|
Never Not Yacht - NAY Battleships Battleships Battleships - AYE Mission Accomplished - AYE Fool Me Once Amendment - NAY Dealer's Choice Act - NAY Efficient Rearmament - NAY
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 07:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Never Not Yacht - AYE!!! Triple B Act - AYE MIA Act - AYE FMO Provision - NAY! DC Act - AYE ER Act - NAY!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht - NAY, this would be invalidated by the BBB Act preventing spending on other vessels anyway Battleships Battleships Battleships - AYE, I proposed it and it's good Mission Accomplished - AYE, fighting America is suicide Fool Me Once Amendment - NAY, no to yachts Dealer's Choice Act - NAY, I don't even have any clue what this one is saying Efficient Rearmament - NAY, too open to interpretation
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Never Not Yacht - NAY, this would be invalidated by the BBB Act preventing spending on other vessels anyway Hmm. I understood it as cancelled until 3 ships had been built. If it's supposed to cancelled forever then that changes things a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
Likewise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Hmm. I understood it as cancelled until 3 ships had been built. If it's supposed to cancelled forever then that changes things a lot. It would be cancelled until 3 ships have been built, but these are battleships that will take like 3-4 years to build, which is like 3-4 more legislative sessions, so I think it's best to hold off on legislation requiring other ships until then, rather than hope that in 4 updates Grey remembers ship orders being placed now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
aye on battleships x3 nay on all the others
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It would be cancelled until 3 ships have been built, but these are battleships that will take like 3-4 years to build, which is like 3-4 more legislative sessions, so I think it's best to hold off on legislation requiring other ships until then, rather than hope that in 4 updates Grey remembers ship orders being placed now. Hint. Grey barely remembers ships ordered THIS session.....
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht - Nay. No more yachts. Battleships Battleships Battleships - Aye. Mission Accomplished - Aye. Fool Me Once Amendment - Nay. No more yachts. Dealer's Choice Act - Nay. None of us know what this means. Efficient Rearmament - Aye. We all know what this means, either you want the gimmick ships or not. Furthermore, no more yachts. King Hong Kong fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
 ***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1919 ST PETERSBURG*** YEGO IMPYERATORSKOGO VYELICHYESTVA (NIKOLAYA II [VTOROGO]) pre:Research Area Last research Priority Levels Machinery development Superheater Low 10 Armour development Imp homogenous armour High 9 Hull construction Imp longitudinal frame High 10 Fire control Ladder shooting Low 13 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 9 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 Elpidifor boats Low 2 Naval guns 16 inch guns Medium TSAR'S SECOND FAVORITE YACHT HORSE ALSO DROWNED STOP SENIOR NAVAL STAFF BEING SENT TO SIBERIAN GULAGS BY TRAIN STOP NOT ONE NEW BLIMP MANUFACTURED IN LAST YEAR STOP NO TORPEDO BOMBER DESIGNS SUBMITTED EITHER STOP FURIOUS EMPEROR DEMANDS GLORIOUS IMPERIAL DIRIGIBLE FROM WHICH TO BOMB AMERICAN BATTLESHIPS TO HELL STOP ALSO LET'S BUILD A BOMBER? 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 destroy the forces of the degenerate filthy colonists of the savage americas, Russia requires the design and manufacture of a new fixed-wing aeroplane model. The Tsar demands a bomber! Present your design proposals to the Chief of the Navy for consideration immediately! Role: 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 (Подлый утка) or "Sneaky Duck" Flying boat (unknown current name) renamed: Merkuriy Morzh (Меркурий Морж) or "Mercury Walrus" New bomber: pukayushchiy al'batros (пукающий альбатрос) or "Farting Albatross"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
I can't believe you guys went another session and still haven't ordered a new dirigible base anywhere, or a new airbase, we are operating with a single airbase in the baltics and that's it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Never Not Yacht - AYE Quote is Vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Splode posted:Never Not Yacht - AYE!!! This guy knows whats up. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I can't believe you guys went another session and still haven't ordered a new dirigible base anywhere, or a new airbase, we are operating with a single airbase in the baltics and that's it Goons are the worst people
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I can't believe you guys went another session and still haven't ordered a new dirigible base anywhere, or a new airbase, we are operating with a single airbase in the baltics and that's it Remind us next time before Grey closes the submissions
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
This thread needs an adult
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Never Not Yacht - Fails! Triple B Act - Passes MIA Act - Passes FMO Provision - Fails DC Act - fails ER Act - fails 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. [/quote] Infidelicious posted:Mission Accomplished Act https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kmi0pa65zkcvgha/AAADcAoppsNhSI-9n4IUId6Ya?dl=0
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
When this war is over we need to pick a fight with someone actually within our size bracket. We should bully Austria-Hungary. For one, being at war will get us more funds then peace time, and successfully getting a peace and concessions is how you bank roll building more ships in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
After some study, I have decided that a small battery of 16" rifles is preferable to a larger number of 12" guns, because the former will be able to penetrate the armor of American battleships at range, assuming we ever change our ammo settings. The result is the Proyekt 42718 battleship design, carrying six main guns and numerous smaller guns to defend against destroyers. It even has some machine guns to defend against airplanes! I could've skimped on protection to bring the cost down, but what's the point of building a battleship if it gets sunk immediately? The main concession to cost in this design is the short range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
Boksi posted:After some study, I have decided that a small battery of 16" rifles is preferable to a larger number of 12" guns, because the former will be able to penetrate the armor of American battleships at range, assuming we ever change our ammo settings. The result is the Proyekt 42718 battleship design, carrying six main guns and numerous smaller guns to defend against destroyers. It even has some machine guns to defend against airplanes! I could've skimped on protection to bring the cost down, but what's the point of building a battleship if it gets sunk immediately? The main concession to cost in this design is the short range. That's a really solid BB design. It's too good for the likes of us, but congrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
Redacted
Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:What version is Grey using because I have AoN? supposedly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 08:49
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:I don't have AoN, loaded the save in 1.08. I may have missed the existence of several patches... I'm on 1.03 I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
Budget seems a big issue here. Even at the current surplus just one of these ships isn't affordable, and the idea that we can build three is a bit much for us. We sure are spending a lot on cruiser maintenance. Behold, named after our Tsar, the Nicolaya II  There are a handful of compromises here, but the key is it's a ship that wields a full complement of 8x 16 inch guns without compromising main armor and staying under 3k a month. Not only is this good against the current 14 inch ships, but it will have a better time with upcoming ships. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:Budget seems a big issue here. Even at the current surplus just one of these ships isn't affordable, and the idea that we can build three is a bit much for us. We sure are spending a lot on cruiser maintenance. Don't worry, with the American Bs about the place I'm sure they'll be thinned out soon enough DUE TO DA POLEETICIANZ SAYIN WEZ GOT TA MAKE COMPRIMISES FOR 'BUDGEERY CONCERNZ' WE AD TA PRIORITIZ. DA MOST IMPORTANT FING IZ DA DAKKA, KOZ TA STOP DA MODERN GUNZ YA NEED ARMA ALMOST AS FICK AS SHELLZ IZ WIDE. DAT JUS AINT PRAKTIKAL. AN AZ DE PREEVIUS BATTLEYSHIPZ ALL GOT KRUMPT BY DA LITTLE GUYZ WE PUT A TON O SMALLA GUNZ ON TA KEEP DEM AWAYZ. AN A BUNCHA GUNZ DAT KAN SHOOT DA SKY DERE IZ EVEN A PAIR O FLOATYPLANEZ ON BOARD TA LET IT SEE DA ENEMYZ COMIN. ROLL YER EYEBALLZ OVA DA DERZHATEL' ORUZHIYA. DA BEST BATTLEYWAGON FOR DA TZAR ON A BUDGET DERE IZ  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PEfeUZ31ZK764_FgKeyDz38WDFCJ0e0E (We should really stop expanding our navy yards for a while. 48k sized yards aren't much use when we can't cover the cost of 30k hulls) Veloxyll fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 10:53
|
|
|
The Navy will be in dire financial straits with any new major construction and every little bit helps when it comes to saving money. Therefore we at the St. Petersburg yards have come with two designs to suggest. The first is the Zamok, and indeed, a mighty castle she would be. Accepting that the main use for such a ship at this time would be to safeguard our hold on our nearest seas such as the Baltic, she has only the fuel tanks and crew facilities she needs for short cruises. The engines themselves are, shall we say, optimized for ease of maintenance by the use of as few parts as possible. Not to be used for too long at one time, you understand.  She is focused on countering the threat posed by enemy battleships and battlecruisers, and thus is armored to withstand the gunfire of her most likely enemy--American ships armed with fourteen-inch guns. Her own guns are larger and would be able to engage the enemy from farther away, which is additional protection of a sort. She has a small complement of secondary guns to counter enemy destroyers, and a few upward-facing machine-guns to dissuade any enemy aviators from getting too close. On the whole she is quite cost-effective. Having glanced at our financial situation and grasped the reality, we also took the liberty of preparing an alternative design which would be even cheaper. The Vorota, you may notice, is broadly similar to the Zamok:  With the removal of one turret and its magazine, the ship still competes with most American capital ships in terms of throw-weight but is noticeably smaller than the first design. It would have been even smaller, but my engineers assure me that any ship smaller than twenty-two thousand tons of displacement will be an entirely unsuitable gun platform for the desired caliber. The Vorota class would be almost as cheap as the Elbrus seaplane carrier project. E:As Simplefish points out, the original design of the Zamok was illegal because of its speed. I have remedied this. Pirate Radar fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
The Zamok is illegal by No Ship Left Behind, I believe - it must be 23kts iirc
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
simplefish posted:The Zamok is illegal by No Ship Left Behind, I believe - it must be 23kts iirc That’s my bad for forgetting that, then. It can be adjusted when I get back to my desk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:The Vorota class would be almost as cheap as the Elbrus seaplane carrier project. My adjutants assure me that this throwaway comment is extremely damning for supporters of the Elbrus project.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
I do wish we’d stop exclusively building short range ships. I know the Baltic is the main theater but the Tsar’s enemies exist outside that, too.
King Hong Kong fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I do wish we’d stop exclusively building short range ships. It does seem a little short sighted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I do wish we’d stop exclusively building short range ships. I know the Baltic is the main theater but the Tsar’s enemies exist outside that, too. We had medium range, BBs. They were sunk in their first engagement in the Baltic. Y'all do realize that directors and increased elevation are a thing now... The Yacht taking accurate plunging fire that crippled her at range wasn't some fluke.  https://www.dropbox.com/s/0i6qpt93a3lepua/Imperator%20Garpun.30d?dl=0 LOLZ Rejects the current, outmoded thinking regarding deck protection, or this idea of 'cost cutting' A 150 million ruble ship that lives to fight another day is a more efficient use of 150 million rubles than 2 98 million ruble ships that take a single hit to the turret or magazine from 24,000 yards and is then crippled and run down; or in a billion pieces from a magazine or turret explosion. The Tsar has seen the effectiveness of long range fire firsthand, and any design that does not incorporate heavy deck armor will be obsolescent before the keel is laid. The Imperator Garpun marries a large battery of well protected 16" guns with excellent fields of fire, to a well protected hull that is functionally immune to the 14" guns of our enemies to 9K yards... It's secondary battery is designed to be converted to anti aircraft use if these flying machines ever pan out. As far as the economics go; A. That is future Russia's problem. B. We can build 2 in parallel with research on 10%, the older B's and CA's are sunk or scrapped and this current line of construction is completed. C. The third ship can be cancelled or updated through legislation at any point in the 40 months it will take to construct them; or the design can be updated before the 3rd vessel is laid down. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
I've updated the post to give the Zamok design a more acceptable top speed while retaining noticeable cost savings compared to other designs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
 (Prince Valeryan Igorovich Urodlivyy, founding member of the Русские созданы для борьбы и победы Salon, at a historical costume ball in St. Petersburg, circa 1899) To my most Imperial cousin, my Tsar, and my Emperor, Nikolai II Romanoff, Thank you, cousin, for your request of my thoughts on your next chariot of the sea. We should have known it was the anti-monarchist Americans who would hunt down royalty on the high seas like some brutish Gracchi of the modern days. I, like you, mourn for the loss of the worlds's finest sea-tempered thoroughbreds, and wish daily that we had been able to save more of the royal wine supply. As such, I have determined that NEVER AGAIN should you ever be in position to have your horse shot out from under you. As such, I have included with this letter the following design, which I beg you to mention to the Admiralty. Imperator Nikolai II Groznyy-class Dreadnought  Ship Design While your namesake yacht was the finest, and deadliest, royal yacht ever conceived, this will be not only the finest royal yacht conceived, but the deadliest and most powerful ship afloat.  As importantly, her size (nearly double that of the yacht) allows us to place upon her deck an armored scale model of the Winter Palace, replete with all of the comforts of home without scrimping on armor that provides immunity from her own guns at medium range. Likewise, the racetrack has been extended to allow for the continuance of the Romanoff Stakes.  This masterpiece of Russian ingenuity and design has a four turreted, 16 inch primary battery with the latest targeting abilities, as well as a deadly 24 gun salvo to smash any adventurous destroyer. To facilitate your arrivals and departures, she carries two sea planes, allowing you to arrive and depart at your leisure, as well as providing some self-contained scouting capacity. And to guard against any attacks from the air, or from a peasant uprising? Why, sixty machine guns should solve either of those problems. Best of all, with three of these craft being built (may I suggest naming the third after your beloved and most loyal cousin after the Tsarina's name has graced the second ship of the class?) you will never want again for a royal vessel from which to lead your nation should one be damaged as you scourge the seas of your enemies! URA, MY COUSIN! URA, MY EMPEROR! URA, RUSSIA! Valerochka
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:We had medium range, BBs. They were sunk in their first engagement in the Baltic. Not enough of a thing to put an entire light cruiser worth of armor on the deck. I've had entire games where I've built BBs with 3-4 inches of deck armor well through the 1950s and never lost them once in long-range gunnery. What you're doing with a 5 inch belt is an entirely inappropriate amount of future-proofing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:Not enough of a thing to put an entire light cruiser worth of armor on the deck. I've had entire games where I've built BBs with 3-4 inches of deck armor well through the 1950s and never lost them once in long-range gunnery. What you're doing with a 5 inch belt is an entirely inappropriate amount of future-proofing. I've had the opposite experience. I've had multiple ships of this era with 2.5-3.5" of deck armor get their machinery or magazine wrecked in the opening minutes of an engagement by 14" salvos from daytime sighting ranges in the 1920's. Once Improved and Advanced Directors roll out, you will be taking accurate plunging fire while closing range; and unless we have a 3-4 knot speed advantage to get under their guns, the odds of taking a catastrophic hit only grows with time and technology. We have ships that are 19 years old at this point and these vessels, if they survive can be reasonably expected to see use into the 30's and 40's where they will be engaged by level and dive bombers, especially in the Baltic. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:I've had the opposite experience. Never seen it in more than half a dozen full games. Air proliferation is a different thing entirely, but in the current implementation there's a total inability to do anything about being bombed and torpedoed into the stone age, so trying to combat that is completely pointless regardless of how much armor or AA we can put on. And by the time the 30s and 40s rolls around I expect these ships to be sunk in our constant ill-advised wars anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:Never seen it in more than half a dozen full games. I've played a very aggressive AH or Italy into the 50's least that many times. In these games I have seen it happen pretty often, to the point where I decided it was important to avoid. Especially when expecting to be fighting outnumbered against a large power such as UK or Germany as a country that cannot afford to lose a Battleship in the opening salvo, and even if the ship survives the hit, taking a hit to speed and thus cohesion at the start of a fight can cascade into a big loss when they have 3:1 advantage in Rifles. Armor is very useful in preventing a total loss from aircraft before the numbers of them and their accuracy gets absurd, when it is a few flying around being able to shrug off a bomb hit instead of being crippled or exploding is kind of a big advantage. As far as wars have gone; the war with Germany was the only one that went poorly and a lot of that was due to bad luck. We wouldn't even be able to build these ships had we not provoked America into War to scrap the Naval Treaty. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:snip This thing is amazing, but we'd have to build three right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Accommodation: Normal This must be some sort of mistake
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:54
|
|