|
Veloxyll posted:I guess, but you can';t get more than 4 guns forward. 1 and 2 mounts can only rock singles. So ABXY like the Projekt is gonna get you max gunscore. Nah, you can use the C mount as well - it's not superimposed but it lets you benefit from all-forward weight savings. That said, gun turrets are a very small part of a destroyer's weight, since they're small and unarmored, so I don't really see the point in doing that. I originally intended to put a fifth turret amidships, but apparently you start to suffer penalties if you put more than eight guns on a DD. Might still be worth it if we can get better turrets though.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
My act wasn't intended to be a design act. It was that grey can build additional existing DD's to replace operational losses and the old DD's that are in mothballs during peacetime, and TP during wartime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:My act wasn't intended to be a design act. We haven’t really gotten any big improvements in destroyer tech have we?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:We haven’t really gotten any big improvements in destroyer tech have we? 2000 ton destroyers, and torpedo reloads
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Oh yeah. But it's like 30 T difference for a C turret instead of a Y. And worse arcs. ROIGHT. WEZ GOTZ A GUNBOTE DATZ MADE FER BLASTIN DA LIL GITZ AN STILL STANDIN A CHANCE FACIN OFF AGAINST LIGHT KROOZAS  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Q6qZBEFj32eAHvxAKrFHov_UZ5_SCoqC DA RYBA ZENYA IZ MADE FER FITIN AN WINNIN. 6 5" BARRELZ GIV IT RANGE OV ALMOST 14K YARDZ AN DA ABILITY TA PUNCH THROUGH NEARLY 5" OF ENEMY ARMA UP KLOSE. AN SHE COMEZ WIF 8 TORPEDOEY TUBEZ DAT KAN BE REARMED DURIN DA FITE. PLUS SHE KAN LEAVE LIL PREZENTZ FER ENEMY MERCHANTMENZ TA STUMMBLE ONTO. Veloxyll fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:We haven’t really gotten any big improvements in destroyer tech have we? No, but we have a lot of minor advances that I thought people would like to put into a better design. VOTE! Keeping the Pengyn class is also an option!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, we present to you the Vipera-class design for this proposal: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1tru7va4zlwmnge/Vipera.30d?dl=0 She may look underarmed until one realizes that she carries with her 24 torpedoes, 12 ready and 12 in storage. Furthermore she is capable of sustaining her speed for far longer than most typical destroyer designs who can provide a burst of speed only for their engines to start failing at the worst time. Her gun armament fulfills what we want out of our light ships, guns that can shoot both surface targets and air targets. But her aim at targets of aerial disposition will be far better due to her array of dedicated anti air directors, one for each turret! And since we don't foresee destroyer fights concluding productively besides wasting ammo a 76mm gun will suffice. The Vipera will surely be a a great contribution our Imperial fleet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
 https://www.dropbox.com/s/358eluk4ok1l3px/Imperator%20Pingvin.30d?dl=0 Pingvin update. 3x2x5" Torpedo Reloads 10 Mines 2 Million+ cheaper than any competitor. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
I'm voting for the pingvin 2 mostly because I don't want to read the ork nonsense
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 08:44
|
|
|
Splode posted:I'm voting for the pingvin 2 mostly because I don't want to read the ork nonsense 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 09:00
|
|
|
Voting for the Pingvin 2. Noot noot!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 09:28
|
|
|
Pingvin 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
Vipera
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
Pingvin 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Pingvin 2 Also, is it possible to make the Pingvin 2 a modification on the Pingvin 1 to lower the price even more?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Yeah we don't have money to throw around. Refit Pingvin to the block II spec. Edit: well if we cant refit, Vipera. Negative Entropy fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Pingvin 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Pingvin 2 No, turret changes too extensive for a refit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Vipera
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
vipera more torps more better
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
PENGUIN2 Fights with only DD's are a thing, and a 3" battery is going to be a huge liability in them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Splode posted:I'm voting for the pingvin 2 mostly because I don't want to read the ork nonsense HERETIC Vote Ryba Vote Dakka
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Is the Proyekt 12034 not getting any votes because it's on the last page, or is it just because nobody likes it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
I just prefer to use the 5 inch guns if possible, especially as we have Qual +1 ones, so I thought the Pingvin was a better DD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Boksi posted:Is the Proyekt 12034 not getting any votes because it's on the last page, or is it just because nobody likes it? I think it's because it's the most middle of the road design, and on the last page. Mines cheap, the ork one has lots of 5" guns(and the theme is uh, polarizing), and the other DP design has lots of torpedoes. I'd rather it wins over the Vipera because 4" guns are still somewhat effective against 1.5KT+ DD's unlike 3" Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Penguin Twooooo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
 January 1935  I need to build up funds to get the new destroyers out. February 1935  We get a good look at an Austrian ship.  March 1935  April 1935  Ahh, the Balkans, a constant source of prestige and money.  Deck parks, that would be useful if we had a carrier. In 1935.  I get the upgrades on the Garpun going. May 1935  Ships collide. Not our fault. June 1935  Let's annoy Japan!  That's a nice boost in our air force.  July 1935  The first two new penguins get laid down.  Intel is doing great work! August 1935  Ah! more money! Japan seem to be a good source of that!  Another battleship gets an upgrade. September 1935  We get a couple of breakthroughs, and our torpedo bombers get an upgrade. October 1935  That is what you call an upgrade in range! November 1935  We're seeing a lot of breakthroughs! December 1935  I have to agree with the Tzar.  Tensions are rising across the world. Our budget is looking healthy!  Three months until the Tchaikovsky is complete!  The fleet.  Research.  And finally, how other nations stack up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
The Imperial Magistrate Given the increase ofcoming tensions with the Japanese, transfer of ships to reinforce the Far East Squadron are to be enacted at once at the discretoin of the Admiralty for what forces they deem sufficient to reinforce the area. Also immediately hte airbase should be expanded to house at least 60 aircraft, and it's squadrons be put on active duty and to have at least one groupof torpedo bombers present.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
Who are you and what have you done to Imperial Japan who was known for their battle line fetish IRL. No seriously, that's a lot of cruisers and light carriers and what I can only presume to be airbases stocked full of bombers. But somehow they literally have only one battleship for the entire fleet and it's not exactly a bleeding edge design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
Can we make real carriers yet or are we still stuck on conversions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
It is clear by this table and our intelligence reports that we have too many destroyers. We have a middling budget and Battleship partity but our adversaries are scrapping ships like mad in order to make the budget to build newer, deadlier, more survivable ships. Ships they laid down only 15 years ago are being sent to the junkheap while we maintain a flotilla of last century clunkers and pea-shooting barges supported by an armarda of slothlike airships. All contributing to a maintenance budget that is more than twice our research budget. We hear our politicians complain of Carriers we dont have and Battlecruisers on order. Are we a navy of airships? Our adversaries and rivals think us full of hot air? And we see it fine to stay that way. NAY. I propose the Seaworthiness Audit and Modernisation Bill. In order to provide funds for a more modern navy we are to scrap excess corvettes and destroyers that were laid down before 1916. Airships are to be reduced to half of their current value (from 56 to 28) And if we're going to antagonise the Japanese, for heavens sake get some intel effort on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I propose the Seaworthiness Audit and Modernisation Bill. Seconded
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Can we make real carriers yet or are we still stuck on conversions? We've been able to make carriers for over five years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 07:48
|
|
|
The Air Fleet Act is withdrawn.
Zikan fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
Zikan posted:The Air Fleet Act I second this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
quote:
All those obsolete DDs are suppose to be in Northern Europe, in mothballs. The Garpuns are supposed to be in NEA following their refit. I guess we got the 2 DD's out of the act. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I propose the Seaworthiness Audit and Modernisation Bill. IRL, this would be a great idea. Unfortunately, the game mechanics make it much less of a good idea in-game. Scrapping all of those old corvettes and destroyers saves us 331 a turn, by my calculations. That is less than a tenth of our overall maintenance spending, less than the per-turn cost of a single upgraded Pingvin, and it is basically irrelevant compared to the per-turn cost of a CV or BB. Are these ships at all useful in battle? Absolutely not! Are these ships warm . . . uh . . . hulls (?) to put on trade protection? Absolutely yes! If they're on TP, they're not going to see any action in in-game battles, so their age and incapability is not a disadvantage. If we do this, I fear that we're just going to end up getting into a war, realizing, "oh no, we don't have enough ships for trade protection," and then end up having to build a ton of corvettes anyway during a war in which we'd rather be spending that money on cranking out our newest CV/BB, replacing air losses, etc. (For the record I have no idea how good or bad of an idea the airship part of this act is; I've never gotten that far into a game of RTW2.) Kickass Harpsichord fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Even IRL it wouldn't be a good idea, the royal navy traded bases for obsolete DDs to use for trade protection in 1940 / 41. Also they'd be costing us roughly 150 a month if they were in mothballs in Northern Europe, which is a pittance. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
A competition for the Elbirus to be converted in a CV was supposed to happen last update, but no one submitted any proposals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Kickass Harpsichord posted:IRL, this would be a great idea. Unfortunately, the game mechanics make it much less of a good idea in-game. I've seen several arguments like this, but they all depend on Grey Hunter actually using the ships as you intend him to. I'm... not sure that actually happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 20:08
|
|
