Status ?

[Kaiser Kirk]

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

After thinking about it, I don't see a problem.
There's probably a "range" of acceptable numbers - for example, 200BP would be too much, while 1BP would be irrelevant.

the suggested 10BP is big enough to correct an oversight, but not enough to distort things.

[Jefgte]

...Working on possible Navy update:

You have 12x380t TBs - You think that they are too small, You could update the class to 500t - cost 1.44BP.

A class of 6x3800t scout cruisers use 4'' guns - You could rebuilt them to 4200t with 6'' guns & better range  - cost 2.4BP

A neighbourg use cruisers raider - you could modify a class of cruiser to hunt them -

=> Armament, speed, range, armor, misc weight could be modified
=> LD date could'nt be changed

[The Rock Doctor]

I didn't really design with a strong eye on anybody, so I'm not super worried about 10 BP to revise stuff.

That said, if I receive it, I'll use it.

[Kaiser Kirk]

A class of 6x3800t scout cruisers use 4'' guns - You could rebuilt them to 4200t with 6'' guns & better range  - cost 2.4BP

A neighbor use cruisers raider - you could modify a class of cruiser to hunt them -

I was expecting the refit rules would apply and we'd only have the BP cost. 
With this clarification, I'm a little concerned about adding tonnage to existing designs. I'll have to think on that, but I had been thinking we would just modify designs.


I just went and played with my 1899 scout cruiser, and it would be spiffy with 1911 engines ! 
...which brings up another question - are the modifications the same tech date as the original, or "current" ? 
Perhaps the 10BP is the scrap yield from the pre-1880 ships...

Edit : Also, if the modifications are not '1910' or '1911', then do they get the same cost modifier as the original ship?
I.e. would it be cheaper to upgrade an 1899 vessel versus a 1902 ?

I didn't really design with a strong eye on anybody, so I'm not super worried about 10 BP to revise stuff.

That said, if I receive it, I'll use it.

I think that's Jef's point.
Since none of us had a chance for an iterative process, now that we're starting to look at the "opposition" we may find we built some class that is really overmatched, or just not appropriate.

[Jefgte]

I think that's Jef's point.
Since none of us had a chance for an iterative process, now that we're starting to look at the "opposition" we may find we built some class that is really overmatched, or just not appropriate.

It is...
Look at Iberian Oquendo class (4 ships) - LD 1905 - 18712t - 5T2x12"- 25kts
How Byzantine could build AC4 class (2 ships) LD 1908 - 16350t - 4T2x10" - 27kts ...?
AC4 must be reSS with 4T2x 12"- 25kts (similar to HMS Invincible)

That is probably the same problem for Roman with Argonauta class
LD 1905 - 15000t - 6T2x210 - 24kts.

Honestly Snip, could we allow 40x12" - 25kts to clean the Mediterranee?

Note; Olekit is not our enemy & we have cordiale relation.  :-* :-* :-* :-*

Jef  ;)

[Jefgte]

I just went and played with my 1899 scout cruiser, and it would be spiffy with 1911 engines ! 
...which brings up another question - are the modifications the same tech date as the original, or "current" ? 
Perhaps the 10BP is the scrap yield from the pre-1880 ships...

Edit : Also, if the modifications are not '1910' or '1911', then do they get the same cost modifier as the original ship?
I.e. would it be cheaper to upgrade an 1899 vessel versus a 1902 ?

For me, it's just modifications of SS with the same techno date.
Cruiser LD in 1899 could be modified with 1899 technos.
If you want to rebuilt with 1911 engines, you must do it in 1911 report

[Kaiser Kirk]

It is...
Look at Iberian Oquendo class (4 ships) - LD 1905 - 18712t - 5T2x12"- 25kts
How Byzantine could build AC4 class (2 ships) LD 1908 - 16350t - 4T2x10" - 27kts ...?
AC4 must be reSS with 4T2x 12"- 25kts (similar to HMS Invincible)

Actually, in that case the encyclopedia entry is interesting.
Olekit has engaged in "flavor" - having the first in class laid down in 1905 in text. With a 28 month build, it could be finished in 1907.  However the SIM laydown is 1906, and so would not be ready until 1908- which is when he says they enter service.

If you think about it, before your vessel was laid down, it would have to be designed, and then budgeted and ordered- probably in 1907.
Consider what the Germans knew about Invincible while she was still building.  Not much.
So it is fully reasonable that you would proceed with your 1908 class. 

Also, at least from Parthia's perspective, I've been using Logi's ballistics calculator to get an idea of expected gun performance. Snip will probably use something entirely different, so it just
gives me a reference point.

In 1907 the Parthians were designing the Asbar class. They were expecting their new 1904 255L50 BL breechloading rifle to fire a 243kg shell at 830m/s ....and at a long combat range of 6,000m penetrate  267mm of belt armor. 

So if Parthian spies got the full design specs for Olekit's cruiser, they would see the Parthian cruiser was faster, with a equal or higher ROF, and could defeat the Iberian belt + protective deck (200+55) at current battle ranges.  That stops being the case in 1910, with 1908 fire control, they can't quite penetrate at 10,000m, but I doubt Olekit can penetrate the Parthian 195mm belt + 60mm deck.

This is the same situation your cruisers would be in- slightly worse than the larger Iberian ship, but not dramatically worse. The Iberian ship is 20% heavier, and fires larger shell at ~20 rpm, while the Parthian fires ~24-32.  If the Iberian could bring the Parthian to battle, either could be victorious.

Question :
My Asbar 1908 class of ACR has the same speed and main battery weaponry of your class, but slightly less displacement and armor.
It's a case where we both had the same idea of how those vessels could evolve.

So lets say you go back with your 10BP and add 1,500 tons to each of yours. Your ships get 280-305mm guns, slightly more armor or speed.
I spend my 10BP elsewhere.
We post up our revisions.  Now I see my ACR go from being almost equal (and so not needing changes) to your ACR to clearly less.
Do I then get to go back and change my 10BP allocation ?   

Almirante Oquendo  1905   1908   active
Almirante Gravina    1906    ---    will be comissioned H1 1910
Almirante Núñez      1907    ---     will be comissioned H1 1910
Almirante Ben Aicha 1908    ---     building

Okendo, Spain AC laid down 1906

[The Rock Doctor]

That's a good point, Kirk.  We can't slide into a cycle of revise-review-revise during set-up.  There'd be no stop.

I think snip's minimal plan - drydocks, dumping a CA class, and revising a DD class - is the best choice at this point.  One can only be so optimized pre-game; gaps will have to be addressed once we get going.

[snip]

So, finalized plan attached. Couple tweaks.

--I realized that I could no longer build MTBs pre-start. So that class was eliminated.
--There is also going to need to be some Misc Weight adjustments on the Larui class cruisers because they cannot use triple torpedo tubes. I will fix this at some point soon.
--I distributed remaining BP across the spectrum of light units and adjusted some numbers. In short, I gain a lot of Destroyers across the age spectrum and lots of older TBs and such. I provided a numbers comparison on the spreadsheet.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the proposed plan.