Status ?

[Jefgte]

...Looking at & studying...

;)

[olekit24]

Snip, if those suggestions concerns only Rome Empire - its ok. If you suggets to change the rules in general - I don t think it will be good idea.

[Walter]

I would like more feedback on my proposal before things go. I don't think Walter/Kirk/anyone else, have looked at it.

Not really anything to comment on... though your lack of fortification points suggests no new Hadrian's Wall? :)

Also "Breast"... I think you either got a dirty mind or you meant "Brest". ;D

Snip, if those suggestions concerns only Rome Empire - its ok. If you suggets to change the rules in general - I don t think it will be good idea.

It only affects the Roman stuff that is available at the startup.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I would like more feedback on my proposal before things go. I don't think Walter/Kirk/anyone else, have looked at it.

Sorry, I flaked this past weekend.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about the concept.

I get that ROME was supposed to have a large army, and be a land power. 
I appreciate that you're only adding Land and fortification points, not deployment.
IT is both consistent with your previously expressed vision, and not a matter of power projection.

I am inclined to accede to this portion of the proposal.

However, we all had the mutual disadvantage of creating our nations blind.
My brand new latest and greatest armored cruisers are already outclassed by older battlecruisers of Byzantium and Rome and the Norse....at least.
Meanwhile my battleships are slow but massive... and my army is *not* the largest...and would have been if I hadn't tinkered to put more ships in the fleet.

Likewise, the Roman Navy was crafted with only a guess as to what the other nations would field.
While I would accept minor tinkering-  deleting a couple scout cruisers and adding an armored cruiser for example, I reduced my army and tinkered with my cruisers before I went "final".

I am uncomfortable about you changing the nature of the force with potential benefit of hindsight.
This is especially true since you're discussing dropping only 3BP of naval force- you can keep your original navy roughly intact, this is not a required change.

So this is not forced by budgetary considerations, but rather a changing viewpoint on what Rome should have.
I don't see why Rome should have the advantage of reformatting her navy after seeing the opposition. What if that means Jefgte wants to change to better address the NEW Roman navy, or even in response to the current Parthian.

While I'm interested in counterpoints, I am currently inclined to recommend against the naval changes.
While that will mean you enter the "live" part of the game with a fleet that doesn't meet your perceived needs, this will both be incentive to build, and a reminder that most of our navies will be going rapidly obsolescent anyhow.

I would also observe that part of the naval guidelines was a fairly equal number of hulls per period.
this was complicated by the time periods being different, some vessel types not really existing in some periods, and the "noise" of small craft like MTBs, gunboats, minesweepers, etc.
but the way I see your revised naval list :

                             BB         CR         DD
Pre 1895               8            5          10
1895-1900            3            5          20
1901-1907            8           24         30
1908-1909            1

So, if the proposal moves forward, I would submit that the cruisers at the very least  need to change.  I would think moving some BBs/ACs to 1895-1900 from pre-1895 would be reasonable to balance that.  The destroyers, well some should be built in 1908/1909, but they were a new class early on, not reasonable to insist on even numbers.

[Kaiser Kirk]

When are we going to begin actual play?

I would hope we'd pick a date a couple weeks from the "now" and peg that as the start.

[snip]

Thanks for the reply Kirk, I appreciate your feedback. Let me throw back some thoughts and questions.

--I'm glad the general and non-naval stuff makes sense and is acceptable. Its a better fit for our history.

--On the naval side, the plan has evolved a little bit. I've attached a new sheet, but note it does not incorporate some feedback I will hit later in this reply. I'm using it as my reference going forward. Please keep in mind that the ships referenced with Type serve as a general indicator of technology generation, general setup, and size.

--Regarding BP spending and Infrastructure: As you note, most of the BP reduction comes out of the reduction in infrastructure. This would allow me to keep approximately the same BP's worth of fleet size. However, this reduction in infrastructure does make some aspects of the fleet comp not make sense. For example, under the new plan, Rome only possesses three Drydocks over 150m. I would find it strange then that a nation would have two battleships in active service and two on the ways that would require one of those three Drydocks for service, especially when only one of those docks exists on the Med. I realize that this is not without historical precedent, and is probably more an OOC issue than a strict IC one. A more extensive rework of the infrastructure could be proposed, but then we start getting into a lack of numbers for slips and docks to build the navy of that size. While it's not something we are strictly tracking at startup, I know others tried to hold to it so I don't want to throw it to the wind.

--Capital Ship Tradeoffs: The new plan trades its massive amount of battleships (roughly two every 4 years until Dreadnaughts hit 2 every 2) for a larger number of armored cruisers. Importantly, the four proper "modern" Dreadnaughts are no longer in the plan, leaving the Roman battleline with only some 6x340mm* armed ships of the same generation as some 10 gun monsters . On Armored cruisers, you noted even the most modern of these ships have been effectively obsoleted by Battlecruisers. There are two places where I can see the Armored Cruiser plan drawing some deserved flack. First is the fleshing out of the Pre-Argonauta types. This was left really sparse in my original plan, and with a renewed emphasis on the Jean Eucole side of things, I felt this development would be beneficial. Second is the addition of a single Von Der Tann Type Battlecruiser. This was intended as a "capstone" armored cruiser, to put a nice bow on the program heading into the Dreadnaught era. I recognize that this is a new addition that could represent a counter to some ships as they exist now. I would be more than happy to modify this into a Super-Argonauta instead.

--Cruiser Tradeoffs: Really the only major shift I see here is the addition of the Guichen Type Commerce Raiders. If the addition of those two is too radical, even with only one being somewhat modern, its something I would be more than happy to drop. The number of more conventional light cruisers actually drops with this plan (in my original plan, aside from the Destroyer Leaders all of my Cruisers are Fleet Cruisers), so I trade better numbers of conventional cruisers for slightly more capable units and a ton of third-class cruisers. Again if its to much change I'm ok with reverting.

--Light Ship Tradeoffs: The loss of the 1000t E class Destroyers from the original plan was used to feed increased numbers of various older and smaller torpedo craft.

--On Hull Numbers: There are definitely some numbers that need to be played with there. The intent with the 1906ish classes that are produced in greater numbers would be for those ships to be constructed over a larger period. I should change this by breaking up those bigger blocks into a 1906ish and 1908-1909 blocks.

Two Questions for you Kirk (and anyone else if they care to answer):

--Does the potential for resims or the adjustment of numbers bother you more?
--Are there any points where, without the final characteristics of the ships involved, that you feel I'm trying to provide myself an advantage with this plan?

Some closing thoughts:

--Im more wed to the general idea of this plan (More ACs and Torpedo stuff, fewer battleships) than I am too specific details (eg, I don't really care that I build a Leon Gambetta Type AC, but that the leadup to Argonauta makes sense from a development standpoint).
--Some adjustment to my original starting plan is going to be needed with the 1000t Destroyers going away. I see no reason this cant be accomplished by a 1908 750t Destroyer with the leftover tonnage going to MTBs and subs. This would be the absolute minimum level of modification.
--If I had to pick a proverbile hill to die on, it would be the expanded Armored Cruiser lineup. This is the one place where modification of numbers just will not cut it and some new designs will be necessary for getting something that makes sense.
--I will make an effort to provide a rework with current designs slotted into it rather than historical analogs for the majority of ships. I will give Kirk a chance (call it 24-48h) to reply to this post before posting it.

*The Improved ETVIII Type is intended to be an Emperor Trajan VIII class Battleship with improved armor protection and a TDS with no change in armament.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Two Questions for you Kirk (and anyone else if they care to answer):

--Does the potential for resims or the adjustment of numbers bother you more?
--Are there any points where, without the final characteristics of the ships involved, that you feel I'm trying to provide myself an advantage with this plan?

Because I'm commuting to training, I'm gone 12 hour days this week, and the powerpoint onslaught is turning my brain to goo.

Answer :
A) It was the adjustment of numbers and type, as I failed to register the indication that you planned to resim. I thought you were just shuffling the numbers of your already proposed & vetted vessels. I wasn't thrilled about that, but I was open to listening.

Had I registered you were actually creating a fleet of resimed vessels I would have been very much against the proposal.

B) I don't think you are consciously going, 'gee I need to redo this to get a starting advantage', I think a great deal better of you than that.  You've worked quite hard trying to get this up and running and create a level playing field.

You indicated that this rebuild is a reaction "As such, the Imperial Roman Navy "knows" it cant go toe-to-toe with a major navy like the Norse."   Initially you chose to build a battleline. Now you recognize that won't cut it, so you want to have another go with a different look. 

Worse, you're going to alter your vessels after knowing what's out there.  How is that fair?

IF we were to take that approach, then we should have done the prebuild as an iterative approach, with everyone posting their 1894 ships, then the 1895, then the 1896 etc.

Thanks for the reply Kirk, I appreciate your feedback. Let me throw back some thoughts and questions.

Okey Dokey :)

--I'm glad the general and non-naval stuff makes sense and is acceptable. Its a better fit for our history.

--On the naval side, the plan has evolved a little bit. I've attached a new sheet, but note it does not incorporate some feedback I will hit later in this reply. I'm using it as my reference going forward. Please keep in mind that the ships referenced with Type serve as a general indicator of technology generation, general setup, and size.


--Regarding BP spending and Infrastructure: As you note, most of the BP reduction comes out of the reduction in infrastructure. This would allow me to keep approximately the same BP's worth of fleet size. However, this reduction in infrastructure does make some aspects of the fleet comp not make sense. For example, under the new plan, Rome only possesses three Drydocks over 150m. I would find it strange then that a nation would have two battleships in active service and two on the ways that would require one of those three Drydocks for service, especially when only one of those docks exists on the Med. I realize that this is not without historical precedent, and is probably more an OOC issue than a strict IC one. A more extensive rework of the infrastructure could be proposed, but then we start getting into a lack of numbers for slips and docks to build the navy of that size. While it's not something we are strictly tracking at startup, I know others tried to hold to it so I don't want to throw it to the wind.

Types : I think I understood, and am on the same page.

Infrastructure:
For me, there are a a number of problems here
First, Rome is spending 62.1 in naval facilities, while Parthia is making do with 26.6.  Now perhaps I will find I need more facilities, and while you do have more coastline, I hope you can see that I think there is room for reallocation.

Second, simply deleting the  2 x 90m drydock at Taranto would "pay" to upgrade 4x 150m facilities by 45m each.

Third, the 'cost' of a 195m slipway and a 195m drydock at startup is exactly the same in BP, which is all that matters at this point. I had stopped building slipways in previous sims, as drydocks are far more cost effective, and I built none here.  You can simply redesignate the longer slipways, that would give you 7 more drydocks 150m+

Fourth, this your new plan, so the 'problem' of insufficient long drydocks is one you have newly created. You could have chosen to "pay" for the larger army just by deleting 1 IC, and freeing the 3 mod point that way. So I find it problematic for it to be used to justify the new fleet composition. 

--Capital Ship Tradeoffs: 

--Cruiser Tradeoffs:   

--Light Ship Tradeoffs: The loss of the 1000t E class Destroyers from the original plan was used to feed increased numbers of various older and smaller torpedo craft.

Tradeoffs : Responsibly responding to the first two categories will take brainpower and time I lack right now.

--On Hull Numbers: There are definitely some numbers that need to be played with there. The intent with the 1906ish classes that are produced in greater numbers would be for those ships to be constructed over a larger period. I should change this by breaking up those bigger blocks into a 1906ish and 1908-1909 blocks.

In setup, you indicated a desire for a relatively even flow of hull types. Originally you wanted an even flow of tonnage, but Walter and I pointed out the issues with that.  Indeed, looking at your original spreadsheet, you were tracking that at one point.

Simply shifting some of the cruisers into different time blocks would pretty much fix the problems. I have a series of Protected Cruisers (I think) that mainly varied by engine year.  Moving one vessel from each of the  "8" year battleships/acs into the "3" would give you a 7/5/7 flow.

Some closing thoughts:

--Im more wed to the general idea of this plan (More ACs and Torpedo stuff, fewer battleships) than I am too specific details (eg, I don't really care that I build a Leon Gambetta Type AC, but that the leadup to Argonauta makes sense from a development standpoint).
--Some adjustment to my original starting plan is going to be needed with the 1000t Destroyers going away. I see no reason this cant be accomplished by a 1908 750t Destroyer with the leftover tonnage going to MTBs and subs. This would be the absolute minimum level of modification.
--If I had to pick a proverbile hill to die on, it would be the expanded Armored Cruiser lineup. This is the one place where modification of numbers just will not cut it and some new designs will be necessary for getting something that makes sense.
--I will make an effort to provide a rework with current designs slotted into it rather than historical analogs for the majority of ships. I will give Kirk a chance (call it 24-48h) to reply to this post before posting it.

A) At this juncture I am now quite against the general idea. With all due respect, it comes across as hindsight.  This appears to be a decision made with consideration of what the other players were fielding. That's not how I understood this was set up.
B) I agree
C)  I'm sorry Snip, but I think minor fleet changes and design fiddling should be OK until we go live, but what you're asking for is quite a bit more than that.
D) Thank you for the time. I'll check back in tomorrow. Hopefully more alert.

[snip]

Having had a bit of time to sit on it, and with Kirk's feedback, I think the minimal plan presented above is a better call than my original proposal. While it will still need some fine tuning, on the whole, it still puts Rome in a more "realistic" place relative to our history. Rather than going full Jean Eucole, the emphasis is placed on a strong battleline with swarms of light craft for non-decisive engagement coastal defense duties. This can be done with minimal modification to the original startup plan.

The minimalistic plan.

--Changed the E Class to a more advanced 750t Destroyer (Basically existing D Class with 1908 engines) to compensate for the loss of tech. Savings pushed into more light torpedo craft of various generations.
--Elimination of the Excursor class Armored Cruisers. This class was going to need to be altered anyway due to rule changes regarding armor, so I just got rid of it here. Tonnage went to more light ships. Alternatively, some of this tonnage could be put into a single unit 1899 AC. Probably something looking like a Gueydon or Prinz Adalbert. Ether option is fine with me.
--Changed all the slips to Drydocks. Also made changes to various lengths (more 195m docks for the battlewagons) and eliminated some smaller ones (more long docks mean more small ships can be built in one facility). I've left the 2ish BP that popped out of this unassigned for now, but would probably put it into more of the small patrol boats (Custody and Vigil) if it was not reinvested in infrastructure.

Thoughts and comments welcome.

EDIT: The proposed revised E-Class Destroyer. The D-Class hull is updated with more gun firepower and 4000 more SHP. Zoom.

E-Class, Imperial Roman Republic Destroyer laid down 1908

Displacement:
   750 t light; 781 t standard; 848 t normal; 902 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (259.20 ft / 252.62 ft) x 26.25 ft x (11.48 / 11.95 ft)
   (79.00 m / 77.00 m) x 8.00 m  x (3.50 / 3.64 m)

Armament:
      4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 45.0 cal guns - 30.86lbs / 14.00kg shells, 175 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1906 Model
     2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      1 raised mount aft - superfiring
     2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
      4 - 1.77" / 45.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 250 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
     4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 137 lbs / 62 kg

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 24,000 shp / 17,904 Kw = 31.28 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 121 tons

Complement:
   78 - 102

Cost:
   £0.101 million / $0.405 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 25 tons, 3.0 %
      - Guns: 25 tons, 3.0 %
   Armour: 5 tons, 0.6 %
      - Armament: 5 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 488 tons, 57.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 191 tons, 22.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 98 tons, 11.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 40 tons, 4.7 %
      - On freeboard deck: 40 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     158 lbs / 72 Kg = 5.2 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
   Metacentric height 0.9 ft / 0.3 m
   Roll period: 11.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.64

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.390 / 0.398
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.63 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 15.89 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 71 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 78
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 2.40 ft / 0.73 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  15.58 ft / 4.75 m,  15.58 ft / 4.75 m
      - Forward deck:   20.00 %,  15.58 ft / 4.75 m,  15.58 ft / 4.75 m
      - Aft deck:   45.00 %,  6.56 ft / 2.00 m,  6.56 ft / 2.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  6.56 ft / 2.00 m,  6.56 ft / 2.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      10.17 ft / 3.10 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 194.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 92.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 4,053 Square feet or 377 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 33 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 130 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 1.76
      - Overall: 0.56
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

--On Deck (40t)
----20t 8x450mm Torpedos [Two twin tube mounts per side]
----10t Short-Range Wireless
----5t Improved spray protections for Torpedo tubes
----5t Construction Reserve.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Having had a bit of time to sit on it, and with Kirk's feedback, I think the minimal plan presented above is a better call than my original proposal.

Thank you for considering my points. It's very difficult thing to do, and so I want to aknowledge it.

The minimalistic plan.

Sounds like a very reasonable way to go about making the necessary adjustments.

Thoughts and comments welcome.

EDIT: The proposed revised E-Class Destroyer. The D-Class hull is updated with more gun firepower and 4000 more SHP. Zoom.

A glance at the excel sheet left me believing it dandy.

With the number of smaller docks you can crank out bunches of your Destroyer designs :)
I know that when I tried projecting future builds and thus dock needs, I did consider the following :

I) Length needed for combinations of ship classes (more than 1). The rules require 10m between hulls.  I have a number of 110m docks, I have a few 230m docks. The latter also can hold my largest ACR  with some room to spare...or 2 cruisers. So I spent a little more than I needed to fit my large ship, but gained the ability to multi-task better.   Allowed me to get better multi-use out of them.  Though the way speed seems to be going in this version, I'll have to lengthen them within the decade... argh.

II) The fast construction time of the light units meant I could build more per facility. After launch, a dock is ready in 1 month. IF Start time->Launch is 5 months, +1 month to clear,  For ships up to 3,500 tons, you can lay a hull every half year. (3.5 mo + 9 = 12.5 mo until completion. *.4 = 5 months to launch).

III) My pro-drydock attitude comes from my time in Wesworld, trying to figure out how to do refits while tons of slips sat generally unused. I simply lacked the resources to need them. So when I built some new spots, I built drydocks.  Same plan for the Bavaria I took over, and the Italians I started here.  For Parthia, I projected out a couple ideas of future fleets and the build rates needed, then added some extra capacity for repairs/refits.  I think I have the least, we'll see how much I underestimated by !
My thoughts are that I apparently suck at destroyer designs.  My best ones are 31 at trials.

My 1908 750tonner has a similar gun outfit, and is 3 (!) knots slower.
There are some obvious design reasons - it's supposed to be oceanic, and able to use mercantile ports around the Indian Ocean. So it has higher seakeeping, a higher freeboard aft, range, and is part coal fired. All expensive in terms of performance, but I didn't realize how much so.

I am curious what a torpedo launcher spray protection is....What is that ? A box for the torpedoes? Hinged freeboard adjacent to the torps ? At 5 tones that is a sheet of metal 1/4" thick, 10ft high and 120feet long. Depending on what it is, you may be overpaying.

Also, 450mm torpedoes weigh 2t each. You have 8, that's 8x2 = 16t.  You have 20 allocated.

[Jefgte]

Snip, after the deleted post "I'm not a dog..."

I suggest to do modifs & adjustments in Army, Fortifications, Shipyards... in the 1910H2 report with eventualy 10 BP bonus.

Byzantine did'nt made readjustments & modifs in the present or past SS (exept to correct bullets...)

Jef

[Kaiser Kirk]

Snip, after the deleted post "I'm not a dog..."

I suggest to do modifs & adjustments in Army, Fortifications, Shipyards... in the 1910H2 report with eventualy 10 BP bonus.

Byzantine did'nt made readjustments & modifs in the present or past SS (exept to correct bullets...)

Jef

Questions : 
1) What do you mean by "modifs & adjustments"
         - do you mean move things from one province to another?  That seems reasonable.
         - OR do you mean reallocate the points in those categories , so you wind up with different army/fort/shipyard numbers ?  Which I do not agree with.

2) what do you mean by a 10 BP bonus ?

Are you suggesting that we should each get another 10BP in terms of industry, for a start value of 34 not 24?   (Or 38 and 28 if you bought BP).   That would be an interesting discussion.
OR free infrastructure (docks/ slips/ army/ forts)
OR free naval units
OR something else like another 10 Mod Points?

And if one of these.....Why ?

[snip]

I think he is referring to me making those modifications in H2 as opposed to pre-start. Which does not make sense ether.

[Jefgte]

These 10 BP bonus point w'll be affected exclusively to make correction.
- rework lenghts & qty of the slips & docks
- more forts.
- increase Army
- rebuilt 2 (or more) class of ship or add auxiliaries

Byzantine exemple
- I rework lenghts & qty of the slips & docks => probably 1BP
- more forts => probably 2BP
- I increase Army => probably 3BP
- I re SS AC4 class & add 0 auxiliaries => probably 4BP

[Kaiser Kirk]

So an "official hindsight adjustment"
We made our nations blind, here's 10BP (I'd add $10 to pay for things as well) to adjust to what the neighbors did?  Interesting.

These 10 BP bonus point w'll be affected exclusively to make correction.
- rework lenghts & qty of the slips & docks
- more forts.
- increase Army
- rebuilt 2 (or more) class of ship or add auxiliaries

Byzantine exemple
- I rework lenghts & qty of the slips & docks => probably 1BP
- more forts => probably 2BP
- I increase Army => probably 3BP
- I re SS AC4 class & add 0 auxiliaries => probably 4BP

[snip]

Ah, that does make more sense. I have no strong feelings one way or another.

On another note, I will try to get a finalized revision up this week.