|
Nay Nay Nay
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
Nope, nope nope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
 ***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1926 ST PETERSBURG*** YEYE IMPYERATORSKOYE VYELICHYESTVO (FEDOROVNA) pre:Research Area Last research Priority Levels Machinery development Water wall furnace Medium 13 Armour development Internal belt High 11 Hull construction Imp design calculations HIGH 12 Fire control Synthetic fire control Low 18 Subdivision and damage control Non flammable materials High 7 Turrets and gun mountings Double gun mounts on CL HIGH 12 Ship design Efficient hull form HIGH 13 AP Projectiles Improved ballistic cap High 8 Light forces and torpedo warfare Motor torpedo boats HIGH 12 Torpedo technology Lengthened torpedoes HIGH 12 Submarines Increased battery cap Low 13 ASW technology Convoy system High 9 Explosive shells Enh explosive filler MEDIUM 10 Fleet tactics Smoke Floats MEDIUM 8 Anti Aircraft artillery HA geared sight Medium 4 Naval aviation, lighter than air Large scale helium prod MEDIUM 6 Naval Aviation, heavier than air Early air launch torps MEDIUM 3 Shipboard aircraft operation Purpose built CVLs MEDIUM 4 Amphibious operations Elpidifor boats Medium 2 Naval guns 16 inch guns HIGH THE TSAR MET WITH BUORD BRIEFLY TO EXPLAIN HE WILL BE TOO BUSY WORKING ON HIS NEW NOVEL TO WORRY ABOUT 'WAR STUFF' STOP IT HAD BEEN SO LONG SINCE WE SAW HIM THAT WE SCARECELY RECOGNIZED HIS ROYAL VISAGE STOP HE PROBABLY HAS THE INFLUENZA AND THAT IS WHY HIS VOICE WAS SO STRANGE AND HIS MOUSTACHE SO POORLY AFFIXED STOP THE TSARINA LATER TOURED THE BUORD OFFICES STOP SHE HAS A KEEN INTEREST IN NAVAL MATTERS AND SHE WILL MAKE SURE WE ARE IN 'SHIP SHAPE' STOP OUR FIRST ORDER IS TO MAKE SURE WE 'HAVE PLENTY OF BOATS WITH LOTS OF BIG NOISY GUNS' END  ATTN: BY ORDER YEYE IMPYERATORSKOGO VYELICHYESTVO (FEDOROVNA) The bureau of ordnance is pleased to announce a request for proposals for a new Russian flying boat model of aircraft! As the pace of aeronautical development quickens internationally, our country must keep up with its rivals overseas. New Request: 1926: Flying boat to be named the Babochka Tsaritsy (бабочка царицы) or "Tsarina's Butterfly" Prioritization of qualities: 1. Maneuverability 2. Speed Open requests: 1919 order: Bomber pukayushchiy al'batros or "Farting Albatross" Prioritization of qualities: 1. Bomb Load 2. Toughness
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
No No No 1st and 3rd cost too much money and we don't have enough, especially with current BB construction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Nay to all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Nay Nay Nay
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
 January 1926 No laws pass this year, so I get BUORDS requests done an move on!  We are getting some good Intel on Austrian ships. February 1926  Tech continues to advance. March 1926  So I can't develop bombers, but the private industries can?  The Austrians are building a CVL it seems. April 1926  B guns on light cruisers are now a thing. May 1926  It seems the Tsar is going to continue to ask for new yachts until we give him one with guns.  The Japanese are stealing from us – do they not realise we could crush them?  June 1926  We see a slew of breakthroughs.  And a mass upgrade of planes. July 1926  So much new technology! August 1926  I stoke the fires of war for money and prestige, just like a politician!  The new flying boat is going well. September 1926  Everyone is building light carriers now! October 1926  Russia is the largest country in the world, we must be ready to fight anyone. November 1926  Nice and quiet. December 1926  Quad 18” guns? I can hear the excitement from here.  Shame there is nothing in the budget for them.  Tensions are creeping up again....  There will be a swathe of construction finishing next year.  Most of our destroyers are now considered obsolete, and good for nothing more than trade protection.  We are looking better in battleships, but we are well behind in battlecruisers.  The air force is in reserve, but ready to spring into action.  It has been a good year for research.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
Huh, the Quads are Improved Quads immediately. That'll be nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
It keeps throwing me off that the airplane ranges are measured in nautical miles so I keep thinking that the planes have less range on their heavy loadout than they actually have. Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov She's old, has at least one year's worth of delays, and does not benefit from any new technology or design process that we have since discovered since her keel was first laid down. At this point she is a liability not only in battle but also by sapping resources that can be used elsewhere especially since she will consume at a minimum of 97,543 rubles assuming there are no delays. That is a lot of cash that could instead go into a newer better design or expanding the outdated auxiliary forces. Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1927 Authorizes expansion of all airbases in the Baltic to a capacity of 80 planes. Bespoke Surface Combatant Act Design and construct one new BB or BC. Ship of the Future Act Design and construct one new CV or up to 3 CVLs. Surface Screen Act Design and construct two new CAs or three CLs. Destroyermen Act Design and construct eight new DDs. Coast Guard Act Design a new KE in anticipation of war and in case our present escort numbers prove insufficient. The admiralty is authorized to build however many they need to fulfill the TP requirement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Women and children protection act In order to prevent women and children from becoming widows and orphans, the Admiral is not to make any moves or select any options that will increase world tensions, even if it costs him prestige.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Annoy Austria Act Do everything possible to start a war with Austria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:Annoy Austria Act Seconded
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
Fiscal Awareness Act WHEREAS we are routinely bombarded with requests for new ship designs that pay no heed to budgetary constraints, WHEREAS those budgetary constraints are such that they are, WHEREAS on several occasions the august Chamber was, having agreed to new design contests, been left only with proposals of gross costs greatly in excess of our ability to shoulder them, The Chamber resolves to pass the Fiscal Awareness Act of 1927, stipulating as follows: 1. Beginning next year (i.e. the session of 1928), any new legislation proposing construction or design of new vessels will have to establish a spending ceiling on the realisation of its proposals. 2. This spending ceiling may be expressed in monthly costs, total costs, costs per vessel, or costs per flight, by discretion of the legislators.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
Danann posted:
Seconded. That's uh a lot of legislation... leave some for the v rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Fiscal Awareness Act Second Infidelicious posted:That's uh a lot of legislation... leave some for the v rest of us. I propose the legal legislative legislation act wherein any one poster can submit a maximum of two acts in any one session of proposals
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Fiscal Awareness Act Seconded
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Is it possible to re-design the rimsky-korsakov while in the middle of construction, or otherwise salvage some of what has already been spent on her?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Is it possible to re-design the rimsky-korsakov while in the middle of construction, or otherwise salvage some of what has already been spent on her? She can’t be redesigned in the middle of construction, but her incomplete hull can be scrapped for a small refund.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Every big ship in this game is obsolete by the time it comes out of the docks, that's just the way technological advancement works when it takes 3-4 years to design and build a ship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Though scrapping one that's only 6 months into being built and has been sitting on pause for ages is less of an issue, especially when you just made some huge advances while waiting for the money to free up to build it. Scrapping the one that's almost done would be a bad move, scrapping the one with 27 months left isn't necessarily bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
I feel like we have the budget to build about one and a half big ships at a time. That means in a few months we can ramp up production on the second BB, and layer in 3-4 CLs or a new batch of DDs or something. Once the second BB finishes it probably makes sense to add in a pair of BC's and then a pair of CV's, and then we need to go back and get a new pair of BBs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Potemkin's the one on 7 months, the Rimsky-Korsakov's the one that's being proposed for scrapping and she's the one that's on 23 months and more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Danann posted:Potemkin's the one on 7 months, the Rimsky-Korsakov's the one that's being proposed for scrapping and she's the one that's on 23 months and more. That's what I mean, Potemkin is almost done while Rimsky-Korsakov has only actually been building rather than on pause for like 6 months of its 30+ month construction time. We should finish Potemkin and I agree we should just scrap Rimsky-Korsakov.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
What percentage of the Rimsky-Korsakov is finished?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:What percentage of the Rimsky-Korsakov is finished? approximately 20%
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:If you want to kill cruisers you should build BCs. On this: I think the game's most common encounter is one or two CLs encountering one or two enemy CLs. This becomes even more common if one or both sides are employing a lot of CLs as raiders. In this context, being able to consistently win 1v1 CL battles is a huge advantage...a disproportionate advantage, even. You get (what I feel) is a whole lot of VPs for sinking lone enemy cruisers -- winning two of these is the VP equivalent of sinking an enemy capital ship. Plus, you're whittling down the enemy surface raiding fleet. You're right that BCs are the best cruiser killers, but they cost a TON of money. Cost generally scales with displacement. You can field 7 or 8 "light" CLs, or 4 or 5 "heavy" CLs for the cost of one BC, or two CAs. This has big advantages when it comes to winning the guerre de course. The big decision is if you want to go all-in with a lighter fleet and forgo the cheap VPs for sinking enemy CLs, but gain a bunch of raiding power. I usually go with the "heavy" option if I have to make a choice...a 30 kt CL design is useful right up until the end of the game, be it as a raider, counter-raider, or as an escort platform. For a resource-constrained country like us, having CLs that are not expendable makes a lot of sense. That said, I can see how this approach may be too gamey. Night10194 posted:That's what I mean, Potemkin is almost done while Rimsky-Korsakov has only actually been building rather than on pause for like 6 months of its 30+ month construction time. We should finish Potemkin and I agree we should just scrap Rimsky-Korsakov. A battleship with 8 16" guns and decent protection against 16" guns is going to be useful right up until either the game ends or carriers take over everything. If you chop it and do a redesign, you're looking at probably a solid 4 years before anything new will come off the line...you'll have to solicit designs, pay for the design, and then start from scratch on a ~50ktn ship for what is only a marginal increase in capability (ie, a redesign might get another knot or two, or another gun, but that's about it). Plus, with that timeline, if we attempt to build two new BBs to some new design, we're going to start cutting into resources that really should be put towards building carriers. All of our BBs should of course be built with the best available fire control, and we should probably start upgrading their AA suites as much as possible. To that end: I propose the No Such Thing As Futureproofing Act. - All ships will be completed with best available fire control, even in wartime - Admiralty shall maximize available AA guns on all non-destroyer ships during every rebuild bewbies fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Oct 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Also, could we get a rundown on enemy sub fleets?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
When I was playing with a friend for the first time, CLs were definitely some of our MVPs as far as winning a lot of smaller engagements while also being useful. Plus, we have double turrets for CLs which allows for some mean CLs. And CLs stay useful in fleet engagements because enemy Destroyers hate them. The issue for us is that building multiple capital ships at a time is difficult. Very difficult. It's hard enough to do as someone like Germany. To be honest I'd be more down with canceling the Korsakov not so much to replace it with another BB, but rather to replace it with other kinds of ships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
We need a new generation of raiders and fleet DDs more than an additional BB that is not a significant leap in capability to the previous generation. Scrapping the 20% completed vessel and laying down DDs now and raiding CLs once the potemkin is operational is a better move.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
Or we could finish the current BB and lay down DDs and raiding CLs with surplus cash while we work on our fourth BB.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:The issue for us is that building multiple capital ships at a time is difficult. Very difficult. It's hard enough to do as someone like Germany. To be honest I'd be more down with canceling the Korsakov not so much to replace it with another BB, but rather to replace it with other kinds of ships. I could get behind this, but remember that a bunch of budget will free up once the first one is done that could be thrown at light ships. Also am I missing something? Rimsky-Korsakov has 23 months left out of 40, which is 42.5% complete?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
The only thing Russia isn't behind on is destroyers. Also considering improved quad turrets, any BB we build with those and decent guns will be useful for a few decades. I say we build several of those, and focus on our raiding fleet on the side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:
Seconded
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
We really need to stop ordering more than one capital ship in a batch. We have to delay one with on and off construction, and by the time the first is done we can build a better ship and cancel the second. We've already done this once, we're about to do it again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Servetus posted:We really need to stop ordering more than one capital ship in a batch. We have to delay one with on and off construction, and by the time the first is done we can build a better ship and cancel the second. We've already done this once, we're about to do it again. Hey, if the USA can crank out an Essex every other month, we can at do it too!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Does this game have something akin to pocket battleships? (or could post what the requirements for what makes each ship class?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Danann posted:It keeps throwing me off that the airplane ranges are measured in nautical miles so I keep thinking that the planes have less range on their heavy loadout than they actually have. second
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
Second
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Servetus posted:We really need to stop ordering more than one capital ship in a batch. We have to delay one with on and off construction, and by the time the first is done we can build a better ship and cancel the second. We've already done this once, we're about to do it again. This is an artifact of legislation calling for 'x amount of a thing' and not 'we have x amount of money to spend on thing(s); it's up to the ship designers / legislators to figure out if we want one big toy, or two medium sized toys.' It's also caused by our habit of not saving a significant amount of money before undertaking a parallel build, unless you're the US / UK / Germany you simply can't build two top the line BB's unless you start juggling Holds without a construction holiday on large ships in between classes to save money to pay for them. Building 2 BB/BC then a run of like 6 DD's then 2 more large ships works best, it keeps your screens up to date and allows you to build in parallel. Beancounter's Remind Us to Holiday Act (BRUH) During times of peace: After the construction of a single or flight of vessels that cost more than 3k/month there shall be halt in all new construction of vessels until either of the following conditions are met: 8 months have passed or We have 30k saved to offset construction delays. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Oct 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
bewbies posted:On this: I really could not disagree more. Yes, it's true that you do get a fair number of cruiser vs cruiser engagements, but those engagements are a tiny, completely insignificant proportion of your VPs even if you sink every ship you encounter, which you won't, because in accepting all those apparent cruiser engagements you will inevitably accept a few dozen B vs CA or BC vs CL or CL vs DD engagements, where you must disengage cleanly or you reverse all your gains and give up the opportunity cost of not re-rolling for a larger battle. The actual gamey approach is to just not accept any battle below Large in size. You will bleed a small number of VPs doing this, but you will win a lot more wars and have a lot more fun actually playing the good part of the game. For a resource-constrained country, you're forced to ignore an entire portion of the opposing force completely - and it's almost certainly always better to ignore the cruiser game in favor of getting your double-duty ships that can play in both cruiser battles and in fleets. In practice, the only real advantage to going heavy on quantity of cruisers is forcing peaces with raiding, but it needs a hard commitment and falls flat if you get even a little behind, like this LP already is. I've tried all sorts of cruiser designs from the minimum size CL raiders, to the pocket CAs (my favorite in the early game but boy do they fall off later), to battle CLs designed for putting 9-12 rifles into other CLs and 8 broadside torps into BBs, to all sorts of BCs from "pocket" to full on fast battleship. Nothing in the smaller category works out reliably, other than sometimes a hard commit to raiding. It also doesn't help that armor of CLs is so thin that the battles are dierolls even if your designs are massively superior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 03:05
|
|