|
Yeah if you're strapped for resources CLs/CAs are the most natural thing to trim down. You might be able to get 4-5 CLs for the cost of 1 BC, but 1 BC can (and will, if a war goes for long enough) kill all of those CLs and can fight CAs, other BCs and participate in fleet battles. The increased efficiency in raiding isn't worth it unless you are relying entirely on raiding to win wars. There isn't really such a thing as a non-expendable CL, since even your luxury 8000t triple-6-inch-gunned 35kt CL can still randomly end up fighting a battlecruiser 1v1, or as an AI-controlled scout/screen in a fleet battle, where it gets hit by one heavy shell and blows up. Being resource-strained it makes more sense to go for either fewer survivable battlecruisers or the cheapest, shittiest CLs around to make those losses less painful.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
And well, why go lovely CLs when you can get the same effect from submarines, without having to worry about them being throiwn in unwinnable battles
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
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. i81icu812 posted:Annoy Austria Act Tevery Best posted:Fiscal Awareness Act DesperateDan posted:I propose the legal legislative legislation act wherein any one poster can submit a maximum of two acts in any one session of proposals bewbies posted:To that end: I propose the No Such Thing As Futureproofing Act. Oh boy, this is going to by fun to tally....
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Ugh Please do not do the thing where you propose 8 acts in one post. I was really hoping nobody would second it. Lets try and get a standard template going for Grey's benefit Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov - Nay Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1927 - Nay Bespoke Surface Combatant Act - Nay Ship of the Future Act - Nay Surface Screen Act - Nay Destroyermen Act - Nay Coast Guard Act - Nay Annoy Austria Act - Aye Fiscal Awareness Act - Nay legal legislative legislation act - Aye No Such Thing As Futureproofing Act - Nay Justifications (Ignore below when tallying grey) Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov - Nay All battleships are completed obsolete. If we cancel them as soon as they go obsolete we'll never have any. Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1927 - Nay We just voted no on this bill last voting block. We don't have the cash Bespoke Surface Combatant Act - Nay We don't have the cash Ship of the Future Act - Nay We definitely don't have the cash. Can we even make CVs yet? Surface Screen Act - Nay Low effort act should provide more goals for designers Destroyermen Act - Nay Low effort act should provide more goals for designers. Also I'm not voting for anything in this block on principle. Coast Guard Act - Nay We already have a KE design don't we? I'm sure it's adequate, and besides, all our obsolete destroyers can handle TP. Annoy Austria Act - Aye This one is risky with tensions high with great britain, but Austria are the easiest to beat up and we could do with the budget kick. Fiscal Awareness Act - Nay I dream of another Armed Yacht legal legislative legislation act - Aye It makes it hard to vote, hard to tally, and there are always issues where the bill is written assuming all sub-acts pass, and when only some of them do, it's just as incoherent and foolish as all our other bills. No Such Thing As Futureproofing Act - Nay Places too heavy a restriction on designers. We mostly choose designs with the latest fire control already, and AA is something that might be fair compromise to make, especially as it can be refit later. Splode fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Oct 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
I don't know what the acts are for, I'm just going to vote for them in the order of YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 10:07
|
|
|
Aesculus posted:I don't know what the acts are for, I'm just going to vote for them in the order of YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY YEA NAY so on. That's exactly what Danann wants!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
I'm happy to drop multi act posts as spamming if people want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 10:45
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:I'm happy to drop multi act posts as spamming if people want. Drop them, imo. And for that matter, probably drop omnibus acts as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:Drop them, imo. And for that matter, probably drop omnibus acts as well. Arrest this man for attempting to bypass the lawfully executed will of the duma! Or is the Senate. I’m kinda lost in this timeline. i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Oct 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov - Aye Coast Guard Act - Aye Annoy Austria Act - Aye Nay to everything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
Nay to all on general principles. My general principles being Blimps, Blimps, Blimps, and More Blimps. None of these acts boost Blimps, so they can get in the bin. More seriously though. Too much constraint on the admiral or so expensive they'll bankrupt the country. Yes. I am aware of the irony inherent in the fact it is the politician who proposed that the admiral be strung up by his ankles for a year that is now arguing these acts restrain the admiral too much. Shush.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 11:43
|
|
|
Yea to Annoy Austria Act Nay to everything else
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 11:53
|
|
|
Aye to legal legislative legislation act Nay to everything else
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 12:20
|
|
|
Xarn posted:Yea to Annoy Austria Act Quoted as my vote. This session had way too much hand tying and overreach. As someone already mentioned earlier in this LP, a parliamentary body is not subject to the will of previous sessions, and rules limiting future legislation can only come from Grey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Yea to scrapping the Rimsky-Korsakov and Annoy Austria Acts Nay to all others There's always time to dunk on Austria-Hungary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
Annoy Austria Act No Such Thing As Futureproofing Act AYE to these, nay to rest
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov - AYE Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1927 - NAY Bespoke Surface Combatant Act - NAY Ship of the Future Act -NAY Surface Screen Act -NAY Destroyermen Act - AYE Coast Guard Act - NAY Annoy Austria Act - AYE Fiscal Awareness Act - NAY Legal legislative legislation act - For the love of God and Vodka AYE No Such Thing As Futureproofing Act - NAY
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
Nay to everything but Grey should absolutely ban spam legislation. That being said, I think omnibus acts should be allowed, since one simply votes for it in its entirety or against it in its entirety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Nay to Rimsky, people are right that getting a slightly obsolete BB hull completed is better than cancelling halfway through and having nothing in service when it matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov - Aye Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1927 - Aye Destroyermen Act - Aye Nay to everything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
Xarn posted:Yea to Annoy Austria Act lazy vote
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Da to Legislation limits. Nyet to the rest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Nay to Rimsky, people are right that getting a slightly obsolete BB hull completed is better than cancelling halfway through and having nothing in service when it matters. We have 2 BBs that are of similar quality, and the potemkin launches in 7 months. The Rimsky will not be constructed for about 30 months, if it is turned back on once the potemkin finishes. It will take around 44 months to design and build a new ship that is superior in every single way So all told it's a loss of the money spent so far and not having a BB for about 14 months. Spending another 97m to justify spending 40 to 60m is the definition of sunk cost fallacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov - Nay Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1927 - Aye Bespoke Surface Combatant Act - Nay Ship of the Future Act - Nay Surface Screen Act - Nay Destroyermen Act - Nay Coast Guard Act - Nay Annoy Austria Act - Aye Fiscal Awareness Act - Aye legal legislative legislation act - Aye No Such Thing As Futureproofing Act - Aye
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov - Nay Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1927 - Nay Bespoke Surface Combatant Act - Nay Ship of the Future Act - Nay Surface Screen Act - Nay Destroyermen Act - Nay Coast Guard Act - Nay Also I'll add that these are all terrible in addition to being spammy. Annoy Austria Act - Aye Fiscal Awareness Act - Aye legal legislative legislation act - Nay No Such Thing As Futureproofing Act - Nay
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
The thing I wrote is good and obviously should pass. Dunno what everyone else wrote, that's a lot of words I didn't read. Yea to Annoy Austria Act Nay to everything else
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
 January 1927 The only act to pass is the annoy Austria act. Which should be easy.  Hmm, a good amount of guns, but not much armour.  We continue to upgrade our air wings. February 1927  Destroyers seem in vogue at the moment. March 1927  Our next generation of heavy cruisers just got more impressive. April 1927  A whole 7 aircraft?  They also seem to have invented anti-armour on that AV. May 1927  Our submarines are ready!  We add the best fire control to the Potemkin, adding a month to her build time. But the finaces are looking better now. June 1927  Britain, stealing tech from us? What has the world come to? July 1927  We can afford a bit of tension.  We are getting a good look at other peoples ships at the moment!  Japan lays down a new class of destroyer. August 1927  The Potemkin is ready! September 1927  Above water torpedoes for all! October 1927  The US spy comes in today. November 1927  No one seems to have made the jump to fleet carriers yet. December 1927  Always be arming the Balkens. Keeps them in check.  Another year without war.  Tensions and the budget look good.  The only ship in the yard is the second Potemkin, which is 14 months from completion.  Research continues to look good.  The Navies of the world – we may not rule the waves, but we certainly rule the air!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
Gather Extra Technology Secretly, Maliciously, And RepeaTedly (G.E.T.S.M.A.R.T.) Act Intelligence to HIGH on Japan, the United States, and Great Britain, as well as Austria and France.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Gather Extra Technology Secretly, Maliciously, And RepeaTedly (G.E.T.S.M.A.R.T.) Act Second Propose Destroyer escort Given our spies noting of a large number of improved destroyer designs being produced by our enemies, the Admiralty proposes a 'Light Destroyer' craft that is intended for use as a light fleet escort, but somewhat heavier than a torpedo boat. This is to be cheap and cost effective to produce, be able to keep up with the main battle line, and designed for light engagements. Rather than massed torpedo attacks upon enemy fleet lines, they are to be used as pickets, ASW/AA duties, and presumed to be used to engage other enemy light craft. their purpose is to deny the enemy the ability to strike at our main battle line. Not to engage the enemy main battle line. First and foremost, they are to be cheap to produce and simple. they should have effective AA/ASW tech, and light guns. If anything, rapid fire light guns. Fast enough to keep up with the main battle line or fleet destroyers. they should be able to harrass enemy light units/intercept them, scout, and possibly pick off enemy stragglers if opportunity suggests. Torpedoes are permitted but considered tertiary. These are light escort craft to prevent the enemy doing massed torpedo attacks on our battle line - and perhaps to escort our own light torpedo craft doing massed attacks on the enemy to act as ablative armor. they are to be cramped, short range, and not expected to be used as general convoy escorts. Presuming the design is cost effective, they should be built in groups of three or four for each construction 'run' (Ie, three are ordered in initial construction run, construction takes six months, when completed another 3 are ordered). When one construction 'run' is completed, another is launched. They are tertiary craft so can be put on hold if more expensive/necessary things come up for the navy. wedgekree fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Oct 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Second Numbers yea (we have the most) design no, our largest displacement is 1100, many are smaller and we can build to 1500 now. This shows in the overall DD tonnage- America has one fewer DD but build far heavier- 23,700 tons to 41,100 tons overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
Liking the Japanese strat of building more capital ships than escorts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Second You only have to take one look at the tonnage of our destroyers and at their age to realize the entire fleet is a paper tiger. For some mysterious reason we've stopped allocating funds towards this side of the navy.  Scrap the Rimsky-Korsakov Part 2 It's going to be sitting uselessly in St. Petersburg unless by some miracle we don't go to war with the Austrians by the end of next year due to its short range. The money spent towards it can instead be used for modernizing the air arm or our destroyers that will see far more use than a floating hulk guzzling fuel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Numbers yea (we have the most) design no, our largest displacement is 1100, many are smaller and we can build to 1500 now. This shows in the overall DD tonnage- America has one fewer DD but build far heavier- 23,700 tons to 41,100 tons overall. Kewl, so maybe folks can possibly throw otu some destroyer proposals? I just threw out my proposal for an escort! Edit: If passed, it will be called the Raskhoduyemyy class. Also this thread made me read up on the leadin to the Battle of Tsuhima. Poor, poor Tsarist Navy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
Always more battleships act Design and build a series of at least 2 BB. Proposals must have medium range at least, and normal quarters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
We must Battle Cruisers What it says on the tin. The naval office is to commission a new line of Battle Cruiser class wessels to counter the growing number of enemy cruisers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:We must Battle Cruisers Second
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:Always more battleships act Seconded Biggest boat is best boat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
Ugh. Extremely vague design parameters meaning that they aren't going to be interesting, just efficient and effective which is boring as hell. I wasn't going to bother with this since I don't even know if it is even possible and it almost certainly isn't reasonable, but this is my protest of vague design specifications in ship ordering. The Spitefully Proposed and Possibly Impossible Act requires the designing of a Rapid Battlecruiser capable of chasing down anything else on the seas and able to engage and destroy anything its size or smaller. To this end, the vessel is required to have a maximum speed of no fewer than 40 knots. This vessel must also be capable of defending itself from the fixed-wing vermin of the skies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:The Spitefully Proposed and Possibly Impossible Act requires the designing of a Rapid Battlecruiser capable of chasing down anything else on the seas and able to engage and destroy anything its size or smaller. To this end, the vessel is required to have a maximum speed of no fewer than 40 knots. This vessel must also be capable of defending itself from the fixed-wing vermin of the skies. seconded (don't care if it's possible or not)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
wedgekree posted:Kewl, so maybe folks can possibly throw otu some destroyer proposals? I just threw out my proposal for an escort! American Style Destroyer Escorts would be considered KE's in game terms, BTW. Literal Combat Ship Act This act calls for the construction of 130m of new Fleet Destroyers capable of world wide deployments between our far flung outposts. These ships must be capable of engaging other Destroyers with guns, and performing effective torpedo attacks upon the enemy. They must have Medium Range, and normal Accommodations These ships will be built in flights costing no more than 3.3k / month over the next 3.5 years. Once built, older DD's will be placed in mothballs and reactivated as convoy escorts in war time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 17:05
|
|