|
Given how successful our old commerce raider cruisers have been, I wonder if it's worth building a flight of six or so light cruisers (less than 10k tons each? 15k tons?) after this year wraps up. The build costs on those has got to be so much less than a proper big battleship/battlecruiser that the group would only really take the place of one bigger ship, and they would probably last us another fifteen or twenty years if properly set up. For reference, could we build something like the Omaha class cruisers? 5-10k tons, 30-ish knots, 10-ish 6-8 inch guns, some AA, a half dozen torpedo tubes, and just enough armor to scare off destroyers and similar light cruisers. Arcturas fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Oct 15, 2019 |
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
The Francis York Morgan Act - Aye Literally Obsolete - Aye Cruiser fleet modernization act - Nay Carrier Grom Act - Nay Blue Water Navy Act of 1929 - Nay Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1929 - Aye My Kingdom For A Battlecruiser Act, Take Two - Nay War on the Horizon Act - Nay
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
 ***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1929 ST PETERSBURG*** YEYE IMPYERATORSKOYE VYELICHYESTVO (FEDOROVNA) pre:Research Area Last research Priority Levels Machinery development Double reduction gears Medium 14 Armour development Interlocked armor plate High 13 Hull construction Partial welding High 14 Fire control Synthetic fire control Low 18 Subdivision and damage control Non flammable materials High 9 Turrets and gun mountings Improved quad turrets LOW 16 Ship design Superimposed CA turrets Medium 14 AP Projectiles Improved ballistic cap Medium 9 Light forces and torpedo warfare 2000t displacement DD High 15 Torpedo technology Improved wet heater eng High 15 Submarines Imp electric engines MEDIUM 14 ASW technology Rel hydrostatic pistols Medium 11 Explosive shells Enh explosive filler LOW 11 Fleet tactics Concentration firing HIGH 9 Anti Aircraft artillery Early AA director Medium 6 Naval aviation, lighter than air Imp airship diesel eng High 7 Naval Aviation, heavier than air Early air launch torps High 3 Shipboard aircraft operation Transverse arrest wires Medium 6 Amphibious operations Elpidifor boats Medium 2 Naval guns 18 inch guns Medium The Bureau of Ordinance cordially submits its research priorities and requests for aircraft for 1929. We have attempted to press upon the Tsarina that tensions are high and war seems imminent. In response, she has begun touring our ordinance factories and weapons depots, to inspire the staff to work harder. She has also applied her wisdom and knowledge of military history by making a number of changes to the inner workings of the Bureau's operation. For example, henceforth the Bureau of Ordnance will "protect the baggage train" by accompanying all railway shipments of supplies anywhere in Russia with a contingent of mobilized infantry. We regret to inform the Admiral that we are now 9 months behind on scheduled supply shipments. We have also been asked to convey to the Admiral the idea of the "pike and shotte square" as a possible new ship formation, in which AA-capable ships are positioned in the center of a square formed by torpedo-laden destroyers. The Bureau rather suspects the Tsarina has been reading some rather older military history. The Tsarina requested an update as to the design and manufacture of her new fighter. We have included that order below, as well as the now ten-year-old request for a new Medium Bomber. A recent audit has revealed that we do, in fact, have the capability as a nation to produce such planes. Warmest regards, BuOrd  ATTN: BY ORDER YEYE IMPYERATORSKOGO VYELICHYESTVO (FEDOROVNA) Open requests: 1928: Fighter to be named the kulak korolevy (кулак королевы) or "Tsarina's Fist" Prioritization of qualities: 1. Range 2. Firepower 1919 order: Medium Bomber pukayushchiy al'batros or "Farting Albatross" Prioritization of qualities: 1. Bomb Load 2. Toughness
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:For reference, could we build something like the Omaha class cruisers? 5-10k tons, 30-ish knots, 10-ish 6-8 inch guns, some AA, a half dozen torpedo tubes, and just enough armor to scare off destroyers and similar light cruisers. Those will run us about 45m a piece. And we can't use 8 inch guns unless it is classed as a CA, or we use a 2x8 protected cruiser arrangement... which is effectively unarmored due to oil firing and AoN being incompatible with that armor scheme. Are these for general fleet duties or raiding, or are they supposed to be capable of both like the falconyet? Because spending 200m on 4 or 5 CLs instead of a BC is effectively the choice here. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Those will run us about 45m a piece. Thanks, the numbers are really helpful. In short, I don't know! I was just thinking that if the Falconyets and really old cruisers have been useful long past their expected lifespan, replacing them with something similar seems like a good idea. I'd love a pair of solid BCs as well, but our budget is just so tight between the BBs and adding CVs that if we could add four or five modern CLs without breaking the bank, then I think that'd help out a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
What level of AI vs. player control of the fleet is Grey playing on again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Thanks, the numbers are really helpful. In short, I don't know! I was just thinking that if the Falconyets and really old cruisers have been useful long past their expected lifespan, replacing them with something similar seems like a good idea. I'd love a pair of solid BCs as well, but our budget is just so tight between the BBs and adding CVs that if we could add four or five modern CLs without breaking the bank, then I think that'd help out a bunch. We could squeeze in minimalist raiders like the Vorobeys relatively easily as they cost less than 15m Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
The Francis York Morgan Act - Nay Literally Obsolete - Nay Cruiser fleet modernization act - Nay Carrier Grom Act - Nay Blue Water Navy Act of 1929 - Nay Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1929 - Aye My Kingdom For A Battlecruiser Act, Take Two - Aye War on the Horizon Act - Aye
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
The Francis York Morgan Act - Nay Literally Obsolete - Nay Cruiser fleet modernization act - Nay Carrier Grom Act - Nay Blue Water Navy Act of 1929 - Nay Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1929 - Aye My Kingdom For A Battlecruiser Act, Take Two - Aye War on the Horizon Act - Nay
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Francis York Morgan Act - Nay Literally Obsolete - Nay Cruiser fleet modernization act - Nay Carrier Grom Act - Nay Blue Water Navy Act of 1929 - Nay Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1929 - Aye My Kingdom For A Battlecruiser Act, Take Two - Aye War on the Horizon Act - Nay
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Francis York Morgan Act - Nay Literally Obsolete - Nay Cruiser fleet modernization act - Nay Carrier Grom Act - Aye Blue Water Navy Act of 1929 - Aye Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1929 - Aye My Kingdom For A Battlecruiser Act, Take Two - Aye War on the Horizon Act - Nay
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
The Francis York Morgan Act - Nay Literally Obsolete - Nay Cruiser fleet modernization act - Nay Carrier Grom Act - Aye Blue Water Navy Act of 1929 - Nay Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1929 - Aye My Kingdom For A Battlecruiser Act, Take Two - Aye War on the Horizon Act - Nay
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
 January 1929 The Baltic Air Expansion Act of 1929 is the only act to pass. I can only do size 40 airbases, but I will expand to them for now.  February 1929  Not many event this year so far. March 1929  We sign a treaty with America – allies are always useful, and they are the only nation in the world not to have tension with us.  More research completes. April 1929  Our airbases come online, and we big up our prospects to the Tsar.  We really are doing well with the research at the moment! May 1929  What a month for the fleet! A new battleship and five destroyers!  I of course lay down the next wave of destroyers – 100 million of 130 million spent so far. June 1929  Wow, France is putting down a lot of coastal batteries! July 1929  I'm not going to push us to war, but we are ready for it.  Lots of small ships going down at the moment. I take the chance to ut down the last five destroyers requested. August 1929  We get a new bomber out. September 1929  Better 16” guns. Never going to say no to that! October 1929  November 1929  We get a look at a German cruiser.  The breakthroughs keep on coming. December 1929  So, is this a new ship or an old ship?  Hey! We somehow avoided war!  The budget still looks good.  By the end of next year all the Penguin class will be finished.  We actually have a respectable battle line now!  We have good air capacity.  And research has been going great guns.  We now have the smallest budget in the world, but I think we can punch above our weight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
Proposal: Penny for the Grey For the next 12 months, take every possible option that leads to more naval funding, as a priority
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
Cruiser fleet modernization act of 1930 Most of our CL fleet is now obsolete and in desperate need of a refit. This act calls for a refit of all the obsolete CLs in our inventory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
Capital Idea Act With 40m in the bank, and 2k savings per month, and ~5k / month being freed up once the Pingvin's finish we can actually afford to build two (or more) new vessels in parallel without completely unreasonable delays. This act calls for the construction of up to 380m of capital vessels of a single design (BC, BB, CVL/CV are all valid) construction on one vessel can begin immediately, the other(s) to follow after the Penguins are completed. Ship builders are only allowed to submit one design. (Not one design per category, one design period) Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Proposal: Penny for the Grey seconded. Dance Officer posted:Cruiser fleet modernization act of 1930 Except the Vorobey's and I'll second this. Spending more any more money on them is not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:Cruiser fleet modernization act of 1930 Second. And CL's that are obsolete can at least be used as raiders and kept in mothballs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Capital Idea Act I would second this but I think designers should be allowed to submit multiple types for the expenditure if they so choose and each proposed construction program can be voted on. If the proposed program is disliked (e.g. my BC and CVL proposal), it will fail, and if it is liked, it will succeed so I don’t see any harm in allowing the flexibility. King Hong Kong fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 07:26
|
|
|
Yeah what's the rational for restricting designers to one submission?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 07:34
|
|
|
 i81icu812 posted:Annoy Austria Act Did I miss something where this act got invalidated? What part of 'Do everything possible to start a war with Austria' is unclear? The Hapsberg menace must be brought down and our Slavic brothers must be freed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
The hilarious part of the summary is our battleline is actually just barely second only to Great Britain in tonnage and bigger than everyone else. And only the USA are building super-BBs. e: I presume everyone is just pouring all their money into aircraft, this is an issue I've had in the later half of the game too. e2: Seriously, no one is building ships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 08:42
|
|
|
Tsarina's Flying Circus Act of 1930 This act calls for a class of carriers to be started over the next 36 months. They can be CVL or CV if we have the tech, and if they are CVL should carry the maximum number of aircraft possible. Other features left to the designer. At least one should be started immediately and more should be started continually over the next 36 months as long as they can be constructed 2/3 of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Except the Vorobey's and I'll second this. Make your own proposal, then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:The hilarious part of the summary is our battleline is actually just barely second only to Great Britain in tonnage and bigger than everyone else. And only the USA are building super-BBs. Lots of submarines being built too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 09:11
|
|
|
Battle Cruisers are cool and why don't we have any act A design for 2-3 BC's to be built will be judged and submitted. Able to outrun all enemy Battleships and with the firepower and armour to defeat enemy Battlecruisers and Cruisers. No torpedo armament. Quad turrets to be used if able.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:
My fault. There was a similar bill that did not pass since then, and I assumed that that one had failed as well. I shall bring the war next year - but at least we will have more ships! I need to make a doc with all the laws and try and figure out an easy way to see which ones are still active. ship build orders are easy, its the other ones that are a pain to remember.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 10:30
|
|
|
Splode posted:Yeah what's the rational for restricting designers to one submission? So we don't have to keep track of more than one pile of R&D money. Because I didn't want to wade through 12 different designs (assuming only 3 design bureaus) because that sounds exhausting. I feel committing to one design / area of strength more interesting and leads to a debate about the shape of the force going forward as opposed to the obvious choice which is 2-5 CVL 30-50m + 200m BC. I find it funny that the act that allows you to design whatever capital ship your little heart desires as long as it's under 380m is being seen as 'too restrictive'. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
Resubmitting the Carrier Grom Act because I'm stubborn Yada yada, Armoured Cruisers are obsolete, we got the tech to convert to CV, so let's convert our last Armoured Cruiser to a CV to get some more life out of her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
In that case, I propose the Creative Capital Idea Act: This is a modified version of the previously proposed act. To that end, “[t]his act calls for the construction of up to 380m of capital vessels of a single design (BC, BB, CVL/CV are all valid) construction on one vessel can begin immediately, the other(s) to follow after the Penguins are completed.” However, unlike the restricted version of the act, designers are free to submit proposals consisting of one or more types in fulfillment of the above criteria. Each proposal from a designer should be listed separately (e.g. Proposal 1 is a BC and CVL. Proposal 2 is two BCs.) Designers are free to submit as many or as few proposals as they wish with as many or as few different types of warships as they wish so long as it fulfills the act. If a designer wishes to submit just one design, they are permitted to do so! Note: I highly doubt someone is going to be submitting loads of designs, seeing as how people submit 1-2 designs per contest as is. But I feel like a good case can be made for a mixed proposal so I don’t understand why that should be prohibited when it really is just going to be at most a few more designs to look at. King Hong Kong fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:In that case, I propose the Creative Capital Idea Act: Seconded
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
Can you refit ships with higher quality same-size guns? We just unlocked Q1 16” guns and all our battleships use 16” guns. If that’s a fast refit we might be able to sneak it in ahead of the war with Austria and I assume it’d give us an even bigger edge?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Can you refit ships with higher quality same-size guns? We just unlocked Q1 16” guns and all our battleships use 16” guns. If that’s a fast refit we might be able to sneak it in ahead of the war with Austria and I assume it’d give us an even bigger edge? You can, but it's surprisingly and enormously expensive. It can be really worth it sometimes, though. Qual 1 16 inchers are a really good thing to have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Wait, did we get 18" guns (like a decade behind the British) and it didn't warrant a mention?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
16 inch Qual +1 guns are probably genuinely better for far less weight. Not that this should stop us building 20 inch armed BBs or BCs once those come available, mind. Because it's a 20 inch cannon. You have to try to make that thing float and shoot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Sammich Reaper posted:Wait, did we get 18" guns (like a decade behind the British) and it didn't warrant a mention?! It was mentioned, we got them the same update we got quad turrets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Sammich Reaper posted:Wait, did we get 18" guns (like a decade behind the British) and it didn't warrant a mention?! They're -1 quality though so they suck pretty bad compared to our slick new 16 inch +1s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
What's the range for the gun quality system? and what does it actually equate to in the game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:What's the range for the gun quality system? and what does it actually equate to in the game? As far as I remember, it typically ranges from -1 to +1 (in RTW1 there was also a -2 that iirc was only used for one particular size of British guns at the start of the game that were renowned for being utter garbage in real life, haven't played as Britain in RTW2 so I don't know if that's still the case). Lower-quality means lower range and less armour penetration, higher quality means longer range and more armour penetration (maybe higher accuracy as well, I don't know). The one thing that remains constant is that it's the size of the gun that determines how much bang is in each shell. So if an 18 inch -1 penetrates your armour it will do just as much damage as an 18 inch +1 does--but the +1 is more likely to penetrate that armour, and will do so from farther away. 16-inch +1s will likely have better range and better penetration than 18-inch -1s, which will be better in almost all circumstances other than a knife fight where all shells are penetrating and the 18-inch shells do more damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
French and Brits start with 13" -2s to represent awful smoothbores on 1890ish ships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 21:34
|
|