|
I'll be joining in as a Shipwright. I really want to get my hands on the full game ASAP, but I guess watching Grey's LP will scratch that itch until then.
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
The Retvizan is the only ship I could consider cancelling. Almost all its guns are -1 quality, unlike our current battleships with their +0 quality secondaries. The Dvenadtsat Apostolov, on the other hand, is being built in Great Britain, so we might glean some technological insights from it.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
I can only wonder what an actual Russian would think, reading this namelist.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:That it's awful except for the fleet carriers Maybe once we've finished adding all our stupid ideas, you could go in and reorganize it a bit, so that there's some actual themes going on? I don't think most people would object to their names being moved around so long as they're still in there, and there's basically no theming at all to the cruisers or CVLs.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Poil posted:I put thought into what type I put the names under.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
We also don't have any battlecruiser names.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Nice to see some reorganization going on in the name list. Shouldn't Gangut be put in with the battle-class? Also we'll probably have a lot of submarines, so rather than naming them individually, we might want to use them as class names. So instead of laying down Krasniy Oktyabr, we lay down Krasniy Oktyabr-1 through 8 or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
uPen posted:I'm looking forward to building our first dreadnought after the pity timer expires and you get the 'you know you can put more guns on these things, look at what the British are doing' tech. Brilliant! We let the British do all the hard work of designing dreadnoughts, and then just copy them! Meanwhile, our own engineers and scientists focus on other areas, like submarines! This is a flawless strategy
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
In the spirit of the act, I hereby present my wholly original and in no way derivative design, Proyekt 41501: Not shown in that picture are the two torpedo launchers, in positions 6 and 7 respectively.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Bremen posted:Sadly we do not possess the technology for side mounted primaries (yet).
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2019 08:08
|
|
|
Proyekt 41501 data Since people aren't voting for their own submissions, I'll follow suit and vote for Catherine the Great.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:I had thought that we were to provide a novel design, per the new law? It's novel in that it's a new design. The law doesn't define what it considers 'novel', and it's not like the rest of the designs are setting out to reinvent the boat or anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
I propose the Commerce Protection and Anti-Protection Measures Act. This act authorizes the construction of light cruisers and/or corvettes whose primary objectives are, in case of war, to protect our shipping and anti-protect the shipping of our enemies. Their exact numbers shall be left up to the commander of the navy, but the designs shall be sourced from a local competition, with two designs being chosen as the winners. Any given shipwright is only permitted to enter one design. This is to maximize chances of something getting hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Proyekt 21202 Despite two inches of belt armor on a ship barely bigger than a destroyer, the 21202 makes 23 knots and carries 3 five inch guns - thanks to its layout, it will always be able to train two of its guns on the opponent, unless it's running away from them. It also carries a pair of lighter three inch guns on each side. Now sure, we had to cut a few corners to manage this, but I'm sure the benefits will outweigh the costs.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Ladies and *nom* Gentlemen, I am proud to present my two *nom* newest designs. First off *munch* we have the *munch* six-hundred ton destroyer *nom*, the Proyekt 10603. The chief *snarf* element of its *nom* design is the realization *nom* that torpedo launchers weigh more *munch* than unshielded guns. By putting all our launchers *glug glug* on the centerline, we achieve a maximum torpedo *nom* broadside with minimum *nom* weight. This may *munch* cause some balance issues *munch*, but they're only *munch* destroyers, so who *munch* really cares? They launch torpedoes and die. *Glug glug glug glug* Secondly, there is the matter *nom* of the F-35 cruiser. Naturally *snarf* I have my own proposal *munch* for this, the Proyekt 31303 armored cruiser. *Om nom* It is a somewhat defensive design *munch*, intended to be present *nom* as a threat and unlikely to go away. As such *munch* it features significantly extended *nom* belt armor, to better *nom* prevent it from sinking, as well as a fairly splinter-proof *munch* deck. The engine *nom* is sturdy and reliable to prevent breakdowns *nom* during assignments, and the crew quarters *munch* and supply stores are sufficient. It also *nom* has two torpedo tubes.  I trust *nom* that you will see how superior these design are *munch munch*. Boksi fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Jun 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2019 09:55
|
|
|
We've already gotten Tsingtao and additional prestige. We don't really need any more stuff and we can't afford to have this blockade go on for much longer, so just sue for status quo peace.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2019 09:59
|
|
|
I propose the Making Do With What We Have act, which stipulates that rather than building new ships, we will instead upgrade our existing battleships and armored cruisers with central firing as the budget allows. I mean, look at construction dialog. We've halted construction of three of the Grom class due to lack of funds. We certainly can't afford to build a big new ship.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 10:31
|
|
|
Yea on the Making Do With What We Have, I mean I proposed it so I'm obviously going to vote for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
I basically stopped paying attention to this for a while. We have destroyers named Verni and Verniy now?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2019 10:48
|
|
|
It's been a while, but here's a new ship submission: The Proyekt 50514 seaplane tender. It's basically just an old light cruiser design with the forward and aft turrets removed to make space for five seaplanes, a crane and a hangar. While you could do this with a much smaller vessel, it wouldn't be able to defend itself if engaged, and in the narrow confines of the Baltic sea engagements at close range are often unavoidable(as we've recently experienced).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2019 10:31
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:can't wait for fighters that emphasize bomb load and reliability. Hey, don't knock fighter-bombers, they're a real thing and were pretty successful, though I'm not sure if they're modeled in-game or not. Also we can barely make flight-capable aircraft at the moment, let alone multi-role ones.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:After this war is over we should probably do a pretty heavy restructuring of the navy - ifgure out what we have, hwat has gotten sunk in ridiculous fashion, and what we can do to get more things to be sunk. Depends on what you're doing. Adding a new fire control is something like four months, changing guns takes eight and rebuilding the engines is almost as time-consuming as building a new ship, if I remember things correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2019 11:15
|
|
|
Nay Aye Aye Aye
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Durendal posted:Gentlemen. Behold. The best part is that they're all submerged torpedo tubes, too. I guess the idea was to just fire off a broadside so the inability to aim isn't as much of a problem?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2019 11:54
|
|
|
Fever without any other symptoms? Yeah, I've had that, it sucks. Anyway, here's a fleet scout cruiser! The Proyekt 33915 design focuses on achieving its goal in the cheapest possible way. By keeping the design small, short-ranged and relatively slow(though not slower than the rest of the fleet), we've managed to cut costs down to the point where the projected budget of 85M should suffice for a flight of six vessels! At the same time, it's quite capable of performing its role. It can outgun destroyers with a broadside of six 6" guns and a modest armor belt to protect it from return fire, while any larger vessels are threatened by its six torpedo broadside. Finally, it also has the equipment for carrying and using a floatplane, which significantly enhances its scouting capability.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
I just want to point out that the other two fleet scout designs are both protected cruisers, which is in my opinion awful because eight inch guns do not offset the decrease in protection caused by the awful armor layout. The superstructure is gonna get shot to poo poo by any ol' popgun. The red bits are the armor, grey bits are coal bunkers for added protection EXCEPT OIL FIRED SHIPS DON'T HAVE THOSE. Also I stupidly thought the raiding cruisers were supposed to be built later, so I didn't submit a design for that  Anyway, I can't in good conscience vote for any ship but the Proyekt, and I guess the Gonchaya which is at least cheap and not expected to fight in fleet battles.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:The light cruiser armor scheme design is AoN without AoN tech bonus and will be penetrated and take structure and flotation damage and corresponding reductions in speed / begin flooding from any shell hit that isn't the belt.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
It might be a good idea to give the lead ship of the Proyekt cruisers a proper name and not just a placeholder design name. Renaming Act of 1917 The cruiser currently known as 'Proyekt 33915' is to be renamed as Katastrofa. This is a good and auspicious name.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
Servetus posted:I only have the demo; I just assumed that since we had gotten a message about new technology to drop bombs, we might be able to design a bomber. I think it does have a cost though. We'll see torpedo bombers in the late teens-early twenties, but medium bombers and dive bombers won't appear until the mid-twenties to early thirties - medium bombers are automatically unlocked around 1925 I think, while dive bombers are a tech that's hard(but possible with enough funding) to research before 1930. I think heavy bombers are like missiles in that there's some code supporting them but they're not actually in-game yet.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Servetus posted:Should we try building a smaller version of the torpedo-battleship? We can't have more than six submerged torpedo tubes total in the designer, sadly. More tubes would require more above-decks torpedo tubes, and we can only put those on DDs and CLs at the moment. That said, we can absolutely build a CL with a 12-torpedo broadside, but keep in mind that those don't come with reloads(unless you research them and think putting more unprotected explosives on top of your deck is a good idea). I'd rather have one of those than a treaty CA at least.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:
You can also research oxygen-fueled torpedoes like the Japanese used in this game. If you decide to use them, they give you significantly better torpedoes at the expense of being even more dangerously explosive. So obviously the reasonable thing to do is to put forty of them on a cruiser and give all your destroyers on-deck reloads, right? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Righto, here's some boats I slapped together: The Proyekt 11117 destroyer boasts a 30 knot top speed, a broadside of four 5" guns with plenty of ammo, 9 torpedoes and a fashionable asymmetrical look that will hopefully not be out of fashion by the time they're actually finished. What's not to love(provided you don't actually have to crew this thing)?  The Proyekt 50617 is honestly just a halfassed design, made mostly because I felt I should submit a seaplane tender, but at least it has ten seaplanes and won't blow up if you look at it funny. It won't fare well against anything bigger than a corvette though. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Incidentally, here are the the stats on the most advanced foreign destroyers we know of: The USA hasn't finished building any of its 1500 ton destroyers, Japan's navy is mostly underwater and Austria-Hungary is Austria-Hungary and therefore irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
simplefish posted:We're broke because we've been building new ships, this is the best possible timing Except some of them are lemons and the other ones are still being built. At least destroyers don't take too long to build.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:Actually, all our heavy in production ships got cancelled due to the arms treaty. None of our heavy ships got cancelled because we weren't building any, you doofus. But yes, we will be facing off against a nation that has several battleships and battlecruisers to our one battleship and the Tsar's yacht. Our only saving grace is that they don't have any bases in Europe or the far east, so it'll be more difficult for them to blockade us.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2019 10:16
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Erm, that's a quote of me saying that we have not researched TB's yet..... Funny, the save you gave us has early air launched torpedoes researched, but it's true that the option to actually develop a torpedo bomber hasn't been enabled. Maybe it's a lack of flight decks?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
After some study, I have decided that a small battery of 16" rifles is preferable to a larger number of 12" guns, because the former will be able to penetrate the armor of American battleships at range, assuming we ever change our ammo settings. The result is the Proyekt 42718 battleship design, carrying six main guns and numerous smaller guns to defend against destroyers. It even has some machine guns to defend against airplanes! I could've skimped on protection to bring the cost down, but what's the point of building a battleship if it gets sunk immediately? The main concession to cost in this design is the short range.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
Clearly what Russia needs now is the Proyekt 12034 destroyer. Not only is it capable in battle, with eight 4" guns in high-angle twin turrets and eight torpedo tubes, it also carries a significant quantity of mines and depth charges, letting it contribute even outside of battle. Also, looking at the ship list, I'm thinking we need to start scrapping some of these old destroyers. Some of them were built in the previous century! I'll be submitting a bill for that next legislative session.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
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
|
|