|
Servetus posted: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. The Kashin was designed in 1914   We can design a DD that is 2 knots faster and doesn't need to slow down to clean it's grates, has nearly twice the gun firepower (3x5" / 3x4" broadside) and 40% more torpedoes. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Aug 27, 2019 |
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
yes but how does it compare to the ability to drop bombs on ships from a blimp, I ask you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:The Kashin was designed in 1914 Leperflesh posted:Awating 10 torpedo bombers we haven't designed yet? Weird! OK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
do flying boats not use airbases? I guess they don't need the landing strip but they'd still need fueling facilities, repair staff, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
While were on the subject of flying boats what are they used for? Wikipedia mentions anti-submarine duty, but I''m curious what they're good for in the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:yes but how does it compare to the ability to drop bombs on ships from a blimp, I ask you? How does this even work? How fast do zeppelins go? Also can you not just like... see the giant zeppelin from a long ways off and not ...sail under it? Like, I can see a zeppelin bombing London. I cant see a zeppelin bombing a dreadnought. Edit: Wikipedia says "Zeppelins would sometimes land on the sea next to a minesweeper, bring aboard an officer and show him the mines' locations."  Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Servetus posted:While were on the subject of flying boats what are they used for? Wikipedia mentions anti-submarine duty, but I''m curious what they're good for in the game. Theyre used for spotting in the game. If you have a flying boat base, they'll automatically fly out and and report sightings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:do flying boats not use airbases? I guess they don't need the landing strip but they'd still need fueling facilities, repair staff, etc. They do use airbases. Typically you don't need as many of them as you would for other plane types, so for example a typical setup for a 20-plane base might be 4 flying boats, 8 fighters, and 8 bombers. But as Buord you can set what goes where for us. Flying boats don't go on carriers but do go on airbases. Fighters go on both. Torpedo bombers and dive bombers go on both. Medium and heavy bombers only go on airbases, not carriers. Floatplane scouts go on neither but get auto-assigned to seaplane carriers and other non-carrier ships with floatplane capacity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:
You can also research oxygen-fueled torpedoes like the Japanese used in this game. If you decide to use them, they give you significantly better torpedoes at the expense of being even more dangerously explosive. So obviously the reasonable thing to do is to put forty of them on a cruiser and give all your destroyers on-deck reloads, right? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How does this even work? How fast do zeppelins go? Also can you not just like... see the giant zeppelin from a long ways off and not ...sail under it? this is treason talk right here 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but im in the pro-ship camp. Good luck with your fancy balloons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Servetus posted:While were on the subject of flying boats what are they used for? Wikipedia mentions anti-submarine duty, but I''m curious what they're good for in the game. Once we figure out how to put bombs on them, destroying submarines will be their main use. While at war, you will regularly see events saying "Our flying boats have destroyed an enemy submarine!" or similar. As mentioned, in battles near airbases they are also useful for spotting ships.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:do flying boats not use airbases? I guess they don't need the landing strip but they'd still need fueling facilities, repair staff, etc. Also given development time, it may be worth ordering 2 types of airplanes develpoped per year. But that is as far as I'll go in advising BuORD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
With the advent of combat air craft, the necessity of ant-aircraft guns should be obvious. Thus I put forward the You worry about the fighters Act This act proposes that we spend no less then 20% of the armament of any CA and fleet escort DD on anti aircraft weapons. I am open to amendments from those who can run the numbers if 20% is a stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How does this even work? How fast do zeppelins go? Also can you not just like... see the giant zeppelin from a long ways off and not ...sail under it? The US Navy's zeppelin aircraft carriers had a cruising speed of 55 knots, which is over 60 miles per hour, and when pushed could make nearly 90mph for short bursts. For comparison, contemporary capital ships might be able to push their engines as fast as 30mph for a while but it would put serious strain on the machinery. And those were for airships that weren't even designed to be fast or to be anywhere near the actual battlefield. They are, of course, ponderously slow compared to heavier than air aircraft, but could easily outrun or overtake pretty much anything floating. In addition, they had incredibly long loiter times compared to airplanes, which made them useful for scouting and antisubmarine patrol duty, at least in the WW1 era. They could also in theory fly high enough to be essentially immune to surface-based anti-aircraft fire. Because they were huge, they could carry much larger payloads than contemporary airplanes, too, allowing them a lot of staying power in fights and in theory a lot of potential firepower to be brought to bear. There are a lot of good reasons why they were rendered obsolete and replaced by airplanes, but they were at least capable of doing their assigned tasks, planes just eventually became capable of doing them better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
I love the wacky designs treaties force on you. I got one that was something like “no ship over 12000 tons and no gun over 8 inches” which lead to battles with ridiculous armored beasts trading broadsides of popguns at each other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
 ***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1918 ST PETERSBURG*** YEGO IMPYERATORSKOGO VYELICHYESTVA (NIKOLAYA II [VTOROGO]) pre:Research Area Last research Priority Levels Machinery development Superheater Low 10 Armour development Improved face hardening High 8 Hull construction Better steel quality High 9 Fire control 12 ft rangefinder Low 12 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 Heavy shells High 4 Light forces and torpedo warfare Superimposed X on CLs MEDIUM 8 Torpedo technology Wet heater engine Low 9 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 Early air launch torps High 3 Shipboard aircraft operation Imp. seaplane carrier High 2 Amphibious operations X-Lighters Low 1 Naval guns 16 inch guns LOW HIS IMPERIAL MAGESTY REQUESTED A RIDE ON A FLYING BOAT RECENTLY STOP WE COULD NOT LOCATE ONE DESPITE RECORDS SHOWING WE HAVE PURCHASED A DESIGN YEARS AGO STOP NEW RESTRICTIVE NAVAL TREATY SUGGESTS STRONG EMPHASIS ON ARIAL WARFARE BEST STRATEGY STOP NEW GULAG CONSTRUCTION IN SIBERIA SUGGESTS PARLIAMENTARIANS GET WITH THE PROGRAM 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 protect our critical ports from the future prospects of multi-year blockades that cripple our economy and impose severe privation upon our beloved people, Russia requires the design and manufacture of a new fixed-wing aeroplane model. The Tsar demands a torpedo bomber! Present your design proposals to the Chief of the Navy for consideration immediately! Role: Torpedo bomber Prioritization of qualities: 1. Bomb Load 2. Toughness AEROPLANE NAMING By order of the Tsar, the following in-service and proposed aircraft names must be applied: Fighter Beriev Be-4 renamed Razrushitel' Neba (разрушитель неба) or "Sky Destroyer." Petlyakov Pe-1 floatplane scout renamed Podlaya Utka (подлая утка) or "Sneaky Duck" Flying boat (unknown current name) renamed: Merkuriy Morzh (Меркурий Морж) or "Mercury Walrus" New Torpedo Bomber: torpednyy luch (торпедный луч) or "Torpedo Ray"
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:Also given development time, it may be worth ordering 2 types of airplanes develpoped per year. I can order as many as 1 per different role, but I feel like right now 1 per year is what the tsar would demand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
quote:NEW RESTRICTIVE NAVAL TREATY SUGGESTS STRONG EMPHASIS ON ARIAL WARFARE BEST STRATEGY STOP BuORD is the best. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
terrenblade posted:With the advent of combat air craft, the necessity of ant-aircraft guns should be obvious. Thus I put forward the This is a 15KT CA in a 1920's Germany game I'm playing through.  3511T / 15,500 devoted to armament... just under 400T of that is AAA which comes out to ~12% This design isn't focused on AAA but still has a pretty significant number of AAA guns. Now, as far as how this is relevant... we don't have anywhere near that kind of AA technology. Our only AA gun is Light AA; they weigh roughly a ton and take up 2 deck space... 20% of weight as AAA is literally impossible until we develop AA Directors, Medium AA, and Dual Purpose Guns. If anything should be legislated in this manner it's mandating 15% of armament tonnage to be secondary / tertiary batteries on Capital Vessels... because it will give us space and tonnage to convert to AAA when our tech improves. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:
Proposal: She Comes With Baggage 1) That 10% of armament tonnage to be secondary / tertiary batteries on Capital Vessels... because it will give us space and tonnage to convert to AAA when our tech improves. 2) The acceptable level of AAA Tech improvement will be decided by a vote called "How Much Baggage?" with the wording "we shall now convert our Capital Ships to convert secondary and tertiary tonnage to AAA". 3) The "How Much Baggage?" vote shall occur in every applicable session that sees a development of AAA Tech 4) Laws amending the specifics of points (3) and (4) - including wording and schedule - are allowed because lol i don't know how aaa development works END PROPOSAL Now, we have agreed and passed a law that says specifics-driven design is bad. I believe this does not contravene it, because it doesn't say what the ship tonnage must be, or what the ratio of 2ndary to 3tiary mass must be, or what caliber, or whether in turrets or what the armour thickness on those turrets should be... etc etc But just in case I dropped it to 10% to make it an easier pill to swallow if you aren't convinced it still allows significant design freedom. simplefish fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I propose the Maximum Moderation in Airplanes Act: quote:I propose the Naval Air Corps Reserve Act (NACRA) Infidelicious posted:Destroyer? Never Heard of Her Act Vote!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 07:53
|
|
|
AYE AYE NAY
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
moderation in aeroplanes aye nacra nay bigger seaplane carrier aye destroyers aye aye aye
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
Aye Aye Aye I don't see the seaplane carrier bill in the list so I didn't vote on it
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 09:01
|
|
|
They were in the same (middle) quote, so I thought they were supposed to be a single package? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Like, I can see a zeppelin bombing London. I cant see a zeppelin bombing a dreadnought. As for my vote: Nay to all. This insistence on fixed wing aircraft is a national disgrace when we should be gracefully floating into the future on our war zepplins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 11:18
|
|
|
simplefish posted:They were in the same (middle) quote, so I thought they were supposed to be a single package? I don't know. They were supposed to be two separate bills. I guess since I put them in the same post they got stuck together. moderation in aeroplanes NAY The stipulation that we must have all our air wings taken off reserve status during time of war means that if we fight the Japanese again, a fighter wing in the Baltic would have to be activated even if no Japanese plane was within a thousand sea miles. If we fought Italy then any air units we might have stationed in Korea would be loitering around on active service with no enemies in reach. The simple geography of our great empire makes this legislation a poor choice. NACRA AYE bigger seaplane carrier AYE destroyers AYE
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
MIAA: Nay, for the reason pointed out by Servetus NACRA: Aye Bigger seaplane carrier: Aye D?NHHA: Aye note, edited. habeasdorkus fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
Aye to all My reasoning is that the MMAA and NACRA will interact in such a way as to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 12:51
|
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:Not with that attitude you won't. And also not while this silly treaty is in place. Here, here. This aircraft fixation will be our ruin. Nay to all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
NAY AYE AYE AYE
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
Aye all. Grey, have you changed the ammunition layout and usage options in the doctrine tab? The Fire for effect act sunsetted a decade ago and our AP tech has improved dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
Appointing a separate BuOrd beholden to no one was an inspired idea. Love it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Aye to all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Aye Aye Aye
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Aye all. Yes, but no-one has introduced a replacement bill Because Goons. Nay Nay Aye Aye Down with prescriptive bills! Also if we don't have DP mounts any tonnage requirements could make design requests impossible. Heck, do we even have AA mounts yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:
I believe not, but the concept presented was that any secondary battery could be converted to AA mounts in a future refit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 13:05
|
|
|
All three pass, so we need a destroyer and a seaplane carrier! https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kmi0pa65zkcvgha/AAADcAoppsNhSI-9n4IUId6Ya?dl=0
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
 WIF DA LAST WAAAGH DA DESTROYAS DID DA MOST OF DA EVY LIFTIN AN GOT INTA DA SHOOTY FITES WIF OVA DESTROYAZ GROMKI IZ MADE TA ANDLE DIS WIF 'FREE 5" GUNZ AN FOUR SMALLA GUNZ FER GETTIN STUK IN ALL 'PROPA LIKE https://drive.google.com/open?id=10kyuOjmAVjyLXkvueJWLr7Uhy1iXnT_j  DA NAEZDNIK ON DA OVA HAN, IZ A ALL IN WUN FLEETY SKOUT BOAT. KEEP IT IN DA BAK AN IT'LL LAUNCH ITZ SKOUTZ TA FIND DA ENEMY FLEETZ WHEREVAZZ DEY AR WIF 10 FLOATY PLANEZ https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZjORiLKP9CgPXO0oo24ACOM0sN_yrn64
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 02:30
|
|