|
Mister Bates posted:You can definitely rename aircraft models, you just can't do it from the design selection screen because this game's UI is bad Yeah, if you want to supply names, that's great.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Voting: The Horse Before the Cart Act - AYE, airbases are good Budget Efficiency Act - NAY, planes are the future Fleet Realignment Act - AYE, with the caveat that the bill requires destroyers 500 tons or less to be mothballed in peacetime, and you can only mothball ships in your home area, so ships deployed to the Far East cannot be mothballed, so therefore the 500 ton destroyers have to be left with the Baltic Fleet Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - AYE, this is mostly fine and allows for slow submarine buildup and becoming friends with the preeminent naval power Renaming Act of 1917 - AYE, obvious Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act - AYE, I proposed it and pre-dreads are a waste of space "Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - NAY, let's not provoke a war unless we have to
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Fleet Realignment Act - AYE, with the caveat that the bill requires destroyers 500 tons or less to be mothballed in peacetime, and you can only mothball ships in your home area, so ships deployed to the Far East cannot be mothballed, so therefore the 500 ton destroyers have to be left with the Baltic Fleet Oooh, good catch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
Current vote totals: Horse Before the Cart Act: 11 Aye, 0 Nay Budget Efficiency Act: 0 Aye, 11 Nay Fleet Realignment Act 11 Aye, 0 Nay Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts: 11 Aye, 0 Nay Renaming Act of 1917: 11 Aye, 0 Nay Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act: 6 Aye, 5 Nay "Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" Edict: 2 Aye, 9 Nay Looks like passage of the "Austerity in the Dreadnought Age" Act is still an open question, not so much for any of the others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
I'm half way through the update.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:The winning design will be named the razrushitel' neba (разрушитель неба) or "Sky Destroyer." I'll name the scout with my next official post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
 The Horse Before the Cart Act - passes Budget Efficiency Act - fails Fleet Realignment Act - passes Admiralty & State Sorting & Harmonizing Omnibus of Legal Edicts - passes Renaming Act of 1917 - passes Austerity in the Dreadnought Age Act - passes "Freddy, my French friend, fries frogs on Fridays" - fails quote: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 cannot do the proposed works on the Grom class, as we do not have triple turrets. January 1917  An airbase is ordered.  Two battleships are scrapped, one going to fire trials that prove very useful.  Ships begin to move.  We reaffirm the trety with Great Britain.  Nice to know we are not the only one scrapping ships. February 1917  We have our first director armed ship, and the new fighter has been overworked.  Orders for a floatplane scout are put in. March 1917  We get new torpedoes, and a quick rebuild of our light cruisers is completed. April 1917  We get an air base, and a rebuilt Grom.  Then this happens. It could have been worse, but these are some serious limitations.  Though I'm not going to say it doesn't have its advantages for us....  The treaty gets rid of more ships than a good sized war would have.  It also does wonders for world tensions. May 1917  The Sub force increases in size.  I always listen to mad scientists.  Parliament give with one had, and take away with the other.  It seems our light cruiser tech is running similar to the British. June 1917  New docks, new planes, and a lack of Torpedo Bombers. July 1917  The British are well on their way to building carriers! August 1917  What interest does Russia have in Cuba?  We now have better AP shells. September 1917  We can finally build torpedo bombers! Oh, and Ireland is indipendant.  I choose the production model from the floatplane scouts. October 1917  It is widely believed the Americans have blown up one of our destroyers – as I am to avoid war, I take the hit to my prestige. November 1917  I start the last of my rebuilds. December 1917  We get info on an Austrian fighter.  She includes more info in the pile.  The current active fleet.  The refits and new builds/  we have no subs building as the cuts post treaty and the rebuilds took priority, but I will get back to that.  Tensions with the US are still high.  The budget is manageable.  Research continues to look good. Back to you guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
oh, I thought the plane we had before was a flying boat, didn't realize we already had an operable floatplane scout. Anyway that's fine though we got a better one. Grey, it's managable right now, but in the future as our number of active plane designs increases, do you think your end-of-year report could include a list of our current aircraft and blimps? Hopefully there's some screen that shows that in the game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
Do we have regions that still don't have an airbase?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
Yeah. Most of them. Warning. Airbases can get expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 10:17
|
|
|
Question: what does prestige actually do in the game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 12:38
|
|
|
Determines your score at the end of the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
How long does the size and gun limitation stay in effect for? Seems like the Ryska Sjon will curb stomp everything until the limits are lifted, which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
I propose the Maximum Moderation in Airplanes Act: The Admiralty shall designate one airbase adjacent to the Baltic Sea, which they consider likely to be within range of any potential naval battles there. We shall then ensure that this airbase is always upgraded to maximum possible airplane capacity, and filled with air wings. Additionally, the admiralty shall ensure that all airbase air groups are kept in reserve during times of peace. These air groups shall be restored to active duty in times of war. Subject to the admiralty's discretion, air groups may be restored to active status when tensions with a potential enemy are at high levels, to ensure readiness should war break out unexpectedly. Air groups on ships such as aircraft carriers are to be kept in active status even in times of peace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
Well, I guess there's only one solution to this treaty. Maximum seaplane carriers. We can rule the waves AND the wind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:Question: what does prestige actually do in the game? if it goes too low you are fired and lose We should lay down some kind of treaty CA as it would continue to be useful after the treaty expires. if you want to be gamey you can start a war and the treaty will be lifted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
I propose the Naval Air Corps Reserve Act (NACRA) All air wings stationed at airbases shall be placed on Reserve in peacetime. During wartime airwings will be brought to active duty or left on reserve at the Admiralty's discretion. Based on the region where the conflict is occurring it may not be prudent to activate all air wings if they cannot support the war effort in their location. AIr wings stationed on ships will match the activation status of the ship they are stationed on. I also propose the: Build a bigger seaplane carrier act (no acronym) In August 1916 we gained the technology to build "larger seaplane carriers", in the last session we were consumed by other matters, but with our refits proceeding well I believe it is time to build a second dedicated seaplane carrier, hopefully with a greater capacity to carry these craft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
I propose the Build a Bigger Seaplane Act (BABSA) Since we are limited by treaty in the size of our ships, we must increase the size of our planes. Put in an order for the heaviest seaplane available. Russia needs a Spruce Goose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Proposing the Reliable Users Streamlines Killing Yankees act. Excluding the Tsar's Yacht (whose crew reaps untold benefit from the presence of his imperial personage), the Ryska Sjon is our most modern and formidable warship who will bear the largest burden in a conflict with the USA or France. This act requires that a training regimen be immediately put into effect to improve the Night Fighting and Gunnery of the Ryska Sjon's crew that they might fully exploit their advantage in armaments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
McGavin posted:I propose the Build a Bigger Seaplane Act (BABSA) Vetoed as it steps on BUORDS Toes. You do not get to restrain BUORD.... The only reason BUORD does not have all power over land bases as well is literally due to budget. (IE he would spend it all on land based planes rather than ships.) BUORD However does get to set the number and type of aircraft in the bases..... Sammich Reaper posted:How long does the size and gun limitation stay in effect for? Seems like the Ryska Sjon will curb stomp everything until the limits are lifted, which is nice. 20 years or until we go to war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Sammich Reaper posted:Proposing the Reliable Users Streamlines Killing Yankees act. Excluding the Tsar's Yacht (whose crew reaps untold benefit from the presence of his imperial personage), the Ryska Sjon is our most modern and formidable warship who will bear the largest burden in a conflict with the USA or France. This act requires that a training regimen be immediately put into effect to improve the Night Fighting and Gunnery of the Ryska Sjon's crew that they might fully exploit their advantage in armaments. unless something has seriously changed in a recent patch, it doesn't work like that. Any change in training affects the entire fleet, so putting Night Fighting and Gunnery training on will massively increase our maintenance in exchange for making the whole fleet more effective at those things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:unless something has seriously changed in a recent patch, it doesn't work like that. Any change in training affects the entire fleet, so putting Night Fighting and Gunnery training on will massively increase our maintenance in exchange for making the whole fleet more effective at those things. Eh, we lost half our fleet to night battles where we tripped over the enemy at close range and they lit us up. Still seems cheaper than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
That naval treaty is disappointing in the limitations it imposes on us, but also fantastic because we were falling way behind in battleships and battlecruisers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:That naval treaty is disappointing in the limitations it imposes on us, but also fantastic because we were falling way behind in battleships and battlecruisers. Yeah the Ryska Sjon is going to be our only dreadnought for a long time, but on the other hand we're actually pretty well placed to focus on carriers and light forces, because we were doing that already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Vetoed as it steps on BUORDS Toes. I do? Wow! OK uh, can you give any guidance as to what bases we have, and how many aircraft of each type they have now, and what their maximum capacity is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:oh, I thought the plane we had before was a flying boat, didn't realize we already had an operable floatplane scout. Anyway that's fine though we got a better one. Airships are unfortunately pretty non-interactive. Each airship base is automatically stocked with airships incorporating the latest technology. There is no design or squadron management element.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
hypothetically, how many 10-inch guns could we fit on a 15,000 ton ship?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
Should we try building a smaller version of the torpedo-battleship?Durendal posted:Gentlemen. Behold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
For the hell of it I threw together a quick hypothetical design for a treaty-compliant armored cruiser. just to demonstrate the kind of things we're capable of making within those restrictions (as of two years ago, we could build something better now). Armor is proof against its own guns at all ranges, it's fast enough to outrun anything it can't kill, and it can hypothetically fight three of itself at once. It would still normally not be a very good ship, but against other treaty-compliant vessels it could hold its own easily. Mister Bates fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Servetus posted:Should we try building a smaller version of the torpedo-battleship? We can't have more than six submerged torpedo tubes total in the designer, sadly. More tubes would require more above-decks torpedo tubes, and we can only put those on DDs and CLs at the moment. That said, we can absolutely build a CL with a 12-torpedo broadside, but keep in mind that those don't come with reloads(unless you research them and think putting more unprotected explosives on top of your deck is a good idea). I'd rather have one of those than a treaty CA at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Boksi posted:... and think putting more unprotected explosives on top of your deck is a good idea. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
Servetus posted:I propose the Naval Air Corps Reserve Act (NACRA) Seconding both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I propose the Maximum Moderation in Airplanes Act: Seconded
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I do? We currently have one 20 capacity air base. So far this base has 10 fighters and another squadron awaiting 10 torpedo bombers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Proposing A Treaty Sank My Battleship (ATSMB) Act Countrymen, we must carefully consider the effects of this new treaty. On the surface, it seems that immediately building a series of very heavy "treaty cruisers" is the way to go. I have considered this course of action, and believe it folly. Any cruiser of that size is sure to be used as a quasi capital ship, and will be terribly vulnerable to any legacy battleship or battlecruiser it encounters. Some of the possible consequences of the treaty: - It will be more difficult or impossible for anyone to maintain the tonnage of capital ships necessary for a blockade - Existing battleships are now the most dangerous ships on the sea, and will be for the foreseeable future - Submarines may become the most attractive investment for all major navies - Commerce raiding may now be the new way of naval war With this in mind, the ATSMB Act proposes the following: - Instead of spending gobs of money on 15,000 ton heavy cruisers, instead, develop a series of inexpensive, lightweight "fast cruisers" that can outrun any non-destroyer warship in the world, can defeat any light cruiser in a 1v1 matchup, and can serve either as raiders or counter-raiders. This likely calls for a 26-27 kt top speed, a robust gun armament, and proof against 6" gunfire. - Double down on anti-submarine warfare: upgrade all existing DDs to the best possible ASW suite, and develop a new ASW+guns DD class. - Continue the building of the submarine fleet; consider increasing this investment with a future addendum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:We currently have one 20 capacity air base. Awating 10 torpedo bombers we haven't designed yet? Weird! OK. Do we have a flying boat design already? What's the complete list of plane roles we are allowed to choose right now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
We have two overall options moving forward: A.) Continue Ratcheting up tension and provoke a war that nulls the treaty. B.) Live with the treaty and continue building up our light and carrier forces in the meantime. IMO: We've already gotten the primary benefit from the treaty, which is the scrapping of a bunch of Rival's capital ships under construction. Additionally, Rival powers are going to be building a large number of cruisers, which will make Battlecruisers extremely powerful, and reduce the effectiveness of commerce raiding cruisers. My recommendation is starting a war in about a year, then accepting a white peace ASAP just to void the treaty, then building a new generation of capital ships. In the meantime we should build additional destroyers of a new type since we got oil, new guns and quad torpedoes since the last round of DD's; and we don't have that many, anyways. Destroyer? Never Heard of Her Act This bill mandates the construction of a new generation of DD's for Fleet Duties; these include screening, scouting, and engaging enemy DD's with guns, and Cruisers / Capital ships with Torpedoes. As such the design should be well rounded, with a large number of both guns, and torpedo tubes. Construction will be done in two flights not to exceed 4k per month, Overall cost is not to exceed 85m.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Destroyer? Never Heard of Her Act Seconded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Lots of people in here forgetting that 27 knot Battlecruisers are a thing in 1918.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
I think we will be at war before next Christmas, regardless of what we do. The Americans are seeking war, and it will come to our shores. Have we really made that many advances in destroyer technology since we built the Kashins? I was under the impression we'd mostly gotten a couple of 1% reductions in machinery weight. I like and support the push for more destroyers, but I don't know if the cost of an extra design study is warranted given how strapped for cash we are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 21:57
|
|