|
Servetus posted:Did we ever scrape enough money together to run the Torpedo bomber design competition BuORD ordered? Erm, that's a quote of me saying that we have not researched TB's yet.....
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Erm, that's a quote of me saying that we have not researched TB's yet..... Funny, the save you gave us has early air launched torpedoes researched, but it's true that the option to actually develop a torpedo bomber hasn't been enabled. Maybe it's a lack of flight decks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Time to take back Alaska!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
 October 1918  Every bugger seems to be supporting rebels against me!  The trade war kicks off – neither of us seem overly prepared for it.  The US seem to have some fair sized forces for someone with no base in the region.  They have caught the Tsar off on a pleasure cruise. Thankfully fog and night fall and there is no contact.  With this thing out there, I'm glad there wasn't!  The US shipyards are busy! November 1918  I'm not allowed to take the prestige hit for ignoring this, so rounding up foreign citizens is the next best option.  Wait, estimated own forces one seaplane carrier....  No, its a seaplane carrier and the Imperator Nikolai Veliki. And some destroyers. Ah well, at least we get to launch scout planes.  Who completely miss the Ranger. GOD DAMNIT!  Despite being two knots slower, she comes in at a frightening speed and lands a hit on the yact!  Two minutes later, she blows a turret off! Then a second is taken out a minute later!  Things continue to go well.  Catch 22, if we slow down, they get into range and sink us, if we continue at this speed, we sink.  All hand to the lifeboats, women and autocratic rulers first!  The Tsar is transferred to a destroyer, along with his attendant nobility.  With our most prestigious ship sunk, the Ranger turns north and disengages.  A pure disaster, mitigated only by the fact we were able to save most of the nobility and the Tsar.  The Tsar is understandably angry with me. But that thing moved like a bat out of hell! December 1918  The British and Americans clash, and the Americans come off better!  They are putting down a lot of corvettes.  The war is going poorly, but it is still early days.  Here is the fleet comparison.  At least we are now running something of a surplus.  Here is the fleet.  And what is under construction.  And finally our research. Year end. Act may now be submitted
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
We're going to be haunted by a Gray Ghost aren't we? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
At least we finally got rid of that stupid yacht.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:At least we finally got rid of that stupid yacht. Mm. I’m half tempted to cobble together a “no more one off joke boats for c.20 years” act while we... you know, catch up in a few areas, dare I say. To be fair given that we only lost the round boat to Ranger we could have come off far worse...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 07:28
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht The Tsar needs a new yacht. Interpret that how you like, no limits except it must be built in Russian docks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Never Not Yacht Seconded
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
Could we have charged that BC with the destroyers? It didn't seem to have any screening forces. Losing a few destroyers to sink a BC would've been worth it, if it was possible. This is a genuine question not a criticism by the way
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
That almanac at the end is damning stuff. We have one capital ship to face ten American capital ships, and in the meantime we're focusing our efforts on building the world's largest seaplane carrier and yet another run of destroyers despite already having the most destroyers in the world. This war may be unwinnable in direct warfare because of such a huge tonnage advantage to the other side, but we can start preparations for the next one. The Battleships, Battleships, Battleships Act: Design and build a line of capital ships (BB or BC). Shipyard proposals have the leeway to interpret this as they please, but this Act demands that we build a minimum of three ships of this class, so the shipyard must strike an appropriate balance between fighting ability and cost. Short range and cost-effective engines may be preferable, given that nearly all our battleship engagements take place in the Baltic Sea, close to our home ports. Until at least three ships of this class have been completed, no other new constructions may be started (though current constructions may be completed) and all current legislative requirements to build additional ships are cancelled, to ensure our erratic naval planning does not reprioritize funds away from these vital ships of the line during our time of greatest need. Once at least three ships of this class are completed, scrap our three remaining pre-dreadnought battleships. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Sep 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:That almanac at the end is damning stuff. We have one capital ship to face ten American capital ships, and in the meantime we're focusing our efforts on building the world's largest seaplane carrier and yet another run of destroyers despite already having the most destroyers in the world. This war may be unwinnable in direct warfare because of such a huge tonnage advantage to the other side, but we can start preparations for the next one. Seconded. We need some battlewagons on the line
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
Splode posted:Could we have charged that BC with the destroyers? It didn't seem to have any screening forces. Losing a few destroyers to sink a BC would've been worth it, if it was possible. Depends how good our destroyers are compared with how much torpedo protection they have. I have done similar things in games I’ve played with some success but I focus heavily on torpedos and destroyers for just such an occasion. If the US has torpedo protection on that, it would be extremely difficult and require several very good shots to pull off. Doable but at long odds. (In my games I tend to build a line of destroyers that are basically PT boats that roar in as fast as possible to fire off torpedos and then run away).
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
MY FLOATING OFFICE!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
And lo, falls the roundest boat to ever exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:And lo, falls the roundest boat to ever exist.  Presumably our round boat party can find Novgorod in the breaking yard instead of commissioning a new yacht.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:
Seconded. Build some actual god drat usable modern battle botes
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Mission Accomplished Act End the war at the earliest available opportunity, preferably with a white peace. Our goal with this conflict was to undo the Naval Arms limitation treaty, allowing us to construct dreadnought class vessels. That has been accomplished, and continuing to waste blood and treasure is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Mission Accomplished Act Seconded. The reputation and life of the Tsar has already been imperiled by the sinking of his yacht. Our fleet is weak. German agents in our midst hoping for our destruction will cry out that this is weakness but a peace is nothing more than an opportunity to prepare for war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Efficient Rearmament Act There shall be no gimmick ships of the BB, CA, B or BC classes until we have built at least five new ships of those classes or ten years have passed, whichever happens earlier
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Never Not Yacht As an amendment to this act: The Fooled Me Once Amendment The Tsar has had taste of battle, and now a taste of defeat. To reflect his growing personal interest in the navy, the new vessel which will carry the Imperial standard is to be a dreadnought-size vessel of the battlecruiser type, and is to be a modern warship fit to carry an Emperor into the heat of battle, with the specifics of that requirement open to interpretation by the design bureaus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Dealer's Choice Act This Act allows the Admiralty (Grey) to, in an emergency as defined by the Admiralty, design and commit to testing a new ship class as a reference design. This act does not allow for any funds to be used toward building ships not authorized. During the passage of Acts, the allocation of building funds would automatically be put to a vote, while also allowing for the submission of competing designs. The outcome of this vote would be for the Admiralty design to be built, a competing design to be built, or for no funds to be allocated to such a foolhardy proposition. If no funds are allocated, the Admiralty has the option to submit for funding the following year, but for no more than 2 voting sessions per class, and for no more than 1 class per voting session. Should a tie happen, a competing design would prevail, followed by the Admiralty design. Funds allocated would be appropriate for the class in question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:As an amendment to this act: edit: Seconded as its own act habeasdorkus fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
sloshmonger posted:Dealer's Choice Act Seconded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
sheep-dodger posted:Efficient Rearmament Act Seconded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
sheep-dodger posted:Efficient Rearmament Act Seconded. If we wanted to have the budget to build dumb poo poo and still overwhelm the enemy with an army of ship-corpses we'd have been America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:As an amendment to this act: I refuse to amend my bill with this. Feel free to propose it as your own bill though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I refuse to amend my bill with this. Functionally I'm treating it as a separate bill, it's just a bill that will only take effect if yours passes (as there's no point in specifying the class of ship the yacht is if the bill to build a yacht fails)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:
I've figured out how to make boats even ROUNDER since I designed the yacht.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Never Not Yacht Thirded, to make sure that it's allowed as it's own option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:I've figured out how to make boats even ROUNDER since I designed the yacht. Hell yeah!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
sheep-dodger posted:Efficient Rearmament Act How do you define a “gimmick ship”?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Functionally I'm treating it as a separate bill, it's just a bill that will only take effect if yours passes (as there's no point in specifying the class of ship the yacht is if the bill to build a yacht fails) Alrighty then!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Never Not Yacht vyelkin posted:That almanac at the end is damning stuff. We have one capital ship to face ten American capital ships, and in the meantime we're focusing our efforts on building the world's largest seaplane carrier and yet another run of destroyers despite already having the most destroyers in the world. This war may be unwinnable in direct warfare because of such a huge tonnage advantage to the other side, but we can start preparations for the next one. Infidelicious posted:Mission Accomplished Act Mister Bates posted:As an amendment to this act: sloshmonger posted:Dealer's Choice Act sheep-dodger posted:Efficient Rearmament Act Quite a swathe to be voting on here!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht - AYE!!! Triple B Act - AYE MIA Act - AYE FMO Provision - NAY! DC Act - AYE ER Act - NAY!!!!!!!!! e: Simplefish made a real good point below and I changed my mind on Fool Me Once. Also, if you have a perfectly round ship you can ALWAYS take off into the wind! habeasdorkus fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht - AYE Battleships Battleships Battlrships - AYE Mission Accomplished - AYE (I nearly abstained but sure, Aye) Fool Me Once Amendment - NAY. I get where this is coming from, but if someone can make a yacht-like seaplane tender that is exactly the sort of thing I don't want to take off the table! Dealer's Choice Act - NAY. Sounds like too much paperwork. EEfficient Rearmament - NAY. If you want to play boring, buy the game yourself! simplefish fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht - Nay Triple B Act - AYE MAA Act - AYE FMO Provision - Nay the Tsar can hunt trade in south east Asia in a 40m light cruiser instead of another 100m boondoggle. DC Act - Nay Because slowing down procurement is a bad idea. ER Act - Nay because gimmick ship isn't defined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht - NAY Battleships Battleships Battleships - AYE Mission Accomplished - AYE Fool Me Once Amendment - NAY Dealer's Choice Act - NAY Efficient Rearmament - AYE
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht - NAY The Battleships, Battleships, Battleships Act: - NAY Mission Accomplished Act - YAY The Fooled Me Once Amendment - NAY Dealer's Choice Act - NAY Efficient Rearmament Act - YAY
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
If “gimmick ship” isn’t defined by the statute, how will Grey interpret it? Maybe the intention of the statute could be fulfilled by mandating that we build knockoffs of foreign vessels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 07:46
|
|