StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_14-52_mk6.htm
That works. Definetely though when you go to over 55 calibers, that is a place where few dare make guns in the early 1900s. 45's too low though.

Stas Bush wrote:And how did Siam of all places achieve the ability to construct 60,000 ton monstrosities in 1925? Nah, don't ask stupid me. I thought the punitive banning of over 50,000 ships was in effect at game start? No?

The real Siam had something closer to industry then a fuckload of other nations being played in this game which often couldn’t even build bolt action rifles in real life. Never mind that this is not real life, nor anything remotely close too it. I intended to BUILD this ship after the game started in any case.

I mean, no nation even contemplated constructing over 50,000 ton ships, and the British came close to that limit with the N3 project. And that required, I believe, quite the industry and quite the shipyards. Not to mention ordering hell of a lot of parts from more industrialized nations in case your industry is lacking.

Bullshit. Britain, the US, Russia, Germany and Japan all completed or laid down battleships over 50,000 tons or damn close too it, in several of those cases the ships approached or exceeded 70,000 tons. France had a serious project on the table meanwhile that would have been laid down in 1941 or early 1942. Italy was planning along similar lines. In short everyone on earth who could build dreadnoughts was serious about driving a truck through any and all limits of that level. Only the treaty system and then outbreak of war shortly after the end of the treaty system prevented such ships from becoming commonplace.

And the dock size limits? It pressed the Nelson's length down to 216 m, displacement to 35,000 tons, width to 32 m. And that was Britain, the foremost naval power on Earth.

No the Washington Naval Treaty pressed Nelson down in size. The N3 and G3 were limited by docking length vs. the desired K3, but the British empire was also fucking bankrupt at the time and yet could still seriously plan to build eight new capital ships of such large size! Horrors that it could not feel it could also afford new drydocks at the exact same time when the ‘limited’ ships were already clearly better then anything else around.

Meanwhile that the dry dock ultimately built at Singapore under the treaty limited regime could take a 100,000 ton battleship. HMS Hood already very nearly reached 50,000 tons full load already and she was laid down back in 1915.

Does Siam have at least a few docks to service those ships, or it doesn't really and they'll be exploited without the capability for repair anyhow, because the docks will be occupied by other ships at construction?

Actually I intend to build a floating dry dock of 120,000 tons capacity in twelve pieces, exactly as the US Navy did in WW2, after I expand at least one building way sufficiently to accommodate new construction. I do not need a dock to build the ship in, Musashi was built well enough on a lengthened slipway.

That way I have a repair dock that can not only take my battleship, it can take it in a heavily damaged deep draught condition without dismantling the turrets and armor first. It could also alternatively take a pair of cruisers at the same time. This picture shows the US dock design in its shortened 10 section form. This dock can be taken part and towed across oceans, and the USN did so taking the dock into combat zones. Notice barges for workshop space, and built in cranes.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/the ... ine-14.jpg

Another example: France. No ability to construct ships with displacement in excess of ~25 000 tons (hence their gaming-around with armament and jumping to 4-gun turrets, much like the Russians).

You do not know what you are talking about. The only reason the Dunkerque class was displacement restricted was because the French were busy paying for the Maginot line, and the government stipulated that Dunkerque could not displace more tonnage then the ship she replaced. That ship was the MN France of the Courbet class, which was wrecked on the rocks in Quiberon Bay in 1922 and could be replaced prematurely under the terms of the Washington and London Naval Treaty which allowed new construction to replace accidental losses. As France faced no real naval threat except Germany, the restricted displacement was fine as it allowed for a ship which would completely dominate a pocket battleship.
Meanwhile you might notice France had no trouble building the 35,000 ton battleships Richelieu, Jean Bart, Clemenceau and Gascogne at the same time. 1940 found France not only building these four battleships at once, but also ordering componets for a fifth and six units, and working on the Alasace design under the 45,000 ton escalator clause, though as the treaty had completely lapsed by that point it was quickly growing beyond this limit.
France in fact had the largest dry dock on the planet in the interwar period, the famous Normandy Dock which was no less then 350 meters long and 50 meters wide. That’s enough to take most modern supertankers. It could take the largest ship on earth of the time without even thinking about it, and STILL have room for a 10,000 ton ship ahead of it by subdividing the dock in half with a mobile caisson. This is the dock the British blew up in Operation Chariot, the famous 1942 raid on St Nazaire.

Both being unable due to shipyards to construct ships with size much exceeing 200 m and displacement exceeding 30 000 tons, Russia and France were forced to rethink armament placement and devise various workarounds.

That’s just bullshit. I already covered France, but did you just totally miss how your own country laid down no less then FOUR 65,000 ton battleships at the same time as the Sovietsky Soyuz-class? It did that after a gap of more then twenty years of no capital ship construction, and this program involve building a completely new yard at Archangel, as well radically expanding the facilities at three other yards. Only the Nazi invasion halted work on these ships, several of which were nearly ready for launching.

So the "60,000" ton floating engineering challenge might be a little too much for the great Naval Power of Siam.

No I’m afraid the only challenge is your lack of research.

Sea Skimmer wrote:I intended to BUILD this ship after the game started in any case.

In 1926?

Sea Skimmer wrote:Bullshit. Britain, the US, Russia, Germany and Japan all completed or laid down battleships over 50,000 tons or damn close too it

Close to 50000? Russia's largest displacing ship laid down was Izmail (32500 ton). Britain's unbuilt N3 pegged at 48000. Germany's L20alpha was 43,800. None were even laid down. What a load of bullshit.

Unless you mean the 1930s. In which case I have no issues.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Actually I intend to build a floating dry dock of 120,000 tons capacity in twelve pieces, exactly as the US Navy did in WW2

And you'll do it in 1926? Splendid. Now just let me remind myself why I should not construct 280 m long carriers straight in 1925. Maybe I should.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Normandy Dock

Completed in 1934.

Sea Skimmer wrote:I already covered France, but did you just totally miss how your own country laid down no less then FOUR 65,000 ton battleships at the same time as the Sovietsky Soyuz-class?

In the 1930s.

Sea Skimmer wrote:No I’m afraid the only challenge is your lack of research.

Okay, I'm laying down the Sovietsky Soyuz in 1925, the carrier Chapayev in 1926 and nothing will stop me. Hahaha. Was nice to see a vivid example of powergaming at it's finest again.

I mean, damn - Britain had serious dockyard size issues prior to World War I, and it took time to expand them to accomodate ships close to 50,000 of displacement. As I understand, the creation of larger docks did not start in earnest until the 1930s. And here's you claiming that you have the facilities at game start? Nice.

Stas Bush wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:No I’m afraid the only challenge is your lack of research.

Okay, I'm laying down the Sovietsky Soyuz in 1925, the carrier Chapayev in 1926 and nothing will stop me. Hahaha. Was nice to see a vivid example of powergaming at it's finest again.

The problem with powergaming is that it's hard not to get sucked in, since you need to match everyone else. That said none of my ships, even the ones laid down in 1925, exceed 50 000 standard tons. However from 1919 onwards I am going 45 000+, simply because if I don't my goose is cooked. I mean the standard European battleship seems to be 50 000+ tons and nine 18" guns, by comparison my design seem almost weedy, despite the fact that they have the displacement and main armament of the USS Iowa (even if they lack the speed and range).

I have no issues with late-1920 or early 1930s designs for over 50,000 ships - it's in fact the right time. I have an issue with:

1) completing all design on such a vessel prior to 1925
2) having a drydock that size right at game start (really, Normandie Dock started in 1929, was completed in 1934 - even excluding depression factors, you should take a few years to MAKE the dock)
3) which means Skimmer basically designed the ship and the dock in the very early 1920s, created all the facilities for it and started constructing it at a time when the BEST designs like the pre-Treaty last battleships did not exceed 50,000 tons. How nice.

France, despite the completion of the enormous Normandie dock in 1934, had issues with assembling the Richelieus even in 1935, since the docks at which they weer assembled were TOO SMALL and the sections had to be completed separately. And that's when it had the biggest dock in the world, period. Which remained biggest even into World War II.

Stas Bush wrote: In 1926?

Early 1927 actually because that’s about how long lengthening the building ways will take and I’d want a head start on designing the main armament.

Close to 50000? Russia's largest displacing ship laid down was Izmail (32500 ton). Britain's unbuilt N3 pegged at 48000. Germany's L20alpha was 43,800. None were even laid down. What a load of bullshit.

Several of the G3s were laid down and had almost the exact displacement as N3, you fail.

Unless you mean the 1930s. In which case I have no issues.

The hell fucking difference does it make, you never specified a date. You made grand generalizations and they are fucking wrong and based on a premise which is blatantly flawed. This is not fucking earth, and we already have HOARDS OF EXAMPLES of ships in this very thread which are much larger and more powerful at earlier dates then anything in real life. If you want a 50,000 ton limit for ALL ships then that's fine by me, but fucking say so rather then bitching that I found a way to put a few big guns on a 60,000 ton hull. How many fucking ships with 9 x 18in guns are around already?

And you'll do it in 1926? Splendid. Now just let me remind myself why I should not construct 280 m long carriers straight in 1925. Maybe I should.

Fuck if I care. Since you obviously missed it, USS Lexington was laid down in 1921 and completed as a carrier 271 meters long. Akagi laid down 1920 and was completed at 260 meters. These ships were so big they could carry more biplanes then they could effectively operate. What the hell was your point again?

Completed in 1934.

So fucking what, you specified no dates. The French didn’t even use that dock to build warships, it was used to build a freaking civilian ocean liner. The fact remains it was built by a distinctly second rate naval power as a luxury job program while it was busy engaging in the most expensive military construction project yet seen in history.

In the 1930s.

See above.

Okay, I'm laying down the Sovietsky Soyuz in 1925, the carrier Chapayev in 1926 and nothing will stop me. Hahaha. Was nice to see a vivid example of powergaming at it's finest again.

Please do go springsharp up a Sovietsky Soyuz under the agreed 60,000 ton limit with a 1925 lay down date. Somehow I don’t think its going to work too well with 1925 machinery. I don’t fucking care anyway, that thing was a bloated joke of a battleship anyway with no more firepower then a South Dakota on twice the tonnage.

The fact that you think designing a ship with deliberately little mobility and only six main battery guns that falls under the ONLY agreed limitation is power gaming is just fucking retarded. What the fuck is the point of having a hard limit if you are going to fucking object to anyone building up too it?

Stas Bush wrote: 2) having a drydock that size right at game start (really, Normandie Dock started in 1929, was completed in 1934 - even excluding depression factors, you should take a few years to MAKE the dock)

Except I fucking said I am not building my ship in a dry dock. I am building it on a preexisting building way which is lengthened which is exactly how Japan built a battleship 10,000 tons heavier. The slipway used for Musashi had previously been used for the abortive Tosa, a ship of only about 44,000 tons full load. The floating dry dock is a separate project which will be completed much more quickly since its sectional. Sectional prefab construction was used at Hog Island in WW1 too so dont give me crap about that being 'too early' or powergaming. The US docks were merel the largest example since the US had to worry about repairing a battle damaged Montana.

Hey Steve since you are playing defacto moderator at the moment please chime in, if I’m going to have to defend every fucking ship I design against bullshit I’ll save everyone the trouble and leave before I bother designing my country. This is retarded beyond belief when my ship does not even slightly violate the limit, while other people are haply posting designs which go hundreds of tons over.

Okay, I know everyone's having fun with SpringSharp and making big damned dreadnoughts, and I know I'd love to get to play with them, but seriously, no 50,000t+ ships at game start unless they're in the yard being constructed. I've yet to decide on minimal laying year. 60,000t ships are forbidden until 1935.

Sorry you’ll have to do better then that, because if you can have 50,000+ ton ship being constructed at the start of the game, but not 60,000 tons until 1935 then my ship is still 100% legal to and I can in fact have it building upon the outbreak of war as it is not 60,000 tons standard.

I see nothing wrong with the original system anyway. You’d think the limitations of 20 knot speed and just six main guns would be obvious but I guess not for some people.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Several of the G3s were laid down and had almost the exact displacement as N3, you fail.

260 m long ships with 50,000 tons of displacement were the peak of late-war engineering.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The hell fucking difference does it make, you never specified a date.

You specified, and one that I didn't like.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Since you obviously missed it, USS Lexington was laid down in 1921 and completed as a carrier 271 meters long.

Yeah, by large naval powers. I didn't "miss" anything.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The fact that you think designing a ship with deliberately little mobility and only six main battery guns that falls under the ONLY agreed limitation is power gaming is just fucking retarded. What the fuck is the point of having a hard limit if you are going to fucking object to anyone building up too it?

So you have the same dockyard facilities as the USA, Britain, Japan and Germany in 1926? Oh wait, you're not building it in a dry dock. You're lengthening an existing dock to create a 60,000 ton ship "just because". Because, outside of stuff like the largest WWI shipyards, there are no other facilities to make it.

But of course, I'm merely being ridiculous.

Sea Skimmer wrote:What the fuck is the point of having a hard limit if you are going to fucking object to anyone building up too it?

Oh nevermind.

And frankly, if it were Germany, Britain, Japan building that shit, I'd hardly care - they had ENORMOUS prior history of constructing series of large vessels. But it seems a strange thing to have two 60,000 ton one-man wonders built in the 1920s, with no prior experience. Or?

And "6 main caliber guns"? What the FUCK is that? A 30,000 ton battlecruiser can have fucking 12, and you're saying that's "sensible" limitations? Of WHAT?

Stas Bush wrote: 260 m long ships with 50,000 tons of displacement were the peak of late-war engineering.

So? The game starts in 1925 which is seven years after the end of WW1. A battleship could be built in about four years, so given high priorities people could be nearly completing a second class of postwar battleships. As that second class would already be launched after 2-3 years, they could actually be doing the hull work on a third class using the same slipways!

You specified, and one that I didn't like.

That’s your problem. You should define arguments more carefully. That is something we like to perpetuate on SDN.

Yeah, by large naval powers. I didn't "miss" anything.

Considering I have posted nothing on my country, the hell do you know about it? The only thing which is fixed is my land area, which happens to be TWICE that of Britain which was the world’s foremost naval power in 1925, with all major industry and shipbuilding centralized on the British isles. Last I checked everyone gets the same number of points too. So if I wanted I pretty well could clone the largest navies on earth. I never intended to do that, in fact I chose this ship primarily as a terror weapon so I could build one or two and defend the Gulf of Siam from superior fleets by deterrence.

So you have the same dockyard facilities as the USA, Britain, Japan and Germany in 1926? Oh wait, you're not building it in a dry dock. You're lengthening an existing dock to create a 60,000 ton ship "just because". Because, outside of stuff like the largest WWI shipyards, there are no other facilities to make it.

But of course, I'm merely being ridiculous.

Yeah you are. My ship is deliberately neutered for the coastal defence role which allows for a few big guns but no real advantages. You are just demonstrating how much you don’t like me by singling my ship out while you ignore near clones of Yamato from Thanas and others which are just as unhistorical and you damn well know it. In real life Germany wasn't allowed to build crap in the 1930s over 10,000 tons, and Russia could not build a light cruiser until the early 1930s, but you dont see me bitching about any of that do you? In fact I've done nothing but help people improve designs and get as much fighting power out of them as they can. When we have the likes of Brazil offering battleships for exporting it makes no sense to complain that Siam can build one too. If you can build a battleship at all then the only real limits are costs.

And "6 main caliber guns"? What the FUCK is that? A 30,000 ton battlecruiser can have fucking 12, and you're saying that's "sensible" limitations? Of WHAT?

Yeah my ship has six main battery guns, what the fuck about it? I could have 9 x 18in guns or I could have 6 x 18.9in guns on a somewhat balanced 60,000 ton ship. I chose the latter. For missions close to home it works fine. Notice how I gasp… designed my ship for a specific strategic function! I’ve recommended nine guns to people who want ocean going ships because they’ll score more hits in a mobile battle, vs. my ships role of sitting behind a minefield to fill a gap between shore batteries. In other words I am not gaining any radical advantages because no matter what the hell you do the tonnage only lets you do so much. I have just focused the ships mission.

Sea Skimmer wrote:A battleship could be built in about four years, so given high priorities people could be nearly completing a second class of postwar battleships. As that second class would already be launched after 2-3 years, they could actually be doing the hull work on a third class using the same slipways!

Except:
1) World War I wasn't nearly as overreaching as IRL. Of course, that means good things for the evolution of 1914-1919 projects, since nothing would disrupt their finishing. On the other hand, there's no wartime mobilization to explain construction of 3 classes of post-war battleships during 1918-1925. Except a totally out of control naval race, but that would be quite draining on any nations other than high First World.

2) No treaties and no large war means late-war designs do not have an immediate practical utility, so forcing the government for another set of ships is problematic. In 1915, a larger war is averted, which means projects started around the year might still gather enough support for completion of a large series, but afterwards? I'd sort of doubt it.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Considering I have posted nothing on my country, the hell do you know about it?

I know it's location and the climate.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Britain which was the world’s foremost naval power in 1925, with all major industry and shipbuilding centralized on the British isles.

Yup, it was also a colonial superpower with the highest industrialization rates and the earliest nation to enter industrial revolution. What are the colonial holdings of Siam?

Sea Skimmer wrote:So if I wanted I pretty well could clone the largest navies on earth. I never intended to do that, in fact I chose this ship primarily as a terror weapon so I could build one or two and defend the Gulf of Siam from superior fleets by deterrence.

Yep, except such a ship makes sense for a major Navy and makes little sense, as well as the very creation of it is in doubt, for a nation that never was or is a naval power. A large navy means large slipways, large yards, huge industry creating boilers and the like. It also means lots of ships.

You can't create a two supership Navy and claim it's domestically produced with ease in the 1920s. That's not just ahistorical, that's anti-industrial and anti-economic as well in my view. If your industry hardly produced any battleships outside of those two, then the production of those two is set into doubt.

Most people tried to create a realistic industrial history of their nations, with military branch development corresponding to the industrial priorities and economy - but apparently not you. And if there are designs which make no sense in the 1920s, well, I'm not a big fan of them either. I just payed attention to your ship because it had 60,000 tons of displacement, I admit it. I'll now see what others have "invented".

Sea Skimmer wrote:In real life Germany wasn't allowed to build crap in the 1930s over 10,000 tons

A consequence of WWI defeat.

Sea Skimmer wrote:and Russia could not build a light cruiser until the early 1930s

A consequence of Civil War - and hey, even as I watered that Civil War down, I'm not building anything outside of late-war based carrier converts a-la Courageos and Bearn in the 1920s.

Sea Skimmer wrote:but you dont see me bitching about any of that do you?

No. And guess why - without the ravage of war, Russia's and Germany's industries would actually be in a position to build lots of ships. I'm not building them accounting for a post-revolution depression even without a Civil War.

And I'm not building ahistorical shit. I'm basing ENTIRELY on the naval construction that had place in the 1910s. I can't speak for Thanas here, but Germany had a huge Navy and a huge tradition of seabuilding, huge shipyards, and lots of industry to make ships. That's a consequence of DEVOTING to a huge navy. Without that, I doubt it would be able to build a SINGLE fucking battleship.

Sea Skimmer wrote:If you can build a battleship at all then the only real limits are costs.

Yes, they are. And here's what - building 4 late-war battlecruisers with a displacement of 30,000 tons costed 1/4th of the entire yearly budget of the Russian Empire, and the total cost of the Sovietsky Soyuz was 1/3rd of a yearly budget of a much more industrialized Soviet Union in it's peak pre-war year (1940). So unless your nation is decidedly a First World industrial giant WITH a naval tradition like Germany, Japan, Britain or the like, I really have some issues with your ships.

Cost is an issue. Mobilization is an issue. Keeping nations economy under constant strain of constructing enormous series of battleships? Should've penalties. Else it's just an unrealistic battleship simulator. And we can just go play Navy Field for that, where you just have ships and economy's irrelevant.

Stas Bush wrote: Except:
1) World War I wasn't nearly as overreaching as IRL. Of course, that means good things for the evolution of 1914-1919 projects, since nothing would disrupt their finishing. On the other hand, there's no wartime mobilization to explain construction of 3 classes of post-war battleships during 1918-1925. Except a totally out of control naval race, but that would be quite draining on any nations other than high First World.

The British built awful fast before WW1, and at one point had IIRC 9 dreadnoughts and battlecruisers building at the same time. That certainly wasn’t wartime mobilization, mobilization in fact is usually high detrimental to building large warships. Particularly dreadnoughts which require specialist thick armor plates and heavy guns used by nothing else except coastal batteries. Usually the battleship work just stops, and the preexisting guns go into the shore batteries. Battleship fleets are in fact a peacetime luxury. This is also why people tended not to risk them in wartime.

The total number of slipways in the British isles large enough and attached to yards suitable for the work of building dreadnoughts during WW1 was 13-14 BTW. This was research heavily over on warships1 years ago; we never could determine the status of last slipway for sure.

I have no intention of doing anything like that, but it can be done. For a smaller power with only a few slipways like Japan, back to back construction on slipways was actually more common. Under the 8-8 plan Japan literally laid down new dreadnoughts just a few days after the previous ships launched. I can look up the specific ships if you want as I do not recall them off hand. The same thing was done with heavy cruisers, which effectively replaced the battleship building race and happened to cost more ton per ton too. That’s why the latter London Naval Treaties had to cap total tonnage and then ban them completely to try to keep the system working.

2) No treaties and no large war means late-war designs do not have an immediate practical utility, so forcing the government for another set of ships is problematic. In 1915, a larger war is averted, which means projects started around the year might still gather enough support for completion of a large series, but afterwards? I'd sort of doubt it.

WW1 and the complete elimination of the second largest naval power on earth did not stop the world battleship building race in real life; it just forced a pit stop. That’s exactly why everyone realized they had to do something radical, and thus the Washington Naval Treaty was born.

Yup, it was also a colonial superpower with the highest industrialization rates and the earliest nation to enter industrial revolution. What are the colonial holdings of Siam?

Most British colonies contributed little and many were in fact net drains of resources, which is why the British gave so many place autonomy between world wars, and then had to shed the colonies wholesale postwar. That colonial empire was especially damning on the British Navy as it required a colossal number of cruisers to defend it all (estimated at 71 in the 1920s). That’s why so many British cruisers look so puny compared to the competition, like the Exeter class or Lenders. Quite a few of the richest British colonies are gone in this timeline too, but I see no call to reduce the size of the Royal Navy, far from it. SDN world 3 the world is clearly hyper industrialized.

Since I have no need for swarms of weak ships and military units to defend trade and empire, I could have a significantly weaker economy and still field a comparable battle line. I wasn’t intending to do that as I want certain other things instead, but I certainly could.

Yep, except such a ship makes sense for a major Navy and makes little sense, as well as the very creation of it is in doubt, for a nation that never was or is a naval power. A large navy means large slipways, large yards, huge industry creating boilers and the like. It also means lots of ships.

Japan built the largest battleship on earth in real life, and did not have lots and lots of ships. In fact it built large specifically so it could build fewer units and remain completive, which is exactly my strategy, as it knew its Treaty limited numerical disadvantage was going to become worse quickly.

By building large and with very heavy guns I ensure that my ships will not be completely outmatched after a few years so I can avoid needing to build more constantly. That’s why I went with such heavy guns and other then that my ship is unexceptional except for its massive beam, which I intend to revise somewhat. The classic pre WW1 idea that coastal defence ships should be weak or ‘second class’ was a horrendously flawed one that burdened the navies that built them with rapidly useless hulks. The destruction of second rate Russian units at Tushimia pretty much killed the idea.

You can't create a two supership Navy and claim it's domestically produced with ease in the 1920s. That's not just ahistorical, that's anti-industrial and anti-economic as well in my view. If your industry hardly produced any battleships outside of those two, then the production of those two is set into doubt.

Who ever said I have no previous battleships? Anyway, look at Japan. No battleships was completed between 1922 and 1941, and yet they managed to build the largest one ever earth at the end of that building gap. Certainly the world’s naval armaments and armor industries suffered from the gap, but the ability to build ships was not lost by anyone. That gap is way bigger then anything that would have happened without the treaty limits, even had Japan the US and UK all been on good terms.

Most people tried to create a realistic industrial history of their nations, with military branch development corresponding to the industrial priorities and economy - but apparently not you. And if there are designs which make no sense in the 1920s, well, I'm not a big fan of them either. I just payed attention to your ship because it had 60,000 tons of displacement, I admit it. I'll now see what others have "invented".

Like I said certain other ships actually cheat the limit slightly. I do not care what the limit is, only that it is consistently enforced. I don’t see anything wrong with up to 50,000 tons as starting limit followed by 60,000 tons. Or alternatively start at 50,000 tons and allow an extra 1,000 tons per year. That’d mean Yamato could be built by about 1938…. Which is almost exactly in line with historical development even if historical development was in fact not logical at all. A yearly increase makes more sense then a ten year gap and then a 10,000 ton leap up to another hard limit. This would avoid old ships becoming obsolete in a single wave of new construction when the escalator kicked in.

If you want semi realistic economics then I'm game, make everyone define exactly how many slipways and building docks they have and set a standard for expansion and new construction. That was proposed way earlier before I was ever involved. However I got the impression most people did not want to have to deal with that kind of detail. After all, then should one not also limit aircraft construction and artillery for land forces?

But anyway I am done for the night, and I will not be arguing the specifics of my ships or forces alone anymore. Ill do whatever I want under whatever rules are worked out and if people don't like what I can design then tough.

Well, going by the example of Japan, yeah, with some naval experience you can do it even with a limited industry and modest economy. If you have prior experience of construction in the 1900s and 1910s, then fine, I'm not levying objections.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Most British colonies contributed little and many were in fact net drains of resources

When Britain was already industrialized, quite so. But they were the source of primary capital concentration, during the dawn of industrial revolution. Afterwards of course so. I'm just curious as to what could've allowed Siam to industrialize to at least the degree of Japan.

I mean, Japan had the third largest navy in the 1920s anyhow. That's not Britain of course, but not "few ships" either. Undeniably a naval tradition is required for largescale naval construction, that's all I was saying.

Just for note: the 35,000 ton "South Dakota" is only similar to the "Sovietsky Soyuz" in it's Pr.23 variant, but that variant was in a state of rejection by 1939 already and the order for completing the hulls by an improved project 23-bis (12x406mm) has already been issued and preliminary design done, aiming for roughly the same displacement. This is more firepower than South Dakota and Iowa. By your logic, building Iowas is also stupid because they are 1,5 times more displacing for the same armament as the SoDak.

Skimmer, I also banned guns above 18". But I get the feeling you'll just lower the ship to 18" guns and add another or something and still have that ship come around, so how about we just cut the song and dance and stuff and I ban the ship from use?

Also interested in seeing how you arrange your points for country generation.

I don't think banning Skimmer's ship is a solution. My criticism hasn't been about banning ships I feel are unrealistic, more about a lack of explanation how this ship could occur.

Skimmer's right, the British, US and the Japanese built 260 m long cruisers and if he has at least one slipway large enough to construct them and a prior naval construction industry at the very least the level of Japan or, a little worse but still possible, Russia - well, he can go for it.

Still if you look at Japan and Kure Naval Yards - even the "less combatants but bigger and badder ships" strategy of Japan was backed by a very solid Navy and a naval history stretching back to the 1890s. After Germany's demise Japan became the third in the world after Britain and US. That's not something easily done by a second-rate power.

I know of no power that would successfully build large combatants in the 1920s or 1930s, but did not have a history of shipbuilding in the 1890-1920 timespan.

Sea Skimmer is talking about the first SoDak class, not the second. The first had 12x 16" guns.

You have a point, Stas. If he lowers the guns to 18" and gives his country a sufficient naval focus score, or contracts the work out to a country with a higher NF, I'll consider it.

Beowulf wrote:Sea Skimmer is talking about the first SoDak class, not the second

Yeah, except the first SoDaks were far slower than the interwar projects (23 kt versus 28-30 kt), it's deck armoring system was a joke compared to later advancements, and the projected excess displacement of the "Sovietsky Soyuz" project over them was more like ~34% in full displacement (65 000 ton vs. ~43 000 ton) and ~25% in standard displacement (55000 ton vs. 41000) - nothing like "...joke of a battleship anyway with no more firepower then a South Dakota on twice the tonnage". As for comparing the projected displacement of 1920 SoDaks with the de-facto rising 59000 ton displacement of the Sovietsky Soyuz, that's kind of dishonest since ships quite often ended overweight by 2000-4000 tons and it's nothing unusual. And even then the excess displacement would only be 31% in standard displacement, though 39% in full displacement. So did SoDak's displacement also rise with every new consideration, eventually leading to the ship design being abandoned in attempts to fit decent armoring and weapons into this displacement. At least this book says so, not to mention very serious stability-vis-a-vis-armament weight issues and armoring issues the ship had, which were never sufficiently resolved.

Of course a 20-30% overweight is pretty bad, but not that bad considering Russia experienced a colossal gap in battleship projecting and never had actually completed a project over 35 000 tons for thee decades, while the US was the foremost naval power on Earth. Besides, Taylor's opinion on the SoDak class was that it wouldn't work properly (neither stability nor protection) unless the displacement rose to 50,000 tons, and in the process of construction, were there such a process, that might quite well have happened.

Hmm... A further evaluation:
South Dakota 1920
Belt: 200-350mm
Deck: 89mm
Total armor weight: 10211

Sovietsky Soyuz 1939 (23)
Belt: 375-420mm
Deck: 150mm
Total armor weight: 23306

Sovietsky Soyuz 1939 (23-bis)
Belt: 380mm
Deck: 150mm
Total armor weight: 24560

Looks like the "joke" additional 14,000 tons of displacement went into armor. P.S. I never quite got into the deck armoring of the SoDak (1920) since I didn't get a decent armor layout. If someone has it, I'd be grateful.

I have an easy explanation for my fleet building up large ships in rapid succession and have proven that my nation could build it and made a back story around it, yet that still wasn't enough to satisfy the ridiculous half the fleet must be pre-1915 rule. If it weren't for the tonnage cap I would have no problem with having them in my fleet, however I want my navy to be the source of Portugal's pride and be a symbol of a large modern navy and if half of it must be over ten years old then I will simply make it a crap ton of destroyers and then we can watch an unrealistic spike in replacing old destroyers with 50kt ships. This after I said that I would be willing to accept negatives for a rapid building of a modern navy and demonstrated how I could build what I wanted in our current system with the barest of margins to spare.

Also, there were 18.9" guns successfully tested in Japan in 1920-21 and they were shown to have worked, however they decided not to mount them as the design they were built for was never realized. Thus our 18-inch 50 caliber limit is bunk as it doesn't even allow for full replication of real world or near real world designs. I think myself and a few other players would like to build our navies our way and would be willing to accept the trade-offs of larger guns on a weight capped ship.

Quiet frankly I was enjoying the naval build-up aspect of the game and had great fun working within the limits of the guidelines as they were, but each new restriction sucks a little more life from the game.

Norade... half your BATTLELINE, when we talk about the fleet we're always talking about the battleline and simply assuming that the rest of the fleet will be fairly well balanced.

Yes, and the entire navy I have planned has nothing that would have been in commission before 1917.

Norade wrote:Yes, and the entire navy I have planned has nothing that would have been in commission before 1917.

Did the whole navy spontaneously sink in 1917 ?

a 3,000lb shell limit for an 18" gun is funny considering no 18" gun actually built or put to sea in the 20th century actually fired a shell that light; the British 18"/40 fired a 3,320 lb shell, the Yamato fired 3,219lb shells, then of course there was the US 18"/47 in the '40s that fired 3,850lb superheavies. There are tradeoffs for a heavier shell (namely lower muzzle velocity and somewhat less range), and since we're already limiting barrel length I don't see the point in limiting shell weight as well. Although several cases in real life navies (like ze Germans or the US up to the '30s) deliberately chose to use lighter shells fired at higher velocities so they could have flatter trajectories, the ones who choose a heavier shell at moderate velocity now don't have that option except by sticking to smaller guns.

Of course, Norade's 18"/75s would never have worked anyway: they'd probably need to be relined several times before emptying their magazines.

I also think we should consider Sea Skimmer's suggestion of incrementally raising tonnage limits by 1,000 (or maybe 2,000) or so a year from the 50,000 starting limit rather than jumping straight to 60,000 tons for new construction. I already mentioned that realistically, 60,000 ton ships are unlikely to be laid down before 1930 anyway. This would also effectively remove guns much larger than 18" from consideration until much later in the game because 50,000 ton warships cannot support guns much larger in effective numbers, except by sacrificing something else in large measure (like say, effective armor protection).

Raesene wrote:

Norade wrote:Yes, and the entire navy I have planned has nothing that would have been in commission before 1917.

Did the whole navy spontaneously sink in 1917 ?

No, but it was mothballed and allowed to decay for 20 years around 1890 to 1910 thus resulting in my current holdings being so limited. As the economy turned around the navy saw the chance to modernize and relied on smaller ships to protect her waters, what few larger ships did survive were put to pasture once modern classes started to roll out at a lightning pace around 1920.

EDIT: I have 1,100 kilotons planned and that would all be able to be built and commissioned by between 1914 and 1925 if I'm reading our planned industrial rules right. That last 100 kilotons is being held back for a ruling on support ships and could be used to represent the last of my old fleet if need be.

Ma Deuce wrote:Of course, Norade's 18"/75s would never have worked anyway: they'd probably need to be relined several times before emptying their magazines.

My 18"/75 was a joke gun anyway mocking the choice to limit our weapons to a set size.