General Social/Chatter Thread

[Desertfox]

1 BB
1 AC
1 CL
ALL the DDs!

[The Rock Doctor]

Right now I'm kind of moving toward:

1 capital ship
2 cruisers
8 destroyers

That feels unbalanced on the light side, but reflect some jitters about the effectiveness of MTBs.  I don't know if it will hold.

[The Rock Doctor]

Oh ho Paint is going to get a workout tonight.  I have a terrible idea and want to see what it looks like.

[The Rock Doctor]

Paint says that yes, I could do a double-deck torpedo-boat carrier with a twin 400mm/45 turret aft.

Springstyle says it'll cost me 19 BP if I want it to go 30 knots.

[Desertfox]

[Kaiser Kirk]

Paint says that yes, I could do a double-deck torpedo-boat carrier with a twin 400mm/45 turret aft.

Springstyle says it'll cost me 19 BP if I want it to go 30 knots.

Sounds interesting....


Doing a 'double decker' mod of my old TBCs has been on my 'to do'.
But I just want hull roller doors like you see in some brit and IJN ships over torpedo bays.
That will allow them to be inline with the upper davits and double their loadout.

but 31 knots and a big twin turret that can generate a ROF sufficient to effectively use fire control is not on the list.

Converting two to seaplane carriers is still on the 'two do'....
BUT...
I keep spending my BP on Army/Dep/Air/Fort...I really hadn't considered how much BP they would need and it's messing my build schedule up.

[The Rock Doctor]

My new design ended up rather top-heavy with the weight assigned where it was.  On the whole, even setting aside the questionable utility of the turret, sixteen MTB on a 18,000 t hull is far less effective than eight MTB on a 5,000 t hull.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Right now I'm kind of moving toward:

1 capital ship
2 cruisers
8 destroyers.

Just as a side comment,
when I helped Snip pick the starting IC/BP range,
I know I penciled out a rough "1940" fleet with a
battleline and a several carriers, then support ships.
Then I figured the BP cost with an average lifespan of 15-20years.

The idea being, it gave all players a minimal fleet size that
would have enough options they could try different things.
I think I aimed between the Italian and Japanese fleets.
That was rooted in Wesworld experiences with new players
taking very small countries and finding building a single cruiser every
couple game years was not very exciting.

Couple that with Snip's colony design, and you can grow your BP
and afford a larger fleet long run...or refit old designs to get there.

As for me...I'm discovering the downside of sprawl is I think
I need independent cruiser squadrons.
That coupled with the Malta treaty allowing Jefgte to focus on
the East means I still have to plan for a bludgeon fest around
the Gulf of Aden...means I need two different types of forces.

And that has led me to discard my pregame 'even flow' build plans.

[Jefgte]

As for me...I'm discovering the downside of sprawl is I think
I need independent cruiser squadrons.
That coupled with the Malta treaty allowing Jefgte to focus on
the East means I still have to plan for a bludgeon fest around
the Gulf of Aden...means I need two different types of forces.

And that has led me to discard my pregame 'even flow' build plans.

I'm sorry I thwarted your Building Plans. In fact, I think you just adapted them ...

[The Rock Doctor]

I've got a year to go before the canal is done.  It's sucked up a lot of my spending (and 10 BP) but once it's done I can work on catching up with some of you other guys in terms of BP and IC.  Then I can bump up my construction a bit as well.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm sorry I thwarted your Building Plans. In fact, I think you just adapted them ...

I've had to build more light cruisers and destroyers than expected.
As you observed early on, your starting forces had the advantage there.
But I've also had to build extra units for the colonies.
and I wouldn't be building Stormbringer and Mournblade at all if not for your BCs...and the fact your AC classes are all slightly better than mine.

So my build program became more "batches" of classes to fill current needs, rather than the
Planned constant # of hulls under construction at all times I forecast.

Soon I'll be able to take the older ships in hand and retrofit them like the Byzantines have.
I am trying to decide what to do about your 16000t pocket DNs. 
They are similar to designs I've considered, but I only had so much resources.

Currently I'm struggling to decide on a caliber and design for new "Light Armored Cruiser" aka heavy cruisers.
The Pocket DN has long been "on the table", with a speed boost to 23-26knots. Those would counter yours.

The new gun tech has enough Muzzle Energy (ME) that even at 40calibers and 80% ME I can field a 255/40 with a big shell that can penetrate PCs/ACs effectively at current combat
ranges, but by time I get done with speed and armor and TDS, they wind up fairly large vessels - effectively a fast Invincible that can
engage anything under a BC/BB.

Or, if I focus on overwhelming smaller cruisers - primary opponents in scouting/raiding/escorts,
I can do a 180mm vessel with good speed/armor that I can afford in greater numbers.

[TacCovert4]

The new gun tech has enough Muzzle Energy (ME) that even at 40calibers and 80% ME I can field a 255/40 with a big shell that can penetrate PCs/ACs effectively at current combat
ranges, but by time I get done with speed and armor and TDS, they wind up fairly large vessels - effectively a fast Invincible that can
engage anything under a BC/BB.

Or, if I focus on overwhelming smaller cruisers - primary opponents in scouting/raiding/escorts,
I can do a 180mm vessel with good speed/armor that I can afford in greater numbers.

I'm also having to heavily reconfigure.  But then I had a 'hard reset' of my fleet.  Looking at my capital ship programs, I've always wanted to build my battleships in pairs, but I think I'm going to have to work up a 'standard configuration' type capital ship and build on that as singles, with significant overlap in construction.  Otherwise I wind up tying up too much of my limited BP into a pair of ships when I have large needs in destroyers and cruisers. 

I too have been looking at a lighter Frigate class than the Weapons.  The Weapons are excellent, 8x180mm 8x100mm, 4in belt, etc.  But they are a 9000t cruiser with the associated costs.  In the interests of fleet numbers, I've been seriously considering a smaller variation of that class at 6000t, and also a number of other options to give me sufficient numbers to cover my responsibilities in the Gulf/Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I too have been looking at a lighter Frigate class than the Weapons.  The Weapons are excellent, 8x180mm 8x100mm, 4in belt, etc.  But they are a 9000t cruiser with the associated costs.  In the interests of fleet numbers, I've been seriously considering a smaller variation of that class at 6000t, and also a number of other options to give me sufficient numbers to cover my responsibilities in the Gulf/Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific.

I rather like my Maelstrom and Ranger classes, but I've long fielded 8-10x 165mm 6000t cruisers.  The 0.9 hull break is substantial, and a fairly decent vessel can be built.
Fielding a similar vessel with 180mm guns pushes displacement over 6000, and then 1.00 hull is needed, and the entire ship balloons to 8000t.
Which is why the 11-12000 ton 'light armored' cruisers look appealing, that mix between completely dominating the smaller and running from the more powerful.
The real issue for me is Jefgte has a bunch of Armored Cruisers with 200mm armor and 10" guns..or better.
Which brings me back to different ships for the Gulf of Aden fleet battle vs. the territories.

[TacCovert4]

I rather like my Maelstrom and Ranger classes, but I've long fielded 8-10x 165mm 6000t cruisers.  The 0.9 hull break is substantial, and a fairly decent vessel can be built.

Agreed, with the .9 hull break, doing a 'Leander' type like my Eagle class with 8x150mm at 6000t is rather well balanced for a general purpose fleet cruiser. 

Fielding a similar vessel with 180mm guns pushes displacement over 6000, and then 1.00 hull is needed, and the entire ship balloons to 8000t.

Which is what happened to my Weapon class.  Also the 180mm is just slow firing enough that a secondary battery becomes needed if they're to fight destroyers effectively, which helped balloon mine up to almost 9000t.

Which is why the 11-12000 ton 'light armored' cruisers look appealing, that mix between completely dominating the smaller and running from the more powerful.
The real issue for me is Jefgte has a bunch of Armored Cruisers with 200mm armor and 10" guns..or better.
Which brings me back to different ships for the Gulf of Aden fleet battle vs. the territories.

That sort of ship is why the Caribbean class exists now.  I don't have a gun between 180mm and 280mm, and the 12,000t ship with 180s would just be a 10-12 gun vessel with a heavy secondary battery and a lot of speed and armor.  Unbalanced for me.  So I went straight to 'light battlecruiser' sizes and to the original concept of the Invincibles.  The firepower to annihilate any cruiser afloat, the armor to withstand light and heavy cruisers at combat ranges, and the speed to both run down cruisers and flee from full-up battlecruisers armed with 14in guns or greater.  I realized that the Caribbeans are doing the Sultan Ali's functional job (280mm BCs just aren't going to be competitive long term with 340mm BCs in any planet) and they're 5BP cheaper per ship.  They require either a tough large cruiser that's willing to get knocked around hard, or a full-up battlecruiser to compete with them, and in wartime they force battleships to escort convoys as they can Scharnhorst the crap out of an underdefended convoy. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

  So I went straight to 'light battlecruiser' sizes and to the original concept of the Invincibles.  The firepower to annihilate any cruiser afloat, the armor to withstand light and heavy cruisers at combat ranges, and the speed to both run down cruisers and flee from full-up battlecruisers armed with 14in guns or greater. 

Which is where I've wound up - I'm calling them "light armored cruisers" to distinguish from the 28,000 ton large ones.
and we've circled around to my tinkering with gun ME and bores to get just the right tool for the job :)
I have a 255L50 in service, and an unused 235L43, either is pretty handy.  A new 1915 tech 10" class has the problem of too MUCH ME, the MVs turn out so high you'll wear down the rifling before you'll empty your magazine.....so I can scale down the length and go with a shorter (lighter) gun firing a heavier shell (+10% per 1915 tech)...if I want to take the time to develop it. 
Since I'm squeezed on BP...I think I can take that time.