop the Undersea Fetishists Act" of 1907 is hereby revoked, effective immediately.

2) This act shall enter into force upon completion of the current run of submarines in 1917.

3) So long as our monthly balance remains above 500 (500,000 rubles) a month, flights of two new medium SS submarines are to be ordered upon completion of the most recent flight.

4) Construction of new flights is to cease upon reaching 25 completed medium SS submarines.

5) Should war or other incident reduce the standing submarine fleet to less than 24 available ships, flights of two submarines are to be ordered as per Article 3 of this Act.

6) The Admiralty, at their discretion, may scrap the old SSC submarines as they see fit.

7) This act shall not prevent the admiralty or State Council from ordering additional submarines as deemed necessary.

The Keep Your Friends Closer Act

Whereas: We are currently risking our relationship with our allies in the United Kingdom with indiscriminant spying, and at the same time have ordered our diplomats to make nice with the stroppy Hun. We must correct these errors before they damage state security.

Therefore:

1) The Hail Germania act is hereby revoked, effective immediately.

2) For the duration of our alliance with Great Britain, we shall not take any action that could harm said alliance. This includes using our intelligence services against them, and shall take precedence over any prior or future act unless specifically noted in said act.

3) We shall endeavor to enter into a mutually beneficial research treaty with the United Kingdom.

Renaming Act of 1917

Boksi posted:

It might be a good idea to give the lead ship of the Proyekt cruisers a proper name and not just a placeholder design name.

Renaming Act of 1917
The cruiser currently known as 'Proyekt 33915' is to be renamed as Katastrofa. This is a good and auspicious name.

Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act:

vyelkin posted:

Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act:

Scrap the pre-dreadnought battleships Evstafi and Imperator Pavel I. Do not undertake new reconstructions of any other pre-dreadnoughts, with the eventual goal of scrapping all of them and replacing them with modern dreadnoughts.

Dreadnoughts are not even the future, they are the present. Maintaining pre-dreadnoughts is nothing more than a drain on our national resources, and the ships themselves are easy prey for our enemies' modern fleets and future graveyards for thousands of our sailors.

"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays"

simplefish posted:

Proposal:
"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays"
- Place all intel on France: set it to High and all other nations at the lowest possible
- This to remain unaltered until either a) another nation is more tense than France or b) we conclude a war with France.
- In either case, a vote will then be triggered to set new intel priorities

# ? Aug 23, 2019 13:03

Grey Hunter: Oct 17, 2007; Hero of the soviet union.
Accidental destroyer of planets

Yeah. Get voting .

# ? Aug 23, 2019 13:23

habeasdorkus: Nov 3, 2013; Royalty is a continuous shitposting motion.

The Horse Before the Cart Act - AYE
Budget Efficiency Act - NAY
Fleet Realignment Act - AYE
Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - AYE
Renaming Act of 1917 - AYE
Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act - NAY
"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - NAY

Reasoning:
Horses & Carts - WE NEED PLANES FOR BOTES
BEA - WE NEED PLANES FOR BOTES
Fleet Realignment - We don't have triple turrets yet, but otherwise I like it.
rear end in a top hat - I mean, I proposed it
Renaming - Seems like a good name for a ship.
Austerity - We simply don't have enough botes right now to be scrapping any of them, even the old crappy ones.
FFFFFF - We aren't prepared for war with Austria, much less the French.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 14:13

Servetus: Apr 1, 2010

habeasdorkus posted:

Seconded, with the caveat that we're merely inquiring to BuORD about this, not directing them.

That was the intent, it was simply asking for clarification not an attempt at direction. It actually wasn't meant as part of the legislation just a note for BuORD.

Voting:
The Horse Before the Cart Act - AYE
We have aircraft available and no airbase; sort of obvious

Budget Efficiency Act - NAY
The Tsar's interest in planes is clear and we serve the Tsar

Fleet Realignment Act - AYE
Let's get some outdated ships out of the European theatre, in the Pacific they might do some good

Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - AYE
I don't like every part of this bill ,but we have to stop antagonizing Great Britain while we depend on them so much

Renaming Act of 1917 - AYE
Better name for a ship

Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act - AYE
We scrap two battleships to help free up funds to refit the rest

"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - NAY
We can't afford to rush back into war

Servetus fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Aug 23, 2019

# ? Aug 23, 2019 14:31

King Hong Kong: Nov 6, 2009; For we'll fight with a vim
that is dead sure to win.

The Horse Before the Cart Act: Aye

Budget Efficiency Act: Nay

Fleet Realignment Act: Aye

Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts: Aye

Renaming Act of 1917: Aye

Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act: Aye

"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays": Nay

# ? Aug 23, 2019 15:06

Arcturas: Mar 30, 2011

Servetus posted:

That was the intent, it was simply asking for clarification not an attempt at direction. It actually wasn't meant as part of the legislation just a note for BuORD.

Voting:
The Horse Before the Cart Act - AYE
We have aircraft available and no airbase; sort of obvious

Budget Efficiency Act - NAY
The Tsar's interest in planes is clear and we serve the Tsar

Fleet Realignment Act - AYE
Let's get some outdated ships out of the European theatre, in the Pacific they might do some good

Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - AYE
I don't like every part of this bill ,but we have to stop antagonizing Great Britain while we depend on them so much

Renaming Act of 1917 - AYE
Better name for a ship

Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act - AYE
We scrap two battleships to help free up funds to refit the rest

"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - NAY
We can't afford to rush back into war

Sure, I�ll echo these votes.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 15:12

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

The Horse Before the Cart Act - Aye
Budget Efficiency Act - Nay
Fleet Realignment Act - Aye
Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - Aye
Renaming Act of 1917 - Aye
Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act: - Aye
"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - Aye

# ? Aug 23, 2019 15:35

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

# ? Aug 23, 2019 16:57

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Strictly speaking the law allows me to demand a new design once per year per role. Could someone remind me what all the roles in the dropdowns are? Also, is there a monetary cost to requesting designs?

# ? Aug 23, 2019 19:33

Servetus: Apr 1, 2010

Leperflesh posted:

Strictly speaking the law allows me to demand a new design once per year per role. Could someone remind me what all the roles in the dropdowns are? Also, is there a monetary cost to requesting designs?

I only have the demo; I just assumed that since we had gotten a message about new technology to drop bombs, we might be able to design a bomber. I think it does have a cost though.

Role list from the demo:
Fighter
Dive Bomber
Torpedo bomber
Floatplane scout
Flying boat
Medium bomber
Heavy bomber

Heavy bomber is not available to either Great Britain or Japan in the 1920 demo start. We don't have the Early air-launched torpedo tech (level 3), which both nations have at that start date. So no Torpedo bombers just yet.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 20:46

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Right now the roles are almost certainly limited to just floatplane scout, fighter, and flying boat. Other types will get unlocked as we go along.

Floatplane scout is probably the most important one right now because we don't have any airbases or carriers to base fighters or flying boats, but we do have a seaplane tender and some under-construction cruisers with floatplanes on them, so it would be nice to have a plane to outfit them with.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 20:55

habeasdorkus: Nov 3, 2013; Royalty is a continuous shitposting motion.

Floatplane bomber :getin:

# ? Aug 23, 2019 21:45

Servetus: Apr 1, 2010

vyelkin posted:

Right now the roles are almost certainly limited to just floatplane scout, fighter, and flying boat. Other types will get unlocked as we go along.

Floatplane scout is probably the most important one right now because we don't have any airbases or carriers to base fighters or flying boats, but we do have a seaplane tender and some under-construction cruisers with floatplanes on them, so it would be nice to have a plane to outfit them with.

We're having a vote, which includes a bill to construct an airbase, right now. And you haven''t voted yet. :colbert:

# ? Aug 23, 2019 23:08

terrenblade: Oct 29, 2012

habeasdorkus posted:

The Horse Before the Cart Act - AYE
Budget Efficiency Act - NAY
Fleet Realignment Act - AYE
Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - AYE
Renaming Act of 1917 - AYE
Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act - NAY
"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - NAY

Eh good enough, it's Friday, and the Russian equivalent of pubs are open.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 23:19

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1917 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 face hardening	High		8
Hull construction			Better steel quality	High		9
Fire control				Director firing		Low		11
Subdivision and damage control		Diesel generators	High		6
Turrets and gun mountings		Reliable pwr train/elv	Low		8
Ship design				Secondary turrets on BB	Low		11
AP Projectiles				Capped AP projectiles	HIGH		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	MEDIUM		8
Fleet tactics				Battle turn away	Low		6
Naval aviation, lighter than air	Airship bomb armament	High		3
Naval Aviation, heavier than air	Aircraft bombing ships	High		2
Shipboard aircraft operation		Imp. seaplane carrier	High		2
Amphibious operations			X-Lighters		Low		1
Naval guns				16 inch guns		MEDIUM

BY ORDER TSAR NIKOLAYA PEACETIME EXPANSION NAVAL AERONAUTICAL BLIMP TO SHIP BOMBING CAPABILITY TO EXPAND MAXIMAL RATE POSSIBLE STOP

BUORD HAS MADE EXTENSIVE PROMISES TO THE TSAR REGARDING AIRSHIP CAPABILITIES: IN EXCHANGE CONCESSIONS GRANTED FOR RESEARCH PRIORITIES STOP
WE ARE PERMITTED RESEARCH BETTER AMMO STOP
SO WE CAN BLOW UP ENEMY AERODROMES FROM SEA MORE EFFECTIVELY END

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 further protect our naval lighter-than-air fleets from the vile French menace, Russia requires the design and manufacture of a new fixed-wing aeroplane model. Undoubtedly our enemies will soon deploy fleets of ships capable of launching their own dirigibles; while our own blimps will bomb them, we request aeroplanes capable of discovering the location of these ships with the rapidity only currently available from fixed-wing aircraft. Present your design proposals to the Chief of the Navy for consideration immediately!

Role: Floatplane scout

Prioritization of qualities:
1. Range
2. Reliability

# ? Aug 23, 2019 23:40

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Note: while the Act gives BuOrd the right to name aircraft, it doesn't look like Grey actually got to choose - at least, last update's fighter didn't get renamed.

# ? Aug 23, 2019 23:41

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

The Horse Before the Cart Act - Aye
Budget Efficiency Act - NAY
Fleet Realignment Act - Aye
Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - Aye
Renaming Act of 1917 - Aye
Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act: - NAY
"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - Aye

# ? Aug 24, 2019 00:39

Servetus: Apr 1, 2010

Leperflesh posted:

Note: while the Act gives BuOrd the right to name aircraft, it doesn't look like Grey actually got to choose - at least, last update's fighter didn't get renamed.

It should only require a right click to rename an aircraft class, I'm sure someone at the Admiralty misplaced the paperwork.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 00:58

Boksi: Jan 11, 2016

Servetus posted:

I only have the demo; I just assumed that since we had gotten a message about new technology to drop bombs, we might be able to design a bomber. I think it does have a cost though.

Role list from the demo:
Fighter
Dive Bomber
Torpedo bomber
Floatplane scout
Flying boat
Medium bomber
Heavy bomber

Heavy bomber is not available to either Great Britain or Japan in the 1920 demo start. We don't have the Early air-launched torpedo tech (level 3), which both nations have at that start date. So no Torpedo bombers just yet.

We'll see torpedo bombers in the late teens-early twenties, but medium bombers and dive bombers won't appear until the mid-twenties to early thirties - medium bombers are automatically unlocked around 1925 I think, while dive bombers are a tech that's hard(but possible with enough funding) to research before 1930. I think heavy bombers are like missiles in that there's some code supporting them but they're not actually in-game yet.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 01:17

Mister Bates: Aug 4, 2010

Leperflesh posted:

Note: while the Act gives BuOrd the right to name aircraft, it doesn't look like Grey actually got to choose - at least, last update's fighter didn't get renamed.

You can definitely rename aircraft models, you just can't do it from the design selection screen because this game's UI is bad

also:

The Horse Before the Cart Act - AYE
Budget Efficiency Act - NAY
Fleet Realignment Act - AYE
Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - AYE
Renaming Act of 1917 - AYE
Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act - NAY
"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - NAY

# ? Aug 24, 2019 03:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 20:36

Imperial Officer: Oct 21, 2010

The Horse Before the Cart Act - AYE
Budget Efficiency Act - NAY
Fleet Realignment Act - AYE
Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - AYE
Renaming Act of 1917 - AYE
Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act - NAY
"Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - NAY

# ? Aug 24, 2019 06:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Let's Play! > Rule The Waves 2: Rule Harder.

«‹›111 »