StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:04pm 

There is a reason why my cruiser designs have a range of 10000nm, you know.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:09pm 

There's a reason why my three "Large Commerce Defense Cruisers" have a similar range, you know.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:13pm 

My battlecruiser can easily handle these...if they catch them.

But really, I would advise you not to press the issue.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:14pm 

removed the Photo commentary from my post.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:16pm 

No sir, we do not care for it. Freedom of the Sea's is something that could seriously draw the British in. Even if I have issues facing off against Lonestar since I have a bases on your soil. I really need to do my OOB to figure out what should be forward deployed there.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:17pm 

Thanks, but there really is no reason for my attache to talk to your foreign minister at this point, without any proof etc.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:20pm 

Besides "Heading off a potential explosive situation before it gets much worse?"

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:20pm 

Yeah.. and it seems I will be forced to do my naval OOB at the bare minimum if things are going to proceed as they are.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 12:24pm 

Well, atm all he really would do is to ask for the whereabouts of your ship, and you already sent a message regarding that. As my chancellor does not like to jump in, he would most likely wait until he sees the photos, then order the attacheé to ask about it once more with the photos and then there would be a decision.

So yeah, I would ask you to remove the whole post as there is no reason about my attache to talk with you atm.

But really, this will have to wait till tomorrow or wednesday, as I do not know if I will have internet access then.

EDIT: WIll also remove part about HSF mobilizing, this is premature.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 01:08pm 

As an aside, Shep mentioned the piracy taking place at respectively 200 and 650nm south of the Suez Canal. 200nm puts you barely south of the Sinai peninsula; 650nm would I believe put you just south of Mecca. It is highly unlikely that any piracy would take place there, as I own both coasts of the the Red Sea down to roughly Suakin (Port Sudan). My navy, relatively small as it may be, would still be nigh-omnipresent in those waters. Any "naval patrols" by anyone that's not me in the northern half of the Red Sea would run into an Egyptian cruiser or destroyer flotilla right quick.

I suggest the troubles be amended as taking place somewhere farther south, in the Gulf of Aden or the Arabian Sea maybe.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 01:19pm 

Yeah, you're right. Gulf of Aden is Better.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 01:32pm 

A clarification on yard rules: slipways are only needed for construction phase or for full-scale rebuilds. Fitting out periods can be done at normal piers or repair yards, which are separate (I'd say you'd have the same amount of repair slips as you do dedicated construction slips).

As for support troops, I agree we need some way of reflecting them, I like the suggestion of 15,000 actives and 10,000 support personnel in a division of 3 5,000 man brigades.

Also, for purpose of counting one's starting fleet, a ship in construction's tonnage count is equivalent to how much is done. A ship halfway done is half the tonnage cost - a 45,000 ton ship would be counted as 27,500 IOW.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 02:08pm 

Pretty cute, Evincer, though I should point out Bolivia used to have a Pacific outlet until Chilè seized it in the late 19th Century in a war. In RL of course.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 02:17pm 

Yes, that's what I meant by "sufffering territorial humilitations." But yes, in fact in this case, Argentina-Chile seized that exact same territory during the War of the Confederation in 1836, thus accounting for why the borders are identical to today's. Good observation.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 03:20pm 

I actually wish I'd just said "capital slipways period" now, not specifying by tonnage, because now I can't have my battlecruisers/fast battleships without sacrificing my new dreadnoughts' quantity of units. Bah.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 11:05pm 

Just noticed in the OrBat thread that Baerne is including 40 Fantasque-class destroyers (Destroyer-destroyers, really) in his starting fleet, a type that was not laid down until 1933. Now, if we're not allowing Zor to have Fubukis in his starting fleet even though the first of those was laid down in '26...

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 11:25pm 

That shouldn't be allowed. I don't understand why do people keep trying to use equipment from the other decade.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-08 11:34pm 

He may not have seen the year it was developed, though to be fair how much naval material was developed late due to the WNT and resulting slowing of naval design? I honestly intended to adapt the US's mid-30s Farragut-class with SpringSharp into my very latest destroyer, first laid in 1924.

Also, Marina informs me that while SpringSharp does overstate machinery size, that overstatement actually works to emulate turbo-electric drives to an extent. So unless I hear objections maybe we all have turbo-electrics?

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-09 12:00am 

That shouldn't make as much difference for destroyers though, especially when you consider that the Fantasque class was actually counted as a cruiser under the treaty, even though the French considered them to be large destroyers.



The Farragut design isn't too out of line for an early '20s destroyer though, given it's tonnage and continued use of open pedestal mounts for it's guns. The Fantasque, however given it's role (to run down and gun down regular destroyers, just as the original destroyers were designed to do to torpedo boats) is larger than the biggest destroyers the USN fielded during WWII. And the key difference here is that you're springsharping your DD, while he's simply adopting a real design from almost a decade in the "future". If he wants to Springsharp a 20's version of the Fantasque then fine, but I don't see why he should be allowed to simply add a "future" real design to his fleet after you already prevented Zor from doing the same.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-09 12:04am 

1930s destroyers had major machinery improvements, you cannot build them in the 1920s. No one should have such destroyers, this type of ship was already subject to the quickest pace of technological change already. The WNT did not hold back development, the London Treaty did, sort of, but not in a very serious manner.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-09 12:06am 

Oh, I agree with you there Ma Deuce. He needs to SpringSharp it or justify it un-SpringSharped as an example of delayed design evolution from the WNT.

And I wasn't intending for the Farragut precisely Skim, just going to try and downgrade its stats into a 1920s-era ship.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-09 12:07am 

Capitalists of the world unite! Hopefully one month is long enough for delegates to reach Chilitina for my "Freedom" Conference.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-09 12:20am 

Are my 2.1kt destroyers going to be a problem then? I spring sharped them, but they seem a bit larger than historical DD's would have been and are armed with 2x3 5"/45 guns for anti destroyer work.

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-09 12:26am 

Man, all this ship drama is making me glad I'm landlocked.

Anyway, since I'm new to this, I'm just curious as to who gets credit for certain technological developments? I'm wondering this primarily because I intend to use my vast industrial holdings and advanced army to be a world leader in the development of rough-and-ready firearms, due to the hostile environment of Mongolia requiring air-cooled automatic weapons that can handle dust (so, Browning-type machine guns is what I'm interested in developing).

 Post subject: Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread I

Posted: 2009-11-09 12:28am 

I decide, based on industry/economy scores, opportunity, and if people ask me kindly.