|
Even if Grey doesn't use them properly, they aren't some massive drain on the budget, keeping us from building new ships like they're being made out to be. Also attempting to legislate or plan from a position of trying to predict what Grey will or will not do is pointless Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Nov 5, 2019 |
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Servetus posted:A competition for the Elbirus to be converted in a CV was supposed to happen last update, but no one submitted any proposals. It should've been scrapped a long time ago imo. A newly built CVL would do its job much better nevermind an actual CV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure we can also make new build CVs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted: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. it's just a button you slot them into and they've been doing it, so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
please don't build 3 new CVs because the first CV you build has to be a weird monstrosity with 8 8" guns so we should focus on building the transitional carrier Experimental fleet carrier act lay down a purpose built fleet carrier that will meet the minimum requirements for a designed CV with 8 8" guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Withdrawing my bill in favor of the above bill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:please don't build 3 new CVs because the first CV you build has to be a weird monstrosity with 8 8" guns Seconded
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Kickass Harpsichord posted:IRL, this would be a great idea. Unfortunately, the game mechanics make it much less of a good idea in-game.  Are we playing a game here, or are you playing with the primacy of our naval capability? I didnt say Scrap all Destroyers. That's why i set a limit. By my reckoning this scraps 26 obsolete DDs. Burni, Podliv, Podzhi (they have paired 5" guns so have some bite), the Bolshoy Igriz are torpedo boats, if that still has a niche in our OOB. And one, lonely Verni. All of which I spy now are in the Japanese sea. Facing the Rising Sun which is only increasing in belliclosity, no small part due to us throwing elbow jabs at them. Some reorganisation would be in order to carry out this bill, which as I rest, it still stands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:
None of them are actually supposed to be there; they are supposed to be in mothballs in the Baltic by law... Those 26 DDs prevent us from having to spend 60 plus million on corvettes to cover trade routes. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:
Those 26 DD will be necessary during a war just to cover our deployment requirements, scrapping more than half a dozen is folly. Move our modern ones into engagement areas, but in 1936 you're going to need like 20-30 DD on trade protection alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
Sorry if my initial post was unclear! My calculations (and post as a whole) were looking only at the ships that would have been scrapped by your act, not all the destroyers in the fleet. And, basically, Infidelicious and TheDemon are spot on. Those ships should not be in NE Asia, but they also should not be sent to the scrapyards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
Nah, I'm playing it up. I'm ok with being wrong. Just vote it down. Or vote it in and have a well intentioned politician make a mess of things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:please don't build 3 new CVs because the first CV you build has to be a weird monstrosity with 8 8" guns Negative Entropy posted:I propose the Seaworthiness Audit and Modernisation Bill. Vote!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
yea nay
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
AYE AYE
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Say, does AI Japan also get to use their special surprise attack move? That was hilarious when playing as them but would be horrible from the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
aye Nay
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Aye Nay
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Yes Abstain
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
Zikan posted:aye Covers it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Aye Nay
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
AYE NAY
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
 ***PRIORITETY ISSLEDOVANIYE 01 JAN 1936 ST PETERSBURG*** YEGO IMPYERATORSKOGE VYELICHYESTVO (NIKOLAYA III [TRETIY]) pre:Research Area Last research Priority Levels Machinery development Improved oil burners Medium 17 Armour development X-Ray quality testing Medium 17 Hull construction Lightweight scantlings Medium 17 Fire control Advanced director Low 20 Subdivision and damage control Imp watertight hatches High 14 Turrets and gun mountings Improved quad turrets MEDIUM 16 Ship design Lightweight materials Medium 22 AP Projectiles Advanced pen alloys Medium 12 Light forces and torpedo warfare Weight savings torp mt Medium 19 Torpedo technology Improved gyroscopes High 17 Submarines Night surface attacks HIGH 17 ASW technology K-guns Medium 12 Explosive shells Enh explosive filler Low 12 Fleet tactics Voice radio MEDIUM 14 Anti Aircraft artillery Creep zone AA barrage High 10 Radar and electronics Basic HIGH 0 Naval aviation, lighter than air Imp airship diesel eng HIGH 7 Naval Aviation, heavier than air Air/Sea rescue High 7 Shipboard aircraft operation Deck park Medium 10 Amphibious operations Motor landing craft Medium 3 Naval guns 18 inch guns Medium The Bureau of Ordinance cordially submits its research priorities and requests for aircraft for 1936. A certain degree of upheaval has occurred as the Tsarina has stepped away from active management of the Bureau in favor of her son the Prince. He has undertaken to direct our priorities and make such rearrangements and new commands as is fitting his Royal prerogative. We have in writing and in good order authorizations conveyed from the Tsar himself. While respecting the actions of his beloved mother, the Prince has directed the Navy to standardize its paint schemes and regalia to suit the twin military prerogatives of effective camouflage from submarine attack, and proper display of the nation's royal colors of the flag. We have additionally been instructed to withdraw, which is to say phase out, the innovative but admittedly unpopular culinary decisions made by the Tsarina; over the next year, provisions aboard naval vessels will increasingly consist of those familiar and simple foods the men are accustomed to from their humble villages, such as potatoes, cabbage, and potted meats. Those officers who have taken to the spring salads and fancy cakes may at their discretion continue to order these items for their officers' mess. The Prince sounds and in every subtlety of his movement and expression appears so much as his father the Tsar that if one did not know better one would swear it was the elder Nicholas and not the younger! Yet of course that would be impossible as our Tsar is now well into his late 60s and his son fairly glows with the energy of his youth.  ATTN: BY ORDER YEGO IMPYERATORSKOGE VYELICHYESTVO (NIKOLAYA III [TRETIY]) The Prince has presented his requests for submission of designs for a new aircraft, to maintain the modernity and fighting capability of our naval and ground-based air wings! Manufacturers are required to submit their designs immediately for consideration: A fighter, to be named "Krasnyy Zmey" (красный змей) or Red Kite Focus: 1. Speed 2. Firepower
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:yea
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:yea
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
NAY YEA Totally Not A Rort Heavy Industries stands ready to recieve and scrap any and all obsolete corvettes and destroyers the admiralty wishes to dispose of
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Nay and Nay. We do not need to eliminate our destroyer fleet, and we absolutely do not need vessels to transport fixed wing vermin. We live in the age of the airship!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
Yea Yea We will need more sea-proven steel to make that boondoggle of a carrier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
yea nay
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Nay Nay We have excellent positions to have air cover in our theaters, we should use funds for a carrier to expand airbase capabilities so we can field more planes there. Destroyers...lets not scrap cheap trade protection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
So can we have a design for a fleet carrier! https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kmi0pa65zkcvgha/AAADcAoppsNhSI-9n4IUId6Ya?dl=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
DA OBYCHNAYA IZ DA LATEST AN GREATEST IN FIHTA BOMBA DELIVERY VESSELZ. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KXB-CttB3oDkAiRtIowbVePJht9V37Xf WIF ALL DA 8" GUNZ DA NAVY COULD WANTZ, IT STILL MAKEZ 28 KNOTZ WHILE CARRYING A RESPECTBL 59 AIRYPLANEZ AN WELL DEFENDED VERSES ENEMY FIHTA BOMBAZ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen I present the proposed Yakut-class Carrier:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fmsxaw31dqnvbj/Yakut.30d?dl=0 She is for all intents and purposes, a floating airfield. With an 80 plane air capacity she is equal to our Baltic airfields but I anticipate that coordinating air strikes will be more timely and efficient as she will already be present and ready to spot when our land based comrades have just started to spot the enemy. She will also be able to cover for our fleets in desolate regions such as the Pacific Ocean where land capable of hosting airfields are much rarer. Aerial retaliation against her will have to brave the barrages of all her anti air batteries aimed by a plethora of directors. And since some hidebound admirals insisted, she is armed with eight 203mm guns that can deter cruisers or destroyers that might be catching up to her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
I hate to admit this but I like the ork carrier more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I hate to admit this but I like the ork carrier more. It’s gonna be underwhelming just do it as cheap as possible and get it over with
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 08:55
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:It’s gonna be underwhelming just do it as cheap as possible and get it over with Considering it's going to take a long rear end time to even build, voting for something that gets immediately scrapped (or else blown up because lol it has unprotected 8-inch guns) not only flushes money down the toilet, it means not having a carrier for 60+ months. This is pretty important when it looks like we're going to be fighting Japan since not having a carrier in Pacific battles means a high chance of having no air support at all. In that case, might as well build a good carrier that will be capable in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
Actually here's a carrier that can jump through all the design hoops but is cheaper on both time and money: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0k9ds3wp5052ild/Experimental.30d?dl=0 Caveat emptor: you get what you pay for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
Honestly, even 50-60 plane CVs can do some serious damage, especially if the enemy doesn't have a CV in their battle group. The early CVs aren't useless, depending on their planes. Just the later ones without the 8 inch cannons are better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
Let's consider the waters in which this carrier is expected to operate. Whether in the Baltic or Pacific, she will face determined opposition from both land-based aircraft and other carriers' squadrons (not to mention ships). Therefore we at the Sankt-Petersburg shipyards have concluded that protection ought to be a priority. Witness, the Cherepakha.   The Cherepakha provides us with an air wing large enough to be capable while still carrying the armament mandated by the design board in four armored twin turrets--concentrated on the starboard side for convenience and efficiency. It is even expected that the guns could fire to either side, though this is to be reserved for emergencies. At the same time, the ship has our best protection against torpedoes and an armored belt large enough to protect her from small-caliber fire. In contrast to other designs, her armor scheme protects the hangar in addition to the machinery spaces, meaning that unlucky shots or splinters from shell-bursts cannot penetrate to vulnerable interior spaces expected to be full of fuel and bombs. She is not built to use a deck park, to better protect her aircraft from harsh weather and enemy guns. The ship is furthermore guarded by six double DP turrets (not depicted on this diagram, but located just below the level of her flight deck, three to a side) and a large number of autocannons, guided by four AA directors. https://gofile.io/?c=aCbBlN
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
i like that unless the enemy is to our starboard we're shooting across the deck as we launch and recover planes. oh wow, historically there is a precedent. The USS Lexington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington-class_aircraft_carrier and the Japanese Akagi Negative Entropy fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Nov 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 14:48
|
|