HY2, 1924

[TacCovert4]

After much Bookkeeping, 23.5 and 24.1 are complete.  Wow, that was a lot of math.  Ready for 24/2 so I can start making the plane factories go Brrrrrr.

[Kaiser Kirk]

After much Bookkeeping, 23.5 and 24.1 are complete.  Wow, that was a lot of math.  Ready for 24/2 so I can start making the plane factories go Brrrrrr.

Congratulations, a bit of a bear to work through.

[The Rock Doctor]

Probably post the turn sheet this evening.  I'm in that dangerous spot where my core build needs for the turn are addressed yet I still have 3 BP not yet tasked to anything and my brain is going "HEY WHAT ABOUT IF WE-"

[TacCovert4]

I know that pain.

1925-1 is going to be huge for me.  That's when the new BBs can be laid down, and I'll get right back to agonizing over designs for that class.

I wound up biting the bullet with the Town-class Corvettes.  Went with the design that has 8 x 180mm guns, and taking the risk of having no smaller secondaries down to the AA suite.

Ultimately, 8 x 180 does enough to increase the speed and precision of fires that I think it's worth losing the 100mm secondaries entirely.  Plus, I had to remind myself that I went with 180mm instead of 150-170mm because it hits hard and punches armor up to around 100mm.....and I went with 180mm over 190-210mm because it's still small enough to be an effective QF option (citing Navweaps here, the USN went with 7in guns on its later pre-dreads because they were the largest gun that still had a substantial RoF.....the Brits went with 7.5in guns prior to the WNT for much the same reason on their own cruisers in this range).  It's a calculated risk, but I think the ability to use the main battery quickly and effectively will make up for the secondary battery.

[The Rock Doctor]

I had fun sorting out carrier philosophy for 1925. 

I've got a pass on capital ships until 1926, although I expect I'm just making incremental upgrades to the preceding class anyway.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I wound up biting the bullet with the Town-class Corvettes.  Went with the design that has 8 x 180mm guns, and taking the risk of having no smaller secondaries down to the AA suite.

Ultimately, 8 x 180 does enough to increase the speed and precision of fires that I think it's worth losing the 100mm secondaries entirely.  Plus...

I'm staying with the 180s for much the same reason. I just finished the pair of 8000ton 12x180,
and am debating if to continue that class, or return to the 6000t 8x180 Moulek class.
The 12x180 two-gun mounts are heavy, and their turning weights, even with power assist might be a little slow for close night combat, but quite acceptable for mid-long range combat.

The Mouleks - ultimately I can build 4 for every 3 of the larger class. The 8T1s give 4 guns fore/aft - same as the larger ship,  but only 6 on the side, but the single mounts are a bit faster firing and should have no weight issues with training.

Its funny, the more BP I finish, the more demands on it I have.
Can't seem to keep up.

[TacCovert4]

And see, I'm biting the bullet and going on up to a 13k ton ship for my 12 x180 cruisers.   Eliminating the issue with powered twin mounts by just doing a 3 gun turret.   My 8x180 is 6000t, but I'm not really thrilled with it.  Once they're done I will probably go to a 9000t design that's much more balanced.

[Jefgte]

Byzantium is studying the standardization of these guns for old cruisers:
AC2 - 3T2x234
AC8 - 2T2x234
Replace the T2x234 with T3x191, lighter shell but firing twice as fast.
=> AC2 - 3T3x191
=> AC8 - 2T3x191

Or I can test with T2x203/50 dispo in 1925H2...

The 10 old T2x234 could be used on
5 AGB - 24 - 27kts ...to be studied.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I just don't like the 13k range, too expensive for my cruiser needs.
Plus I already have the older (and newer) 255mm armored cruisers.
I have a large number of 'light armored cruiser' designs in that range, some of which are turreted 180s.

For me, the Byzantine and to an extent Japanese vessels (as the PC 'neighbor' to the east) are the primary reference points, which is problematic as they are so very different.
When I have time, I look to other nations also - but the Byzantines are certainly a prime consideration. As the Byzantines shift, I will have to shift as well. 

So if they keep rolling out 234mm ships, a 'light armored cruiser'  with 230mm would be the logical 'counter',
but I'm more likely to embrace the 6-gun standard with 255mm to counter while simplifying my supply chains and minimizing my construction costs.

[Jefgte]

...For me, the Byzantine and to an extent Japanese vessels (as the PC 'neighbor' to the east) are the primary reference points, which is problematic as they are so very different.
When I have time, I look to other nations also - but the Byzantines are certainly a prime consideration. As the Byzantines shift, I will have to shift as well...

Myoko & Nachi are coming: 9900t-5T2x203-32kts.

The first SS for old Bourgas & Bapha (AC2) are not good. In fact, they are unable of being at the 27kts colonial standard speed.
For now, they remain defender of the Red Sea with AGB-4850t-2T2x191-24kts.

...So if they keep rolling out 234mm ships, a 'light armored cruiser'  with 230mm would be the logical 'counter'...

This is HMS Good Hope gun.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-47_mk10.php

[TacCovert4]

I just don't like the 13k range, too expensive for my cruiser needs.
Plus I already have the older (and newer) 255mm armored cruisers.
I have a large number of 'light armored cruiser' designs in that range, some of which are turreted 180s.

For me, the Byzantine and to an extent Japanese vessels (as the PC 'neighbor' to the east) are the primary reference points, which is problematic as they are so very different.
When I have time, I look to other nations also - but the Byzantines are certainly a prime consideration. As the Byzantines shift, I will have to shift as well. 

So if they keep rolling out 234mm ships, a 'light armored cruiser'  with 230mm would be the logical 'counter',
but I'm more likely to embrace the 6-gun standard with 255mm to counter while simplifying my supply chains and minimizing my construction costs.

I agree that the 13k range is a bit heavy for the sort of 180mm cruiser you can get out of it, given for less than 4k more tons I can put out the rather excellent Uhlans with their 9x240.  However, the Lakes also have a useful secbat, a good AA suite for the 20s, and they're carrying aviation.

[Kaiser Kirk]

These are the fun tradeoffs one makes.
I suspect with a limited number of hulls, you're more focused on making each one fast - to allow choice,
and superior.
I need coverage, more of a high-low mix I think.
I've got those existing ACs to go hide behind if I need to, even an old Asdar with 8x255 is a fair robust ship.
The Moulek IIC I posted a bit ago has 10x180 in singles, and a scout aircraft with a good AA battery.
At 6000 tons, I can afford a number of them....but the 12x 180 of the 8000t Royals is still appealing.

[Kaiser Kirk]

ironically, looking at that Moulek IIC design, I figured out why it was so much better than the Moulek it was based on...
I designed to the 0.75 mark, not the 0.9 mark. 
So I may have to reconsider the entire 6000ts vs 8000ts choice.